The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-16 00:00:00

treme impolicy of departing from the original scheme 0
' i militia. It was intended to be a reserved force, com-
posed of men who, in consequence of their avocations,
could not permanently enlist, and not when enrolled to
be permanently embodied. If you permanently em-
bodied the militia., you excinde all this elassiof recruits,
and you will find that recruiting for the militia will
materially interfere with recruiting for the regular army.
He had seen letters from several- officers who told
him the system had seriously interfered with recruit-
ing for the regular army. They had been told by
the noble earl that 60,000 men were still wanted
for the army, and a larger number for the militia.
This was a very serious state of things, and
one which Government ought to look after without
delay. His advise to Government was to return
to the original principle of the militia, and not to keep
the men permanentlyounbodied. Look at the inconve-
nience of the existing state of things. There were 44,000
militia embodied, and 136,000 to raise. He found that
the country was paying for the charge of the officers for
the 136,000, while the country was only receiving the
services of the number of miltia embodied. The milithv
was costing the country an enormous sum, and, in addi-
tier, interfering with recruiting for the regular army.
Inconvenienc.:s of every description were experienced.
Labour was interfered with, and country gentlemen
would refuse to come in or to allow the'r suns to officer
regiment:. The depirture of Government from the ori-
ginal plan WiZS tad, and it pur.ued the resillt would be
to make the militia more expensive than the regular
army,
without being as available, and in addition to in-
terfere seriously with the enlistment cf the regular army.
His idea was that the two forces ought to be kept en-
tirely distinct, right-or wrong—that kas a clear and an
intel igible policy—that policy had been departed from,
and no other had been adopted. The militia was now
neither one thing nor the other. It was not the militia
of 1852, nor was it formed on any intelligible principle.
He trusted that the whole subject would soon have the
serious consideration of Government.
The Earl of MALMESBURY, in reply, was not sorry
the subject had been brought forward. He trusted the
noble lord would not say that it was the intention of
Government to make the men who enlisted under
the act of 1852 liable to the provisions of the bill of last
year. He hoped the noble lord would state that he
was ready to adopt -the principle so well laid down by
the noble earl (Ellenborough), and would allow ,those
men to have their discharge who had served the 21 days,
or 56 days, as originally stipulated. With respect to
the qUestiori of married men with children; that was a
question of policy, and 'he had brought it before their
lordships in the hope that it would receive considera-
tion. The noble earl had not received an answer as to
whether Government intended to maintain the wives
and families from any other fund than the perish rates.
The circular issued by the Home Office relative to the
exercise of the power of granting discharges to married
men by colonels of regiments was obscure, and he beg-
ged to ask for a further` explanation of its meaning from
Government. -

Lord PA.NMURE said that the debate bad taken a
wider range than was anticipated. Grave questions bad
been raised by the noble earl (Ellenborough) and his
noble friend (Earl Grey), which would be felt through-
out the country, and would be deemed by all to be of
great importance. It bad been said that after the notice
relative to the right of militiamen to their discharge that
many militiamen would take advantage of the circum-
stance, to the great inconvenience of the public service.
Neither for .that nor for this discussion could he hold
himself responsible. His endeavours would be, as an
administrator of the War Department, to-avail himself
of the services of as many men as the exigencies of the
country required. With reference to the circular re-
ferred to by the noble earl, in his opinion it was per-
fectly clear. That circular was addressed to the orderlies
and the clerks of lieutenantcies, and no doubt that
cular would be found in the hands of the sergeants of
militia. The last paragraph stated (as we understood)
that if any reason should exist why, in the opinion of the
proper officer, a man should be allowed to be free on re-
payment of the enlistment fee, or without repayment on
the recommendation of that officer, the man should be
discharged and relieved from service. In the case of mar-
ried men who had enlisted for five years, and who had
thrown their families on the parish, and who were
liable to contribute to their support from their pay,
it was intended to give their discharge, but not on
furlough, as it was considered far better not to have
men in the militia so burdened- as to make militia
duties impossible. It wee not the intention of her
Majesty's Government to take any step with regard
to the, wives and families of the married men,
further than to discharge the men from the burden of
serving. If the colonels did not recommend the men to
be discharged, then the responsibility rested with the
colonels. If they did recommend men to be discharged,
the discharges were granted in all cases. He trusted
that one effect of this debate—which he "considered to be
advantageous—would be to let colonels of militia know
the power they had in this respect ; but another effect of
the debate he could not approve of, as, if the recom-
mendation thrown out were adopted, they would reduce
the militia ranks, and impair the efficiency of that body.
The Earl of DERBY wished the noble lord to state
distinctly whether the_ power of discharge rested exclu-
sively and solely on the 'responsibility of the colonels;
for however unpleasant and awkward it might be to raise
the question a; this, or indeed at any moment, still the
amount of inconvenience was not to be compared with.
the consequences of leaving an impression on the country
that an act of Peel auiet had been tampered with by
which. men were to be deprived of their rights. (Bear.)
No inconvenience that might arise from raising this
question could be equal to the permanent injury that:
would take place if engagements entered into with any
class of her Majesty's subjects were not rigidly and ho-
nestly carried out. And a great mistake was made by
not fulfilling t> the letter arid tge spirit the declaration
that was ma le at the tirno of the introduction of the act
of 1854, that, as the time and terms of the service wero
t-) be changed, individual option would be given to every
single man who enlisted before May, 1852, to say whether
he would or would not enter into a new engagement.
If every one had been re-attested under the act of 1854,
these perplexing questions would not have arisen, and
we should have hard men coming forward to colist vo-
luntarily. Had this been the case you would have bad
a militia embodied on a well-understood plan of agree-
ment, and whether the man was married or single,
he would have -had no cause to complain, or right
to withdraw from his engagement. But it was of the
last importance that men should know the rights they
had practically, and he would be no party to conceal
those rights from them. Ile Fait' that every man who.
enlisted for 21 days' service, or by an order in council
for 56 days' service, should not be compelled to serve,
for a longer period or under different arrangements, or
that the term of his service should depend on the will
or the caprice of his colonel. _ _

Lord EANMURE would be the last man to adopt or
advocate a czirse. of- policy calculated to keep men in
ignorance of their rights or engagements. He believed
every militiaman who enlisted in 1852-3 knew when hie
term of service expired. If the original terms were in-
tended to be varied, it must be done by enactment, as
in the case of volunteering to go abroad. With respect
to the power of discharge, if the colonel withheld the
recommendation for a man's discharge, be must take
the responsibility of the act on himself. Whenever the
recommendation was given it would be complied with.
Lord GREY said—Let the men -know their rights.
He wished to have an express assurance from Govern-
ment that, though the act of 1854 gave th-6m'power to
alter the original agreement, the power would not be
exercised.

The subject then dropped, and their lorli!thips ad.
journed:

HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY:

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before four o'clock;
NEW MEMBERS. _ .

Sir R. Peel, one of the Lords of the Admiralty,
took the oaths and his seat on his re-election for Tam-
worth. Lord Monck, a Lord of the Treasury, took the
oaths and his seat on his re-election for Portsmouth. Sir
Stafford Nortlicote took the oaths and his seat for Dud-
ley, in the room of Mr. Benbow, deceased. Mr. Hol-
ford took the oaths and his seat for East Gloucester-
shire, in the room of Sir M. H.-Beach, deceased. Mr.
Baxter took the oaths and his seat for Montrose, in the
room of Mr. Hume, deceased. Mr. Back took the
oaths and his seat for Barnstaple.