The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-21 00:00:00

--'4-e----eeeeeseeeeestetweeeee=iss.eee ,eeeseesaaseeeewaes.eeesa.eoeseeeee
saying to us, " You shall not produce your own Bill on
this subject, but you shall take one of my coneocion, of
which I shall not tell you all the clauses,_ but leave you
to find them out as you bcst can." Why, there was
never such‘a demand made on a Government before.—
(Hear, hear.) Ot course I cannot comply with that
demand; for if I proposed to satisfy? the House by fol-
lowing the injunctions of the Noble Lord and bringing
in another Bill, the Noble Lord might say, " This is not
My Bill, and you must bring in another; and so on
through the session."—(Hear.) With respect to the
difference between the proposition of the Government
and that of the Noble Lord, there is one point which the
Noble Lord seems to have omitted altogether, although
it is, perhaps, one of the most important at issue. The
question is to obtain a force sufficient in number for the
purpose of being trained to act ender elms, which shall
be removable in case of danger from one part of the
United Kingdom to another, and which can be kept up
for a certain time in case of war. But then occurs the
difficulty. In the case of a regular militia the men are
ballotted for service for a period of five years, conse-
quently if a war should break out in the course of this
year—say in six months—these teen would be obliged
to serve for five years. This, bows ver, is a different
demand on the people of this country from that made
by her Majesty's Government in the present measure,
which is, that those so ballotted for shall appear
for 28 days in time of peace to kern the use
of arms, and to serve for six or twelve months in
case of war. And the question crises which the
Noble Lord would not diseu,,P, but which is
at the bottom of all—the question of substitutes. Will
you say that you are to have no substitutes, and that
those men who are balloted for must serve in person? I
am convinced that if this was proclaimed through the
country to-morrow, the Bill would be so unpopular with
all classes of the community, that there would be the
greatest possible difficulty in carrying out its provisions.
—(Cheers.) But there is the other course—you may
say you will take substitutes. That would be an easy
course in one respect; for there can be no doubt that
for a sum of money varying from 30s. to 5/. or 61., you
might get any number of substitutes to appear and be
trained to arms for twenty-eight days in any one year
of peace. But observe the difference between the sub-
stitutes and the force proposed by this Bill in time of
war. When you place a ballotted man in the ranks of
the militia in time of war, he is bound by the Mutiny
Act, he cannot desert, and he is safe for the terms of
his five years' service. But if you offer 51., in the county
of Kent to a man to come forward as a substitute, and
I serve twenty-eight days in time of peace, for twenty-
eight days pay, you will find plenty of them in 1852.
Who will tell me, however, that this man will come
back the following year without further bounty,
after eleven months' absence, perhaps in a far
distant part of the country, even in a period of peace—
(Hear, hear)—above all, who will tell me that he will
come back in a time of war to work out the further ser-
vice he is paid to perform?—(Hear, hear.) Yee seem,
therefore, to me, to be placed in this dilemma—either
you must make a law which will be sufficient, but op-
pressive, and which consequently cannot be carried into
effectual operation; or, you must make a law not op-
pressive, but, on the other hand, costly and not sufficient.
If you have a ballot, and make the sons of merchants
and mechanics serve together in the ranks of the militia,
you will have a sufficient force, no doubt, but you will
also have an intolerable hardship. Take substitutes, on
the contrary, aid you will have a force in time of peace
more than sufficient for your purpose, but you will have
none in a time of war.—(Hear, hear.) I do not offer
these arguments as conclusive on the question: the
house will, no doubt, weigh them impartially, and ad-
judge them their full worth in deciding this question.
If the House thinks the proposition of the Noble
Lord better than the proposition of the Go-
vernment they will of course adopt it. But
what I say is this—and I think I make no extravagant
demand—that after considering the subject carefully
and attentively for many weeks, and coming to
the conclusion that the plan we propose is the one least
subject to the difficulties that I have stated.—it may b©
that we have not come to the right conclusion—but un-
der these circumstances I do say that I think it would
not be fair in the House to say you shall not produce
your plan. If, however, you should do so, and leave
out the word "local"—the word " consolidate" I will not
take the sense of the House on—and insert " militia,"
all I can say is that the Noble Lord and Mr. Bernal
must bring in the Bill themselves, and I shall judge it
impartially, holding myself free to oppose it or support
it accordingly as I may see fit.—(Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—The Noble Lord has certainly
!Token the most remarkable speech I have ever heard
Hi this house.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord proposed to
introduce a measure which has been, he states, amply
Considered, but which is founded, we aro told, upon a
7ini,6lis principle. Now, if the principle of the Bill is
vicious, all its details must necessarily be vicious, and
therefore it is a mere waste of time on the part of this
House to enter into any controversy upon either.—
(Cheers.) I understand the Noble Lord to say, that
though a Member of this House, or even a majority of
Members, may consider the principle of a Bill so essen-
tially vicious that it would be utterly impossible it could
be changed with any advantage, it is nevertheless not
open to us to question the propriety of introducing that
measure. If the Noble Lord's argument does not lead
to that conclusion I have entirely misunderstood it.
Lord J. RUSSELL—You have quite misunder-
stood it.
Mr. DISRAELI—If I have misunderstood the Noble
Lord's argument I do not think I have misrepresented
it.—(Hear, hear.) I ask the House to consider how it is
placed with respect to the question before us. Four or
five years ago, when the Noble Lord was still at the
head of affairs, Government assured the House they were
about to bring forward the question—the question hav-
ing relation to the militia. The Noble Lord did not,
however, introduce any Bill, or favour the House with
the details of any contemplated measure. I should have
liked to know whether the Government project was for
local or regular militia; but the House was not favoured
with the information. It is clear, from the circum-
stances under which the present measure is introduced,
and the period at which it is brought forward, there hav-
ing been antecedent revolutions, and, more recently,
other alarming circumstances—it is clear the Govern-
ment opinion is in favour of the general principle of
having a militia, and also that they- believe the defences
of the country are not so effectual as they ought to be.
Therefore, in bringing forward their measure, it is not
necessary, I think, to refer it to important circumstances
. which have recently occurred. The House and country
have the advantage of considering the question with re-
. ?Peet to the abstract point—namely, whether the country
111 in that position of defence in which every equally great
_country ought to be.—(Hear, bear.) It appears, with
rare exceptions, that all are agreed to decide the
• _question, by what plan can an effectual domestic garrison
.belit'be obtained? When Government, after four years'
consideration of the question, after a lapse of time which
.11,2 °lle pretends has rendered defence less necessary than
.4 1848—when Government now introduces a measure
Zn`the sulsject, I think, taking the most peaceful view of
"nen affairs, and of the probable course of human
actions that we have a right to consider on what the
euentive principle of the proposed means of ; defence is
founded. The details with which the Noble Lord has
favoured the House does not put us sufficiently in pos-
session of that principle. If a Minister brings forward
a project, the House ought to say whether it is founded
on erroneous principles. If the House were of opinion
t" subject was all-important, and ought not to be neg-
lected in the present state of affairs, it is a matter of
deity that we should decide on the principle of the mea-
sure which Government proposes for
hbo:uecrLfiutahadeeooption. As
to the means and method of ballotting, and the modes
and details of enlistment, we can enter into all those
eti.:estieor
result them'
of detail in Committee; but if the Bill be
goose which will not ; have the
the House Rouse evishes—if in the opinion of
all desire to se Bill cannot letid to the result which
brought forward?
eseraconsplished—if Government have
tory, it is our duty .teoes:re inefficient and unsatisfac-
principle on whidh the nalsistfess our opinion as to the
Lord says, if the rrou " founded. When the Noble
';mead tto the Noble Lord the
seee
Meniber for Tiverton's
responsibility of bringing it, 4.7ll3eatitz he must throw the
cannot be ac-
that, I think, is not atone to adopt. a that Noble Lord—
`disposition to effect that by menact
which
-nip is e •• . e a rit
ensureshows is
as
d by legitimate means 'on
rtirnate to
really the question. If the principle ofd But this is
not coerect, is not this a legitimate occasion
express that opinion?—(Hear.) be a leg
vision, I cannot doubt that the House will oc-
be deterred shrink
from fulfilling its duty, and not from i lay-'0
down sound principles on which the notional defence
to be conducted.—(Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY said the Noble Lord (J. Russell) had
been
very much misunderstood, otherwise such a con=
aLtrnotion would not have been put upon his words as had
peen the cue. The Noble Lord had never tittered an
opinion to the effect that the House were not entitled to
,express their opinion at this or any other stage of the
411. The Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had a perfect
Xight.to ask the House to join him in refusing to assent
to the Bill of her Majesty's Government, and if he ob-
tained a majority then to assume the responsibility of
' Presenting such a Bill as the country wanted. But that
was not the course adopted by the. Noble Lord. He did
not propose to disagree with the recommendation of the
• Committee that a Bill should be brought in and laid on
the table. But the Noble Lord said Government
should obtain leave to bring in a Bill, but not the
Bin
they had prepared, but such a Bill as he thought
th
• • ey ought to bring in. He admitted Government had
Ile such Bill as the Noble Lord required; they had only
such a Bill as had been recommended by the Committee.
_ -9 this Bill amendments might be proposed in Com-
mittee. -It was an unusual step not to meet the measure
with a (IN _ea-negative, but to impose en Government the
. necessity of bringing in a Bill ehich they did not ap-
proveWs The Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) wished
have a force equipped, trained, armed, and ready to
beealled into service on the shortest notice. When the
Bell
was in the bands of Members it would bo found that
every one of the matters wished for by the Noble Lord
...would be accomplished. The Noble Lord objected to the
""rd "local" in the Bill. Government thought it their
ewhen looking into the question of what was nee
ar
• y for the defence of the country, to propose a ran-
, "..."_r which should accomplish all the desired effects in the
7y the least burdensome to the country, and to inter-
fetea in the least
the people' Government
way with the ordinary employments of
whether he call upoPne- Government therefore thought it right to
Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) to say
•er wished to have the militia regularly embo-
died,
to eelb dolsly such an Act as would enable the Government
Noble
it so, that wee
loYrit in
case of war. Did the amendment of the
litia? _ d imply that he wished to have embodied mi-
. Pout' of the G
Pro 0 overlie
but unnecessary under the considered
P eal would not
an essential difference to the pro-
that such a
only be unpopular in the country,
the
sad more expensive circumstances, less efficient,
Laud Vies left out? The Noble Lord asked why Ire-
naiatrutine the loyal great
g
Ya deal.- had been said about
Y of Ireland. He could not be-

I ,