The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-08 00:00:00

we might expect immediate hostilities; that those hosti-
lities could not be delayed beyond a few weeks, and,
therefore, that we ought to have a great armament im-
mediately raised. But that would be, in his view, not
a prudent course for the House or the Government to
pursue. No doubt a great armament was necessary if
there was an appearance of immediate hostilities, or
an immediate prospect of an invasion; but he saw no
such immediate prospect. But he could say, generally,
that considering the wars which had taken place
between this country and our near and power-
ful neighbour, we ought to snake such a fair
and moderate preparation for defence es would
enable the Government to be prepared, on any occa-
sion that might take place, to maintain the honour and
dignity of the country. Upon that subject he had cer-
tainly nothing more to say than he had had in 1848, at
which time he had thought some more preparation re-
quisite than existed at the time. The House and the
country, however, had not thought it necessary. But in
the present year he still held the opinion which ho had
held in 1848, and he thought it was desirable to make
some preparation. It was the duty of any Government
more especially to call the attention of the House of
Commons to a subject of this kind, because the people
naturally said if there should be any danger—any pros-
pect of war hereafter—they should hold the Government
responsible if there was not a suicient force to meet
that danger. For it was for them (the Government) to
propose the amount of force deemed requisite, and for
the people to accept that amount of force or not. With
respect to any immediate prospect of hostilities, ho saw
no such prospect.—(Hear.) As to the conduct of the Pre-
sident of the French Republic, ho need not discuss it
with reference to his own country; but with respect to
this country, he did not think that he entertained any
hostile intentions towards it. He came, then, to the
general danger which they knew existed—that they had
been at war in former times—that they had been four
times involved in hostilities within the century—
and that there were various subjects relating
to our interests, and the interests and safety of our
allies, which might bring on hostile discussions. Then,
as to the mode, supposing there was any hostile dis-
cussion to take place with France, such as the ques-
tions raised of late years about Tahiti or Greece, and
that it led to such a state of things that peace could
be no longer preserved, was the country in such a state
that we ought to be satisfied with our position for
defence? He thought not. He had got a return there
of the amount of our forces at home on the Ist of Ja-
nuary, 1851, and it appeared there were 28,344 men—
cavalry, guards, and infantry—in Great Britain, and
22,567 men in Ireland. He did not think that
was a force sufficient, if hostilities were to break
out; nor that a force would be so immediately
supplied as to place this country in a state of safety.
Now, the Hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with
him meant that if there were evident preparations by
France for an invasion of this country—if they made
upon us demands impossible to accede to—that then we
should begin to make preparations. That, he thought,
would be very late, and they should have made prepara-
tion before. The force which he (Lord J. Russell) had
proposed for that purpose was a local aailitia—namely, a
force that could be raised partly by the ballot, and partly
by volunteering, that should be confined to men so young
that it was not probable they should be married men;
that they should not be obliged to leave their country,
except in cases of invasion or imminent danger; and, in
such cases, service not to be continued, in the first in-
stance, for more than six months, or, at any rate,
not beyond a year; that, with these conditions and
limitations, the ballotting for the militia was practi-
cable. The Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton
(Lord Palmerston) proposed to alter the title of
the Bill before it was brought in, and, as he (Lord
J. Russell) understood, with the intention of making
the force one of a totally different kind. If it had
been a proposition merely to alter the title, the proper
time for that would have been at the end of the stages of
the Bill. But the Noble Lord had taken a different
course, and declared that the local militia force was
liable to great objections, and ho raised the special ob-
jection that the proposed militia did not comprise
militia for Scotland and Ireland as well as for England.
It was evident to him that the proposal of the Noble
Lord would totally alter the character of the force, and
he (Lord J. Russell) had therefore declared that he could
not consent to be a party to introducing a Bill for the
regular militia; and that if such a Bill were introduced
by any other Member of the House, he should feel him-
self at liberty to oppose that Bill upon the second read-
ing. If it were a mere change of the title of the Bill, he
' would not have taken that course. But the proposed
change was a most material one, and so the Noble Lord
the Member for Tiverton thought, or he would not have
taken so unusual a course on the question of the change
of the title of the Bill. Lie considered it in
the same light as if he proposed to introduce a
Bill to extend the suffrage of Parliamentary
voters, and it were proposed by another Member to
establish universal suffrage instead. He could not have
accepted such a change; he would have rejected it. A
Bill was then brought in by the present Ministers, which
clearly carried into effect the objects of the regular mi-
litia. It contained provisions which had been considered
by the former Government, and had been rejected by
them. It had appeared to them that the plan of a re-
gular militia must have this objection to it—that if they
tounded it upon the ballot, the attempt to enlist men as
soldiers to serve for five years would be so great a hard-
ship that it would break down before it was brought
into operation, and that had accordingly happened to
the ballot now. Then there was the proposal to obtain
men by volunteer enlistment, and that was only to
be effected by giving a bounty, which would not
bring a class of men likely to make good soldiers,
unless kept as regular soldiers of the lino, and under
the regular discipline of the army. Such was the
way in which the matter had appeared to them, and the
present plan appeared to him liable to those objections;
and ho was waiting to hear from the Right Hon. Gentle-
, man how it was he expected the force to work. As to
what had been said about the Government of France
taking offence at our using precautions to defend our
own shores, he could not see how any offence could be
taken by a country which had upwards of 300,000
soldiers embodied in a standing army, when we only
propose to add to our army of 50,000 men, a reserve
' force of 80,000 for the defence of our own country.
Whatever objection could be taken to the militia force
that did not certainly form any ground. He thought
further that if possible they should try and succeed in
getting by the bounty settled inhabitants of a district, so
as to avoid unsettled vagrant persons, who would be at-
tracted merely by the 61. bounty, which would be Et large
sum to them. He adverted to the matter because he was
told the Secretary at War would make regulations on the
matter, a course which he thought unsatisfactory, because
in all matters of that kind Parliament had always taken
especial care that there should be clauses and provisions
in the Bill which Parliament itself would recognise, and
see their effect carried into operation. It should be seen
that the 80,000 men who were to be trained to arms
were trustworthy men—not only men upon whom they
could rely when the enemy was at their gates, but who
would be in all ordinary times men of loyal and good
conduct. It might be said that that was casting dis-
trust upon the people of England. But nothing could
be more absurd than such an answer. To guard against
unworthy characters being attracted into the militia by
a bounty of 61. per man was not to distrust the people of
England, who were numbered by millions, no more than
it was to distrust the people of this metropolis because
they locked their doors at night. If they went to Ep-
som Downs on the 26th of this month, they would find
there the beat of gentry, yeomanry, and labourers, who
would go there for a day's amusement, but at the same
time there would be many persons amongst them who
were of a very different description, and whom he would
be sorry to see in the militia. Ile trusted, then, before
the Bill had passed, the Right Hon. Gentleman would
see the propriety of introducing a provision removing
the matter out of the hands of the Secretary at War.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Noble Lord
had drawn them aside from the point before the Com-
mittee, for the purpose of showing there was nothing
inconsistent in his conduct now and on a former occasion
on the question. But the difference between the local
and the general militia was well understood, and what
the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton proposed_es_weelaso,
that as the force which the Noble Lord (Lord J.
had proposed was in effect the regular militia, that it
should be so called. The immediate question, however,
before the Committee, was that the blank be filled up
with the words " 30,000 men," and having admitted the
80,000 men and the 50,000 men, he could not see how
they could object to the 30,000.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the difference between
the local and regular militia was sufficiently distinct as
to induce him nottoproceed with the Bill. One of the
great faults found withdid
not proposal was, that he
not extend the militia to Scotland and Ireland; and he
said that ho ;could not bring in such a Bill, because he
knew not what would be required. But besides that,
every regular Militia Bill contains the clause of service
for a certain number of years. Considering this differ-
ence so great, he said he should oppose the Bill, and
he did oppose it. Having been defeated on the second
reading he had taken no further part in the discussion;
but yet the Hon. Gentleman accused him of endeavour-
ing to do indirectly that which ho would not directly.
That was not justice.
Mr. WAKLEY said, whatever might be the short-
comings of the Noble Lord, no one attributed to him
meanness or trickery in the conduct of public business.
He might have failed to come forward, but he never
broke his pledges; and from one end of England to the
other he bore the character of an honest man. The
Noble Lord was a Reformer when others were Tories;
and he (Mr. Wakley) well remembered what a fearful
thing was the spirit of Toryism—filling the gaols and
destroying the best citizens—when the Noble Lord op-
posed himself to its progress. He regretted, therefore,
that the Noble Lord had not gone on as he bad begun,
for he had the ball at his feet, and might have beenth
benefactor of his country. The Hon. and Lea Gen-
tleman had made a speech more fitted for the Old Bailey
atmosphere than for the House of Commons; and he
(Mr. Wakley) repudiated the insinuation of that Right
Hon. Gentleman, that he had asked favours of the Noble
Lord. The imputation of selfish motives cast on him
were unjust. He was not a law officer of the Crown
under a Free-trade Administration first, and then under h
a Protectionist Administration—(Hear, ear)—but be
found it was always the case that persons influenced by,
improper motives themselves took every opportunity of
bringing the actions of others down to their own low level.
Sir F. THESIGER disclaimed all intention of attri-
buting motives to the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. WAKLEY, under these circumstances, begged
the Hon. Member's pardon.
Alderman SIDNEY said that numbers of men of
property with whom he had spoken were surprised the
Bill should meet with such opposition in the House. The
general opinion among the Noble Lord's constituents wins
that he had completely lest himself by his course in re-
spect to the Bill. He (Mr. Alderman Sidney) voted for
the Bill, not because ho desired war, but because he
wished for peace, did not believe there was any for •