The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-21 00:00:00

MILITIA BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill,
commencing with clause 17.
Mr. M. GIBSON inquired whether it was intended to
make any alteration in the rules laid down in the 42d
George 111 with regard to the time allowed for appeal
to those whose names were placed on the lists of those
liable to serve in the militia?

Mr. WALPOLE said that he did not anticipate any
inconvenience from those rules, and it was therefore
his intention to adhere to them.

Mr. BRIGHT pointed out that as the lists of those
liable to serve were only required to be posted on the
church doors, that would therefore be a notice merely
to half of the population.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he saw no ob-
jection to a proviso being introduced by which these
lists should be posted on the chapel doors.
Mr. M. GIBSON complained of another regulation
contained i❑ the 42d George 111., that those who were
disqualified by bodily infirmity should be obliged to post
a notice and a description of that infirmity on the church
doors. He also objected that these questions of liability
and non-liability should be left to the decision of de-
puty-lieutenants; he thought assessors should be ap-
pointed to assist them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered that the
Act of Parliament did not require the nature of the in-
firmity to be stated, nor did he think that any assessors
could be appointed who would be more competent to
decide these questions more efficiently than the deputy-
lieutenants.

After some further discussion,
Mr. WALPOLE said that he was quite willing to
consider the objections which had been made to the
clause, and he would bring in a proviso embodying the
amendments suggested.
Mr. BRIGHT inquired whether men balloted for the
militia would be subjected to the same indecent per-
sonal examination to which persons who joined the re-
gular army were now liable?
Mr. WALPOLE said he had no hesitation in saying
that the Secretary-at-War would make such regulations
as would exempt persons joining the militia from any
such examination as might be disagreeable to them.
Mr. HARDOASTLE moved, as a proviso after clause
17, the following:—'' And whereas by the said first-
recited Act it is declared that the provisions of any
existing Act of Parliament for the punishment of mu-
tiny and desertion are to be in force with respect to the
militia during such time as they are assembled for the
purpose of being trained and exercised, but so that no
punishment shall extend to life or limb: and whereas
such provisions render militiamen liable to corporal
punishment, it is hereby expressly declared that no such
provisions shall be held to extend to any militiamen not
embodied so far as to render them liable to corporal
punishment by the sentence of a court martial."
Mr. W. BERESFO RD observed that it was impossible
to make any distinction between the militiaman and the
soldier of the line in the matter. Besides, it was the
crime that degraded the man rather than the punish-
ment. The crime stamped him with degradation before
the punishment was inflicted at all.
Captain PECHELL regretted that the Hon. Gentle-
man (the Secretary at War) opposed the amendment.
After a few words from Colonel ESTCOURT and Mr.
MOWITT,
Mr. GOULBURN objected to the proviso, as inap-
propriate on a clause of the Bill which related to the
duties of lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants of counties,
whereas the proviso referred to the private soldiers.
Mr. HARDC ASTLE asked the Right Hon. Gentle-
man if he would support his proviso if removed to an-
other part of the Bill?
Mr. GOULBURN said that when they came to the
subject of the proviso in its proper place be would dis-
cuss it. At present he objected to irregularity.
In reply to Mr. TUFNELL,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that he be-
lieved, as the law now stood, the volunteers when called
out for training and exercise, were liable to corporal
punishment—were, in tact, subject to the provisions of
the Mutiny Act.
Mr. BRIGHT wished for something more definite
than a mere opinion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not be expected
to have every provision of the militia law at his finger's
ends, but he stated what he had no doubt was a correct
opinion.
Sir C. WOOD read the section of the Act George
111., which showed that they were subject to the Mutiny
Act.
Sir D. DUNDAS said that as he had had for some
time the superintendence of the execution of the military
law of this country, ho wished to say a word on corporal
punishment. It certainly did not come well from those
who were opposed to corporal punishment to have ab-
stained from opposing its enactment in the Mutiny Act
whenever it came before the House, as it did on the re-
cent occasion of the passing of that Act. Why should
not the House stop the passing of the Mutiny Act if it
were so minded? But if it were lawful that corporal pun-
ishment should pervade the army, it must also pervade
the militia.—(Hear, hear.) If they had a regiment of
militia doing duty in the same garrison as a regiment of
the line, and they made a difference in the punishments
of the two, the soldiers of the line would not only resent
the difference, but it would be found very difficult to
maintain discipline in the army.—(Hear, hear.) But
as to maintaining corporal punishment in the militia
when called out for training and exercise merely, he
thought it admitted of question. In the fifth
section of the Mutiny Act be found a provision
that nothing in that Act contained should be con-
strued to extend to any militia force or corps of
yeomen or volunteers, except in those cases wherein by
the Act regulating such corps the punishment for mu•
tiny or desertion should be made specifically applicable
to that corps. Ho thought the word "specifically"
created a difficulty in the matter, and left it open to
question whether, at a crisis like the present, they were
bound t) inflict the same punishment upon men called
out by ballot against their will and upon volunteers, who
wore militiamen for the mere purpose of training and ex-
ercise, as they would inflict upon men who were soldiers
by profession. It was by nu means clear but that they
might dispense with punishment for that particular
period. The question of corporal punishment altogether
was another matter. The administration of corporal
punishment was for neglect of duty and for misconduct;
but these words were open to the widest interpretation.
He had heard something of the severity of flogging in
the army, but he was assured that no punishment was
inflicted more leniently, and there was no officer in the
army who would not willingly avoid it. There was,
indeed, an anxious desire to administer that law with
mercy, and so to save the soldier, and every appeal would
be attended to at the Horse Guards by the authorities.
Under these circumstances, however, he would put it to
her Majesty's Government, whether the same punish-
ment should be inflicted on the militia soldier as on the
professional soldier.

The Earl of MARCH could not subscribe to the view
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as regarded the dif-
ference of punishment in respect of drilling, more espe-
cially as the drill would only last three weeks. To
abrogate corporal punishment would encourage the en
listment of bad characters in the militia, which was, of
course, a thing to be avoided.
Mr. 0. STANLEY was of opinion that corporal pun-
ishment could bo safely dispensed with in the army,
unless before the enemy. He thought the Government
ought to except militiamen from this punishment. In
India the native troops were not subjected to corporal
punishment, and their conduct was not less exemplary
than that of the English troops.
Mr. HARDINGE said corporal punishment did ac-
tually exist in the native army in India, and it had been
restored in 1844. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was fallacious assumption on the part of the Right Hon.
Gentleman to suppose that her MAjesty's Government
had not taken the question into consideration. Of
course they should not have recommended the clause to
the Committee unless they had given it the gravest con-
sideration. They had given it such consideration, and
they had consulted all those who were competent to
form an opinion on the subject. The subject was by no
means of that simple nature which the Right Hon. (3r n-
tleman supposed, and its settlement would be much
more difiieult than was generally imagined. Until the
whole question of corporal punishment in the army was
dealt with it would be impossible to make exceptionel
cases. Her u
Majesty's Government, looking at the s
tion in that light, had arrived at the conclusion thclatei;
was their duty to propose this clause. It was, there-
fore, their duty to oppose the proviso. Under these
circumstances be was bound to take the sease of the
Committee by a division.
The Committee then divided—
For the proviso .. . 87
Against it
Majority ..• —45
••• ..•
The proviso was therefore rejected.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 18.
Mr. HEADLAM, in the absence of the lion. Member
for Bury St. Edmund's, moved to substitute " 25 " for
" 35," as to the limit of age after which men should not
be liable to the ballot.
Mr. WALPOLE said this would increase, not dimi-
nish, the hardship of the ballot. Every wan who could

serve ought to serve in the defence of the country. To
diminish the area would be to increase the pressure,
.and
therefore the greater would be the hardship. Besidesthis, it was desirable to interfere as little as possible with
the recruitment of the army, an interference which would
take place very sensibly under this amendment.
Sir H. VERNEY supported the amendment.
Mr. MOWAT said the line was proposed to be
drawn at 35; and the question consequently was, whe-
ther it was the right period. He did not think it was,
and he should therefore support the amendment.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said a reference to
sec. 43 of 421 Geo. 111. would show that no person
ballotted for would be obliged to serve again except in
rotation, after all persons in his district had served. He
did not understand what difference it could make whe-
ther the age ranged from 18 to 25, or 18 to 35. If a
person was ballotted fur the militia, he could not enter
the regular army; therefore the amendment would ma-
terially interfere with the recruiting for that army.
Mr. HEAI)LAM replit d. He maintained the hard-
ship was less up to 25 than up to 35. He should divide
on the amendment.

Mr. OSWALD said if the clause did pass, it was one
of thoso c-mpulsory clauses which would never be acted
upon. It might do for a hustings topic, but nothing more.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to know why the age was
reduced to 35? _

Mr. WALYOLE said it was necessary, first, to con-
sider the area, and next; the capability of Eervice; and,
after due consideration, it was held that from 33 to 40
was the most digible age to select. It was considered
that 40 was a fit age at which persons ought not to be
called upon to render militia service.
After a brief remark from Mr. MO WATT,
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Fur the amendment ..• 52
Against it ... ..• ••• ••• 82
Majority against the amendment —3O
_

During a desult :'ry conversation,
Mr. OSWALD, i❑ reference to the proposed land
qualification, remarked, it frequently happened that the
Lord Lieutenants exercised their powers with too much
partiality.
Colonel SIBTHORP would indignantly repudiate the
charge on the impartiality of Lords Lieutenants.
Sir R. INGLIS hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman
would not lower the qualification, as far as land rental
was to be regarded.

Mr. WALPOLE said—Government, by what they
now proposed, were not lowering the qualification in the
least; they only varied the details, so as to enable
Lords Lieutenants to make suitable appointments. Ho
believed there was no fear of Lords Lieutenant appoint-
ing persons not properly qualified or duly connected with
the county.
Clause 19 was then agreed to.
On clause 20 being proposed,
Colonel SIBTHORP rose to move the following
clause:—" That it is expedient to repeal so much or any
part of the Act 42d George 111., c. 90. or any other sub-
sequent Act, as relates to the qualification of officers
appointed to serve in any of the regiments of militia in
Great Britain; also that it is essential to the constitution
as by law established, that the respective appointments
of all officers possessing the required qualification by the
aforesaid Act, George 111., e. 90, or any subsequent Act
relating to the militia, shall be made by the lieutenants
of counties or by colonels commanding regiments in
which each regiment is raised or to be raised from time
to time, as occasions may demand, by and with the ap-
probation and sanction of her Majesty." He complained
that the Lords-Lieutenant were to be deprived of their
usual power of appointing the officers to the militia. He
considered that such power could not be placed i❑ more
efficient hands; and he hoped Government would fall
into his views, and allow them to retain the powers con-
ferred on them by the Act of George 111. The Hon.
and Gallant Member concluded by saying he would not
move the clause, but would reserve to himself the power
of moving it if the Committee went to a division.
Sir C. BURRELL hoped Lords Lieutenant would ap-
point the surgeons and other inferior officers, as they
must be best acquainted with the qualifications of the
candidates.

The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 21 being moved,
Mr. ESTCOURT considered that the time appointed
for training the men was too limited. Twenty-one days
in a year could never make an efficient soldier. A man
drilled for 91 days consecutively would be more efficient
as a soldier than the militiaman drilled 21 days in each
year for the period of five years.
Sir H. VERNEY thought it would be advisable for
Government to sel-ct those periods cf the year for drill-
ing the men when the agricultural labourers were least
employed.

liIr.BERESFORD said with regard to drilling he
readily admitted it was not possible to get good soldiers
by a drill of only 21 days in the year; but then power
was given in the Act to increase the time if necessary. He
did not agree with the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Estcourt)
that drilling for 91 days, and not again during the five
years, was more efficacious than a short drill each year
for five years.
Mr. M. GIBSON said, that supposing some of the
men did not attend after due notice for training and
exercise, it would seem from the Act 42d George 111.,
that a ballot might take place for parsons to supply their
places. In all probability many who might have taken
the bounty would not attend; and if that were so, the
ballot would be resorted to in order to supply their
places, though the Government professed that the ballot
would not be used till April, 1853.
Colonel SIB THORP said that whatever might be the
opinion of the Manchester school, he did not believe that
Englishmen would absent themselves from their duty.
He thought that if they were to have an efficient drill,
the time ought to be extended to six weeks for the first
year. Twenty-one days was a mere f 1406 it the pan
Mr. J. EVANS thought that if the force were to be
volunteers 90 days would not be too many for training;
but if the men were to be raised by ballot that period
would be too long, and would produce much hardship.
The difficulty was caused by Government declining to
withdraw the compulsory part of the Bill.
Colonel DUNNE said that in 1831, in Westminster,
3,700 men were drawn by ballot, 2 979 were exempted,
770 were chosen, and of these only 36 did not find sub-
stitutes. In the following year they all appeared. In
Middlesex, also, 1,024 men were ballotted for, and out
of these I,oli appeared in the following year.
Sir H. VERNEY thought it would be advisable to
strike out the words which provided that 61. should be
paid as bounty. It would be better to pay it at the
rate at 2s. 6d. a month.
Mr. WALPOLE said that, under the section of the
42d Geo. 111., to which the Hon. Member for Manches-
ter had referred, the ballot could not be put in opera-
tion without three months' notice; c msequontly it could
not be used this year. He was prepared to insert words
to make the point more clear. With respect to the
bounty, it was always assumed that 64 would be paid,
and the men allowed to go away without any security
ir their appearance. The Secretary at War would
look after that.

The clause was then agreed te.
Colonel ESTCOURT said he had drawn up a proviso
on the supposition that the force would be a volunteer
one, and he now begged to move " That the Govern-
ment be empowered to extend the. period of drill and
training in any one of the five years to 90 days, and
that in any of the other years it should not exceed six
days."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the opinion of the Government was, that it was not
desirable that her Majesty should possees the power of
extending the period beyond two months; he could nut,
therefore, consent to the proviso.

After a few worth from Mr. J. EVANS, the proviso
was negativei.
Mr. M. GIBSON then moved that the following
proviso be add-d to the clause:—" Provided that,
notwithstanding anything contained in the said first-
recited Act, or any other Act, no officer, non-commis-
sioned officer, drummer, or private man, serving in the
militia, when called out for the purpose of training and
exercise, shall be quartered or billeted in any inn,
livery stable, alehouse, victualling-house, or in any
house of any person selling brandy, strong waters,
spirits, beer, cider, wine, or methegiin, by retail, with-
out the consent of the respective occupiers thereof." He
did not think it advisable that the young men who would
compose the force should be during the whole time of
their drill billeted in the beerhouses throughout the
country. He would not speak of moral considerations,
for he knew they had nothing to do with military occu-
pations. Ho doubted, however, how far it wa, just to the
occupiers of such houses to force them to billet those
men. If the country required their services, the country
ought to be at the expense of providing proper places to
lodge them in. Why should they not in the summa r
months be enc troped on some dry spot?
dusvtoicratuafollri•ris
greMatr.mßaEnyßEyeSaFrOs
tßoDbmeidt it tr oho
pa ds
obneenlietehreisec
according to the means which each individual of that
class possessed for providing such accommodation.
ill
These individuals enjoyed a sort of poolyf
binillethtienigr
business, and he could not see the injusticern ()
soldiers on them wherever there were no barracks.
Sir H. VERNEY supported
of unoccupiedtedthe amendment. He bf-
lievedthere w
barracks
throughout g
country to afford accomodationatroks
the

Mr. BRIGHT also supported the amendment. The
proprietors of public-houses were cntitlid to the ordi-
nary privileges of eitis-ns.
Usptain BOLDERO opposed the amendment. He was
not aware that there wet° at present any unoccupied
barracks in any part of the country. The old barracks
which had been found unnecessary since the time of the
war, had either been pulled down, or had been ap-
propriated to other purposes. With respect tothe
sug-
gestion that the men should be encamped,
observe that there might be seasons where it
expedient.
that the men
it he should
very undesirable to have recourse to such
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL saidwould be
houses of private indiviluiP.
that the presence
should be billeted either in public houses or in the
Mr. M. GIBSON said he believed
of vagabonds
a course
of training would be found an intolerable nuisance in
min ought to be placed undercountry chstricts.
of every description i
undergoing
mon, where they would not
other members of the com-
dteinettusrobn
munity.
OLE said that the men should either be
Mr. WALP
the some
tranquillity good Those
r)
oefo uj
encamped in tents or they should have barracks pro-
or they beshould. billeted ' •
in public.
houses. Now,in the Bill to pi., vent
from encamping them in tents, if it should be
pro-
vided tor them,
the Crown there was nothing
thought desirable to adopt that arrangement. But there
were reasons when such a mode of proceeding would be
manifestlyinexpedient. It had been stated by his Hon.
and Gallant Friend the Member for Chipprnham that
there were at present no barracks in which they could
be accommodated, and he (Mr. Walpole) took it tor
granted that Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not wish that
new barracks should be built for that purpose. There
might be occa.,ions, therefore, in which it would be ne-
cessary to billet thon men, and, considering the privi-

h-gee granted to the proprietors of public-houses, he
thought that they were the persons who could most
fairly be eherged with the burden of the billeting sys-
tem, if there were any burden in the matter.
Mr. BIiIGH complained that those Hon. Members
who had spoken against the amendment did not seem to
be redly acquainted with its purport. The object of the
amendment was not to exempt the proprietors of pub-
lic houses from the billeting system, but to place them
on the same level with other members of the community
upon that subject. It had been said that that burden
might fairly be imposed on those parties, because they
were allowed to enjoy a monopoly in the sale of the
articles in which they dealt. But the proprietors of
beer-houses enjoyed no such monopoly, as any person
that pleased might open a beer-shop; so that to them,
at least, the argument in qne,tion could not apply.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he thought it
would he well if the Hon. Member fur Manchester, who
complained so much of the ignorance of others, had
himself taken care to become acquainted with the clause.
There was not a word about beer-houses or the pro-
prietors of beer-houses in the clause, which was copied
from a provision in an Act which had been passed be-
fore those houses had been established.—(Hear.)
Colonel SIB mom) said he would rather have a
dozen militiamen quartered in his district than one mem-
ber of the Anti-Corn-law League.—(A laugh.)
Mr. J. EVANS said that the clause would extend to
the keepers of livery-stables and to the proprietors of
victualling-houses, who enjoyed no monopoly in the sale
of the articles in which they deal. There could be no
reason why any special burden should be imposed oa
those classes.

Sir G. PEJHELL said ho believed there never had
been a more oppressed class in this conatry than inn-
keepers and licensed victuallers.
Mr. WAKLEY said, that as the military required ex-
tensive accommodation, the best place to billet them in
were the houses of the nobility, which, in many in-
stances, were scantily inhabited.—(Laughter.) Those
public-house proprietors had enough to do between the
brewer and the distiller, to say nothing of their being
obliged to go every year almost on their knees to the
magistrates to be allowed to carry on their business.
He had been informed that in former times the very fact
of this billeting destroyed the trade of many houses.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know if, under this Act, the
beer-house proprietors would be liable to have billets
served upon them?
The ATTORNET-GENERAL replied, that if not
liable under the old Act, they would not be under the
present; and if, on the contrary they were, they would
be left in that position. This Act would not interfere
with them.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—.
For the proviso ... ... 54

Against ... 105
Majority ...-51
The clause was then agreed to, as also was clause 22.
On clause 23,
Sir F. T. RARING inquired what the expenses in the
counties would amount to? He thought it would come
very keavy on the county I at( 11.
Mr. WALPOLE said that a schedule of payments
would be attached to the Act.

Sir J. TYRELL assured the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite (Sir F. T. Baring) that ho need have very little
concern for the country gentlemen. They had a Go-
vernment in power in whom they reposed every confi-
dence, no matter how unsatisfactory to Hon. Gentlemen
who sat opposite.
Sir F. I'. BARING said that, however consolatory
such fact might be to Hon. Gentlemen on the Minis-
terial side, it might not be altogether so satisfactory to
their constituents, who would have to pay largely in the
shape of increased county rates. In the Bill brought in
by the late Government such charges were carefully
avoided.
After a few words from Sir J. TYRELL,
Lord D. STUART said that the more he considered
this Bill the more he disapproved of it. The foreign in-
telligence contained in the morning papers of that day
should make Hon. Gentlemen pause in the proceeding.
There were other parties—foreign Governments—who
were not asleep—who were alive to what was passing in
that House. If Hon. Gentlemen looked at the intelli-
gence from France of that day they would find the argu-
ments urged upon his side of the House reiterated there.
If they made that large addition to the military re-
sources of the country they might depend upon it that
it would serve as a pretext for other countries maintain-
ing their large war establishments. A proposition had
been made in the French Chaenb2r to raise an additional
force of 80,000 men; that was an enormous number, end
one of the arguments urged in its favour was that Eng-
land had granted a considerable sum to raise a large
militia force. That was a matter which ought to receive
the earnest consideration of both sides of the House, and
even of the most sleepy Members.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said it had been urged by the
Right Hon. Baronet that, if the late Militia Bill had
been passed, the great bulk of the expense would have
been cast upon the Consolidated Fund. That was
matter worthy of the consideration of the present Go-
vernment, which in that case would doubtless have the
support of the members of the late Government in re-
moving the charge from the counties. He did not think
thi y ought to be altogether guided by the military pre-
parations of other countries in providing for the defence
of this country.
Lord SEYMOUR said any one could understand the
difference between a vote of that House and a charge
thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. He wished to
know whether the expense of hiring ground for ball-
practice was or was nut to be a charge upon the annual
estimates?

Mr. W ALPOLE said a few words in explanation, after
which
The clause, as amended, was ordered to stand part Of
the Sill.

On clause 25 being read,
Sir [I. VERNEY thought that not only every
militiamar, but every individual in the country, should
be liable, in case of insurrection or rebellion, to be
called out for its repression. He thought some capitol";
tion ought to be given by the Government with regard
to their reasons for introducing a clause to repeal that
provision which existed in all former Militia Bills.
Mr. 0. GORE could not understand on what principle
her Majesty should be prevented from calling out the
militia in case of insurrection. He thought it most ire'
politic to introduce such a restriction, which had never
been introduced in any previous Militia Bill. He should
feel it his duty to oppose the clause, and begged to move
its omission.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER eta
the principle of the Bill was purely and strictly defen:
sive, and it was brought forward solely for the internal
defence of the country against foreign aggression ; but
as the Hon. Baronet and some other Hon. Gentlemen
obj. cted to the clause, he proposed that it should be
left for future consideration.—(Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said, although no Hon. Member had
risen on his side of the House to support the clause, the
Right Hon. Gentleman must not suppose that they were
not ready to support it. He thought the measure might
be so framed as to prevent any further outbreak in Ire-
land, and render it as peaceable as any part of the
kingdom. He believed much of the discontent of Ire-
land was connected with a scarcity of food, and they
need not anticipate the recurrence of such an event
again. He hoped the Government would not consent
mhran
wofourldthbee
riwoittiuhg-
dwrawhealsoutggtheest eiolus
unwis,,iy, and &paving from the principle of the Bill.
an oef. tlhre Hon.tho3 dGidenst o le,
It wog d, besides, lay
uponlaythefaiGseovperreutemneenest
ao
d
certainly move at a future stage the re-introduction of
e
the clause.
npclenh e to
sh otuh
charge of legislating
Mr. 0. GORE said he hod no desire to legislate upon
suspicions. He protested against that principle, and
would press his amendment to a division.
Mr. ANS LEY said the omission of the clause would
give the Government power to call out the militia when
all tear of invasion had passed away, and in order
t repress rebellion at home. The clause was one of the
few good clauses in the Bitl.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE, with reference to an allusion
to Maynooth, and the probability of insurrection in
Ireland, which had been dropped by the Member for
Manchester, said the only two persons who had recent'
mended rebellion in Ireland in case of invasion, if „‘the
Maynooth grant were wi hdrawn, were the Rev. Air'
Cahill add the Rev. Mr. Mullens—two priests educated
at May nooth.—(Elear. hear.)
Mr. PACKE recommended that the consideration of
the clau-e b postponed.
Mr. 0. GORE agreed to this, hut gave notice that be
should updoAe it Oil 71 future cocasion; of serving at the
min time that Lord Grey had wade it a main argument
for his Militia Bill th it wea useful for the repression
of domestic disturbances.

Mr. J:EVANS said the measure had originally been
proD.,sed t.ir the purpose of resi,ting foreign invasiou•
Now, the reel object of the Bill appeared to be to sop'
ss the discontent of the pope reaps sting the re-irty
position of the corn laws.—(oh, oh, and cries of'' Ques-
tion.") It would us. breaking faith with the people to
withdraw the clause.
Culunel GILPIN did not see why the militia should
nut be cal ed out to suppress iusurreo ton, as it had be' 33
in former times—for instance, in 1780, in the riots
Loud )1).
Sir J. WALMSLEY hoped the Government would
not withdraw the clause, and thus alter and deteriorate
its ten.r and character.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Gtorernment was bound to defer to the opinion of the
Howe, and he should therefore wish to postpone the
consideration of the clause.
Mr. GIBSON said the best way of ascerttinieg the
Sense of the House was to divide on the clause. The
Secretary of State had obtained leave to introduce the
Bill merely on account of this clause, which was repro"
sensed as nr.iktnz the measure only defensive.
Sir J. IYRELL said the manufacturing Members
occupiedthe time of the House not only on the detaill•
but the principle of the Bill. If the French President
hid iecrelsed his military torte, as had been alleged, it
was the greatest possible compliment to the efficiency of
a militia force.—(A Lugh.) Oise would think the Mee"
Chester JI tubers meant to be the future Ministers--
(Laughter)—tho Member for Bolton (Sir J. WalmsleY)
actually affected to be anxious for the efficiency of the,
Bill, mid the Meinb!-r for Manchester tMr.
wanted, forsooth, to take the sense of the House. L. 4!
him take the nonsense of the House, and ho would DU
beaten.—(L .ughter.)
his
Ys
mouthdt2 declared chde
hadth that t
never
Hon.r
used. Baronet
._
whathaßSdiirput r
"T J. ‘'w'‘lol(..olr:Rd(LisE6 li141:81Ateol:7. (e La a u willg h t
his
meSriitrsJo.f NtVhAk, LM
Bill; S Li
tEhY,ds:liodmheeriths.a_d
(noobt discussed thei,e
rh; Hon. Member state
Sir J. TYHELL—The Hon. Member certainly eV'
of its bein4 deter,orated.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") _
Mr. THOMPSON opposed the withdrawal of the
clause.
Sir F. BARING should vote for the postponement of
.
the clause in the hope a its ultimate rejection. Ile 12t

to it on the ground that nothing was more likely
to predate the danger of invasion than dcmesiic com-
motion, and that in such a crisis the services of the force
would be required.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For postponement of the clause 200
Against
... 61

Maj3rity ------139
Clause 27.6 Clause 2 vas a“reLd to, as was (with amendments)
On clause 28, providing that the provisions of the
42i George 111., c. 90,
the Bill, as amended, shall extend to
Mr. BRIGHT moved that the Chairman report pro-
RVIs. The clause proposed to re-enact a number of
clauses in the previous measure, to which it would be
impossible for the Committee to agree in their present
shape,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER con-
sented to postpone the clause, in order that an amend-
ment might be introduced into it to-morrow, but re-
commended proceeding with the remaining clauses.
Mr- WALPOLE explained the na'ure of this amend-
Meat.

The clause was ultimately postponed until to-morrow
(Friday).
The remaining clauses having been agreed to, the
resumed, and the Chairman reported progress
and aged ;cave to sit again.
Tke Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill and the Turn-
pike Trusts Arrangement Bill were severally read a se-
Cut si time.
The Huddersfield Burial-ground Bill, the Proclsma-
tion far
Asscreb,irg Parliament Bill, the Public Works
and the Differeutial Dues Bill were severally
passed through Conitni,tee.
APPRERENteION OF DESERTERS FROM FO-
REIGN SHIPS BILL.
Mr. HENLEY moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. ANSTEY complained of the retention of the
third clause, after the President of the Beard of Trade
had consented to its omission, and which subjected to a
Penalty of 101., to be imposed at the discretion of the
justices( any person who harboured or assisted in the
concealment or reception of a deserter from a foreign
ship. The hardship of the measure would be very
great, Particularly in the case of fugitive slaves, who
would be claimed to be given up not as slaves but as
deserters. What the Right Hon. Gentleman should
have done was simply to extend the provisions of the
Mercantile Dlarine Act to cases ot desertion from the
abips of foreign powers. He bjected al to the Bill,
that it proposed to arm the Queen inso Council with
Dower to legislate without the advice of Parliament.
$e should, therefore, move as an amendment, that it be
re a third time that day three months.
MHENLEY could assure the Hon. Gentleman that
-.9 had removed everything from the Bill that did not
!IPPIy to the merchant service. Upon the subject of
flarbouring deserters, it was only an extension. of the
E° resent at present in force with regard to desertion from
.4uglish ships, and was not in any way intended to ap-
Ply to slaves.
e Lord D. STUART opposed the Bill,
as being neither
t for
He her
ssary nor called for by the mercantile
itsseveralhadin favour,
p
a—
The
the mendment was negatived without a division, and
Bill was read a third time and passed.
rsauk4he Kennington-common, &c., Improvement Bill was
a third tim and passed.
A'YNOOTHe COLLEGE—ADJOURNED DE-
BATE.
the clal fixed for resuming the adjourned debate, to which
damendment had bsen moved that it be adjourned to
o next,
der, r• REYNOLDS objected to the postponement of the
*flip° June 16. The Hon. Member. for North War-
to cure had proposed the motion m a speech calculated
t msult the whole Catholic body—a speech of unadnl-
heorate,tl malignant bigotry, and he (Mr. Reynolds) bad
Baru that the discussion would have terminated on the
bee„eresning, as its termination would no doubt have
IL- favour of the Honourable Member's motion. The
Secretary had on that occasion made a speech
Po eh hone Mr. Reynolds) had characterised as a no-
crery
thrBcht but the Chancellor of the Exchequer
esvn the shield of his protection over his Right
to the ,-,olleague, declaring that he had meant no offence
doreu.e Catholics of the House, or of the United King-
as thou The Home Secretary, however, had spoken
prelatesgh the conduct of the Catholic people and
oso he.d been such as to break an implied compact
it; n-whic the grant of 1845 was founded. He (Mr.
nier°,lds) denied there was any such compact. He de-
d iito that there was ground shown for the inquiry
let ttcded, though the Roman Catholics did
1827 bhrink from that inquiry. In the. year
tar. ; commission of inquiry, at the head of which wasthe
tlst "'chianti Lewis, had conducted an inquiry into.
ern er ,
taken , eaucation at Maynoeth, and the evidence
lac that that commission and their report formed a
tarsgtejoititrie of 486 pages, which was in the library of
e 'louse, and known as the Eighth Report of the
that rteissioners of Education Inquiry. mentionedthe
Btlh' ° aIIOW there was no lack ot information on .
frotePehtt but he repeated the Catholics did not shrink
aga* Lt" inquiry, and his object in rising was to protest
ettalert the Catholics being obliged to leave tho
ao lone„,'es to which he had adverted uncontradicted for
.6th
oei
la period as the interval between, this and the
creed He desired that those calumeies against
ee and , country should not remain unanswered
and 11" "8 impossible to answer them.—(lronical cheers
teotin-hugh,ster.) Party feeling was at the bottom of the
teeti—• sseeause they had failed to raise a cry of pro
tin °II in this country—becuuse thy had failed in set-
Of F the people by the ears on a qu,acion of the supply
or t.cg, they had raised a no-Popery cry. On the 10th
phte'eebruarY a motion to withdraw the grant was
Paretllecn the paper of the House, but it had been
the /..stown to a motion for inquiry. That was why
pthetls.ei:aitieupee.ople believed it to he a motion for party pur-
The Hon. Member who brought forward
thetunsootion was the victim of a cab; why was he not m
he
if
Was
na"?—(Laughter.) He ought to be present
surer ufacieutly well, because he had a great deal to an-
el
esedf,or---to answer for opening wounds about to be
There and for propagating discord among Christia_ns:
els • was enough of this last year—there was the Bc
tooBlnartatici_al Titles Bill—(0h, oh !)—last year, and rather_
mush ef the matter the day previously. He (Mr.
Yeolde) the
supported the motion for continue
1,',1g the debate o "J,rby.dcr_; n next Wednesday, although it was the
qiseatt_ Yorene.cause he considered the settlement of the
.1100,0"1, 01 important than horse-racing. ho Secretary make a House on that day? If he did,
Would the
atteud.r• Reynolds) and his friends would undertake to
eeth 1. In Conclusion, he assured the House that the
they °dtto bishops of Ireland had no fear of inquiry, but
edaeatiehied the right to interfere with their system of
Peal of the the He (Mr. Reynolds) would vote for the re-
pormlit. ax
-ssaynooth grant, on condition that the ter-
but ea 01. the Irish Church should be abolished also
utro.t4ntil then ,
the sas7' J. O'CONNELL appealed to the mover of
raent. .I°l3 to Commitshe question in a fair way of settle•
have• kf. thee was even granted, it would.
844, he time for inquiry. If Wednesday next did not
if that 'loped that another day would he appointed, even
st d.
Poria "Y was Saturday. It was a matter of great im•
Seer hest that the debate should be closed. The Home
els, ?lII' bad explained, and the Chancellor of the Ex-
Tetlis"er had thrown his shield over him—Ajax before
at th',l'r---but they left the question, as they al days did,ll
gas ' Point from which it net out. He (Mr. O'Conne )
heli"us, as a man having the interest of Ireland at
that religious discussion should not be revived.
atuttne motion he objected, but not to inquiry; at the
paredpro-
goodY he thought that such an inquiry as that pro-
goo h a Parliamentary Committee, could effect no
Yse Red was calculated to do an immense deal of harm
introducing the odium theologicum into that inquiry.
Te O'GORMAN MAHON defended himself from
attacks of the Hon. Member for Dublin. If he
I's ad not been endowed with an exceedingly complacent
'etuperarnent—(A laugh)—that enabled him to endure
ke"ry outrage, he would have felt more than
human rt at the • way in which the Hon. Gentle-
bad turned on him. The Hon. Gentleman ltnew him (O'Gorman Mahon) well, and he was, conse-
quently, certain of impunity.—(Laughter.) Re felt,
ileswever, that it was indiepensable, before the session
terminated, some decision should be come to on the
question mooted by the Hon. Member for North War-
*ickshire, who, he could never forget, had been instru-
trientel in obtaining fur him and other Catholic gentle-
iznen their rights in that House.—(Hear.) The lion.
Gentleman, with perfect consistency, demanded that an
investigation should take plane into certain doctrines
which he supposed were taught at Map:moth College.
11e had been bred up at a Jesuits' College, and had n, ver
heard of the abominable doctrines spoken of by the. Hon.
Member. He was anxious, therefore, for a full investe-
gegen. Nay, the country had a right to demand that
an investigation should take place. for if the doctrines
referred to were taught at Maynnoth, then that college
WaB fitter for a seminary of the priesthood of Sodom and
Gomorrah than for the education of a priesthood to
teach that Catholic faith to which he belonged. If the
case were different, then lot the character of the college
be cleared up—if it were true, let it be removed. That
was the question which was to, be brought to an issue;
and, in order to have it brought to an issue, he would
support the motion for
Wednesday, or tho first day.
convenientoingon with the debate next
Mr. HERBERT would ask the Hon. Gentleman, as
an English gentleman, what good purposes could be at-
tained by keeping this question in abeyance? It was
impassible that the question could be fairly debated and
concluded this session; and whet, therefore, was to be
gained by protracting the present undecided position of
the question?
Mr. NEVVDEG ATE hoped that the House would
allow him to answer the question of the Hon. Member.
The position of the question was this, whether the House
would express an opinion on the necessity of inquiring
into the system of education at Maynoothlt A great
body of the public were anxious to know if the House
would, by a resolution, declare whether they considered
was a necessity or not for an inquiry. Re had
not the least wish to postpone the solution of that ques-
tion; and he was desirous of having a time fixed for re-
newing and concluding the discussion. But he and other
Hon,, Members who took an interest in the question were
nd t° sots, when the question came on for discussion,
that it should come on upon a day when there would
be a full Ileuse, not upon a day when there would be a
scanty attendance or the chance of a thin division. Act-
bg in the spirit of fair play to the Hon. Member whom
e represented and to all parties, he was bound to see
that the discussion took place in a full House. He had,
uo objection to' Wednesday next beyond the circum-
stance of it being a day not usually devoved to discus-
sion. It was that reason which bad ltd him to fix the
subj.-et for the 16th June. He was well assured parliament
Rio not seperate until that day
and he felt confident
. that there would be a full discussion and corresponding
dltisi°l3. Ele could assure the House that his only de-
m, waa W pee 041 the Iva d Liu*
___ wa ttNelYti se