British subjects. Look at the Peninsula; not one-third of the men employed there were ever British soldiers. Yet I beg your Lordships to observe what services those soldiers performed. They fought great battles against the finest troops in the world; they went prepared to face everything ay, and to be successful against everything, or this country would not have borne with them. Not one-third of those armies were British troops; but they were brave troops, and not merely brave -for I believe every man is brave -but well-organized troops. Take the battle of Waterloo; look at the number of British troops at that battle. I can tell your Lordships, that in that battle there were sixteen battalions of Hanoverian militia, just formed, under the command of the late Hanoverian Ambassador here-Count Kielmansegge-who behaved most admirably; and there were many other foreign troops who nobly aided us in that battle, avowedly the battle of giants-whose operations helped to bring about the victory which was followed by the peace of Europe, that has now lasted for 32 or 34 years. I say that, however much I admire highly-disciplined troops, and most especially British disciplined troops, I tell you, you must not suppose that others cannot become so too; and no doubt, if you begin with the formation of corps under this Act of Parliament, they will in time become what their predecessors in the militia were; and if ever they do become what the former militia were, you may rely on it they will perform all the services they may be required to perform. I recommend you to adopt this measure, as the commencement of a com

pletion of the peace establishment. It will give you a constitutional force. It will not be at first, or for some time, everything we could desire, but by degrees it will become what you want-an efficient auxiliary force to the regular army." (Frequent cheers greeted the Duke in the progress and at the close of this speech.)

Earl Grey opposed the measure in a detailed speech. He did not believe that the force to be created by the Bill would be adequate to the defence of the country. The militia raised during the war had proved merely an increase of the regular army, had been found quite as expensive, and had pressed very severely on the working classes. If that was the case, there was no good reason why they should not wait until war began to raise such a force, and then embody them. They did not want, as in former days, to organize a force which, after the war had gone on a few years, might replace the regular army; but the danger they had to guard against was a sudden attack, and he asked their Lordships whether the new militia would enable them to do so.

He did not believe that the better class of labourers would volunteer on the terms proposed. He considered that the Bill, while it would be a failure in itself, would also interfere with the regular army. If the new force was constituted by voluntary enrolment, the supply would be drawn from the class of young men who supplied our recruits. He showed that this effect had been produced during the last war; and he expressed his conviction that the Bill would prove not only a failure in itself, but be most dangerous in its operation. On this point he alluded to the experience of France.

The present was a period of great tranquillity, arising from the general welfare, but such a happy state of things could not always be calculated on; and what would be the result when new troubles and excitements arose, of giving to the least trustworthy portion of the population a knowledge of military discipline? The Bill brought forward by the late Government was essentially different from the present measure, and the opposition now offered to it could not be regarded as involving any inconsistency. He considered it a most unfortunate circumstance that at the close of the war the local militia was abandoned. He lamented the deficient state of the police in many counties, and expressed his opinion that the discipline of that force ought to have been raised by grants from the public revenue. He believed that volunteer rifle corps also might have been made a far more useful arm of defence than that now contemplated in the event of any sudden emergency. The better classes would not subject themselves to the risk of service for five years as common soldiers if war broke out. He would not have supported the measure of the late Government had he believed the ballot would ever come practically into operation. The noble Earl concluded by some general observations on the defences of the country.

The Earl of Ellesmere drew the attention of the House, in the first place, to the necessity of such a measure, which he contended was generally concurred in. It was his opinion, that without reference to the political state of any other country, but on general grounds of prudence and national policy, this country ought to be prepared

against all emergencies. He could not say that either of the two Bills for raising a militia that had been brought forward would supply an efficient field force, but for many purposes the force so created would be very useful, and therefore he would support the Bill. The noble Earl proceeded to give some personal explanations relative to the language used by him as to the means of resisting an invasion. For a long time his opinions on the subject had afforded amusement to gentlemen at Peace Society meetings; but now a large majority of the people and both Houses of Parliament displayed a general concurrence in the necessity for such a measure. He thought it would be unfortunate if this conversion and change of opinion should be ascribed to passing events, or to the character of persons in high places. For himself, having held these opinions four years ago, it was unnecessary to say that his views had not been affected by persons, things, or events in France. There were, however, in France as well as in England, many roads to a spurious and temporary popularity. He saw no reason, grounded upon any personal characteristic of Louis Napoleon, that he would use his power in a direction hostile to this country, unless he found that the honour and interests of the country he ruled were concerned in such a movement. He had, perhaps, put the case too strongly, and somewhat irreverently, when he said that, if a superior French force were to appear before the metropolis, the Lord Mayor would meet them with the keys of the city at one gate while the Foot Guards marched out at the other. He did not suppose that the French would take possession of Regent Street, or

march their troops into the city, so long as it had not capitulated, and the inhabitants determined to defend it. Wherever such a course had been adopted the invaders had suffered loss. At Buenos Ayres a body of regular troops had been driven out from the city by men who were little better than savages. This was not the modern practice of war, and all that was necessary to justify his argument was to assume that the English army were unable to meet the invaders in the open field. When Napoleon appeared before Vienna with 100,000 men, in 1805, he did not march his army into the capital at once: a large Austrian army was then in Vienna, and the course which Napoleon adopted was to take up a station where his artillery commanded the town; the Austrians knew the city would be bombarded unless it capitulated, and the Royal Family, within twelve hours, left the city, the Austrian army retired beyond the Danube, and the municipal authorities came out to Napoleon with the keys: every one felt that the French could not be left to bombard the town. But the strongest case was that of Milan in the late war: Charles Albert was under the strongest obligations to

the Milanese, and he chivalrously retired before the Austrian army, to defend the capital: he had 20,000 of his best troops there, but when the Austrians came up with a park of artillery, and he felt himself unable to meet them outside the walls, Charles Albert marched out at one gate while the Mayor went out at the other with the keys of the city. The best troops and the best army in the world would be, under the same circumstances, reduced to the same necessity. His allusion to the Foot Guards was not intended to impeach the bravery of that distinguished portion of the army, for he remembered too well their many services in the field: he had only used the illustration to express the impossibility of defending a wealthy, populous, and unfortified capital, from within, when an enemy in superior force were at its gates. With these views, he must give his warmest support to any Government which took measures to provide for the safety and defence of the country. (Cheers.)

brilliant

After a few words from Earl Waldegrave, the Bill was read a second time. It passed through the other stages without difficulty, and soon afterwards became law.

THE subject of Representative

in Parliament on several occasions, and in various shapes, during this session. The first and most direct proposition was submitted to the House of Commons by the veteran Reformer, Mr. Hume, who, on the 25th of March, brought forward a motion in the following terms: That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the national representation, by extending the elective franchise in England and Wales, so that every man of full age, and not subject to any mental or legal disability, who shall have been the resident occupier of a house, or of part of a house as a lodger, for twelve months, and shall have been duly rated to the poor of that parish, for that time, shall be registered as an elector, and be entitled to vote for a representative in Parliament: also, by enacting that votes shall be taken by ballot, that the duration of Parliaments shall not exceed three years, and that the proportion of representatives be made more consistent with the amount of population and property."

In the outset of his speech, Mr. Hume touched on Lord Derby's recent declaration on coming into office, that his Government would oppose some barrier against the current of democratic influence that is continually encroaching, which would throw power nominally into the hands of the masses,

practically into the hands of the

Hume took this epithet of "demagogue" to himself; and observing, that he found from Johnson that the word demagogue means "a ringleader of the rabble," he "threw back the imputation, not with contempt, but as wholly unworthy of Lord Derby:" for Mr. Hume, though oftener at the head of large bodies of his coun trymen than any man in this country, had never led a rabble; he had been a peacemaker; and he would still strive to pacify men who met in large numbers under a sense of injustice to demand their rights. From this personal point he went into an argument that the suffrage is a right and not a privilege. This he much insisted on; quoting Blackstone, and referring to Sir Thomas Smith, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, in support. Then, from the ground of abstract right, he passed to that of political expediency; and this he fortified by quoting Lord Chatham's opinion-that the restoration of a genuine House of Commons was the only remedy against the system of corruption; and the opinions given in Parliament in 1792 by Mr. Lambton, father of Lord Durham, and the then Duke of Richmond-men certainly not demagogues"-that making the House of Commons a real representation of the people, freely chosen and independent of

66