ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

a

the noble Lord explained the position of the case. "Previously to the year 1854, as your Lordships are aware, the Militia of this country could only be embodied upon the expectation of an insurrection, or upon the invasion of the country itself; but in that year Parliament passed a Bill to enable the country to have its Militia embodied in the event of war with a foreign country. Neither of those exigencies exists at present; but a state of things does prevail in our Eastern possessions which occasions as great a drain upon the resources of this country as if we were at this time carrying on a foreign war. It is necessary, therefore, to supply the vacuum which is created by the demand in India for forces from this country. In order to do that, the Government have determined in the first place to raise ten new battalions, to supply the place of those that have already left this country; and they have also determined to raise the battalions of the regiments at home from 840 rank and file to 1000, and to raise those in India from 1000 to 1200. All that, however, can be done without going beyond the powers of the present Mutiny Act, which provides that the charge for regiments going to India shall fall upon the revenue of the East India Company, and not upon the revenue of the Imperial Treasury. But it will take time, especially at this season of the year, to raise those additional men; and, therefore, during that period, while our country is to a certain extent being drained of its troops, while our garrison duties require to be performed, and while our position must be maintained in the face of foreign nations, it may be

necessary to call out and to embody certain regiments of Militia; from which it is no exaggeration to say that we may expect to derive the same good service that we should derive from a similar number of regiments of the Line. We shall not exercise the power which this Bill gives us unless it shall appear to the Government to be necessary to do so; but if it shall so appear, it will be exercised."

The Earl of Hardwicke said that the Government had a remarkable faculty for being too late in their announcements. When the disastrous news arrived from India, those who sat on the Opposition side of the House recommended that the Militia should be embodied and all the disposable troops sent to India; but the Government said it was a matter of small importance, and issued a circular, stating that the Militia would not be wanted. They had been compelled to act at last as they should have acted at first.

Earl Granville said that the advice of the Opposition-the immediate embodiment of the Militia -was bad advice to have adopted in the middle of the hay harvest and before the beginning of the corn harvest. It would have been difficult to execute the measure, and it would have been very unpopular. The Government had never said they would not embody the Militia, and no disadvantage had resulted from the delay.

He

The Earl of Derby said it must have been seen by every one besides the Government that the militia would be required. did not complain of the course now taken by the Government, only he thought that they should have recognised the necessity of adopting it somewhat earlier.

Lord Panmure said the views of the Government had undergone no change. The Bill did not refer to the present time, and did not interfere with any order in Council. The Bill merely enabled the Government to do that when Parliament was not sitting which they I could do if it were.

The Bill was then brought in, and was passed in the House of Lords without further discussion. On the motion for the third reading in the House of Commons, just before the rising of Parliament for the recess on the 21st of August, a discussion of some interest took place, embracing the topics of the national defences, the position of affairs in India, the various modes of sending reinforcements of troops to that country, and the measures to be taken for the suppression of the mutiny. Several members of the House, of high military rank and experience, volunteered their suggestions to the Government.

Sir Frederick Smith commended the proposed embodiment of the Militia, and remarked that the recruiting operations were going on with success. He suggested that 1000 Sappers and Miners should be sent to India, where they were in great demand.

Sir De Lacy Evans concurred in this suggestion. He expressed his astonishment that only 10,000 Militia would be called out, and that the number of seamen would only be increased by 2000. He suggested that small small steamers should be sent to India to operate in the rivers; and that our steam line-of-battle ships should be employed in conveying troops to India. He recommended that the Commander-in-chief in India should be empowered to confer the Victoria Cross on the field, and

that he should be enabled to fill up vacancies and grant promotion; that General Jacob should be recalled from Persia and restored to command in Scinde; that the Government should reconsider their decision on the subject of sending troops through Egypt; and that they should show its gratitude and satisfaction at the loyal conduct of Scindiah, Holkar, and other Native Princes. Government should make arrangements to finish the matter in a second campaign, and the troops ought to march with triumph through the disturbed districts next November.

The

Sir William Williams expressed a hope, that in future more attention would be paid to the fortification of our stations in India. He had been in all the Presidencies of that country, and he had seen, so to speak, the nakedness of the land-station after station without a single stronghold. The consequence was, that when we were attacked all went over like a pack of cards. He was perfectly sure that Her Majesty's Government would never at the commencement of this session have reduced so many of the regular' troops of Great Britain had it not been for the pressure from without. He was satisfied, therefore, that it was not their fault. He remembered how the noble Lord the member for London, and the right honourable Gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, vied with each other-bade, as it were, against each other-with regard to those reductions; and he was persuaded that had the Govern. ment attempted at that time to retain those troops, they would have been defeated. Let us hope that what had taken place would be a

warning to them-(" Hear, hear!" from the Opposition) and he trusted that honourable gentlemen opposite who said "Hear, hear," would assist them with their votes when these matters came under consideration in future.

A member on the Opposition side-"We have never done otherwise."

Sir Harry Verney contended that the Government alone were responsible for the cutting down of our establishments.

Sir John Ramsden, speaking with reference to the Militia, said that the Government held 10,000 to be sufficient. If more troops were required for India, we must draw more largely on the Militia.

Admiral Walcott suggested that Admiral Seymour should be ordered to send to India all the small steamers and gun-boats he had at Hong Kong.

Lord Palmerston, in the course of a general reply, pointed out the inexpediency, with reference to the vital point of domestic security, of sending away a large portion of our naval force so far as India, and repeated the objections he had previously urged to the conveying troops across Egypt. As to the employing of a flotilla on the Ganges, he reminded the House that the rivers of India were thickly studded with sand-banks and abounded with shallows. assured the House, however, that the suggestions made would receive the utmost attention of the Government, which was most anxiously directed to the sad events in India.

He

Mr. Disraeli said he wished to see a nearer relation established between the regular regiments of

He

the Line and the Militia, which would be of advantage to both. Adverting to the operations in India, he observed that much depended upon the fate of Cawnpore, the defence of which was, in his opinion, a more important point than the recapture of Delhi. wished to know what portion of his garrison the Governor of the Cape was prepared to contribute to the European force in India, there being, he believed, no danger of a Caffre war. In reply to Lord Palmerston, he considered what were the duties of Government in questions of retrenchment, with relation to the exigencies of the country. The Government, he said, ought to have been aware of the condition of our Indian empire, and prescient of what would happen there, and they could not relieve themselves of responsibility for sanctioning a policy of reduction, which was most unwise, and had been most injurious to the country.

Mr. V. Smith denied that the Government were in any way responsible for the events in India, and defended the measures taken by them for expediting reinforcements thither. They had, he said, sent positive instructions to Sir George Grey to forward two regiments from the Cape to India, and as many more troops as he could spare, and he (Mr. V. Smith) had not the slightest fear that Sir George would carry out the instructions with spirit and promptitude. There had been no lack of consideration as to the force necessary to put down the mutiny. After that was done, measures would be taken to reorganize the army in India, making a large addition of European force.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Henley protested against any reproach being cast upon the House for having obliged the Government to reduce unduly the establishments of the country.

Mr. Spooner regretted that no distinct and specific recognition

had been made, either by Lord Palmerston or Mr. Smith, of an entire dependence for success in India upon the blessing of Providence.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

CHAPTER VII.

LEGAL AND SOCIAL REFORMS.-THE TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL -Introduced and explained by the Lord Chancellor on the 18th of May in the House of Lords-Passed in that House, after undergoing some alterations-The Attorney-General moves the Second Reading in the House of Commons on the 26th of June-His Speech--Mr. Henley seconds the motion-Speeches of Mr. Collier, Mr. Rolt, Mr. Cairns, and other Members-An important Amendment is carried in Com. mittee against the Government-The Attorney-General intimates that the Bill may be withdrawn in consequence; but Lord Palmerston concedes the point, and the Bill is passed.-MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE BILL -It occasions a warm conflict in Parliament, and leads to protracted debates The Lord Chancellor moves the Second Reading of the Bill, and states the grounds on which it is introduced-Speeches of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Wensleydale, Lord Campbell, the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Redesdale, the Bishops of Salisbury, Oxford and London, and other Peers-The Second Reading is carried by 47 against 18-The Bill is fully discussed in Committee, and undergoes several alterations-Debates on the question of Re-marriage of Divorced persons, on the Action for Crim. Con., and other matters-The Third Reading is warmly opposed by the Bishop of Oxford, Earl Nelson, and Lord Redesdale-It is passed by 46 against 25-In the Commons the opposition is still more vigorous, and the debates are protracted to great length--Mr. Henley moves to defer the Second Reading for six months-The House rejects the motion by 217 to 139-The Attorney-General moves the Second Reading in an able Speech, taking a comprehensive survey of the law of Marriage and Divorce-He is opposed by Sir William Heathcote, Lord John Manners, Mr. Drummond, Mr. Wigram, Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Gladstone-Sir George Grey and Mr. Walpole vindicate the Bill -It is carried by a majority of 111-It is stoutly contested, clause by clause, in Committee-Amendments adverse to the Government are carried by Lord John Manners-Much debate on the question of the grounds of Divorce, the punishment of Adulterers, the Abolition of the Action of Crim. Con., the Re-marriage of Divorced persons, &c.Major Warburton moves an Amendment to relieve Clergymen having scruples of conscience from the obligation to re-marry such parties— Powerful argument of the Attorney-General against this propositionMr. Walpole and other Members press strongly for exempting th Clergy, and the Government reluctantly concede the point, but withg condition as to the use of the Parish Church-This condition is opphe by some Members with much energy, but is carried by 73 to 33— up

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »