explanation by Sir J. Pakington , leave was given to
bring in the bill.

On the order of the day for going into committee on
the Militia Bill, Mr. COBDEN moved, as an amendment,
that a return of the effective force of the royal navy on
the 31st of March last be laid upon the table, and that
the consideration of the bill in committee be postponed
until after the production of such return. He contended
that our navy ought to be sufficient to protect the country
against an invasion. From the only source to which he
had access, he found that we had 500 vessels of war,
building, in ordinary, or afloat. He could not ascertain
the real amount of our naval force at home; but he
thought there was great waste in keeping large ships
of war upon distant stations, under the pretext of protection
of our commerce. If we were really in danger of an
invasion, why should nineteen vessels of war be kept in
the Mediterranean? But the danger was ideal. There
was no instance of a war between two great nations
without ample warning and time of preparation; and
it was improbable and inconsistent with the interests of
the ruler of France to suppose he would depart from the
recognised principles of international usage. Mr. Cobden
urged the difficulties of conveying over an invading
army, especially in the face of a steam fleet larger than
could be furnished by the whole continent together, as
well as the military facilities provided by our railroads.
He did not believe, he said, that any man of common
sense out of the house had more apprehension of invasion
now than two years ago; but if the country was really
afraid, let our ships be brought home before we were
made a military people.—The amendment was seconded
by Mr. ANDERSON, who dwelt at some length upon the
resources to be found in our mercantile steam navy.—
Captain BOLDERO said the amendment pretended one
thing and meant another. The information could be got
from the "Navy List;" the real object was delay. He
examined various suggestions auxiliary to the bill, and
assigned several reasons why the regular army should be
increased by 10,000 or 15,000 men.—Mr. BRIGHT
maintained that the object of the motion was not delay, but
to place before the house facts which would enable it to
decide upon the expediency of any further expenditure
upon our military establishments. The bill, he contended,
was hostile to the industry of the country, injurious to
freedom, and there was no interest which the country
cared for that would not be prejudiced by a militia, unless
it was proved to be absolutely necessary to the safety of
the country. If there was a new danger, where was it?
Had the people of France or their ruler shown any
symptom of a wish to pick a quarrel with us? The French
people approved of their present ruler because his policy
afforded a security for repose, which would not last an
instant if he declared war with, or attacked piratically,
this country, for which he could have no motive, while
the motive of self-preservation would suffice to hold his
hand. No case, therefore, had been made out for the
bill, which grew out of a panic, the worst possible ground
for legislation.—Mr. WHITESIDE, in replying to Mr.
Cobden and Mr. Bright, observed that no apprehension
was entertained of the French people, who might be
satisfied with their ruler; but it was, as declared by Mr.
Pitt in defending the militia bill of 1802, because the
French were essentially a military power, and that power
was centred in one man. He vindicated the policy of
this measure, which was, he said, essentially peaceful,
and intended solely for self-defence.—The debate was
adjourned.

On Tuesday, May the 4th, the adjourned debate was
resumed, and a great number of members joined in it.
Sir DE LACY EVANS maintained that our regular
military force had been underrated, and that of France
over-estimated. He argued that the French available
army did not amount to more than 100,000 fighting men,
without allowing for indispensable garrisons; he did not
believe that France could spare more than 30,000 men
for foreign service. He still thought the force proposed
to be raised an illusory one; but of the two bills he
preferred that of the late government.—Major
BERESFORD, in reply to Sir De Lacy Evans, showed from
official returns that he had exaggerated the amount of
regulars we could bring into the field to repel an invasion;
that the infantry and artillery numbered 34,143, or
deducting one-fifth for non-efficient, and adding 7750
pensioners, 34,280 rank and file; that 28,000 must be
deducted for garrisons and dock-yards, which would
leave available for field service only 6280, and adding
4284 cavalry and sappers and miners, 10,564 rank and
file only to meet an invading force. In the present
feeling of the house, an increase of the regular army
could not be maintained; whilst in point of expense,
15,000 regular troops would cost £600,000 the first year,
and £525,000 afterwards, whereas the estimate for the
whole cost of the militia was only £350,000 the first
year. There was every chance, he observed, that this
species of force would prove very available, and so far
from superseding the regular army, it would be, as it
had been, a nursery for it.—Lord PALMERSTON, having
been frequently alluded to in the course of the debate,
would say a few words. He thought an invasion was
possible, to use no stronger word, and that it was the
duty of the country to guard against such an event.
The country would judge between his opponents and
himself, but, if he were wrong, and his advice were
followed, the country was safe—while, if they were
wrong, and their advice were followed, the country was
in danger. They, knowing nothing of war, or the
means by which it was carried on, wished to lull the
country into a false security. Now, he had heard
that the late King of the French, subsequently to the
Tahiti dispute (at which time the present preachers of
peace were the loudest advocates for intervention),
stated that his generals had pledged themselves, if war
broke out, to be in London within a week. After
explaining away various misconstructions that had been
placed upon language he had previously used in reference
to this question, he said that he had the greatest
respect for sincere opinions, such as were at the bottom
of the opposition to this bill, and which, though they
had not been broadly stated in the debate, had been
set forth in a pamphlet which he quoted, and which
he described as proving that it was our duty as Christians
to allow this country to be conquered by France. He
excited the loudest cheering by citing a passage from
that pamphlet, in which the writer urged that though
the French might come, plunder London, sweep all
our institutions away, and drive the Queen into exile,
the "mills" would go on, men would stand behind
"counters," and "money would be made;" and,
finally, this glorious example of Christian humility and
forbearance on our part, would actually shame the
French into going away and sending back the money of
which they might have plundered us. He firmly
believed that this work was written in serious and
sober earnest, and that it emanated from a party from
whom much of the opposition to this bill proceeded.
The government had to deal with two alternatives, one
(as suggested by the party he had referred to) a voluntary
submission on the part of this country to its
conquest by France, as a just retribution for engaging
in war; or, if we were still wedded to the ancient
notions of self-vindication, to provide the means by
which invasion might be successfully resisted.—Colonel
THOMPSON suggested that the authors of "Punch"
had written the pamphlet quoted by Lord Palmerston,
but was quite certain that no considerable body in the
country concurred in such crude views.—Mr. DRUMMOND
said that the printer of the pamphlet in question was a
candidate to succeed Mr. Fox Maule in the representation
of Perth.—Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the amendment,
but protested against Lord Palmerston's statement
that this bill would make the country safe. He did not
believe that such would be the result of the measure,
but thought that any of the other means to which
government might have resorted for the defence of the
nation would have been preferable to this bill.
Contending that the measure would not provide a force
ready to repel even a small invasion, he disclaimed the
party motives with which he had been charged, and
utterly denied that his conduct would bear such an
interpretation. Upon a division, the amendment was
rejected by 285 against 76. A second division took
place upon the original question, that the Speaker leave
the chair, which was carried by 219 against 85.—Mr.
Bright, Mr. W. J. Fox, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Wakley,
Mr. Hume, and Mr. Cobden, still struggled for some