associating them with other districts, such course to be
adopted in Ireland where the number of electors now
on the registry did not exceed 400.

On Monday, the 16th, the house having gone into
committee on the Local Militia Acts, Lord John
RUSSELL explained his proposed measure. The treaty
engagements of this country (he said) might involve
her in war; the chances of an invasion were greatly
increased by steam navigation; and the military
establishments of this country were kept very far below those
of other countries; nor was it intended to increase
them by more than 4000 men of the line and 1000 of
artillery, at the same time that everything was being
done at this moment to render the existing force
thoroughly efficient. The proposal was for a local
militia on the plan adopted in 1808 and improved in
1812, with some modifications; two-thirds of the officers
to be appointed by the lord-lieutenants, and one-third
by the crown; the age at which persons should be
liable to the ballot to be between twenty and twenty-
three years, which, at the rate of one in five, would give
about 80,000 men; with leave to volunteers to enlist
between twenty and thirty, their number to be deducted
from the number ballotted for; the time of service to be
four years, and one year less for volunteers, with a
power of extension in case of danger to the extent of a
twelvemonth; the periods of training to be twenty-
eight or fourteen days in the first, and fourteen in every
following year. The expense was estimated at £200,000
the first year, and at somewhat more in the following
years. After some further explanation of the details of
the bill, the noble lord concluded by saying, that
whether he retained the confidence of the house or not,
it was a satisfaction to him to have proposed this
measure for the defence of the country.—Various
members made remarks on the measure. The most important
were those of Lord PALMERSTON, whose speech
was an unconditional advocacy of the necessity for
providing some such additional measure of national defence
as the militia. "I trust (he said) our relations with all
those countries from whom, under any circumstances,
any danger might arise, are as friendly as they can be,
and that there is no subject at present likely to arise
which can expose this country to the danger of war.
But the noble lord at the head of her Majesty's government
knows, that so long ago as the year 1846, I took
the liberty of pressing on him my opinion, that, on
general principles, and with a view to the permanent
and lasting interests of the country, it was desirable
that some such measure of precaution should be taken
as that which is the object of the present proposal; and
that I have at various times renewed my instances, but
that there were difficulties which prevented their being
carried into effect. I am glad, sir, these difficulties
have disappeared, and that her Majesty's government
are now enabled to propose measures to provide more
adequately for the defence of the country. There are
honourable gentlemen who say they hope we may not be
again engaged in continental warfare, or mix ourselves up
unnecessarily with continental quarrels. Sir, I agree
with them entirely; but we, as the noble lord said, now
have engagements, and some of them of long standing,
which may involve us with other countries. We have
political interests beyond our shores. We have engagements
which it would not be safe to stand quietly by and
see destroyed." These general reasons Lord Palmerston
fortified at considerable length. He contended that it
is perfectly impossible to "defend all of our widely-
extended insular shore by fortifications; there was no
fortification like brave men, armed, organised,
disciplined, and ready to meet an enemy. It was mighty
well for persons in this country to talk of the hardships
of taking men from their farms and shops; but those
who have served abroad, and seen the effects of war,
think that a greater calamity could not befall this
country than the landing of a force of sufficient magnitude
to occupy any portion for even the shortest conceivable
period. He observed that the citizens of the
United States do not feel the service a hardship, though
there are a million of militia-men there. He corrected
a statement by Mr. Cobden, that the national guards
of France were disbanded—they had more recently been
partially organised. He observed that this country is
an exception from all European prudential usage in
dispensing with a militia. He stated reasons for preferring
the regular militia to the local, under which the men
would be drilled in squads instead of battalions, and,
county by county be led successively up against the
enemy. In conclusion, he referred to the questions
from Irish members about the omission of Ireland from
the bill. The reason for the omission he was at a loss to
conceive; for he would pledge his existence that there
was not a man in Ireland who would be called out, and
who had taken the oath of allegiance, who would not
lose his life rather than not defend his country against
invasion.—The chairman was instructed to ask for leave
to bring in a bill, which was granted; the report to be
brought up on Friday.

A bill for the Disfranchisement of St. Alban's was
brought in by Sir G. GREY. On the motion for leave to
do so, Sir D. L. EVANS declined to press his amendment
to include the borough of Harwich, intimating that he
would, on a future day, move a commission of inquiry
into the alleged corruption there. A long and a somewhat
warm discussion, however, arose on the motion, in which
Mr. J. Bell, Mr. Repton, and Mr. Bagshaw defended
the character of their respective boroughs. Mr. SPOONER
and Lord C. HAMILTON charged complicity with corrupt
practices at elections, in connexion with Mr. Coppock,
against members of the opposite (the ministerial) party,
and Mr. Roebuck intimated an intention of calling
Mr. Coppock to the bar, to examine him as to a statement
made by Mr. Spooner that that gentleman had
been rewarded for his services by government patronage;
a statement which Mr. Hayter repelled.—Mr. DISRAELI
read from the Sudbury report that a clerk of Mr.
Coppock's, engaged in the Dyce Sombre case in 1841, had
since been appointed to a clerkship in the Customs.

On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the house
resolved itself into committee on the bill for the Abolition
of Tests in the Scotch Universities, and after a short
discussion, in which Lord Melgund, Mr. F. Mackenzie,
Mr. F. Maule, Mr. Cowan, and Mr. Forbes took
part, the chairman was ordered to move for leave to
bring in a bill, which, the house having resumed, was
given.

Sir D. L. EVANS moved for leave to bring in a bill for
the Reduction of Duty on Carriages, to which the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected, and which
after a brief discussion was negatived by 59 to 24.—
Mr. HEADLAM moved a resolution for the Abolition of
Stamp Duties on Receipts, which was opposed by the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and which was also
negatived by 61 to 28.

On Wednesday the 18th, Mr. F. MACKENZIE, in
moving the second reading of the Public Houses
(Scotland) Bill, proposed that it be referred to a select
committee.—Mr. HUME did not think the bill would
produce the effect intended, to check drunkenness in
Scotland, which could only be done, as it had been done
in England, by providing rational amusements for the
people.—Lord DRUMLANRIG supported the bill with a
view to the information the committee would elicit.—
Mr. A. HASTIE contended that the habits of the people
were improving.—Mr. F. MAULE was of a different
opinion. With a population of not quite three millions,
there was a consumption of not less than 6,000,000
gallons of raw spirits. He attributed the evil to the
sale of spirits by grocers, instead of confining it to public
houses. He hoped the house would by reading the bill
a second time, commit itself to the principle that the
consumption of spirits in Scotland ought to be diminished.
—Mr. OSWALD did not think this could be effected by
legislative measures, and feared the granting of licenses
would lead to a great deal of jobbing.—Mr. M'GREGOR
was opposed to the bill because it was contrary to any
commercial maxim, and would not insure the end
intended.—Mr. BRUCE thought that in committee the
bill might be so altered as to produce a useful measure.
In Glasgow alone no less a sum than £1,200,000 a year
was expended upon ardent spirits.—Mr. COWAN was
favourable to the system of licenses.—Sir J. HOPE
hoped the Lord Advocate would take charge of the bill
in committee.—The LORD ADVOCATE was willing to
vote for the second reading, but could not support the
bill further in its present shape.—Mr. ELLIOTT objected