HC Deb 16 March 1835 vol 26 cc1031-46
Mr. Hume

said, that from the manner in which the Estimates passed through the House, it precluded the possibility of their being properly examined, or discussed. The Navy Estimates did not show the number of officers required in any particular branch of the marine service. He could not ascertain from them the number of Colonels, Lieutenant-colonels, and other officers employed. Now he thought it right that the House should know the number of officers in the marines, their allowances, with the number upon full-pay, and on half-pay, &c. He would exemplify what he objected to by reference to a Return which he had moved for last Session. By that Return, which was dated the 7th of June, 1834, he found that the number of officers in the naval service at that date was 5,300, of whom only 460 were on full pay, yet during the year it appeared that there was considerable promotion in the navy. Now he thought that the House ought to have the opportunity of knowing why there were so many promotions from day to day, while there were nearly 4,000 pensioners, very many of whom would willingly serve. From the present system the House was precluded from inquiring into this subject. The besetting sin of the navy was, that very many good men were set aside to make room for persons who had interest. In the army, too, there were as many officers as would officer four times the army which this country kept up, and the consequence was, that during seventeen years of peace, their number was very little reduced. He would therefore, propose, that all the estimates should be referred to a Committee up-stairs. In that manner every branch—army, navy, and ordnance—could be carefully examined. This was the plan pursued in the United States, which was the most economical of all Governments, as well as in Belgium and other countries. Would the right hon. Baronet object to the appointment of a Committee, with the view of ascertaining what reduction could be made in the amount of the estimates? He had understood the right hon. Baronet to object to such a proceeding on a former occasion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the hon. Member had misunderstood him. What he had said was, that he objected generally to the executive Government being relieved from responsibility by the Report of a Committee; and that such Committees ought not to be too frequent.

Mr. Hume

thought, that Parliament should take into consideration the propriety of changing the present system of taxation, which was framed by persons who were not elected by the people but were nominated Members of the House of Commons, and, of course, that system was of such a nature as was best adapted to promote the interests of those who sent them to Parliament. There was not a single word in the speech relative to the taking off taxes, which could only be done by reducing the expenditure. They had been told, that the amount of the public revenue, in which reductions could be made, was not more than fifteen millions; but he contended that the amount in which reductions could be made was upwards of twenty millions. He was satisfied that reductions to nearly one-half twenty millions could be effected without injury to the public service. There was not more than two millions of the Consolidated Fund, independently of the interest of the National Debt, that could not be touched by that House. The salaries of the Judges, as well as of all other public functionaries, could, and ought to, be reduced; and also large reductions should be made in every branch of the public service. With reference to the Navy Estimates, he had protested over and over again against the enormous sums expended on stores during the last sixteen years; and although great reductions had been made, still much greater might be effected. The right hon. Baronet, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, had, by his exertions, been enabled to lessen the expense of the War Department. He (Mr. Hume) gave him every credit for his endeavours to promote public economy; but still much more might be done without lessening the efficiency of the public service. He was of opinion, that every article should be furnished to the navy by contract, and very few articles laid up as stores. If the question were fully gone into, it would appear that nearly thirty millions had been expended in useless stores and ships since the last war. If the right hon. Baronet would consent to refer the matter to a Finance Committee, he would undertake to prove the truth of his assertion. He knew that he had been considered rather a bore, in consequence of his constantly pressing the importance of savings that might be made in the store department; but how much would the public have gained if his warnings had been attended to a few years ago. By judicious economy, the public establishments might be rendered more efficient, and, at the same time, they would press less heavily on the public than they did at present. He had been told by several able naval officers, that those establishments which had been partially reduced by the right hon. Member for Cumberland, so far from being injured, were rendered more efficient. On this account, he thought it was desirable that the whole matter should go to a Committee up-stairs, to see what further reductions could be made. He was surprised at the lukewarmness of hon. Members with respect to the details of the Estimates. They were not at all aware of the great advantages that would result to the public if strenuous attempts were made to lessen the public expenditure. Few hon. Members knew how many ships we had in ordinary, or the number that there were in active service. It was now proposed to grant 500,000l. for stores, and yet they did not know how this sum was to be expended, or what necessity there was for laying out this large sum. In many respects they were worse off than they were previous to 1792. Before that year no ship was repaired until an estimate of the probable expense was made by the proper officer, and laid before the heads of the department; it was then ordered, or not, according to circumstances. No such superintendence or control existed now, but ships were ordered to be repaired without proper regard to the probable expense. The noble Lord (Ashley) had truly stated on the subject of repairs, and he (Mr. Hume) was much gratified at hearing the observation, that it was often better to break up ships than enter upon expensive repairs, as they were seldom certain of the expense that would be incurred. This was also the opinion of many of those who were best-informed on naval affairs. Independently of the expense attending keeping too many men and ships, as well as the unnecessary charge for stores, enormous sums of money had constantly been thrown away on public works. He had opposed from the first the erection of the works at Sheerness. In the first instance, it was said only half a million would be required, and already three millions and a half had been expended, and it now appeared that they were almost useless. The late Sir Joseph Yorke, who at one period was a strenuous advocate of these works, said shortly before his death, that, if he had ever contemplated that steam-navigation would have been brought to such perfection, he should have opposed the erection of any works at Sheerness. He had always contended that this would be found to be the case, and his opinion was now being adopted by most of those who formerly were most opposed to his views on this subject. He protested against the wasteful expenditure that had taken place on the works at Weevil, and yet, notwithstanding they were found to be comparatively useless, they were not stopped. Upwards of half a million had been expended on a building constructed to make biscuits for the navy, and he was satisfied that it would be found that not only this sum might have been saved, but that biscuits of equal quality to those made might be purchased at as cheap or a cheaper rate by contract. He had been greatly surprised at hearing the manner described in which rum was served out to the sailors. In consequence of it, habits of intemperance were promoted amongst the seamen. This point, he hoped, would not escape the attention of his hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, who, in his zeal to estab- lish Temperance Societies, probably would endeavour to extend them to the navy. The expense for brewing beer for the navy, by the use of which the quantity of rum was to be diminished, had been enormous. If they had proceeded with common prudence they might have supplied the sailors with wine at as cheap a rate as they could furnish them with beer; but, in consequence of the injudicious course they had pursued, they promoted bad habits amongst the men. Again, the expense of the Admiralty Office was 108,000l.; now, he ventured to assert that, before long, 60,000l. a-year would be thought to be too large a sum for this establishment. He did not wish to reduce the expense of the scientific branch of it, which he thought to be necessary. He had repeatedly been charged with endeavouring to cut down the establishments to too low a scale; but he denied this, as he had never objected to even liberal grants for useful objects. He was convinced, that there was not a single item of the 2,800,000l. demanded for the effective service which was not capable of material reduction. The charge for half-pay was enormous, and no diminution was taking place, in consequence of the bad system adopted of promoting young men connected with the families of the aristocracy, and passing over the old officers. At present, there were hardly any half-pay officers of marines; and this was because every half-pay officer in that branch of the service had been called into active employment since the peace. Nobody would deny that the marines were quite as effective as any force; and the different system that existed with reference to the halt-pay was, that it was not a popular branch of the service among the great families. The navy, however, was different, and the greater part of the promotions that had taken place was in consequence of the parties being connected with the leading aristocratic families. This had not only been admitted, but a right hon. and gallant Admiral had more than once justified the principle in the Mouse. The half-pay was now 819,000l.; but he was sure, if it were properly dealt with, it might be reduced to 500,000l. Whenever a vacancy occurred, instead of promoting a young officer of great connexion, an officer should be taken from the half-pay; by this means, although there were 6,000 officers on the half-pay of the navy, the number would soon be greatly reduced. He was satisfied that the navy had been treated worse than any other service; and most meritorious officers had repeatedly been passed over without notice. As opportunities occurred, all officers who were efficient should have an opportunity of entering upon active service. He had repeatedly urged that the naval sinecure appointments should be got rid of; and he expressed his willingness that the amount of their income should he given to the lower grade of officers. He objected to going into Committee of Supply at present, but he wished the Estimates to be sent for examination to a Select Committee up stairs. The last Finance Committee, which was formed when the right hon. Baronet was in office, stated, that it was the duty of the Representatives of the people to take care to cut down the estimates to the lowest degree consistently with the efficiency of the public service. It also stated, that it was difficult for any Committee to determine what should be the number of men in the different services, or the actual amount of the establishments, as that must depend on the political situation of the country; but it was the duty of every Minister to show the necessity of large establishments. In this view he put it to the House, as they had been informed by the Minister that the establishments had been reduced to their minimum, whether it were not proper for the House to inquire, whether further reductions could not be made. The hon. Member concluded with moving, that the Navy estimates be referred to a Select Committee up stairs.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, he could not accede to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex. They had made some progress in the Navy Estimates. They came to the first vote without any dissent, and now, in the course of their progress, the hon. Gentleman, without having given the slightest notice of his intention, called on the House to agree to his present proposition. The Estimates were, by the sanction of the House, referred to a Committee of supply, and the hon. Member for Middlesex, without, as he must again remark, the slightest notice, while they were in the course of that reference in fulfilment of the orders of the House, proposed that they should be taken from the cognizance of the House, and referred to a Committee up-stairs. If the hon. Member were right in his opinion that the estimates ought to be so disposed of, why did he not give a distinct notice to open the whole question? Why did he not do this, instead of interrupting the progress of the estimates by a Motion made in this manner? He would concede to the hon. Gentleman, that there was no constitutional objection, under certain circumstances, to appointing what was called a Finance Committee to examine and report upon the estimates; at the same time, he could not consent to devolve on such a Committee what belonged to a responsible Government. The Government formed a determination, on a full consideration of all the circumstances, which a Committee could not possibly examine, because there were particulars which a Committee had not the opportunity of becoming acquainted with. For this reason, he could not consent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. Its effect would be to relieve, in the worst form, the executive Government, from its responsibility. It was for the executive Government, which was in possession of various information, derived from all quarters of the globe, from its agents diplomatic and executive, to decide what amount of force was required, and it might be that it had to form its judgment on facts which it would not be consistent with its duty to disclose. The Government was bound to ask for the confidence of the House in such matters; he did not mean personal confidence, but confidence of the nature implied by the situation which the Government held, and which he trusted the Government would receive as long as it fulfilled its duties. But for any Committee of the House to take that duty off his hands, and relieve the Government from its responsibility, was to transfer to the House of Commons the responsibility which properly belonged to the executive Government. He had stated that he admitted the power of the House to refer the estimates to a select Committee, but he advised the House not too lightly to adopt such a course—not too lightly to devolve on twenty-one Members of the House the responsibility of Ministers. He knew very well that the proposition was rather a pleasing one; hon. Members would see in it the prospect of saving themselves from the examination of those details which, according to the hon. Member for Middlesex, were very imperfectly under- stood, and feeling it to be a great relief to them thus to get rid of five or six nights' attendance, might be willing to acquiesce in the suggestion. But he must say, that, in his opinion, hon. Gentlemen never became masters of the details through the examinations or Reports of Select Committees. Then, if the course proposed were good for this year, why should it not be equally good for the next—why should they not constantly act on the precedent proposed? But what said the hon. Gentleman? Did he not express a wish that hon. Members would but read the Reports which Select Committees furnished, observing, that he was sure they would do so if they knew what a mass of valuable matter they contained? The Reports, then, were confessedly not read; yet the hon. Member's proposition was, that there should be furnished a further Report in addition to the voluminous evidence already before the House: and, what security had they that more attention would be henceforth paid, than had been hitherto paid to such documents? He would ask the hon. Gentleman one question; did he not think that if the estimates were allowed to proceed, and they were discussed as they passed, that more light would be thrown on the subject, that more information would be obtained respecting them, than if they adopted the course he recommended in his speech? [Mr. Hume: More information would not be obtained than was gained the last night that the estimates were before the House.] He did not know how the hon. Gentleman had occupied himself on the former night. The Government had performed the duty imposed on it of preparing the estimates and submitting them to the House, and if the hon. Gentleman thought that instead of their being proceeded with, they ought to be referred to a Committee, he should have given notice of his intention, for the question involved many important considerations, which ought not to be decided without notice. He had often before thought, and he retained the opinion, that when a Government was disposed to enforce economy, they could effect it to a greater extent than any Committee. He begged to refer, for example, to what had been done by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, who had made great reductions, and the present Government had proposed still further. He admitted the fact that such reductions having been made did not preclude the House from appointing a Committee, but if a Committee were appointed for the estimates this year, why not appoint Committees to perform the business of the Government on other occasions. The hon. Gentleman said, they wanted some further details respecting the marines, the provisions, and other matters, but why, if information was wanted, was it not called for? if it were, the Papers would be presented to the House. No one was more conversant than the hon. Gentleman with the mode of procuring them, and why did he not move for them at the commencement, when the estimates were first submitted to the House? Under these circumstances he must oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to refer the estimates to a Select Committee.

Mr. Hume:

The right hon. Gentleman asked why, when a Government was disposed to economy, should a Select Committee be appointed to interfere? But one of the grounds of the Motion was the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), who declared, in moving the estimates, that economy in that department had been brought to its minimum. Then the right hon. Gentleman inquired, why the Motion had not been brought forward at an earlier period? He would be candid in his reply. The fact was he never expected to see the present Government so long in office as for it to bring forward the Navy Estimates. Therefore, he did not consider it necessary to make such a motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

was quite aware of that. He had all along seen that the hon. Gentleman had been pursuing the prophetic course of one who expected to be Minister himself. But how was it, though the hon. Gentleman did expect to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he never thought of moving for the appointment of this Committee? Did he reason in this way—"I expect to be Chancellor of the Exchequer myself, and if I am, I may consider the appointment of a Committee inconvenient?'

Sir Samuel Whalley

said, the right hon. Gentleman had furnished the best argument in support of the present Motion. He said it was not necessary, if they had confidence in the Government. Now, he for one, did not think that the Government was disposed to carry out the principle of economy. There was another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought required very little examination for it to be seen that it ought to fall to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the House took on itself, or a Committee appointed by the House, to determine what should be the amount of his Majesty's forces, the power of Ministers would be transferred to the House of Commons. Now if this objection were good for anything, was it not a mere mockery to call on hon. Members of that House to vote a number of men? If they were not to be furnished with information as to the number of men required, it was a mockery to call on the House to come to any vote at all on the subject. Admitting that they were right in having agreed, as hon. Members on his side of the House did very reluctantly the other night, to grant 26,500 men to keep up the navy, they next came to the details; and should they not enquire whether the succeeding votes were necessary for the support of such a number of men. The right hon. Baronet affected to despise the labours of Select Committees, and said the House ought not to devolve on a Committee that which they ought to perform themselves; he also said that it was the duty of hon. Gentlemen to make themselves acquainted with the subject. This was impossible. A Committee of the whole House, though it had the privilege of calling evidence before it, seldom exercised it. He could not rely on the Government; and he thought a Select Committee advantageous in this way, it drove the Government on with its economy and enabled it to proceed in its measures of reduction with greater confidence. The right hon. Gentleman complained that no notice of the Motion had been given, and the House therefore was taken by surprise. He must confess that the House had always observed great reluctance to entertain a Motion of which notice had not been given; he trusted therefore that the estimates would be proceeded with as slowly as possible, and the hon. Gentleman would perhaps give notice of a Motion for a Committee, not only for the present year, but for every future year. He was quite sure the result would be the collection of such a mass of evidence as would show the error of that awful—he used the expression advisedly—of that awful declaration, that they had now arrived at the lowest point of expenditure. He begged to suggest to the hon. Member for Middlesex to withdraw his Motion. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, if the hon. Member for Middlesex persisted in his Motion, he would divide with him, but he much feared that many, on account of there not having been notice given, would vote on the other side.

Captain Berkeley

said, he had declared that he felt no confidence in the present Administration; but he had also said that he would give no factious vote, and he did think that if he supported the Motion, the object of which was to prevent the Speaker from leaving the Chair, he should be giving a vote that was factious.

Mr. George F. Youny

said, that while he was compelled to withhold his confidence from Ministers, still he was resolved to afford them in every respect fair play. It was not necessary for a notice of a Motion to be given in all cases, still he would say, he thought it to be most in convenient to depart from the usual course. He thought there were great constitutional objections to the giving up of the powers of the Administration to the Committees, but he was also of opinion that such Committees were perfectly justifiable under peculiar circumstances. If it were asked why a Committee was not appointed last year, the obvious answer was, that they were not placed in the same situation last year.

Sir Henry Parnell

supported the Motion. Having had considerable experience in such matters, he undertook to say, that it was impossible for the House generally, and especially for new Members to do justice to their constituents in sifting the multifarious details of the estimates in a Committee of the whole House, while it would greatly contribute to the satisfactory arrangement of the general business, and more particularly with reference to matters of expense, if the rule was laid down and the practice established of referring the estimates to a Committee up stairs. There was no instance of the Representative system of Government being of late years introduced where the principle had not been adopted of sending all details of money transactions to such tribunals before they were brought under the general consideration of the Legislature. This was the true and proper course to be pursued, and which had indeed been fol- lowed in former times by the English House of Commons. It was the only mode by which the public interests could be duly consulted. With respect to the estimates, he had hoped that they would have been given more in detail. In that respect they ought to imitate the example of neighbouring nations; and he could state positively that the last navy Estimate laid before the French Chamber consisted of three parts and no less than fifteen different chapters, occupying 140 pages, embracing every species of information as to all the different items of charge. He trusted that some step would be taken in order to remedy the inconvenience which was at present felt in relation to this matter.

Sir James Graham

could not think it consistent with his duty to remain silent on the present occasion. While, on the one hand, he could not but deprecate those preliminary discussions, which the hon. Member for Middlesex had introduced with so much detail, as being extremely inconvenient and inconsistent with due expedition in transacting the general business of the country; yet, on the other, he was as deeply convinced that discussions in Committee of the whole House, of the particular items in the estimates, was the most satisfactory mode which could possibly be adopted, because of the publicity which they thereby necessarily obtained. He was no longer a Member of the executive Government, and therefore, his opinion was quite disinterested; but if he wished the details passed slightly over—if he wished to conceal a job, to exclude the public from all knowledge of the mode in which the estimates were prepared, and the efficiency of the person by whom they were submitted, by far the most likely method of effecting those ends would be to have the estimates referred to a Select Committee upstairs. It was vain to dissemble that over the constitution of Committees of that House, the executive Government, supported by a majority, must practically exercise a commanding influence. And the public being excluded from its inquiries, if there was anything wrong in the details, or any deficiency or delinquency on the part of the responsible officer, whose duty it was to prepare them, the best check would be practically lost in transferring the estimates from the Committee of the whole House to a Committee up-stairs. The subjects which had been adverted to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, such as the substitution of beer for rum, &c., were not by any means fit subjects for the investigations of a Select Committee; and if questions of this nature could not be safely left to the discretion of the executive Government, all official power had better be assumed, at once, by managing Committees of the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell) had eulogized the extent to which explanatory details were carried in the French estimates; he did not, however, altogether agree with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that great length always insured perspicuity; and if there could be a clear, intelligible, and yet short estimate, it would, in his opinion, be greatly preferable. He very well recollected, that when he had introduced considerable change into the mode of framing the estimates, he was complimented by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dundee (Sir Henry Parnell), and what was infinitely more rare, he received on that occasion some passing expressions of slight satisfaction even from the hon. Member for Middlesex himself. The right hon. Baronet then referred to some of the details alluded to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, and stated that the line-of-battle ships at present were fewer now than in 1792, the favourite period of that hon. Member's reference. He hoped care would be taken to prevent Britain from being involved in a war, but when involved, it was necessary that there should be a sufficient force, ready at all times, duly to maintain the honour and independence of the country; and no view of stinted economy should be entertained, which might produce so great a disaster as must necessarily flow from an insufficient supply of ships, or an inadequate force of men for such an emergency. If the hon. Member for Middlesex succeeded in displacing the present Government, and installing himself on the Treasury Bench, in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, if a proposal were made for referring the navy estimates to a Committee up-stairs—in that case, he (Sir James Graham) having no confidence in such an Administration, and, certainly, he must be excused for saying, no confidence in such a Chancellor of the Exchequer, would, nevertheless, stoutly and consistently resist that Motion. He could not but take that opportunity of stating, that he felt the greatest satisfaction in finding that the great change which he had, under very heavy responsibility, introduced in this department of the public service, had received the approval of those in the present Ministry, who had the greatest official experience. By some of those Gentlemen that measure had been opposed; but it would be most unjust in him, if he did not state that, when first he accepted office, he received from Lord Melville, his predecessor for many years, the most minute and valuable information, both with respect to the defects which existed in the department, and the remedies which it was most advisable should be applied. He was bound also to say, that he had availed himself of that experience, and acted on that advice; and though party feeling then ran high, the measure having been opposed in another place, the noble individual in question, greatly to his honour, strenuously supported it. If there was any merit whatever in having effected the change, he was, therefore, bound to say, that Lord Melville was entitled to a fair share in it. On the other hand, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the county of Edinburgh, (Sir George Clerk), who had, undoubtedly, great experience in that particular department, opposed it, as likely to produce great confusion, by the abolition of the minor Boards; but he was glad to see that so far from being impracticable, it was found to work smoothly and easily, and was now admitted, on the whole, to be conducive to the public good. He did not state this invidiously, but it did so happen that, both with respect to the change itself, and the reductions he had effected, a noble Duke, in another place, made a remark which he was obliged to allude to on the present occasion. He had reduced, for one thing, the supply of timber and materials, for the Dock-yards, by the sum of 400,000l., and he well recollected the Duke of Wellington's opinion upon that reduction, which would be found in Hansard's Debates, for the latter part of the Session, 1832, (vol. 14, page 1366), and which he would take the liberty of reading to the House:—"Another item of reduction, was in the purchase of timber for the navy, which amounted to the very considerable sum of 400,000l. It was evident that the magazines of this country must be kept up, and all that was really done by this apparent saving, was to throw the burthen to this extent upon future years. With a view to secure an adequate supply, and to the proper seasoning of stores, and with a view to the probability that it might become necessary for his Majesty's service, to make some great exertion, it was impossible that less than double the amount of the estimate of this year would suffice. He thought, therefore, that the reductions were not only temporary, but effected at the sacrifice of an important part of his Majesty's service." It was, however, now a consolation to him to know, that within three months from the time of the Duke of Wellington and his colleagues coming into office, they had found not only that the sum proposed by him for the supply of the Dock-yards was sufficient—not only that those dock-yards would not require double the sum he had provided, but that on this very head of expense, and within three months of coming into office, they had thought it consistent with the public service, to recommend the reduction of a further sum of 60,000l. He did not state this invidiously; but the statement of the fact was due to the vindication not only of his own character, but of the Colleagues with whom he had had the honour of serving; since if the suspicions of the noble Duke had been well-founded, Lord Grey's Administration, and he (Sir J. Graham) in particular, would have merited the severest censure; whereas the fact was now established, that, in three years, they had saved a million of annual expenditure in the Naval Department alone; and had left the arsenals fully supplied, and every branch of the service as efficient, as when a more lavish expenditure had been sanctioned by the Administration of the noble Duke.

Dr. Bowring

said, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, had done less in the way of estimates than in that of accounts, and he hoped, the hon. Baronet would allow him to say spero meliora. It was impossible that these estimates would be properly dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. It appeared by these estimates, that 22,000 sailors cost 670,000l.; whereas, in the estimates of a neighbouring country, 27,000 sailors appeared to have cost only 455,000l., that was fifty per cent less. He did not say that there might not be reasons for the greater charge made in England, but they could only be investigated in a Select Committee. Again, for victualling the men—the charge here was 16l. 5s. 6d. per man, whilst in the French service it was only 11l., and in that of the Netherlands only 7l. The causes of this difference could only be detected in a Committee up-stairs. The same might be said of the cost of our central Administration, which was three per cent of our whole expenditure, whereas that of France was seven-eighths per cent, and was most excellent in all its details. Indeed, the Administration of the military department, in its present form was the best legacy Napoleon left to France, its expenditure not exceeding three-and-a-half per cent on the outlay. God forbid& that he should speak factiously, but he said, that in the present state of pressure upon the country, it was their duty to practise the greatest economy, and he trusted the right hon. Baronet would not reject such suggestions as might enable him to attain it, without a sacrifice of any great national interest.

The house divided, on the original Motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Ayes 146:—Noes 66; Majority 80.

List of the NOES.
Ainsworth, P. Lister E. C.
Attwood, T. Marsland, H.
Bellew, R. M. M'Cance, J.
Barnard, E. G. Murray J.
Brady, D. C. Musgrave, Sir R.
Brotherton, J. Oswald, R. A.
Bodkin, J. J. O'Brien, C.
Buller, C. O'Connell, M. J.
Butler, Colonel Parrott, J.
Brabazon, Sir W. Parker, J.
Baines, E. Perrin, L.
Bridgeman, H. Parnell, Sir H.
Bowring, Dr. Power, P.
Bulwer, H. L. Potter, R.
Blake, M. Ruthven, E. S.
Crawford, S. Ruthven, E.
Clay W. Rundle, J.
Crawley, S. Scale, J.H.
Chapman, M. L. Stuart, Lord J.
Chalmers, P. Spiers, A. G.
Dennistoun, A. Strickland, Sir G.
Dobbin, L. Tancred, H. W.
Elphinstone, H. Talbot, J. H.
Evans, G. Thornley, T.
Ewart, W. Tulk, C. A.
Fielden, J. Villiers, C. P.
Finn, W. F. Wakley, T.
Gillon, W. D. Wallace, R.
Grote, G. Walker, C. A.
Gully, J. Warburton, H.
Heathcote, J. Whalley, Sir S.
Hindley, C. Williams, Sir J.
Leader, J. T. Williams, W.
Duncombe, T. S. Mullins, F. W.
Hume, J. O'Conor, Don
O'Dwyer, C. A.

The House went into a Committee of Supply.

Forward to