SUPPLY—PRIZE MONEY—CANADA, ETC. (Hansard, 7 August 1843)

§ Sir G. Clerk
, in moving a vote of 821,020l. for the expenses of the expedition to China, stated that the sum proposed was to reimburse the East-India Company for their advances.

§ Mr. Blewitt
wished to be informed respecting a certain 1,000,000 of dollars included in the Chinese prize-money appropriations, of which he had formerly been promised an explanation, but of which the neglect to give any satisfactory account seemed to fully justify him in moving the chairman to report progress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had only evaded the explanation when originally asked for; and some information on the subject was due to the House.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observing that it was not very easy to understand the hon. Gentleman, said he had no wish to withhold information, and had already stated that the allowances had been by way of additional batta, six months to the men in one branch of the service, and three months to those in another, so that it was not an operation very easy to state the amount actually appropriated.

§ Mr. Blewitt
observed, that there was certainly no authority in the Crown to dispose of any prize money without the approbation of Parliament.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the hon. Member was wrong in his idea of constitutional law, for when the Crown compounded for the surrender of so many of its ancient financial prerogatives, that of disposing of prize money was expressly reserved by Parliament.

§ Mr. Hume
hoped the question would be distinctly discussed one day, for he thought the reservation of the prize-money prerogative was only made in consideration of the then existing practice of the Crown's defraying the expences of wars, and, as now those expences were paid by Parliament, the prize-money should be under Parliamentary control.

§ Sir G. Clerk
, in moving "25,300l. for the service in Canada, consequent upon the late insurrection," said, the force in that colony had been much reduceed; but a month's pay was required for the last year's establishment.

§ Mr. Hume
asked why this country should pay a farthing for military force in a colony which had been for some 353 time at peace. No one in the Canadian Assembly knew how the money went.

Lord Stanley
said, that in addition to the reductions in the troops which had already been made, the Government hoped to withdraw two battalions in the course of the present year.

Mr. Williams
said, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had given a distinct assurance that the whole amount of the works should not exceed 150,000l. The very next year there had been an increase of 53,000l. in the estimate over the sum stated. Mr. Telford's original estimate for the canal was 350,000l., but before he commenced the works he found it would cost 470,000l., or one-third more than his first estimate. Precisely the same thing he (Mr. Williams) was convinced, would be the case with the present estimate of Mr. Walker. The income of the canal had only been 2,700l. a-year, on an average of seven years. Government ought to abandon so worthless an undertaking. The estimate now amounted to 203,000l., being an increase of one-third on the estimate of last year.

§ Sir G. Clerk
contended, that the completion of the canal would be attended with great benefit to the people of Ireland as well as to those of Scotland. The whole of the engineering works were now undertaken by substantial contractors, some hundreds of pounds within the estimate given by Mr. Walker; and the Government had, therefore, redeemed the pledge they gave last year, that they would not expend a shilling on the undertaking till tenders had been obtained for the full extent of the works. If the 354 works were now abandoned a loss of 50,000l. would be incurred, and as they had so nearly approached completion he would put it to the House whether they would consent to the abandonment.

§ Mr. Hume
said, if it could be shown that this canal would be beneficial, he would not object to the vote. They had already expended 1,000,000l upon this undertaking, and they were now about to expend 200,000l. more; and when the canal was completed, would the traffic be so extensive as to produce funds which would maintain the works? He thought the undertaking was wholly valueless, as far as the commerce of this country was concerned, and he would recommend its immediate abandonment. He had last year suggested that any public company willing to take the canal under their management should be allowed to do so, and he had seen a letter from a gentleman in Edinburgh, in which it was stated, that a company had offered to take the canal out of the hands of the Government, and he wished to know why their proposal was not acceded to? [Sir G. Clerk; "The company was not formed."] That fact afforded an additional proof of the inutility of the undertaking. The canal would be utterly valueless, and it would cost 8,000l. or 10,000l. a-year to keep up the works. He considered that the best course would be to abandon the undertaking at once, and to sacrifice a sum of 40,000l. or 50,000l. rather than incur a loss to the public of an additional 150,000l.

List of the NOES.
Aldam, W.	Pechell, Capt.
Barnard, E. G.	Plumridge, Capt.
Blewitt, R. J.	Ross, D. R.
Brotherton, J.	Smith, B.
Collett, J.	Wawn, J. T.
Crawford, W. S.	Williams, W.
Duncan, G.	Wood, B.
Elphinstone, H.
Forster, M.	TELLERS.
Layard, Capt.	Hume. J.
Marsland, H.	Bowring, Dr.

List of the NOES.
Blewitt, R. J.	Pechell, Capt.
Bowring, Dr.	Plumridge, Capt.
Brotherton, J.	Scholefield, J.
Christie, W. D.	Wawn, J. T.
Collett, J.	Wood, B.
Elphinstone, H.	TELLERS
Forster, M.	Hume, J.
Layard, Capt.	Williams. W.