Commons Sitting of 27 February 1843

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For the Northern Division of the County of Warwick, in the room of Sir John Eardley Wilmot, Governor of Van Diemen's Land.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Hon. James Pierce Maxwell for Cavan.
BILLS. Public.—1-½ House of Lords, Oaths; Applotment of Rates (Dublin); Pawnbrokers Trade (Ireland).
2½ Registration of Voters; Apprehension of Offenders; Punishment of Death; Justices of Peace (Ireland).
3½ Coal Venders Penalties.
Private.—2½ Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway; Forth Navigation; Hull and Selby Railway; Oxford Railway; Cromford and High Peak Railway; Norland Estate Improvement; Bethnall Green Improvement
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Brighton against using Dogs as Beasts of Burthen.—From the Unions of Kenmare and Gort, for Amending the Irish Poor-law.—From Marston, St. Lawrence, and Aberhafesp, for Church Extension.—From James Kilnes and Family, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws. —From Richard Malone Raymond, for the Repeal of the Theatrical Entertainments Act—From Leeds and Halifax, against the Repeal of the Mines and Collieries Act.— From Ilfracombe, for the Elective Franchise to all those assessed to the Income-tax.—From William Grant, against the Coal Venders Penalties Act—By Lord Clive and Sir W. W. Wynn, from Stamford, Llansilin, Aberhafesp, Llanarmon in Yale, Llansaintffraid, Glynnfeiriog, Llanferres, Llanychaw, Deanery sf Brackley, Llanbedr, Llauz-ynhafal, Llanfairchan, Gyffin, Aber, Deanery of Daventry, Eglwys Rhys, Deanery of Rothwell, Deanery of Preston, Deanery of Haddon (two Petitions), Llangybi, and Llanarmon, Abererch, Llanwyddlean and Llanllugan, Llangwstiniw, and Deanery of Archelewedd, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.

POOR LAWS.
Mr. Redhead Yorkeinquired whether the amended Poor-law Bill, which it was the intention of the Government to propose this year, was to be precisely the same as that of last year, with the exception, of course, of those alterations which had been recognized at the close of the Session?
Sir J. Grahamreplied, that the principle of the bill was identically the same. In some details there was a variation, especially with respect to the clauses relating to apprenticeship. Some clauses also would be added.
Lord J. Russellsaid, it would be very desirable to know what would be done in relation to the Poor-law for Ireland, and he wished to know if the Government intended to proceed with a bill, and, if so, whether the principle was to be maintained?
Lord Eliotsaid, that a bill was in a forward state of preparation.

PRIVILEGE—PRINTED PAPERS.
Mr. Speakeracquainted the House, that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House had a communication to make to the House:—
"Whereupon the Serjeant was called to the Bar, and informed the House, that he and William Bellamy, a Messenger of this House, had received writs of summons at the suit of Thomas Burton Howard, by his attorney Thomas Howard, in actions of trespass: as the nature of the trespass was not stated, he thought it right to enter an appearance. On Saturday last he was served with a declaration, which shews that the suit is in consequence of his having taken Thomas Burton Howard into custody; and that the suit against William Bellamy is for having taken Thomas Burton Howard to the prison of Newgate. As both these acts were done by order of this House, and under Mr. Speaker's warrant, he hoped they would have the protection of the House, and the directions of the House as to the course which they are to pursue."
And then he delivered in the said writs and declarations, which were read at the Table.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, he was not about to make any motion on the subject of the communication that had been just made. The more satisfactory course would be to have the papers just presented printed with the votes, and he gave notice that he should to-morrow submit a motion upon the subject to the consideration of the House.
Lord John Russellbelieved that some action had occurred during the recess, in regard to the Serjeant-at-Arms and his deputy, in which a sum of money had been paid to the plaintiff, by order of the Treasury. If that were so, although the proceeding might be quite right, he thought those papers also should be laid before the House.
Sir Robert Peelreplied, that whatever information the Government were in possession of should be laid before the House.
Papers to be printed.

TRADE WITH CEYLON.
Mr. Ewartasked the right hon. Baronet whether the attention of the Government had been attracted to the manner in which the export duties at Ceylon were collected, especially with respect to the duty on the article cinnamon?
Sir R. Peelsaid, the subject had been under the consideration of the Government, and he thought that the duty gene-
1340
rally on all articles of export, with the exception of a few, was 2½ per cent, ad valorem. Among the excepted articles were cinnamon and cinnamon oil. Representations had been made by persons in this country as to the advantages of reducing the export duty on cinnamon, and authority had been given by the Government here to the authorities in Ceylon to reduce the duty from 2s. to 1s. A corresponding reduction was also about to be made on the article of cinnamon oil from 1s. to 4½d.

PARAGUAY.
Mr. Ewartbegged to inquire whether the Government had received any intelligence concerning Mr. Gordon's treatment in Paraguay.
Sir Robert Peel: The Government had not yet received any official information from Mr. Gordon, whom they had sent out to Paraguay to prosecute certain inquiries in that country. A rumour, however, had reached England that the mission with which Mr. Gordon was entrusted had terminated unfavourably; and since this subject was mentioned in the House a few evenings ago, he had received a copy of a letter addressed to a most respectable house in Liverpool, by a gentleman named Bartley, the companion of Mr. Gordon, in which it was stated, that in consequence of some interference on the part of Mr. Gordon in the medical practice of the country, by an attempt to introduce vaccination, the government of Paraguay had taken the alarm, and ordered Mr. Gordon to quit the country. As this information came from a most respectable source, he could not but fear, that the rumour was correct. But, as he had already stated, the Government had as yet received no official information upon the subject, and, until such information were received, it would, of course, be quite impossible for him to state what course the Government would be likely to take.

KNUTSFORD GAOL.
On the Motion for reading the Order of the Day, for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. Tatton Egertonbegged to detain the House for a few moments while he referred to a statement made the other evening by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), with respect to the treatment of certain prisoners in the Knutsford House of Correction. When

1341
it was considered, that the statement so made by the hon. Member affected in no slight degree the character of the magistrates who visited that gaol, he was sure he would be pardoned for bringing the report again under the attention of the House, for the purpose of correcting the inaccuracies into which the hon. Member for Finsbury had fallen. The hon. Member stated the other evening, that a certain prisoner, named Samuel Lees, having been placed on the treadmill on the Wednesday afternoon, was taken out again the next morning, contrary to all custom, and placed upon the treadmill,—
"For the amusement of several ladies and gentlemen, who were anxious to see the sport."
And, further, that he was
"Sent to weave against his will, as he would be in the same building as thieves and vagabonds of the vilest description."
Now, the statement of the magistrates was, that Lees had only been twice upon the treadmill—that he had never been taken out on any particular occasion— that he had not been made to tread the wheel for more than half an hour at any particular time—and that his labour was confined to weaving. In the case of another prisoner, Robert Wilde, the hon. Member (Mr. T. Duncombe) read an account, in which it was stated that when Wilde went into the prison, the governor told him—
"Now, you have been sent here to be punished, and I will take care you are punished; for, let your treatment be ever so lenient whilst you are here, I would not give much for your constitution when you go out."
Now, the statement of the prisoner himself, as made to the visiting magistrates, was this:
"I remember the day when the governor of the gaol sent for the rules, and read them to us, telling us that they were very severe, and that if we did not obey them, we should be severely punished, having our bread stopped, and thereby endangering our constitutions."
This sort of discipline might, possibly, have the appearance of great severity; but it was to be remembered, that it was a discipline enforced by the rules of the gaol, which were adopted under the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and for which the
1342
visiting magistrates were not responsible. The prisoner Wilde stated further:—
"I never made any application to the governor for anything. The food is good, but the prisoners complain of the shortness of it."
It appeared, however, that two of the prisoners were always appointed to see the food weighed and examined, in order, that the prisoners might not be cheated by shortness of weight. It was, of course, necessary that discipline should be enforced in the gaol; but the magistrates were most anxious that all the officers of the prison should exercise forbearance, and act with humanity towards the prisoners. He had felt it his duty to make this short statement, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury on Thursday last.
Mr. T. Duncombedid not understand the statement, that had been made by the hon. Member for Cheshire. The hon. Gentleman stated, that the account he now gave of what took place in the gaol, came from the prisoner Wilde. The statement that he (Mr. Duncombe) gave the other evening also came from the prisoner Wilde, and he believed, that the statement so made by him was correct. With regard to any contradictions coming from prisoners of the statements made as to the improper management of the gaol, he thought such contradictions should be received with great caution inasmuch as those prisoners were, to a certain extent, under the control of the magistrate and the gaoler. James Allinson, the released prisoner, whose testimony he (Mr. Duncombe) had quoted the other evening, and who had been confined on the same side of the prison with Lees and Wilde was prepared to come forward and to confirm everything that he had stated, as to what had taken place in the House of Correction at Knutsford. It was singular that, although the statement which he made the other evening had appeared in the newspapers some time ago, the magistrates had never come forward with any contradiction of it until the circumstances were mentioned in Parliament. When he saw the newspaper account of the manner in which the prisoners were treated, he wrote to a gentleman in the neighbourhood to ascertain whether such an account could possibly be correct. That gentleman immediately sent over to Knutsford gaol, and had an interview with Wilde,

1343
whose condition and appearance he described as being most deplorable. He believed, that all the charges which Allinson had made could be fully substantiated.
Mr. T. Egertoncould only say that the magistrates courted the fullest investigation, and that he believed the Knutsford House of Correction to be one of the best conducted gaols in the country.
Sir J. Graham: The hon. Member for Finsbury stated, that Allinson was a perfectly credible witness. The statement of Allinson was certainly very much at variance with the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Cheshire. If it were true that Allinson was a credible witness, then he must say, that he thought the conversations which were alleged to have taken place between the gaoler and the prisoners, when they were first brought to the gaol, were very much to be regretted. It appeared to him, too, that there were other parts of Allinson's statement well worthy of investigation, and which called for a prompt and immediate inquiry. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would favour him with a copy of Allinson's statement, he would, undertake, on the part of the Government, that an inspector should proceed to Knutsford gaol to inquire into all the circumstances of the case. The report of that inspector would be made to the Home-office, and he would engage to lay it before the House.
Subject at an end.

COLLIERIES—TREATMENT OF APPRENTICES.
The question for reading the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply having been again put,
Lord Ashleybegged to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department to a subject of considerable importance. He had just received a letter from a very respectable gentleman, signed Thomas Barber, auditor of the Halifax Union, which was in these words:—
Halifax, Feb. 25.
"My Lord—Permit me most respectfully to direct your Lordships special attention to the last page of the Halifax Guardian of this day, where you will find a statement of facts relative to the cruel treatment a boy has undergone, or endured, at the hands of his inhuman master, a collier, residing at Black-
1344
ley, four miles from this place. It is not in the power of language to describe, or of imagination to conceive, the spectacle presented to my view when I examined his back on Wednesday last at the union workhouse. With a firm determination of transmitting an account to you, I wrote down his statement, but afterwards deemed it expedient to request the editor and publisher of the Guardian to report it in the paper; he yesterday accompanied me to the workhouse, and has given the substance of the boy's narrative. I have just returned from the magistrates office, where the master has appeared under a summons from the overseers for the purpose of freeing the lad from the parish indenture. The lad gave a clear and succinct statement of the treatment and sufferings he had endured for some weeks back, with an artlessness that carried an irresistible conviction of its truthfulness to the mind of every individual present. The master was not able to disprove or controvert one iota of the statement, though defended by a professional gentleman, and the justices discharged the lad from his apprenticeship, according to the 20th of Geo. 2nd, c.19.
"To Lord Ashley, London."
Along with that letter he had received a copy of the Halifax Guardian, and he thought he was justified in calling the attention of the House to the case, because he had last year proposed by his bill the total and immediate cancelling of apprenticeships for undergoing operations, and if that clause had not been reversed elsewhere, such a case as the present never could have happened. The Halifax Guardian thus reported the case:—
"It is this week our painful duty to record one of the most revolting cases of barbarous treatment that it ever fell to our lot to notice. The case affords another illustration of the cruelties practised upon children doomed to slave labour in a coal mine, and we beg distinctly to observe, that we have understated rather than overstated the treatment of the wretch whose name we shall shortly introduce.
"James Whiteley, a poor orphan boy, about seventeen years of age, was apprenticed to Joseph Whiteley, collier, residing at Blackley, near Elland, about seven years ago, as a hurrier. He was then only about nine years of age. From the first day of his apprenticeship to his cruel master he has been the subject of the most severe and harsh treatment. The labour to which he was put in his mere infancy was the veriest drudgery, and when his limbs failed to do their duty a huge strap, or not unfrequently a thick piece of wood, was most inhumanly applied to his person. Six o'clock in the morning was the usual hour at which this poor boy was sent into the pit, and at the same hour in the evening—but not unfrequently eight o'clock or nine o'clock—he was again submerged, his only subsistence being a

1345
muffin, or some other such eatable, and the water in the pit. The cruelties practised upon him have been greatly increased since his inhuman master was married (about two years since), the woman it appears having taken a dislike to the poor orphan lad. As a sample of the barbarities which this collier boy has had to undergo, let the punishment he has experienced during the last fortnight suffice.
"It appears that the severe flogging which Whiteley received caused him once or twice to run away from his master. A short time ago he was so beat with a hurrier's strap, and a heavy piece of wood (a piece of an old cradle) that he again resolved upon running away. He did so, but on Tuesday week he was brought before the Halifax magistrates by his master, charged with disobedience. Through the threats and menaces of the cruel tyrant who had treated him so barbarously, he was prevented stating the whole facts of the case to the bench. The lad had intended showing the various wounds inflicted upon his person: enough, however, was said to induce the magistrates to reprimand the master, and the boy was ordered to go back again, and the master warned not to ill treat him in future. This warning, however, was neglected. The same day he administered a most brutal castigation to his victim, which he repeated every day while the lad remained with him. Our readers may imagine that the harrowing details which are to follow are tinged with an air of fiction. They are facts. The poor lad when down in the pit was beat with a stick, and between each stroke the instrument was dipped in water. The lad's back became one mass of sores, and it was impossible for him to lie in bed. While subject to this inhuman treatment, he was allowed three meals per day of thin water-por-ridge only, and in consequence of his brutal treatment boils broke out in all parts of his body. Frequently was he sent into the pit without breakfast, and obliged to perform the whole of his drudgery. What made this the more painful was, the fact of his labouring under the effects of a severe wound inflicted upon his right knee some time since. On that occasion, while beating him with a hurrier's strap, the master took hold of the end opposite the buckle (which is generally a tolerably large one), thus causing a more severe punishment; in one of the strokes the buckle caught the poor lad on the right knee, and tore away a large piece of flesh. The lad, however, was still forced to work.
"On Thursday night week this monster master ducked the lad's head three or four times in a bowl of water, wetting his shirt all over, and then forced him into the cellar, where he was locked up all night, without bed, chair, table, or even a morsel of straw! The same treatment was about to be practised on Friday night, but he begged so pitifully for mercy that he was allowed to go to bed. On Saturday night, however, he was again forced into the cellar, where he remained all night. On Sun-
1346
day morning he was brought out; no breakfast was given him; but, as a further punishment, his master suspended a heavy bag of iron round his neck, and forced him to walk up and down the room, under the terror of another flogging. Some cold porridge (which had been left the previous day) was warmed up and offered him, but he could not eat. His master then left the house, saying he would look out for a good thick stick. The woman shortly after left the house for the purpose of fetching some water from a neighbouring well, and the lad, being thus for a few moments left alone, resolved upon trying once more to escape from a worse than African slavery. With great exertion he managed to unloose the bag of iron from his neck, and made his escape into Grimscar Wood. Thence he stealthily proceeded to the old Copperas Works, where he remained till nightfall. During his concealment in the old Coperas Works, he heard his master seeking him. The lad, when referring to this circumstance, shudders involuntarily, saying, I did tremble then.' Fortunately, however, he was not discovered. At night he proceeded to Elland, where a charitable woman took him into her house and gave him some coffee, and provided him with a bed. On the Monday he went to the constable's who took him to Mr. Joshua Dodgson, one of the overseers, who was so struck at the shocking spectacle which the lad presented that he resolved upon rescuing him from his inhuman master. He was brought before the magistrate on Tuesday by the constable, accompanied also by Mr. Dodgson. His back was exhibited and presented from the nape of the neck downwards one continued series of bruises, evidently effected by some solid but thin weapon. His right hand was also dreadfully swollen in attempting to parry off the blows. One part of his body presented rather the appearance of raw, diseased meat, than of human flesh and skin! It was at first intended to take out a warrant for assault, but on conferring with the magistrates it was thought better to take a summons for ill treatment, with a view to cancel the indentures and release the lad from the liability to such cruel treatment.
"The lad was subsequently removed to the workhouse, where he was put under propre medical treatment, and the most assiduous attention has since been paid to him both by Mr. and Mrs. Dyer. We understand that Joseph Whiteley, the lad's master, will be brought up before the magistrates this day."
Sir J. Grahamcould assure his noble Friend, that although this case was entirely unknown to him till his noble Friend commenced his address to the House, he most warmly sympathized with him in the feeling of disgust which such a statement must create in the breast of every Gentleman who heard it; at the same time, all would agree with him in hoping that there

1347
was some exaggeration in the facts as stated. He would most readily institute an inquiry into all the circumstances by sending down a person worthy of confidence into the district, and if the facts as alleged were substantiated, it would be his duty to direct that prosecutions should be commenced against the parties implicated. He was glad to take this opportunity of stating to the House, that notwithstanding anything which had occurred elsewhere with respect to the act of last Session, no one was more anxious than he was to give effect both to the letter and spirit of that act, and adhere most strictly to all its provisions.

COMMANDER—IN-CHIEF SITTING IN THE CABINET.
The question for reading the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply being again put,
Lord John Russellsaid, that as the House was about to proceed to the consideration of the army estimates, he wished to offer a remark with respect to the office of Commander-in-chief being now held by a Member of the Cabinet. Since the House had last had under its consideration the army estimates, the office of Commander-in-chief had been accepted by the Duke of Wellington. On military grounds no one could find any fault with such an appointment, because no man could compete with the Duke of Wellington in fitness for the office. But it was another question whether, after he had accepted the office of Commander in chief, the noble Duke should likewise hold an office in the Cabinet, and continue to fill a situation of considerable influence as the leader of those who were the advisers of her Majesty in the other House of Parliament. He believed it had very seldom been the case, that a Member of the Cabinet had been entrusted with the executive office of Commander in chief. It was true, that General Conway was for some time Commander in chief and a Member of the Cabinet but since his time, no instance of a similar kind had occurred. With respect to the Duke of York and the noble Lord, whose recent decease every Member of the House must unite with him in lamenting; although both of these persons had their political sentiments, yet the Duke of York, from his great impartiality and his love of the army, was above all political considerations; and Lord Hill, from his great zeal for the military service, and his general kindness to persons of all ranks, might be
1348
regarded as one equally uninfluenced by' party considerations. The Duke of York and Lord Hill were in that situation that, whatever their political opinions might be, their military character was their only distinction; so that those who agreed with them in those opinions, and those who differed from them might at any time have recourse to them without any difficulty, and with a perfect confidence in their impartiality with respect to any application that they might wish to prefer either to the favour or justice of the Commander-in-chief. The Duke of Wellington, with all his great qualities as a military man, which would peculiarly fit him for the office, had yet for some years taken a very decided part in the politics of the country, had been a very leading man in one of the great political parties, and of course could not be considered exempt from the political partialities and political dislikes to which a life much devoted to politics was likely to give birth. The Duke of Wellington, holding the high station that he did in the political councils of her Majesty, was now entrusted with the important executive duties which devolved upon the Commander-in-chief. When he stated, that a person in that situation was liable to be influenced by political considerations, he was only stating that which the Duke of Wellington had himself declared with respect to the same office. In his evidence before the commissioners, appointed to inquire into the practicability and expediency of consolidating the different departments connected with the civil administration of the army, the Duke of Wellington expressed an opinion which had the greatest weight, with his noble Friend, Lord Melbourne, who was at that time Prime Minister. At the end of his statement with respect to the various departments of the army, the Duke of Wellington made this declaration:—
"I have always been of opinion, that the Commander-in-chief ought not to be a Member of the Cabinet; my reason for thinking so is, that he ought not to be supposed to have any political influence or bias upon his mind, particularly upon the subject of the promotions in the army."
That was the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, as expressed in 1837, and it would be remembered, that in 1828, when the noble Duke became Prime Minister, it was represented to him by the whole of his colleagues, that he ought not to hold

1349
that high office in conjunction with the office of Commander-in-chief. The noble Duke, accordingly, at that time resigned the office of Commander-in-chief. Now, however, that the noble Duke had again taken the office of Commander-in-chief, and at the same time held a seat in the Cabinet, he owned he should like to have some explanation upon the subject. He wished to know whether the Duke of Wellington had changed his opinion upon the point, or whether the Government were now of opinion that the very great influence and authority and means of promotion in the hands of the Commander-in-chief should be added to the political influence of the Government.
Sir R. Peelapprehended that there was no constitutional rule against the tenure of a seat in the cabinet by the Commander-in-chief. There were instances in which the Commander-in-chief had formed part of the Cabinet, and of these, the case of Marshal Conway, to which the noble Lord had referred, was one. It was true that in recent times there had not been a Commander-in-chief in the Cabinet. Sir David Dundas and Lord Hill were not political characters, and it was not remarkable that they, considering their occupation, should not have had a seat in the Cabinet. In the case of the Duke of York, it was not probable that a prince of the blood, holding the relation that he did to the throne, should have a seat in the Cabinet. As far as constitutional analogy was concerned, he did not see any reason why the Commander-in-chief, in the same way as the Master-general of the Ordnance, should not be allowed to hold a seat in the Cabinet. The Duke of Wellington, whilst he was Master-general of the Ordnance, had always held a seat in the Cabinet. He presided over the whole of the concerns of that uepartment of the army, and no one thought that the tenure of that office was a reason why he should not hold a seat in the Cabinet. Take, again, the instance of the Admiralty. The authority which presided over the whole of the naval service, and superintended the whole of the promotions in the navy, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was not excluded from a seat in the Cabinet; nor were the lords of the Admiralty disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons. Lord Hill, to the great regret of the Government, had on account of
1350
growing infirmities signified a wish to retire. For some time he had retained his high office rather in accordance with the wish of the Government than his own desire, but at last he had been compelled to resign. It then became the duty of the Ministers to advise her Majesty as to who should fill the post. Under the circumstances, he (Sir Robert Peel) had not the slightest hesitation in recommending to her Majesty, that he who had so often led the armies of this country to victory, should now be placed at their head. Whatever even might be the general custom, he appealed to the House whether, in this particular case, the whole course of the conduct of the Duke of Wellington, when in command of the army, rendered it in the least probable that political motive would influence him? He (Sir Ro-beat Peel) had thought that the Duke of Wellington was most eminently qualified for the office of Commander-in-chief; but such also was his sense of the high qualifications of that noble Duke for civil as well as military services, that he (Sir R. Peel) should have thought it highly disadvantageous to the country if the military services of the Duke of Wellington had been secured at the expense of his resignation of a share in civil councils. It was quite true that formerly her Majesty's Ministers had entertained the opinion that the holding of the office of First Lord of the Treasury and of Commander-in-chief by the same individual was open to objection. The painful duties of both those offices were more than human strength could sustain. But it was entirely a different question whether the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Commander-in-chief could be united, and whether a Peer like the Duke of Wellington, not holding office, but having a seat in the Cabinet, should hold the command of the army and yet retain his seat. He (Sir R. Peel) did not know whether the Duke of Wellington retained his general opinion with regard to the union of the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Commander-in-chief, but he (Sir Robert Peel) claimed for himself the whole responsibility of the late proceeding. At the same time, the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet was conveyed to the Duke of Wellington that it was desirable for the public service that he should accept the command of the army, and at the same time retain his seat in the Cabinet. The whole responsibility

1351
for that advice fell upon him (Sir R. Peel); and he believed that the Duke of Wellington had taken that course which was in unison both with the public feelings and the public interests.
On the Question, that the Speaker do leave the Chair, Order of the Day read,

POSTPONEMENT OF THE SUPPLIES.
Mr. S. Crawfordmust entreat the attention of the Government to the propositions contained in the resolution of which he had given notice, and which it would now become his duty to submit to the House. At such a period as the present, when most severe and extensive distress prevailed throughout the country, it was, he thought, the duty of the House to endeavour to alleviate that distress by lightening the burden of taxation. This, he conceived, could not be effectually done, unless they took into consideration the whole public expenditure of the country, and the means by which it was to be defrayed; and in his opinion, before they assented to votes of the public money, they ought to know what amount of revenue could be drawn from the country without unnecessarily oppressing the people. It had been said, that the necessary expenditure of the country must be defrayed; but he thought that those who had the control of the revenue of the country ought, imitating the example of prudent individuals, first to look to their resources, and then to regulate their expenditure according to their means. He did not object particularly to the course pursued by the present Government, but he objected to the system which had been going on for a number of years, under all Governments, of voting the supplies before they were acquainted with the means to which it might be necessary to have recourse for making good the votes. He objected generally to the extravagant nature of the present civil and military establishments; and he thought this extravagance had arisen from no regard being had to the resources of the country at the time when those establishments were formed. The Government might think that his doctrine was tainted with the principles of Radical reform, which he was aware were not very popular in that House; but he would not hesitate to assert those principles, for he thought that no man ought to maintain opinions out of doors which he had not courage to support
1352
in that House. He found that 100,846 men were required for the army of this kingdom, 38,000 men being retained in Great Britain and Ireland. Now, he would put it to the Government whether it was necessary to keep up such a standing army? Were 38,000 men required to keep in order the people of the United Kingdom? He found that in Great Britain there was a force of 25,127 men; and, if the Government conceived that such an army was requisite in this country, he would ask what rendered it necessary? If they were compelled thus to coerce the people of Great Britain there must be something wrong in their institutions or in their legislation. He thought a great reduction might be effected in the number of troops at present maintained in Great Britain, and, if no reduction were made, he considered it a strong proof that the country was in a very discontented state. Nearly 13,000 troops, he found, were stationed in Ireland. He would ask if this was necessary, when they had in that country a constabulary force of 9,000 men, who were quite as efficient as a regular army? He begged also to call the attention of the House to the extravagant expenditure incurred for the staff, which amounted to 165,300 l. He wished to know what necessity existed for keeping up such an expensive staff, which in his opinion was almost useless? The expense of the staff at headquarters, in London, was 16,800 l The pay of the Duke of Wellington as Field Marshal was 16 l 8s 9d. per day, or 6,000 l. a year; and he must say it seemed to him wholly unnecessary that any officer should receive such pay. There were in the United Kingdom fourteen different stations of the staff, the number of which might, he thought be greatly reduced. The expenses of the Commander-in-Chief's office were 17,000 l a year; those of the Adjutant-general's, 12,000 l and of the Quarter-master-General's, 6,600 l. He considered this an enormous expenditure of the public money; and he thought the business might be effectively conducted at a much less cost. He found in the army estimates an item of 117,787 l for volunteer corps. He would put it to the House what services were rendered by these volunteer corps which entitled them to such an amount? Was there any record of their ever receiving the thanks of the House for their services, which must have been the case if those services had

1353
been important and valuable? He found in the non-effective service 198 generals, who cost the country 89,000 l; the amount paid to officers retired on full pay was 64,000 l, and the pensions allowed to soldiers amounted to 1,243,176 l The allowance to retired servants of the military department was 41,000 l In the Ordnance Department there were numerous heavy expenses, in which he thought great reductions might be effected. The effective force of the naval service for the last year cost 4,632,000 l; the non-effective 1,390,000 l; there being 184 admirals on the non-effective list. Then, in the civil department, he found that the salaries and other expenses of the Home-office cost the country 25,000 l, the expenses of the Exchequer were 18,000 l, and of the Privy Council and Board of Trade 32,000 l, according to the estimates for the last year. The allowances to retired and superannuated officers in the civil department amounted to 84,000 l. To one item which appeared in the estimates, that of 39,000 l. for secret service money, he strongly objected. He thought, after the statements he had made last year, that some means should be taken to alter the existing system, and to reduce the extravagant expenses of our establishments. He objected to the expense of the Lord-lieutenancy of Ireland, which amounted to between 50,000 l. and 60,000 l. What benefit was obtained by this expenditure? Was the office of any real use? For his own part, he considered that the maintenance of the office was of no advantage to the country. He thought, if the expenses of this country were thoroughly investigated, and if its resources were properly considered, such unnecessary expenditure would not be incurred; and he would repeat, that before the House was called upon to vote supplies, they ought to have the means of ascertaining in what way the revenue of the country was to be obtained. It was peculiarly necessary at the present time, when the country was in such a state of extreme distress, that they should not recklessly vote away the public money. With regard to superannuated allowances, he thought that public officers ought to receive a sufficient compensation for their services, and that when those services were no longer required, they should have no further claim upon the country. He was well aware that reductions could not be at once effected in these establishments, but
1354
he considered that more economical plans ought in future to be adopted. He asked the House to consider the sufferings of the people; they were bound to do so; and to think of methods of relieving, instead of aggravating, the burdens under which the country groaned. He wanted to know whether the Government had any intention of relieving the people from the burden of the Income-tax, or, if not, whether they had any of relieving the great body of the community from the pressure of indirect taxation? The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, as an amendment,—
"That at the present period of extended distress, it is the duty of the House to consider the means of lightening the pressure of taxation on the people, by reducing to the greatest practicable extent the expenses" of the military, as well as of the civil establishments of the country; that therefore it is expedient, that the voting of any supplies should be postponed till the estimates of the whole expenditure and the means to meet that expenditure be first furnished to the House."
Mr. W. Williamsremarked on the little attention paid by the House to the duty of voting the public money. 6,000,000 l. was about to be voted, and there were not sixty Members present. He must beg the attention of the Secretary at War to two or three particulars. The number of men proposed to be voted in the estimates was 129,481. In addition there were the Sappers and Miners, the Artillery, the Horse Artillery, the Marines on shore, and the Yeomanry Cavalry, making together a force active and effective for public service of 160,989 men. In addition still there were 20,000 policemen, 9,000 of whom were employed in Ireland, being equipped in all respects regularly like soldiers. He had lately travelled in Ireland, and when he saw that force in various parts of the country, he could not believe that a more effective force was to be found in any country. They were in all respects equal to soldiers, and from the corporal up to the Commander-in-Chief they had officers answering to every military grade, only under different names. "[No, no."] Most of the superior officers in the force had been, as he was informed, soldiers in the army. They cost more than 10,000 regular troops. Then there was the metropolitan police force of 4,390 men, all receiving public pay. The two together amounted to 13,390 men, all paid out of the taxes. This number must be added to the 160,989

1355
men, which made altogether a military force to all intents and purposes, of 174,000 men. Then there was the police force of the counties and towns, and the militia, which, however, he set down as an ineffective force, for they could be of no use, consisting, as they did, chiefly of men who had been serving in the militia for thirty years. Then there was the half-pay, on which there were 4,600 officers, and on the half-pay of the regular army, in all, 62,535 persons; on that of the Ordnance, 8,500; and, in all, there were on the half pay 84,530 men. Many of these might be considered part of the effective force; they were liable to be called into actual service, and during the late disturbances they were called out in some places, and found to be an effective force. Altogether, then, there were 258,900 men paid, and constituting with little trouble an effective force of that amount. Of the marines on half-pay there was no return, but he took them at 6,100, calculating in the same proportion for that force as for the army. Then the county and city police force amounted to 7,000, making 272,000 men paid by this country. Where could they find a country in Europe, excepting France perhaps, that had so large an effective force? Russia could show a greater force on paper, but he questioned whether she had such an effective force as this. It was monstrous, that the maintenance of such a force should be thrown on the people in their present distress. The Government could have no feeling for the condition in which the people were placed. Members of the Government had expressed sorrow and regret at the distressed state of the working classes, but he should like to see a practical proof of their sorrow by their relieving the people from the maintenance of these establishments. He said, that it was monstrous when they came to compare the expenditure with that of former Governments. In 1822, the force maintained was 71,000 men; in 1823, it was 92,117; in 1824, it was 96,677, and the average of those three years was, speaking in round numbers, 93,000 men for the whole force of the army at home, in the colonies, and in India; while in the present year it was proposed to make the number 129,481 men, though it was true there was a memorandum on the estimates which stated that it was intended to reduce the number to 123,741 men, which was
1356
nearly 30,000 men more than the average of the years 1822, 1823, and 1824. He should be glad to hear from the Secretary at War what were the circumstances which, in the midst of profound peace, when our Indian possessions had, perhaps, not been so tranquil for a great many years, and our relations with all countries were peaceable and promising, and much more so than for several years past, he should be glad to hear, he said, what circumstances rendered this monstrous force necessary? He knew, that in 1835 the whole number of men voted for the army (including India) was 100,991, making 18,535 men less than the vote for the present year. Then the difference in the cost of the army in 1835 and the present year, was 809,000 l, and he really thought, looking to the condition of the country, when the profits of manufacturers were almost entirely ceasing, when masses of workmen were unemployed, large numbers of those in work only half paid, and complaints were making by every class; except those who lived on the taxes, amongst whom he included the landowners, that this amount of force ought to be greatly reduced. From 1818 to the present time, the army was now larger than in any former year. Now, he came to the half-pay, the great pension list of the army. In 1818, just immediately after the accounts of the war were settled, the half-pay and pensions amounted to 2,682,000 l.; this year that item was 2,228,000 l., making a reduction, after twenty-five years of peace, of only 454,000 l. It was perfectly monstrous to maintain such a number of individuals in a state of idleness; he would venture to say, that the majority of them were much better able to work than many of those who were obliged from the produce of their work to pay them their pensions. He should feel it his duty, after the Speaker left the chair, to propose a reduction in the vote, and he hoped the hon. Secretary at War would then be able to tell him why it was that the estimate was set at so many more men than the average of 1822, 1823, and 1824, and why it was 13,800 more than in 1834?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped the hon. Gentlemen would not think him guilty of disrespect if he did not enter into the different matters of which they had treated. In committee, his right hon. Friend, the Secretary at War would be

1357
prepared to give every information they could require. On each separate vote, every gentleman would have an opportunity of stating his views, and obtaining any information he might ask. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, laboured under an error as to the amount of force which could be strictly called military in this country. All he should say at present was, that her Majesty's Government had done all in their power to keep down the estimates within the lowest possible dimensions.
Mr. Humesaid, that no man in the House would deny that it was their duty to effect the greatest, possible reductions in the estimates consistently with the public service; and the question now was, whether, previous to voting the supplies, the House should have information from the Ministers whether any new taxes were to be imposed, or whether any old ones were to be removed? Let it be remembered, that if the number of the army and navy had not been increased, the necessity for the Income-tax would not have arisen. The question was, did the House wish the Income-tax to be removed or not? If so, they must strike off part of the expenditure. During the five years of Lord Grey's administration, something had every year been taken off from the taxation. During the last five years, we had been getting into debt spending annually more than our income, and it was now high time to commence the work of reduction. He should regret if the House rejected a motion calculated to give so much satisfaction to the country, and for which he should certainly vote.
General Johnsonconsidered the motion an exceedingly reasonable one. Seeing that the wars in China and India had been brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and the troubles in Canada settled, it was but reasonable to expect that a considerable reduction should take place in the army list. It was desirable before moving the estimates, to see what the expenditure of the country was. The House had been engaged five nights in discussing the distress of the country, which was admitted on all hands, and nobody had adverted to what was the real cause of that distress-— namely, taxation. It was no use to shift the burden from agriculture to manufactures, and from manufactures again to agricultural produce; for without a large reduction of taxation no permanent relief
1358
could be afforded. If the motion went to a division, he should certainly vote for it.
Captain Polhillconsidered that the wars in which the country had been lately engaged, must necessarily have entailed a very considerable expense, and we could not attempt an immediate reduction in our establishments to any extent. The distress which existed in the country was mainly owing to the extent of our population, which from 1801 to 1841 had increased at the rate of 75 per cent, and at the same ratio would be doubled in the next nine years. The increase of machinery also had in a very great measure contributed to increase the distress by superseding human labour.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Ayes 62; Noes 15;—Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Jermyn, Earl

Arkwright, G.

Kemble, H.

Baird, W.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Knight, H. G.

Bateson, R.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Boldero, H. G.

Manners, Lord J.

Botfield, B.

Masterman, J.

Bunbury, T.

Meynell, Capt.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Morgan, O.

Clerk, Sir G.

Neeld, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Neville, It.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Egerton, W. T.

Norreys, Lord

Fitzroy, Capt.

Packe, C. W.

Flower, Sir J.

Peel, J.

Forbes, W.

Polhill, F.

Fox, S. L.

Rashleigh, W.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Round, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Somerset, Lord G.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Stewart, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Greene, T.

Tennent, Jas. E.

Grimsditch, T.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Hale, R. B.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hamilton, W. J.

Trotter, J.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Waddington, H. S.

Hardy, J.

Wood, Col.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Young, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Hope, hon. C.

TELLERS

Hope, G. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hughes, W. B.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Browne, hon. W.

Blake, M. J.

Busfeild, W.

Blake, Sir V.

Cobden, R.

Blewitt, R. J.

Fielden, J.

Brotherton, J.

Johnson, Gen.

1359

Marsland, H.

Williams, W.

Pechell, Capt.

TELLERS.

Thornely, T.

Hume, J.

Turner, E.

Crawford, W. S.

House in committee.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
.Sir H. Hardingerose to move the Army estimates. The estimate proposed for the present year ending on the 31st of March, 1844, was 6,225,1032 l., which showed a decrease as compared with the former year of 139,323 l. The number of officers, noncommissioned officers, and rank and file proposed to be maintained, exclusive of the troops employed in the East Indies, was 100,846 l. It was, however, intended to effect a reduction in the rank and file of the above numbers by suspending the recruiting in fifty-nine regiments at home and abroad, until their numbers were reduced to 740 rank and file each. The total reduction intended to be effected as compared with the numbers provided by the supplementary estimate of July, 1842, was 5,740 rank and file. To aid in effecting the reduction, three regiments, intended last year to have been raised from 800 to 1,200 rank and file each, would not be augmented. It was also intended to bear on the present estimates four regiments returning from India and China at 740, instead of 1,000 rank and file each, by allowing them to fall through casualties to 740 rank and file each. He believed the hon. Member for Montrose approved of the mode in which it was intended to effect this reduction, not by making any reduction of regiments, but by not filling up the casualties as they occurred. It was necessary in the estimates to put the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men at 100,846, because that was the number of the establishments of the regiments as they at present existed, and it was necessary to insert that number in the Mutiny Act, but the reduction would be effected during the year. A saving of 133,000 l would be the result of the diminution of 5,740 men. Her Majesty's Government had made this reduction in consequence of the satisfactory termination of the late events in Affghanistan and China, and, he might add, the improved state of affairs in British North America, as well in consequence of the settlement of the boundary question as of the internal quiet of Canada. In China there had been five Queen's regiments. Two would be withdrawn during the present year, and three
1360
would remain in the island of Hong Kong. From India two regiments would return to Europe during the present year. From Canada, three regiments would be withdrawn as soon as the season permitted, and would not be replaced. Since he had last laid the estimates before the House, two battalions of the guards, one regiment of cavalry, and another regiment of infantry had been withdrawn; making a reduction of 5,000 troops in Canada, exclusive of the reduction of 2,300 paid volunteers in Canada, the present expense of which was 105,000 l. When hon. Members asked why there had not been on the whole force a greater reduction, he must remind them that the force at home did not so much depend upon the necessities of the home service, as on the required relief of our troops abroad. He did not shut his eyes to the state of this country, and to the amount of distress in Manchester and elsewhere; he recollected that under like circumstances, three years ago, the noble Lord opposite had come forward and asked for 5,300 additional men, expressly on account of the disturbed state of England; at the same time he had always argued that the amount of the force at home must depend upon the necessity of the numbers employed abroad. About two-thirds of the force were employed abroad, and it required at least one-third to be at home to supply the necessary reliefs for those abroad. And here he would shortly allude to the state of our troops on foreign stations. If they took the state of India and China during the last four years, they would find that nine additional European regiments had been employed in those quarters beyond the ordinary peace establishments. In Canada, during the last five years, there had been ten additional battalions; that was to say, there were nine battalions in Canada in 1837, and there were nineteen battalions in 1843. So that in these two quarters alone there had been employed nineteen battalions beyond the ordinary peace establishments of the country. He would ask whether it were possible to adhere to the number of 103 battalions which was the peace establishment to perform all the duties of war, without disturbing the relief of other battalions in other colonies? It was the pressure of these nineteen battalions employed in these two quarters alone that had disturbed all the reliefs. The House would see, too, from these circumstances, that it was quite

1361
impossible to make a reduction in the number of troops and with the same rapidity as they received the news of their successes. Two regiments were coming home from China; but it was impossible to make the reduction till the troops should arrive in this country. So with respect to Canada, the troops could not be withdrawn till the season permitted. Under all circumstances, therefore, he contended that the present reduction of 5,740 men was as large as could reasonably be expected. It was very important for the well being of the troops, and for the discipline of the army, that they should be periodically relieved, and that they should not remain abroad for a very long period. He would instance three regiments coming home from India: one had been there twenty years and a half, another had been twenty years, and a third had been twenty one years and a few months in India. Was that a fair and reasonable proportion of time for service abroad? When he informed the House that Lord Liverpool's Government had laid down the principle that troops should serve ten years abroad and five years at home, that the same principle had been adopted by the Government of the Duke of Wellington, that it had been maintained by the Governments of Lords Grey and Melbourne, and had been assented to by his right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Treasury, he would ask whether such long service abroad as that which he had stated was proper? It was necessary for the maintenance of the discipline of the troops, and for their health, that their hopes of relief should not be disappointed. The arrival of the battalions on these shores would give future relief to the army at large, of which at present they were greatly in need. Of the twenty-three regiments in England, except one which was under orders to go abroad, there were none which had been more than three years at home. It must take some time to recruit the energy of British soldiers; and if they looked at those regiments which were three years at home, and from fifteen, eighteen, or twenty years if abroad, they must see that previously the required relief not being forthcoming, those energies could not be repaired. Without entering upon the question of the distresses of the people, or of the large establishments obliged to be kept up to coerce the people alluded to by the hon. Member for Coventry, it was necessary for the well-being of the army, and for the
1362
health of the men, that there should be an interval of repose from colonial service; and these considerations which had been concurred in by all Governments, had rendered it necessary to regulate the number at home by the larger number employed abroad. With regard to the West Indies, they had been enabled to effect the reliefs regularly, every battalion had been relieved in three years. This regulation had been pressed by the noble Lord opposite the late Secretary-at-War; it did the noble Lord great credit, and it had had the effect of conferring great, benefits on the service. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Stanley), whose absence, and particularly the cause, of it, he much regretted had been able also to withdraw one battalion from the West-Indies, which would not be replaced. During the last year there were two companies added to the 3rd West India regiment which enabled the Government to withdraw one European battalion from the West Indies, with regard to the Cape of Good Hope, another battalion was on its way to the Cape, and a cavalry regiment would be sent; these were required in consequence of the state of things at Port Natal, to which it was not necessary further to refer. In Australia there would be 1,000 more troops than last year. There were in that colony 17,000 or 18,000 convicts, men of desperate characters and of vicious propensities, and the lives and properties of the settlers were not safe unless they were protected by an additional force. The force had been necessarily increased from time to time. In 1820 the whole force, was only 550 men; in 1822 there were 600 or 700; and the number had gone on increasing till there were 5,000 men in Australia. But at the same time that there had been this progressive increase in this colony, the numbers of the regiment of the infantry of the line had been in a great degree stationary. He admitted that, since 1835, there had been an increase of 13,000 men. He had, however, shown how they were disposed of. The vote he proposed for the charge of the land service in the United Kingdom and in the colonies was 3,619,3257 l., being 133,592 less than last year. The vote he proposed for the staff at home and abroad (exclusive of India) was 165,301 l being a decrease on the year of 1,721 l. There had been a decrease in this vote for the staff abroad of 5,330 l. He admitted, however, that there had been an increase

1363
at home, and for the following reasons: — During the disturbances of the last year, it was necessary for the direction of the movement of the troops, and, in consequence of the large force which was collected in the manufacturing districts, that another lieutenant general and major general should be employed in that service; for, notwithstanding the ability and the efficiency of his gallant Friend in command of the northern district, it was impossible, from the general character of the disturbances, and the great extent of country over which they extended, that one man, with a small staff could regulate all the movements. It might, perhaps, be mentioned, that the force drawn together at the period of those disturbances was 10,000 troops, and from 6,000 to 7,000 Yeomanry Cavalry. In all duties and emergencies of this kind it was of great moment that every thing should be well conducted, and that there should be no delay in sending the orders direct to the point mentioned. He hoped that he had given sufficient reasons for this increase at home, The next vote was for the public departments, for which he proposed a sum of 88,075 l. being an increase of 5,608 l. This was a great increase, but it arose partly from the increase of the postage charge which he was afraid would show an increase every year, for the correspondence increased, and although the departments paid their postage, there was a great unwillingness on the part of their correspondents to pay the penny, and the letters coming to the offices were, therefore charged twopence. The consequence was, that there was an increase for postage of 3,000 l.; there was, likewise, an addition of 360 l. for clerks, and also an increase of 2,515 l. in the pay of the Commander-in-chief, because hon. Members must be aware that the Duke of Wellington, as a field marshal, received larger pay than a lieutenant-general when acting as Commander-in-chief The next vote was, 13,606 l. for the Royal Military Asylum and Hibernian School, being a decrease of 1,403 l. The next vote was for the Volunteer corps, Which, last year, was 82,458 l., and was raised this year to 117,787 l, being an increase of 35,329 l. This large increase arose from the pay and allowance to the troops called out for service during the late disturbances. 19,000 l. was required to defray the expenses incurred for their duty in aid of the civil power beyond the amount provided for that service in 1842-
1364
43. There were also 1,407 additional men, to whom it was necessary to pay three years in advance for clothing and equipments, amounting to 12,663 l but this expense would be diminished in future years. There was also an increase in this vote of 3,600 l., upon account for the expense of corps when assembled for exercise or for permanent duty, or in aid of the civil power, and expense of inspecting field officers. There was also this year a new head of unprovided services of former years, amounting to 1,373 l. He had transferred the army extraordinary to the ordinary estimates for future years, under the head of unprovided services: a practice which he had seen established with success in the Ordnance department. These eight votes closed the whole of the votes for the effective service, and amounted together to 4,005,469 l, being a diminution since last year of 94,836 l. He came now to the votes for the non-effective services. The rewards for military services amounted to 14,451 l., being a decrease on the year of 830 l. The vote for the army pay of general officers was 89,000 l., being a decrease of 9,000 l., owing he lamented to say, to the decease of general officers. There had been a decrease of 15,000 l. in the vote for the full pay of retired officers, the whole vote being 457,000 l.; and a decrease of 2,508 l. in the foreign half-pay, the vote for which this year was 55,925 l. The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams) had complained of the small decrease in the half-pay since the year 1818. He had not the amount for that year; but he would take for comparison the year 1821, because he believed it would be found that the half-pay was still heavier in that year than in 1818, a larger proportion of troops having been disbanded. The half-pay of retired officers, general officers, and foreign half-pay, had been diminished since 1821, owing to the death of 6,949 officers, by the sum of 647,416 l. The reduction under another head since he (Sir H. Hardinge) was Secretary at War in 1829, including the commutation of 20,000 pensions, had diminished the estimates 281,000 l.' Under two heads alone he found that the half-pay to officers and men, and military allowances, as compared with the year 1821, had been diminished by the sum of 928,416 l. He hoped that, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, this statement of diminution would be satisfactory. The vote for widow's pensions was 140,760 l., being a decrease on the year of 733 l. As that

1365
vote reached 148,000 l. some years ago, and was now only 140,760 l he trusted that it had reached its maximum, and that hon. Gentlemen would not now grudge the vote when they recollected that, by this provision, they aided the families of many poor but distinguished officers, such as Colonel Dennie, for whom he had to apply to the Treasury, and her Majesty showing the utmost anxiety to provide for his mother's and daughter's support. The proposed vote for compassionate allowances this year was 118,000 l., being a decrease of 2,500 l. upon the whole of the non-effective service. He could show that there had been a diminution in the dead weight of 1,000,000 l. With regard to another important item, for the in pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham hospitals, and the out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, the proposed vote was 1,239,498 l. for 73,500 pensioners, being a decrease on the year of 11,916 l. He had said before that there had been a diminution of 20,000 pensioners during the last thirteen years, and he believed that the diminution was going on at the rate of 1,200 or 1,300 men a-year. In the course of the year he had appointed a certain number of staff-officers to be attached to the large towns in Scotland, to superintend the pensioners there. He hoped to be able to adopt the same plan in other large towns for although no decision had yet been come to, the question was under the consideration of the Treasury whether the same plan should not be extended to Great Britain. In his opinion the system had proved completely successful in Scotland. At the time of the appointment there were 200 pensioners receiving parochial relief, and now there were not more than 19 or 20. This superintendence had improved the condition of the pensioners, by the substitution of weekly for quarterly payments. He had also established the same principle in six of the principal towns of England such as Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, Bristol, and Halifax. He believed it would answer very well, and that the good effect would fully compensate for the extra expense in the estimates. The last vote was for superannuation allowances of 41,000 l., being the same vote as last year. The total decrease of the non effective services was 44,487 l. The sum required for the nine last votes was 2,219,634 l. The sum required for the effective services, as he had stated, was 4,005,469 l making total charge for 1843-4
1366
of 6,225,103 l., and showing a diminution of 139,323 l. on the charge of the present votes compared with the charge in the year 1842-3. He would not detain the House by any further remarks, but would conclude by moving,—
"That the number of land forces not exceeding 100,846 men, exclusive of the men employed in the territorial possessions of the East India Company, commissioned and non-commissioned officers, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 1st day of April, 1843, to the 31st day of March, 1844,"
Mr. Humewas of opinion that the country was entitled to reduction beyond that which had been announced by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary at War. He thought, that the colonies, and the Canadian colonies especially, were entitled to complain that they were subjected to the burthen of too large a body of troops. Canada was now in a state of perfect quiet. She wanted no troops at all; the colonists were quite capable of defending their own territory; or, at all events, a body of 1,500 men would be amply sufficient for her defences. For her internal government the presence of troops was no longer necessary. The new system of policy which had been introduced by the present Government, had done much to re-establish peace and contentment, and the colonists themselves were most thankful for the change. He called upon the right hon. Baronet to withdraw the troops from that colony; and he begged to point out that if this were done, the duties on cotton and wool might be repealed, and thus two most important branches of trade might be relieved. With regard to the Cape of Good Hope, he believed, that no increase of our military force was necessary there. He believed, that the grossest acts of injustice had been committed there, and that if this were not so, 3,000 men would not have been found to quit their homes and fly to the wilderness rather than remain the slaves of unjust power. Why were fresh forces being now sent out? It was to undertake fresh operations against these unfortunate men— to hunt them down and destroy them. He believed, that the present position of this colony was owing to the course of management which had been hitherto pursued towards these persons; and that neither contentment nor peace would be restored until

1367
they were allowed to have a voice in the management of their own concerns. Our Australian colonies had now arrived at that point, he thought, when they should bear their own expenses. He admitted, that if we sent convicts to them, we were bound to send the means of their maintenance. If a smaller number of troops were kept in our colonies, the reliefs on the system proposed by the Government of keeping the troops ten years abroad, and five years at home, might be carried out with a considerable reduction of the army. In a general point of view also, he thought, that the time had come for a reduction of our military force. Our position in Europe, he felt, called for such a step. We gained no respect by maintaining such a large body of troops. Our power only led us into aggression, such as that of Affghanistan, and our aggressions made all the world rejoice at our defeats. He believed, he was sorry to say, that our disasters in that country had been heard of with pleasure throughout Europe. It was our interest then to assume a position of independence, and show that we feared no unexpected attack. Why not follow the example of France? What had she done in the last two years? Her force had been reduced from nearly 500,000 to 344,000 men. Let her Majesty's Government display its magnanimity; let there be an immediate reduction from 97,000, which was to be the standing force, to the old number 75,000 men. Considering the distressed condition of the country and the present state of peace, he thought a reduction might be made in the force of the army to the extent of 20,000 men. If the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would consent to reduce the military forces of the country to what they were in 1835, he would at once be enabled to get rid of the Income-tax. With a view Of entering his protest against the maintenance of the proposed force, he should move to reduce the number of men from 100,846 as proposed by the right hon. and gallant Member opposite, to 90,846 men.
Lord A. Lennoxcould not, as a soldier, allow this opportunity to pass without expressing his grateful thanks to the right hon. and gallant Member below him, for the great boon he had conferred upon the service by the warrant of the 19th of October 1842, regulating the passage al-
1368
lowance to officers in the army. He was also happy to find, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was prepared to carry out the intention of the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland (Lord Howick), as to the formation of libraries in the various barracks, and of making arrangements for manly exercises and games among soldiers, in order to fill up their vacant time when not engaged in duty or at drill. By these means, it could not be doubted that the morale of the army would be much improved. He could not avoid also calling the attention of the right hon. and gallant Officer to a subject which he had before pointed out as one of the greatest evils in the service— he alluded to the retiring pension of 6d. per day granted to discharged soldiers. It had been said, it was a great object to get a better class of men to enlist; but was it to be expected that good men would enlist, when all they had to look to for their support after the service of a quarter of a century, was the miserable pittance of 3s. 6d. per week? After such a period of service, often in unhealthy climates, they could not go back to the plough or to the loom, from which they originally came. He asked for some advance to these deserving men, and hoped the Government would not leave them to the tender mercies of the hon. Member for Montrose. Again, he wished also to point out another matter for the attentive consideration of the Government—he meant the subject of the pensions to the widows of officers of the army. The right hon. and gallant Member below him (Sir H. Hardinge), was well aware that under certain limitations every officer's widow was entitled to a certain pension. The widow of a major, for instance, was entitled to 70 l. a-year; but if that major had purchased unattached rank, paying double the actual value of the commission—namely, 1,300 l. for half-pay rank, and 1,300 l. more for full-pay rank, and if he happened to die before he was put on full-pay, his widow was prevented from obtaining any pension whatever. Many cases of great hardship had occurred in this respect, and he trusted the subject would meet with due attention from the Government. He could not help remarking upon that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Montrose, in which he made the extraordinary statement that all Europe had rejoiced at the recent dis-

1369
comfitures of the British army, especially in Afghanistan; and then, in the same breath, the hon. Member called upon the Government to reduce the strength of the army. This was an argument which would not hold good in the committee he had now the honour of addressing.
Captain Layard:I trust the kind indulgence of the House will be granted to one who having been twenty years in her Majesty's service, has made it his pleasure, as well as his business, to inquire in what manner the comfort and happiness might be best consulted of those to whom, in my mind, the country is so much indebted—I speak of the private soldier; and I trust the House will give me credit for sincerity while pleading their cause, however I may be found wanting in ability. When the right hon. Baronet the Secretary at War last Session of Parliament brought forward the army estimates, I then stated my belief that considerable advantage would arise to the good discipline of the service by allowing men of good conduct a free discharge at the expiration of ten years. I believe that by such being the case, desertion would be much less frequent, a better description of men would enter the service, and that many a man now, who is a worthless character from the utter hopelessness he has of getting a release from a service for which, for many reasons, he may find himself totally unfitted, would, from having such a prospect before him become a valuable and efficient soldier. And I can truly say I was greatly delighted by finding this opinion was coincided with by that of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary at War. I, therefore, have every reason to hope that this beneficial measure will be carried into effect. The next circumstance to which I wish to call the attention of the House is the benefit that would be derived by allowing the wives and children of soldiers when suffering from sickness, to be received into wards of the regimental hospital, set apart for that purpose or, if that could not be done, that a separate hospital might be built at each military station for their accommodation. The women and children of the private soldier, when taken ill, are obliged to be sent out of barracks for fear of infection to the men. When suffering from disease they naturally conceal it as long as possible, well knowing the misery they will have to endure, when depending on the pittance, which is all they can expect, from the pay
1370
of a private soldier; and I do think, that it is shocking to the feelings of humanity, that it is not unfrequently the case that these unfortunate women have to undergo the pains of childbirth in the room with five or six men. I believe that the men would be very glad to pay, as far as in their power, to meet any additional expense, and it is my firm conviction that the extra trouble which must arise to the surgeons would be cheerfully borne by them. I feel convinced that this would be the case; because all who know them can bear witness that no set of men in the world are more actuated by the feelings of humanity, kindness, and generosity, than the medical men in the British service. There is another circumstance that weighs very seriously upon the good conduct of the soldier, upon his first entering the British service, which is the smallness of the bounty. A cavalry soldier's bounty and equipment money comes to 6l 17 s. 6d.—his whole kit costs 8l. 3s. 7½d an infanty soldier's bounty comes to 3l 17 s. 6d. his kit to 4l. 9s. 10½d., leaving him in debt 12 s. 473x00BD;d. Now, the man upon enlistment is not aware that this money is to be laid out upon equipments; and on being, after his first joining, settled with by the officer of his troop, he is greatly disheartened at finding a debt against him, which, to a man in that situation, is considerable, instead of receiving a sum of money he had a right to expect; and it is my belief that many a man has deserted soon after his joining by thinking he has been deceived from this circumstance, and and therefore thinking it less harm to deceive others. I am happy to say, that desertion, like all other crime, is becoming less prevalent in the army. I believe that a system of rewards would still more lessen all crime. I can bear witness to the excellent effects of the distinctions for good conduct and extra pay, which measure was brought forward by the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. But every one who is interested in the welfare of the soldier must most deeply deplore that it should ever for a moment have been thought necessary to reduce the pension to the miserable pittance of 6d. a day. What! can this country, the richest in the world, afford for her gallant defenders no better reward? Are those who have carried her standard to victory in the most remote climes, have never flinched before the enemy, or, what is still more trying, have never hesitated to ex-

1371
pose themselves to the vicissitudes of climate, who have brought to a happy and prosperous conclusion the wars in Affghanistan and China, and by whose discipline and good conduct the late unhappy risings in the manufacturing districts were brought to so happy a termination—I call upon you, at a time when honours and distinctions are being given to those who commanded them on those occasions, and deservedly given, not to forget those on whom these successes have so mainly depended; and when it is remembered that the life of a soldier does not average above forty years, I feel persuaded, that the country will not think it too much to ask for a shilling a-day retirement for the few who escape so many viscissitudes. Since the last time the right hon. Baronet brought forward the army estimates, that army has suffered a very severe loss from the death of that excellent and brave man, Lord Hill; but while we drop a tear to the memory of the soldier's friend, there is no reason we should sorrow as men without hope. In having our present: Commander-in Chief, who can for a moment suppose that the nterest of the private soldier will not be attended to? Far from it; we have every reason to believe that he who has been their victorious leader through 100 fights, having proved their merits and deserts, will use that influence which he so largely possesses in seeing those merits properly rewarded. I now sincerely thank the House for the attention it has granted me, and shall feel that I shall be well rewarded for the attention I have paid to this subject, for the number of years I have been in the service, if anything that has fallen from so humble an individual should be the cause of the country rewarding more adequately the deserts of the private soldier.
Mr. W. Williamsobserved, that in 1822, which was like the present year in one respeet, namely, the prevalence of distress, but which was hot, as now, amongst the working and manufacturing classes; it was amongst the rich agriculturists; the Government were compelled to make a great reduction in the army. This was just at the time when the Currency Bill began to produce such direful effects, and the right hon. Baronet the present Secretary for the Home Department was most active in his exertions to cut down the expenditure of the country. In 1822 the army was 91,700, in 1823 it was 92,000.
1372
and in 1824 it was increased to 96,000. The average of these three years would give the number of the army at 93,000, exclusive of those in India. He could not conceive that there could be any sound reason for having upwards of 13,000 men more now in the army than was deemed necessary in those years. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that, with the three regiments he had alluded to, there could be a shorter period of relief, but this could not justify them making such an enormous addition to the army. He was satisfied that, if the landed interest was in a similar state of distress to what it was in 1822, there would be a ready expression of feeling in that House to reduce the army even to a greater extent than was proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, but as distress prevailed at present only amongst the manufacturers and working classes, there was no expression of sympathy on the subject. With respect to widow's pensions, he would only observe that he would be the last person in that House to refuse them in cases where the officer had served the country, but he complained that they were too often made a matter of patronage, and were often bestowed in cases in which no service had been rendered to the state, but were conferred merely from the aristocratic connection of the party.
Sir H. Hardingedenied, that the bestowal of pensions on the widows of officers had anything whatever to do with the aristocratic connection of the parties. The hon. Member was altogether mistaken as to the principle on which the pensions were granted, and the regulations were of such a nature, that pensions could not be granted unless proofs were given of the service of the officer whose widow applied for it. There were some hardships at present as regarded the pensions to officers' widows. For instance, there was a regulation under which a widow forfeited her pension if she re-married. He had known several instances of great hardship arise out of this regulation, and it was one that was not framed by the Government, but the adoption of it was forced on the War office by the recommendation of a Finance Committee of that House. He recollected, that soon after the war, some such regulation was found to exist, and was considered to be a great hardship on officers' widows. The matter was brought under the notice of Parliament by Lord Littleton in that House,

1373
and by Lord Lansdowne in the other; and the regulation appeared to be of such a harsh character, that it was rescinded. The Finance Committee of 1828, however, recommended that it should be again adopted, and this recommendation, of course, was equivalent to forcing the adoption of the rule on the War-office. By the regulations now in force, no officer's widow could get a pension, if her late husband had not served on full pay for ten years, nor could any officer's widow obtain a pension whose husband married her after he was sixty years of age. With respect to the observation of the hon. Member for Montrose, that the reliefs should be so regulated that regiments should serve ten years abroad and five years at home, and that this arrangement could be effected, if they kept a smaller number of troops in the colonies, the hon. Gentleman said, that the number of troops in our colonies was much too great, and that the force in Canada should be reduced to 2,000. He would not go into the question of Canada, as that was a point so involved in political considerations, that it would require separate discussion; but he must express his entire dissent from the sweeping observations of the hon. Gentleman, that the force kept up in all our colonies was too large. He would challenge the hon. Gentleman to point out a single colonial possession belonging to this country in which the number of troops was too great. A committee sat upon this subject a few years ago, in 1834 and 1835, of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member, and it most carefully and zealously investigated the whole question of military expenditure in our colonies, and also as to the amount of force which was kept up in each of them; and the result was, after two years' investigation, that they came to a resolution, that there could not, with safety to the colonial interests of this country, be any reduction of troops in any of them. In some of our colonies it was found that they had been left with fewer troops than was deemed necessary for their safety. The result of the committee of 1834 and 1835 was, that there was not a single regiment too many employed in the colonial service. His noble Friend, the Member for Chichester, had alluded to the small amount of pensions given to the veteran soldier, after twenty-four or twenty-five years' service. He could assure his noble
1374
Friend, that the matter had not escaped the consideration of the proper authorities, and although he could not make any further announcement at present, still he might observe, that the subject would not be lost sight of. With regard to what fell from the gallant Officer opposite (Captain Layard) on the subject of the free discharge of soldiers after a certain number of years' service, he would observe, that in 1829, he carefully considered the whole subject, with the view of seeing whether some means could not be devised for lightening the dead weight of the army. In consequence of this arrangement, a man could obtain his discharge after fourteen years' service, and on the payment of a certain sum, after a smaller number of years service. When this graduated scale for purchasing a soldier's discharge from the army, varying between seven and fourteen years, was first suggested, it was strongly objected to, but experience had proved the advantage of the regulation. The existence of this regulation had tended to remove much of that dissatisfaction which formerly prevailed in the minds of persons against their relations entering the army, and it was also found to work beneficially in diminishing the inducement to desertion. He found that the number of men, who had purchased their discharge from the service, under the regulation of 1829, was not less than 13,000, and the amount received for the purchase of their discharges was 252,000 l. But if the amount that was saved by the savings of pensions was also taken into account, the benefit that had accrued to the public under this regulation, would be found to be not less than 450,000 l. As far as he could judge from the data in his office, the regulation with respect to free discharge after fourteen years' service, had been found to be attended with the greatest advantage. He was not then prepared to say whether the period of service under this regulation might not be reduced from fourteen to ten years; but he would promise the gallant Officer that the subject should receive due consideration in the proper quarter. With respect to raising the bounty on enlisting, he would only say, that he was aware that it often happened that many of the soldiers were unhappy for several months after entering the service, in consequence of being in debt for their kits, and that this often induced men to desert

1375
from their regiments; this was a matter which deserved consideration. He trusted that the House would not sanction the amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose; and he must say, that he never recollected an instance where a case for reduction was so badly made out.
Colonel Peelmerely wished to make one observation with respect to the complaint that had been made as to the defective state of the muskets in the British army, and as to the assertion that the British soldiers were worse armed than any other European army. The matter had excited a great deal of attention at the Board of Ordnance, and steps had been taken by which the soldiers of the British army would be gradually armed with percussion muskets.
Sir A. L. Haycould confirm the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, as to the proceedings of the committee of 1834, and which came to the determination, after the most attentive examination of the matter, that no further reduction could be made in the force employed in the colonies, with any regard to the safety of those possessions. If the hon. Gentleman could prove that the force employed in the colonies was more than adequate for the public service, there would be some ground for the motion, but the hon. Gentleman had done nothing of the kind. The hon. Member said, that if there were only 2,000 soldiers kept in Canada, that it would be much easier to give them relief; but this was begging the question, for the hon. Gentleman must, in the first instance, show that the amount of force that he had stated was all that was necessary for the defence and preservation of that important colony. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the reduction which had been made in the French army, but he should recollect that the colonial possessions of France could not be put on a parallel with those belonging to this country. After the clear and able statement of his right hon. and gallant Friend, the Secretary at War, he felt it unnecessary to trouble the House at greater length, but certainly must say that no case had been made out to justify the adoption of the amendment.
Sir H. Douglassaid, that having lately returned from service in an important possession connected with this country, he felt called upon to say a few words before the committee came to a decision on the
1376
question. He could assure the House that the force stationed in the Ionian Islands had been reduced to such an extent as to make the duty most harassing to the troops; and it was found that such was the severity of the service, that the health of the soldiers was rapidly declining under it. He had felt it to be his duty to make repeated applications in the proper quarter for an increase of force; and although the justice of the application was uniformly admitted, yet he was always met with the observation that the exigencies of the service prevented any other arrangement than then existed. He felt a great deal of difficulty in bringing his mind to sanction the proposition of the Government for the reduction of the army, knowing as he did the various and arduous services that it was called upon to perform in all parts of the world; but he certainly should most strongly protest against the adoption of any such proposition as that of the hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. Hume, in reply said, that he should have no difficulty in showing clearly that the committee of 1834 had arrived at erroneous conclusions as to awarding the number of troops to the several colonies.
The committee divided on the question as proposed by Mr. Hume, that the number of land forces for the year be 90,846 men.—Ayes 20; Noes 106:—Majority 86.

List of the AYES.

Blake, M. J.

Marsland, H.

Blake, Sir V.

Roebuck, J. A.

Blewitt, R. J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Bowring, Dr.

Thornely, T.

Brotherton, J.

Turner, E.

Browne, hon. W.

Wawn, J. T.

Cobden, R.

Wood, B.

Crawford, W. S.

Yorke, H. R.

Duncan, Visct.

Duncan, G.

TELLERS.

Fielden, J.

Hume, J.

Johnson, Gen.

Williams, W.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Christopher, R. A.

Arkwright, G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Astell, W.

Clive, Visct.

Baird, W.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Colebroke, Sir T. E.

Boldero, H. G.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Botfield, B.

Damer, hon. Col.

Broadley, H.

Darby, G.

Bruce, Lord E.

Davies, D. A. S.

Busfield, W.

Denison, E. B.

Campbell, A.

Douglas, Sir H.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

1377

Duncombe, hon. A.

Mainwaring, T.

Ebrington, Visct.

Manners, Lord J.

Eliot, Lord

Marton, G.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Master, T. W. C.

Flower, Sir J.

Masterman, J.

Forbes, W.

Meynell, Capt.

Fox, C. R.

Morgan, O.

Fuller, A. E.

Neville, R.

Gaskell, J. M.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Gill, T.

Packe, C. W.

Gore, W. R. O.

Palmerston, Visct.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Granger, T. C.

Peel, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Grimston, Visct.

Polhill, F.

Hale, R. B.

Protheroe, E.

Halford,H.

Rashleigh, W.

Hamilton, W. J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Rice, E. R.

Hardy, J.

Ross, D. R.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Hawes, B.

Russell, C.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Herbert, hon. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hinde, J. H.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Hodgson, R.

Stanton, W. H.

Hope, hon. C.

Stewart, J.

Hornby, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hughes, W. B.

Tennent, J. E.

James, W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

James, Sir W. C.

Trotter, J.

Jermyn, Earl

Turnor, C.

Kemble, H.

Waddington, H. S.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. SirE

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Langston, J. H.

Wood, Col.

Layard, Capt.

Wood, Col. T.

Lennox, Lord A.

Young, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Lockhart, W.

TELLERS.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Mahon, Visct.

Baring, H.

The original proposition to vote 100,846 men agreed to.
On the vote of 117,787 l., for defraying the charge of the Volunteer Corps for the ensuing year,
Mr. Williamssaid, that he was so strongly opposed to this most unconstitutional force, that he would divide the committee against the grant.
The Committee divided:— Ayes 98; Noes 28: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Acton, Col.

Chelsea, Visct.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Chetwoode, Sir J.

Arkwright, G.

Christopher, R. A.

Astell, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baird, W.

Clive, Visct.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Botfield, B.

Damer, hon. Col.

Broadley, H.

Darby, G.

Bruce, Lord E.

Davies, D. A. S.

1378

Denison, E. B.

Mainwaring, T.

Dick, Q.

Manners, Lord J.

Douglas, Sir H.

Master, T. W. C.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Masterman, J.

Duncombe, hon. A,

Meynell, Capt.

Eliot, Lord

Morgan, O.

Escott, B.

Neville, R.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J. F.

Flower, Sir J.

Packe, C. W.

Fox, S. L.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fuller, A. E.

Peel, J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pringle, A.

Gore, W. R. O.

Protheroe, E.

Goulbourn, rt. hn. H.

Rice, E. R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Grimsditch, T.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Grimston, Visct.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hale, R. B.

Russell, C.

Halford, H.

Sanderson, R.

Hamilton, W, J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hardy, John

Smith, A.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Herbert, hon. S.

Stewart, J.

Hodgson, R.

Sutton, H. H. M.

Hope, hon. C

Tennent, J. E.

Hornby, J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hughes, W. B,

Trotter, J.

James, W.

Turnor, C.

Jermyn, Earl

Waddington, H. S.

Jones, Capt.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Kemble, H.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Wood, Col.

Knight, H. G.

Wood, Col. T.

Langston, J. H.

Young, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Lockhart, W.

TELLERS.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Mahon, Visct.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Blake, M. J.

Mangles, R. D.

Blake, Sir V.

Marsland, H.

Blewitt, R. J.

Morris, D.

Bowring, Dr.

Napier, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Browne, hon. W.

Roebuck, J. A.

Crawford, W. S.

Ross, D. R.

Duncan, Viscount

Stanton, W. H.

Duncan, G.

Thornely, T.

Ebrington, Visct

Wawn, J. T.

Fox, C. R.

Wood, B.

Gill, T.

Yorke, H. R.

Granger, T. C.

Hatton, Capt. V.

TELLERS.

Hawes, B.

Hume, J.

Hutt, W.

Williams, W.

Vote agreed to.
The remainder of the Army Estimates were agreed to.
The House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported,—Committee to sit again.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Registration of Voters Bill being read,
Sir James Grahamsaid, that as he believed there would be no objection to the second reading of the bill, he should propose that the bill be now read a second time, and that the discussion be taken on going into the committee.
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to proceeding with the bill so rapidly. He had not had time to read it, and he hoped the second reading would be postponed to a future day.
Sir James Grahamexplained, that the bill was very nearly the same as the bill he had introduced on the same subject last Session, with a view of calling the attention of the House to the subject early this Session. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not oppose the motion, and he would take care that the convenience of the House, and of the hon. and gallant Member should be consulted as to the time of going into committee.
Colonel Sibthorpwould not oppose the second reading, but wished to know when, the bill would be committed. He thought it should be postponed till after Easter.
Mr. Bickham Escottbegged to suggest to the right hon. Baronet, that he should insert a clause in the bill to enable the revising barristers to give costs to parties against whom frivolous objections might be brought.
Bill read a second time.

NEW RATES (DUBLIN).
Lord Eliot Lord Eliot moved for leave to bring in a
"Bill for the more equal applotment of certain rates in the county of the city of Dublin and county of Dublin respectively."
The noble Lord was understood to explain that the principal object of the bill was to substitute the valuation under the Poor-law for the present mode of rating.
Leave given.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven.