ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 2 April 1845)

§ Mr. Hume
would not oppose the Vote of 100,000 men for the army at that period, provided it were understood that he should not be prevented from bringing forward the subject on a future occa- 1397 sion. His reason for consenting to postpone the matter was, that the Government desired to proceed with the Mutiny Bill.

Mr. Williams
said, that if the House consented to this Vote they would, in fact, be passing the whole Army Estimates, amounting to 6,000,000l. It would not afterwards be in their power to refuse any other part of the Votes proposed to them. Wednesday night was not a proper time to call upon the House to vote away 6,000,000l. of the public money; and no less a sum of money than that was involved in the Vote in question. There was no necessity for pressing on the Vote on account of the Mutiny Act, as three weeks would elapse before the Act would expire.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the hon. Gentleman could not but be aware, that although 129,000 was the number of men stated in the Mutiny Bill, it did not follow that that force would be maintained during the year. The Act stated the number of men which the Crown might during the year raise for the standing army; but then the number actually employed must, of course, depend on the money granted to pay all the troops in the service; and the hon. Gentleman would have as good an opportunity of bringing forward his proposal of a reduction on the question of the amount of money to be paid, as on that of the number of men to be employed. As the Mutiny Act expired on the 22nd of April, it was necessary to hasten its renewal. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not object to the Government taking the first Vote.

Mr. Williams
said, if he were to state the reduction he wished to make, he did not believe any accountant in England, after a month's application, could tell the precise cost of a given number of men. There were so many contingent items, that no correct result could be arrived at.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
would undertake to promise, that if the hon. Gentleman would state what reduction he intended to propose, his right hon. Friend would furnish him with the exact cost, and by that means the hon. Gentleman's object would be secured.

Mr. Williams
would state in a few words what reduction he wished to have made. The reason which had always been assigned in the discussions which he had 1398 heard on this subject in favour of having a large standing army, was the necessity which existed for affording better reliefs to the regiments stationed in the Colonies. Now, he would show how that object might be accomplished, and the amount of the army be reduced by 11,000 men. There were three regiments of Life Guards, which performed no duties in the Colonies; there were also three regiments of Foot Guards, to which the same remark applied. Those regiments, with the exception of one of them, which had been in Canada since the termination of the war, had not performed any active duty. In all they were 6,561 men, and the cost of these six regiments was equal to that of 11,000 infantry. It was by no means his desire to see Her Majesty deprived of that sort of outward display which she was usually surrounded with when she appeared on occasions of state; but what he objected to was the small amount of duty that was performed at so great a cost. He had never seen on duty more than six of these Life Guards—he meant as sentinels—at one time, except perhaps six times in the course of a year when Her Majesty had levees, and on no one of those occasions had he ever seen more than one of these regiments employed. If then these troops were placed on the same footing as regiments of the line, they might make a saving equal to the cost of 10,000 men. The only argument that he had ever heard for keeping up our large standing army at its present numbers was the necessity of having reliefs for the Colonial duties. With that necessity his proposition would not interfere, for they would have precisely the same means of relief if they abolished these regiments altogether as they had at present.

§ Mr. S. Herbert
wished to understand the hon. Gentleman correctly. The hon. Gentleman proposed, he thought, to retain one regiment of Life Guards, as at present; but that the other regiments of Life Guards and the Foot Guards should be put on the footing of regiments of the line, without any reduction of their numbers.