SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 31 March 1848 vol 97 cc1149-90

House in Committee of Supply.

MR. F. MAULE

said, it was his duty to propose to the House the amount of force which Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to maintain during the ensuing year for the defence of this country and of our dependencies. The votes which he should propose had been, in common with others, referred to the Committee that the House had appointed to consider the estimates generally; but the Gentlemen who constituted that body very properly considered that they were not at liberty, in Committee, to discuss that particular part of the estimates which it would then be his duty to submit to the whole House in Committee of Supply. That Select Committee which sat upon the estimates were of opinion, with him, that, as to the amount of force necessary for the defence of the country, dependence must be placed upon the responsibility of the Executive Government for the time being; and while assent to such estimates on the part of hon. Members did not imply direct confidence in the Government for the time being, yet he agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, that the refusal to admit the necessity for that amount of force which the Government thought requisite, very distinctly conveyed an expression of want of confidence in the responsible advisers of the Crown. In his opinion, if the Government had agreed to submit the amount of military required for the service of the Crown to a Committee upstairs, they would have laid themselves open to the accusation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex. He believed it would not be necessary for him to utter another word in order to show that with reference to the Army the Government was not at liberty to depute the power which it possessed to any other parties, or with respect to the military service of the State to cast the responsibility off their own shoulders. The proposition which he intended to put into the hands of the Chairman was to this effect—that the number of men which the House should vote for the service of the united Kingdom during the ensuing year was to be 113,847, exclusive of the troops employed in the territories of the East India Company. One of the first duties which he had to perform was to assure the House that in coming to a conclusion that such a vote should be proposed to the House, the Queen's Government had had the closest regard to every consideration of economy. They had examined most scrupulously the demand for troops in every quarter of the empire, and after the maturest deliberation they became convinced that the exigencies of the country would not admit of the proposed force being in any degree diminished. Before he proceeded further, it became necessary he should remind the House that against these estimates two accusations had been brought. The first was, that they had been formed on too great a scale as regarded the amount of force to be employed; secondly, that they had been constructed with too little regard to economy, and that this had been the case not only in the instance of the present estimate, but with regard to the several successive estimates proposed to Parliament since the year 1835. Now, he should begin by considering one of these charges at a time; and he should in the first place confine himself to the charge or accusation that the present estimate greatly exceeded that of 1835. He should set out by undertaking to show that in all the charges for effective troops a reduction had been steadily taking place ever since the year 1835; and he begged particularly to inform the House that any increase in the estimates since 1835 had been occasioned by circumstances that had since then arisen; further, he hoped to be able to show that in the whole of that time there had not been a greater force maintained than the existing exigencies at those several periods required; finally, he expected to be able to show that in every branch of military expenditure every practicable degree of economy had been carried out, and that the vote proposed for the present year did not exceed what the bare necessities of our position required. In the year 1828 the number of men voted for the military service of the State was 91,075; that for the year 1848–49 was to be 113,847 men. The charge in money for the men voted in 1828, was 6,584,241l., while the charge for the greater amount of men in the present year was 6,318,686l., which left a differenee of 265,555l. Although the military force of the country had been increased, the House would see that that object had been effected, not only without increased expense, but, in fact, upon more economical terms. He held in his hand a comparative statement of the Army Estimates for several years past; but he should more especially direct attention to the estimates as they stood in 1835, with a view to bring them into contrast with the estimates now to be voted by the House. In 1835 the number of officers was 4,405, of non-commissioned officers 6,268, of rank and file 70,162, of all ranks 80,835; and the total charge 5,793,456l. The estimate now before the House showed that the number of officers required would be 4,771, non-commissioned officers 8,110, of rank and file 100,442, of all ranks 113,323, the total charge for the latter year being 6,318,686l.; making a difference between the officers of the Army in the one year, as compared with the other, of 366, of the non-commissioned officers, 1,842, of the rank and file, 30,280, of all ranks, 32,488, and in the charges a difference of 525,230l. One proof of the economy practised in the preparation of the present estimates could be derived from a calculation very easily made, from which he assured the House it would appear that the proportion of additional officers to additional men was as 1 to 88; and in order to do justice to the plans of the Government, it would be only fair to add the force necessary for the country service. He was sure that no one who contrasted the state of the Army in the year 1835, with its condition in the present year, could possibly say that any changes had been made with a view to augment the patronage of the Crown; for whereas in 1848 the proportion of officers to men was as 1 to 17, in 1835 it was as 1 to 22; yet notwithstanding the great increase of men, and notwithstanding the great increase of other expenses, there was only a difference in charge of 525,000l. If he looked to the real increase of expense, he found the charge borne on the estimates of the present year 1848–9, for the pay and allowances of the Army to be as follows: 366 officers, costing 68,473l.; next came 1,842 non-commissioned officers, the charge for whom was 54,785l.; and, finally, a difference between the two estimates of 30,280 rank and file, the charge for whom was 559, 812l., making a total of 683,070l.; to which must be added annual allowances, 7,511l.; agency, 4,526l.; clothing, 82,291l. The regimental charge, then, for 32,488 officers and men would be 777,398l.; the increased charges made for beer money, recruiting, and other services consequent on the proposed increase was estimated at 130,657l.; hence the total charge for 32,488 officers and men was 908,055l., being not quite 30l. per bayonet. Now, he begged the attention of the House to this—that the amount voted in 1835–36 for 80,835 men was 5,793,456l.; then, if the charge already stated for the difference of men (32,488), being 908,055l., was added, the total charge for 113,323 men would be 6,701,511l.; then let the further charges be added which were placed on since 1835, and there would appear a sum of 255,795l., being a total of 6,957,306l. Then it was to be remembered that the amount to be voted in 1848–9 for 113,823 men was to be 6,318,686l.; there was, therefore, a decrease in 1848–9, as compard with 1835–6, of 638,620l.; and if any hon. Member took the trouble to make a trifling calculation, he would find that in the present year the average charge would be 39l. 10s. 8d. per man, while the cost of each man in 1835–6 was 42l. 4s. 4d., leaving a difference of 2l. 13s. 8d. per man. In justice to the present economical system, the charges of the staff ought to have been contrasted, and the difference stated; neither should the charge of 255,795l. be left out of view. Further, he trusted that the House would bear this in view, that various charges were now added to the Army Estimates which formerly did not belong to them; those charges, no doubt, were sanctioned by the House. He would now, with the permission of the House, shortly state the nature and amount of those charges which since 1835 had been placed upon the Army Estimates, being transfers from other estimates, or being expenses incurred with a view to ameliorate the condition of officers or men. These were the expenses to which he now begged to call the attention of the House; namely, the increased pay to adjutants, 3,000l.; good-conduct pay, 33,035l.; pay of military labourers, 4,000l.; allowance to regiments in China, 8,280l.; barrack labourers, 2,000l.; schools for female children of soldiers, 3,000l.; military prisons, 23,510l.; Divine service for Roman Catholics, 2,600l.; regimental savings-banks 2,500l.; allowance to black servants. 5,500l., gratuities under good-conduct warrant of December, 1845, 4,000l.; Guernsey and Jersey militia, 2,802l.; giving a total of 94,227l. From this there was to be deducted the lodging-money, which had been transferred to the Ordnance Estimates, amounting to 5,000l., and one day's pay for leap year borne in 1835, 6,500l., making together 11,500l., which, taken from 94,227l., left a diiference of 82,727l. He would now proceed to another statement from the papers before him, to which he thought the attention of the House ought to directed: it was as follows—money allowances and contingent expenses of staff-officers abroad, 16,868l.; additional medical staff in Africa for reliefs, 2,800l.; allowance to medical officers for servants, 2,000l.; promotion and increased pay of medical staff officers, 4,500l.; deduction from regimental officers holding staff appointments given up, 906l.; yielding a total of 27,074l. Now, there were to be deducted the charges of boatmen, transferred to the Commissariat, 2,112l., together with one day's pay for leap year in 1835, 215l., yielding a total of 2,327l. This deducted from the previous sum left the net cost of the staff at 24,747l. It was to be remembered that formerly the letters of the various public departments were transmitted free, but since the introduction of the penny postage each department was required to defray the expense of its own postage. Now, a deduction to that amount ought to be made in favour of the Army Estimates of the year 1848–9, which amounted to no less a sum than 27,880l. Then, at the Military Asylum, the charge for normal and model schools was 3,394l.; next there were rewards and annuities to non-commissioned officers for meritorious services, 2,000l. From those statements, he trusted, it must be now quite clear that not only had there been no want of economy in preparing the present estimates, but there had been a steady reduction of Army expenses ever since the year 1835. The next items of the expenses of the Army to which he should call attention would be—the amount of half-pay and allowances, 47,386l.; widows' pensions, 19,398l.; compassionate list, 61,000l.; the in and out pensions, 25,000l. Thus, in the non-efficient department, as well as in every other, there had been a steady reduction, and the whole had been reduced till it reached the lowest possible point. Having disposed of the comparative expenses of the years 1835 and 1848, he should now proceed to the more important branch of the subject, namely, whether the number of men now proposed to be voted was too large a force for the country to maintain in the present state of Europe and of the rest of the world. He should not refer to any events that had recently taken place on the other side of the Channel, as the report upon this subject had been laid on the table of the House before those events took place. But there were other considerations to which he might allude without dwelling on them at too great length. When they looked to the condition of our colonies—to the state of our Army in reference to reliefs—when they considered what they had to do at home and in Ireland, and also to the necessity for this country having at its command some kind of disposable force at all times—they would find sufficient reasons to support the vote with which he should conclude. He assumed, in the first place, that there was no man in that House prepared to say that we should allow our colonies to be in a defenceless state, or leave them to take care of themselves. He assumed, as granted, that our colonies were worth preserving. If that were so, this country was bound to preserve them, and consequently to protect them. In his opinion our establishments, at the present moment, in all the colonies, were at the lowest possible peace rate. He believed that, if hon. Gentlemen would look to the reports of the two Committees which sat in 1834 and 1835 upon our colonial military expenditure, they would find that in most of our colonies, except to those to which he should more particularly allude, the military establishments had been kept at the point at which it was then recommended to be kept, namely, at the very lowest justifiable point for a peace establishment. In fact, he might say, that in the Mediterranean—at Malta, Gibraltar, and Corfu, the military establishments had been barely sufficient to maintain what might be called the absolutely requisite military police of each of those stations. Indeed, so inferior had the force been found to be at Malta, that it had been thought right within these few weeks to order another regiment to proceed immediately there to reinforce the garrison of that island. It might, perhaps, be said by some, that these were military posts which it might not be worth the while of this country to look after; and, indeed, the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had described Malta as a hiding-place for our ships. But he looked on these posts as places of great importance. He looked upon them—as a Queen of England had formerly regarded them—as jewels in Her crown, and landmarks of Her power and glory, which he thought it would he dishonourable to tarnish, and disgraceful to surrender. He maintained that these were places which they were hound to protect as long as they desired this country to maintain that character which for years it had maintained as a nation, not only in Europe, but in the world. Not only should these points be maintained with a proper force to carry on the duties which were demanded of the military force in each of them respectively, but, on the smallest exhibition or suspicion of war, there should be troops ready at home to reinforce them, and to place them in such a condition as that they could not be attacked by any foreign foe with any prospect of success. With reference to another colony, namely, Canada, since 1835 many changes had taken place. In 1835, he believed that the only troops accorded to Canada were not more than 2,095. Since then events had occurred in that colony which, he believed, had shown that it would have been attended with greater economy had there been a larger military force stationed there. But let that be as it might, Canada since 1835 had been much developed; and it required a much larger military force in times of peace now than in 1835, for the purpose of occupying the various military posts which, according to military authority, it was necessary to occupy—which it was requisite to watch merely for the purpose of restraining our own people from passing over the border—and which were watched at the present moment with the least possible force that could be used for such a purpose. At Bermuda the force was increased from its having been made a depôt to which convicts were sent, in preference to the old system of sending them to the convict colonies. In Australia there had been a considerable increase of force; and many demands for further troops there had been made, which it had not been thought proper or expedient to comply with. In New Zealand there had also taken place a considerable augmentation of the force, owing to circumstances over which there could be no control, but which rendered it incumbent on this country to send aid and assistance to the colonists there. Then, again, a new colony had sprung up, for which we were bound to find troops and military protection, namely. Hong Kong. All these constituted demands on the military service from the fountain-head at home, which it was necessary to meet; and it was likewise necessary to supply the reliefs from this country in due and regular succession. This brought him to the next point, and that was the subject of reliefs. No one had taken a more prominent part on this subject than the hon. Member for Montrose, and there was no one to whom he was ready to accord more credit than to that hon. Member, for the interest he took in all that that gallant and now noble individual (Sir H. Hardinge) did for the purpose of relieving the troops from too long a continuance in foreign service. There was nothing, perhaps, which had so great a tendency to render the service unpopular as the extremely long periods for which regiments had been sent abroad, some to bad and some to better climes, but all in the condition of expatriation for fifteen, twenty, and even twenty-five years. The great object which Sir H. Hardinge attempted to attain, and for which he added, with the consent of this House, a considerable increase to the Army supplies, was, that there should be a regular succession of colonial service, not exceeding ten years in what he might call the nearer colonies, and not exceeding fifteen years in Australia and the East Indies. He was happy to think that at the present moment they had accomplished that object; and when the regiments at present on their way home from the East Indies should have arrived in this country, he did not think that they would have a single regiment absent on service from England for a longer period than twelve years. He was now speaking of infantry regiments. He believed that he might fairly state, that owing to the number of troops lately ordered home, the average service of the regiments at present in the East Indies would not be found to be above six years and two months. In Australia, the average service, at present, of the regiments there, was about five years; in China, about ten years; in Ceylon, about two years and a half; and in British North America, about seven or eight years. If, therefore, it should be proposed, as he had heard it whispered, to diminish the number of the Army to 100,000 men—that being a reduction of 13,000 men—then the very circumstance on which he was now congratulating the Committee, namely, of having brought the reliefs for foreign service within a reasonable period, would be to a great extent frustrated. He did not think that after what he had stated, any person capable of considering the condition of our colonies—the wide extent of them, and the very few troops comparatively with which they were provided at present—would say that we could, in the present state of affairs, with any prudence venture to reduce our establishments in that way. Let them look at home. Could they, or could they not, reduce the establishment at home? He regretted to say that they had at present a large force in Ireland. For reasons into which he did not now mean to enter, he regretted to say that they were compelled to maintain a large force in that country. The force there at the present moment consisted of very nearly 26,000 men. It was scattered over 150 stations. He believed that no troops, either in the colonies or in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, could have more harassing duties to perform, and that no troops had exhibited more exemplary conduct than the army in Ireland during the past year. There was at the present moment in Ireland a Lord Lieutenant, the administration of whose Government had received in his (Mr. F. Maule's) hearing in that House eulogistic testimony from both sides of the House. It had been admitted that that noble individual had administered the government firmly, but at the same time with prudence and discretion; and if the noble Lord were asked whether he could consent to a reduction of the troops in Ireland at the present moment, it was his (Mr. F. Maule's) conviction that the answer of the noble Lord would be, that it would not be prudent to reduce the number. He (Mr. F. Maule) felt deeply on the maintenance of so large a force in that country. He anxiously wished that it could be reduced, and that by such reduction there might be effected a decrease of expense; but without stating more than his own conviction on this point, he would pass to the question whether any reduction could be made in England, for in Ireland he was convinced it would not be prudent to make any. Then let them look to England, and the way in which the Army was disposed here. He found by a return, which he held in his hand, completed up to the 8th of March, that there were at this moment in England 26,474 infantry, and 3,553 cavalry; making in all about 30,000 men. [Mr. OSBORNE: How many pensioners are there?] He could not answer that question at the present moment. The question of the maintenance of a military force in England was, he was aware, a delicate question to discuss in a constitutional point of view in that House. He had, however, already stated one reason why a portion of our military force should be kept up, namely, that this country ought never to be, under any circumstances, and more especially under the present, without a disposable force, in the event of war or the rumour of war, for reinforcing those points which it was necessary to maintain, and for the defence of our colonial empire. Then, with respect to other reasons, he would ask, was there no property in England to be protected? Were there no individuals in England who looked to the military as a force, not for overawing public opinion or public liberty, but for protecting property and life? In his country it happened not long ago that great complaints were made to the effect that there was not a sufficient protective force present when an excited mob plundered and pillaged, for the space of some hours, much property in the mercantile metropolis of Scotland. He had also heard that not many days ago, when it was proposed to remove troops from a large, populous, and trading town in England—be had no hesitation in stating that he meant Wigan—to more convenient barracks in the neighbourhood of Preston, the magistrates of Wigan, so far from complaining that these troops had been unnecessarily quartered on them, remonstrated against their being removed to so great a distance. He believed that in all our mercantile and manufacturing towns there were no parties who at the present moment complained of any intrusion of troops on them, but they looked upon the troops as parties who would protect them; who would not interfere with the liberties of the subject; and would not, under any circumstances, commit an unconstitutional act of any kind. The force scattered all over England and Scotland amounted to about 30,000 men, or about one soldier to 1,000 of the population. He did not think that that was an amount of force that could be regarded as intimidating. But what was the amount of property for the protection of which Government was responsible? It was very well for the hon. Member for Montrose to say he would reduce the number of troops in this country; but suppose, in consequence of such a reduction, advantage were to be taken, such as had been the case in former times, and on former occasions, of the absence of military force, or any controlling power, by those who had no respect for law. The Government would immediately be held responsible for not having a proper force at command in order to prevent and to stop all violations of the law. He well remembered, when he was formerly in the Home Office, that for nearly a day and night the great and populous town of Birmingham was absolutely at the disposal of an excited mob, and all for want of military protection, which he thought the Government was bound to have it in its power to afford on such unfortunate occasions. Taking into consideration the amount necessarily required for reliefs abroad, and for such a disposable force as it was the duty and the interest of the Government to maintain; he did not think that there was one soldier in this country more than was absolutely required for the public service. He had thus endeavoured to meet and discuss the two objections taken to the Army Estimates. He might go into other particulars. He might gratify the House by details of increased good conduct on the part of the Army; by an account of the diminution of crime in it; and the decrease of the application of that punishment to which that House most properly objected. He might give a gratifying narrative of the improved state of its sanitary condition in many places, and of its falling off in none. He would content himself now with entreating the House not to consent to any Motion for a reduction of that number of men which the Executive Government had thought it their duty to ask for. This did not appear to him to be the time when this country should put on an appearance of weakness. If, in consequence of some colonial disputes, happily settled, and of the affairs of India wearing a more tranquil appearance, some gallant regiments came home with their well-earned laurels on their brow; and if the Government should find that they had not occasion for the services of the Army to the full extent by which those returned regiments might augment it, then leave to the Government the responsibility, which must always attach to them, if they maintained a larger force than requisite at an unnecessary expense. The Government always had it in their power to decrease the Army; but if the House now determined, by their vote, that a decrease should be effected, they must remember that it would not be in the power of the Government, if any emergency should arise, to re-establish the force on its former footing. He entreated the House, therefore, to accede to the proposal of the Executive Government, and to vote the number of men they thought necessary in order to maintain the honour and character of the country; and not, at a time like the present, to cripple their hands by restricting the amount of that force upon which the due execution of the duties committed to their charge must, to a great extent, depend. He now begged to propose— That a number of Land Forces not exceeding 113,847 Men (exclusive of the Men employed in the territorial possessions of the East India Company), but including Commissioned and Noncommissioned Officers, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 1st of April, 1848, to the 31st of March, 1849.

MR. HUME

had listened with great pleasure to the statement of the right hon. Secretary at War, and he must say that he considered that many important and wholesome alterations had been made in the administration of the Army within the last few years, which had tended greatly to ameliorate the condition of the men. He considered that, by the almost entire abolition of the punishment of flogging, the House had done much to improve the character of the soldiers, although it had been predicted that that measure would have a contrary effect. But the question the House now had to determine was, what number of men should be maintained in the Army during the next year. He looked at this subject in a very different view from that in which it was regarded by his right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the department looked to that department alone, and was naturally anxious to see it in a state of the highest efficiency; but the right hon. Gentleman did not consider whether the country possessed the means of maintaining the large force he proposed, supposing the necessity for supporting it existed. The question as to what amount of military force ought to be maintained by this country had always been one of great difficulty. At the conclusion of the war, a Committee, commonly called Lord Castlereagh's Committee, was appointed, to ascertain and report what would be a proper peace establishment for this country; and in 1817 that Committee, in their second report, stated that the maintenance of a large military establishment must be attended with heavy and continued expense, while if the establishment were greatly reduced, the temporary gain in point of economy might be more than counterbalanced by the difficulty in which this country and its distant dependencies might be placed in the event of a sudden war; and the Committee, therefore, thought it advisable that the Executive Government, acting upon their own responsibility, should propose to the House the maintenance of such a force as they deemed necessary, and that the House should consider their proposal, with a view to ascertain whether the country possessed the means of supporting such an establishment. In 1828, a Committee which was appointed to inquire into the military and civil establishments declared their opinion that no Government was justified in taking even the smallest sum of money from the people, unless a ease could be clearly established that the exaction would be productive of essential advantage. He considered that that declaration was most applicable to the present condition of the country; and that this was a time when not a shilling more of the public money than was absolutely necessary should be applied to the support of the public establishments. In consequence of the cost of the public establishments, the expenditure of the country for the last year, notwithstanding the large sum derived from the income-tax, exceeded the revenue by 2,956,000l.; and yet the Government now proposed a great increase of expenditure. [Mr. Fox MAULE: Not for the Army.] His right hon. Friend spoke for himself; he spoke for all. He thought, considering the great expense of the existing establishments, and the heavy burden of taxation, that the country was now precisely in the condition contemplated by the Committee of 1828, and that the House ought not to sanction the expenditure of a single shilling more than was absolutely necessary. In his opinion the changes that had recently taken place on the Continent were a great relief to this country; and he considered, with regard to the chance of war, that this kingdom was in a much safer condition than was the case when these estimates were prepared. He believed that if the Government of this country did not meddle with the affairs of other people, no nation in the world would be disposed to meddle with them. The fact was, that the Continental Powers seemed to have plenty to do at home, and all the people of this country had to do was to attend to their own affairs. The great burden of the country had always been its military establishments. In 1835 the charge for the Army, Navy, Ordnance, and Miscellaneous Estimates was 14,127,000l., while last year the cost of these services was 23,580,000l, the increase within twelve years having been more than 9,000,000l He certainly considered that that House had neglected its duty in allowing such an increase; and he thought they ought to take some shame to themselves when they found that, in another place, a noble Lord (the Earl of Ellenborough) had come forward as an economical reformer, and had pointed out to the Government the excessive and extravagant increase of expenditure. He asked, then, for what purpose so large a force as that now proposed was required? From 1829 to 1834 the military force maintained by this country averaged only 88,000 men; and from 1835 to 1837, it was 86,000 men; but they were now asked to vote 113,000 men. Now, it must be remembered that, at the former period, they had not the organised police force in Ireland, which consisted of about 12,000 men, who were, in fact, so many additional troops. Since that time, also, there had been a very great addition to the regular police force of this country; they had had a force of 10,000 pensioners enrolled; nearly 10,000 of the labourers employed in the dockyards had been drilled; and some thousands of men belonging to the coast-guard service had been accustomed to artillery practice. These were, in fact, great additions to the military force of the country; and he thought, taking them into consideration, that 60,000 men would be a sufficient number of men to be voted for the Army by that House. Was there any thing in the state of this country to warrant a vote of so large a number as 113,000 men, in addition to all those irregular troops—to say nothing of yeomanry or militia? What was the right hon. Gentleman afraid of? If there was discontent here, let it be removed; if there was discontent in Ireland, let the Government delay not an hour to bring forward a remedy. Let them not trust to these large numbers of military, which the right hon. Gentleman said the magistrates required. Magistrates had been too much in the habit of calling in the military. The number of men in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance force had been increased from 121,000—the average of 1833, 1834, and 1835—to 171,000 in 1848, besides 34,000 irregulars; so that we were to have now 205,000 armed men ready to be employed. The average for the Army in 1833, 1834, and 1835, was 86,000 men; but at least let it be reduced to 100,000—the number fixed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in 1844. It could be done by simply stopping the recruiting for a year; for the average number recruited for the Army in a year was about 12,000, though it was 24,000 last year. In Ireland we had only 21,000 soldiers in 1835; this year we had about 27,000. As regarded the colonies, if they were allowed responsible government to manage their own affairs, our force there might be reduced by one half and more; but, of course, there were some places considered rather as garrisons, such as Gibraltar and Malta. We had nothing to fear from abroad; we had only to set the example of disarming, and trust to other means for securing peace. He looked forward to a reduction to the extent of 30,000 men in the Army before long; but his present proposal was to strike off the 13,847. Indeed "necessity had no law," and unless we were to come within the category of "repudiators," we could not devise the means of keeping up such enormous establishments. He moved that the number of men voted be 100,000, instead of 113,847.

MR. VERNON SMITH

agreed with the hon. Member in all he had said upon the subject of economy; but he could not, with the same boldness as the hon. Gentleman had done, affirm that there was nothing in the present state of Europe to induce them to maintain the establishment which the Government had proposed. It might be very true that the Continental nations had plenty to do at home; but it was just possible that they might come to be of opinion that an aggressive system of policy was best for them, and so get rid of peccant humours by a foreign war. He thought, therefore, it would be hazardous to reduce the force which the Government believed, in their judgment, to be necessary; and he would have held the same opinion whatever Government had happened to be in power. Indeed, he did not know that they could have any other Government than the present, for the right hon. Baronet opposite certainly showed no thirst for office; and as for the Protectionist Powers, they had, it seemed, during the present Session, declared for a republic among themselves. But, whilst he was unwilling to reduce the Army in the present Session, he thought he saw in it ample materials for reduction in future. He referred to the number of men retained in the colonies. He had referred to this subject on a former occasion; and he was happy to find himself supported by such high authorities in the House as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and the right hon. Member for Coventry. It was true the noble Lord at the head of the Government had afterwards, in allusion to the same subject, declared that, in his opinion, the colonies were the pride and glory of our country; and that, if the country was to be lowered in the scale of nations, he trusted he should not be the instrument. The House very properly cheered that lofty sentiment, in which he humbly but cordially concurred. But let not the House be paid off with words, and when they had cheered the sentiment, let them come back calmly to consider whether his proposition tended to lower England in the scale of nations. For his part, he would not abandon a single person who had settled in distant parts under the hope of our protection, nor would he give up a single colonial possession. He did not even agree with the hon. Member for Montrose in giving up the Ionian Islands, which, by the by, were among the few colonies that contributed something to their military expenditure. But without giving up the colonies, he thought without injury to them, and without exasperating them, they might contribute to their own defence. Take Canada, for instance—we had spent enormous sums of money in fortifying their frontier—we had done all for them that the Imperial Government could do, and now they ought to be called upon to defend themselves. There need be no fear of their turning these weapons against us; for the truth was, such was the nature of their country, that nothing but their own disposition to remain with us could preserve them in their allegiance. He was satisfied that, whenever a colony obtained responsible government, it ought to be called on to contribute to its own defence. Then take the Cape of Good Hope, a colony that had lately cost 1,100,000l for the Caffre war. Now, it happened that in 1834 we had a Caffre war, when Sir Benjamin D'Urban governed the colony; but at that time there were only 1,700 troops; whereas, during the recent war, we had 5,490 troops employed. In the first war the burgher force was mainly instrumental in putting down the insurrection; but what was the conduct of the same force last year? He was sorry to read what he held in his hand, but it was a public document. Sir George Berkeley wrote to Sir Henry Pottinger on the 17th April, 1847:— If the burghers, when they are called upon for the defence of their own country, do not choose to defend it, but when they are called out disband themselves whenever they please, then the sooner we leave them to their fate the better. It is useless for us to lavish men and money upon people who will not defend themselves. You will find by the enclosed despatch that the burghers shamefully deserted their posts last night. He thought, therefore, there was room for retrenchment in the military expenditure of our colonies, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Ministers would apply themselves to this subject, or see what could be done in the matter.

MR. OSBORNE

had opposed the reduction of the Navy Estimates, but was not disposed to pursue the same course with respect to the estimates for the Army. The Navy was the natural defence of the country; but a standing Army had always, and very properly, been an object of jealousy in England. Hon. Gentlemen were in the habit of contrasting our present expenditure with that of 1835; but he was not disposed to take the expenditure of that year as an unerring test. Of this the House might be assured, that as long as we maintained a bad system of government in this country, especially as regarded the Army, the people would be called upon to pay large sums for its support. Look at a comparative list of generals and field officers in three different periods. In 1783, the period of the American war, the number of generals and field-officers in the British Army was 824; in 1799, the period of the French war, it was 1,863; in 1848, a period of peace, it was 2,106. Could any person be surprised at our being called upon to pay large sums of money for the estimates when we maintained a staff of field-officers greater than that provided for the French Army of 400,000 men, which had also to furnish staff and inspectors for the National Guard, amounting to at least 200,000 men more. There was much talk about honour and glory; but what, after all, did honour and glory amount to? Taxation. That was the result of honour and glory. The burdens we were now labouring under were the penalties imposed by former wars. The account of what the wars of this country had cost was an instructive document. The supplies voted in Queen Anne's reign amounted to 70,000,000l On the nine years' war of 1703 the country expended 66,000,000l. That was our first essay in honour and glory, commencing in Anne's reign. Proceeding next to the American war of independence, we find that in eight years ending with 1783, we expended (in addition to the loss by the decline of exports, which was very great) 129,123,091l. The cost of the French war from 1792 to the Peace of Amiens was 284,214,731l The war from the Peace of Amiens to 1815, upon which the country so much felicitates it-self, cost 827,000,000l The average yearly expenditure during our twenty-three years' war with France amounted to 48,314,000l The result of honour and glory was, that after we had deluged the world with blood the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it necessary to come down to the House of Commons at the end of thirty-two years of peace, and propose to raise the income-tax to 5 per cent! It should be borne in mind, that since the year 1835 we had increased our effective force to the amount of 97,000, by the enrolment of the pensioners and workmen in the dockyards. Year by year our expenditure went on increasing. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had truly observed on a former evening that the increase of expenditure was chiefly attributable to the desire which each department exhibited for its aggrandizement. Now he had a plan by which increased efficiency in the services of the country would be ac-companied with diminished expenditure. In his opinion there was a possibility of effecting a great saving in the expense of the Army by consolidating the different departments, by retrenching superfluous expenditure, and by the reduction of the number of men. As to the consolidation; of the various branches of the Army, it was known that the Army consisted of three branches: the infantry and cavalry, forming the personnel; the ordnance, constituting the machinery; and the commissariat, forming the necessaries. In this country (being an exception to every other country on the face of the globe) these three departments were placed on a separate and distinct footing, having no single controlling head over them. In 1837 a Commission sat on this very subject, and they recommended that the greater part of the authority, with reference to the Army, which at present belonged to the Secretary of State, should, for the future, be vested in the Secretary at War, who should be a Member of the Cabinet. This was, in fact, proposing that there should be a Minister of War in this country, as there was in Prance. This Commission consisted of Lord Howick, Lord Palmerston, Lord J. Russell, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, and others. The Ordnance Department, consisting of the Master General and five officials, and costing the country 9,000l a year, was recommended to be abolished and consolidated with the Horse Guards. Then came the Commissariat—that was at present placed under the Treasury. It could not be denied that, by placing these several branches of the Army under one head, it would be the means of introducing unity, simplicity, and vigour into all the departments. The pecuniary savings that Would be effected by such a change would be very considerable. The cost of the official management of the Horse Guards was 96,590l; of the Ordnance, 91,136l; of the Commissariat, 316,031l; and of the Army Agency, 32,000l. He proposed to abolish, first, the Master General of the Ordnance, and five officers connected with the Ordnance, which would effect a saving of 9,000l. a year; secondly, the Secretary at War and his deputy, which would save 5,000l. a year; thirdly, the office of Judge Advocate (retaining the deputy at 800l a year) which would save 2,500l.; fourthly, he would consolidate the Adjutant and Quarter Master Generals' departments, which would save 5,000l a year; and he would abolish the Army Agency or Paymaster General, by which 32,000l. a year would be saved. By the items he had enumerated a saving of the public expenditure on account of the Army would be effected of no less an amount than 53,000l. There was much superfluous expenditure in another branch of the British Army; he alluded to the number of generals and superior officers in comparison with the number of men under their command. In France, the Army, consisting of 400,000 men, costing only 12,000,000l. a year, had a less number of generals and superior officers than the English Army. He considered the colonels of regiments to be altogether superfluous; the duties being wholly performed by the lieutenant-colonels. And how were the colonels paid? In a manner which was a disgrace to the Service. There were in the Army List of 1847, 387 generals, of whom 147 were colonels of regiments, who received among them annually 90,000l. for clothing; each colonel deriving a profit of 600l. a year from the clothing of the Army. Thus, a colonel having the command of two battalions would realise a sum of 1,200l a year. This, he was aware, was not the case in every instance. Many colonels were out of pocket by this arrangement. Lord Londonderry, he believed, when commanding the 10th Hussars lost a thousand pounds a year by the system. But the office of colonel was altogether a sinecure, and he would at once abolish it. He might be told that it was a reward for past services; he knew it was, but he would prefer giving the men who deserved it a fixed sum of money rather than appoint them to a post which did not require them to discharge a single duty; for it was not necessary that the colonel should ever see his regiment. By the abolition of colonels a saving of 95,900l. might be effected, independently of the emoluments derived from the clothing, which amounted to 50,000l, making altogether 145,900l. He would also abolish the office of second-majors—the duty being really performed by the lieutenant-colonels; thus he would strike off a further sum of 41,000l. Another department of the English force was one presenting the greatest anomaly—he meant the Ordnance Department. The artillery force was isolated, and did not form a part of the personnel of the Army. But who were its commanders? Had the present Master General or the other members of the Board of Ordnance ever served in the Artillery? What improvement had ever emanated from that Board except from the Duke of Wellington when Master General? He considered the present composition of the Ordnance to be an exceedingly mischievous composition, and the cause of a great waste of the public money. The musket of the British soldier was a clumsy weapon; and the rifle was not equal in range to that of the French. The artillery was held by all authorities on military subjects to be a primary arm of warfare. The cost of the artillery for pay, clothing, &c., per head, was 44l., while that of the cavalry per head was 46l., and that of the Life Guards per head was 66l. The various reductions which he had indicated would amount altogether to 570,000l., without diminishing the forces by a single man. But there Was a third question which remained to be considered, namely, a reduction of men. But with that question the House must be prepared to take up a much greater one—the remodelling of the colonies; and there was a further question, which, however, might come to be regarded as of a colonial character, with regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said, the object of a standing army was to protect the colonies. If so, the sooner they lost their colonies the better. It was a remark of Mr. Fox, that if Ireland was to be ruled by force of arms, the sooner they got quit of her the better. If the Government had not contented themselves with a Landlord and Tenant Bill, but had gone to the root of the matter, Ireland would not have been in her present condition. In conclusion, he might be allowed to observe, that the proposition he had made was one for which he might claim the right hon. Gentleman's support; for it was calculated at once to promote the efficiency of the Army and to diminish the expenditure.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

was in favour of economy, but not of reduction, which might endanger the safety and character of the country. He should most cordially support Her Majesty's Government.

SIR W. MOLES WORTH

thought that two very different questions might be raised. First, whether the forces of the country should be at once considerably reduced below the amount which was found sufficient last year? Secondly, whether there should be made this year a not inconsiderable increase in the amount and in the cost of those forces? He acknowledged that the objections which had been urged against an immediate and considerable reduction of the forces of the country were not only plausible, but had much real weight at present; and he was not surprised to find the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose in a small minority, and that a large majority of the representatives of the most popular constituencies were opposed to his Motion. But he thought the question of an increase of the forces was a very different one from that of a decrease of the forces. He looked with considerable alarm at the steady and large increase of the expenditure which had taken place of late years in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance. He had, on a former occasion, shown that all the financial difficulties of the country could be traced to the increase of that expenditure. He had shown that since 1835 the expenditure for the three services had gone on increasing at the rate of 580,000l. a year; and he found to his surprise, on examining the estimates for this year, that the increase on the gross estimates for the three services, including militia and commissariat, amounted to nearly a million. He had shown that, in consequence of that increase of expenditure in seven out of the last twelve years, there had been an excess of income over expenditure to amounts varying from 300,000l. to nearly 3,000,000l. He had shown that if the expenditure for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance had continued the same as it was in 1835, in every one of those seven years there would have been a surplus of income to amounts ranging from 400,000l. to 4,000,000l.; and this last year, instead of a deficit of 2,956,000l., there would have been a surplus of 3,800,000l. In fact, he had shown that the deficit for the year ending January last, was the consequence of the increase of the expenditure for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, which had taken place since the accession of the present Administration to power. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London had the other night questioned the accuracy of that statement. He assured the noble Lord that that statement was correct. His statement was, that the deficit for the year ending January, 1848, had been caused by the increase of expenditure on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, since the accession of the Administration of the noble Lord. In proof of this position he had observed that, for the year ending January, 1846, there had been a surplus of income over expenditure to the amount of 3,800,000l., and that last year there had been a deficit of 2,950,000l. Thence he inferred that there had been a change for the worse in the financial condition of the country to the amount of these two sums united, namely, 6,750,000l. The noble Lord seemed to have misunderstood that position. He (Sir W. Molesworth) had not asserted that the expenditure of the country had been increased by that amount, but that the financial condition of the country had deteriorated to that extent during the last two years. What, he had asked, was the cause of that deterioration? The noble Lord had attributed it to a diminution of revenue, consequent upon the distress of last year. That explanation was insufficient; for the ordinary revenue of the country for the year ending January, 1848, was only 400,000l. less than the ordinary revenue for the year ending 1846. It was true that the casual revenue of the country had diminished since the year ending January, 1846, by the amount of l,100,000l. in consequence of the cessation of remittances from China. Therefore, the whole amount of the diminution of the whole revenue, since the year ending January 1846, was only 1,500,000l., and this would not explain how a surplus of 3,800,000l. had become a deficit of 2,950,000l. It was to be explained by an increase of expenditure during the last two years, to the amount of 5,250,000l. A portion of that increase, namely, 1,500,000l., was on account of distress in Ireland. The larger portion of the remainder was on account of Army, Navy, and Ordnance, the cost of which services for the year ending January, 1846, was 15,662,000l.—namely. Army, 6,744,000l.; Navy, 6,809,000l.; Ordnance,2,109,000l. For last year the cost of these same services was 18,500,000l.—namely, for the Army, 7,540,000; for the Navy, 8,013,000l.; for the Ordnance, 2,947,000l.—an increase in two years, on the Army of 796,000l., on the Navy of 1,204,000l., and on the Ordnance of 838,000l.;—total increase, 2,838,000l.; but the deficit for the year ending January last was 2,956,000l. Therefore, that deficit had been occasioned by an increase of expenditure on the Navy, Army, and Ordnance. He now challenged the noble Lord to show any inaccuracy in this statement. He referred the noble Lord to the finance accounts, and the return of the hon. Member for Sheffield, for the figures. He assured the noble Lord that his statement was correct, and if the noble Lord would consent to reduce the estimates to what they were for the year 1845–1846, he promised the noble Lord that the deficit for this year would be little or nothing. But, on the contrary, the noble Lord intended to increase the estimates by the sum of 959,000l. He thought this increase a very large one; and though he acknowledged the weight of the arguments which had been used against any immediate diminution of the naval and military forces of the country, he must say that he had heard no solid reasons for increasing those forces beyond what they were last year. With regard to the Army, the question raised by the hon. Member for Montrose was, whether its force could be diminished without detriment to the public service. He must acknowledge that there was no army in the world Which was worked so hard in time of peace as the Army of England. With the exception of the few troops kept to defend and ornament the metropolis—(and brave and excellent troops they were when called upon to serve)—with the exception of them, the soldiers of England spent ten out of every fourteen or fifteen years in foreign climates, scattered a few hundreds together over the face of the earth; serving either amidst the snows of Canada or the pestilential exhalations of the two Indies; watching the convicts of Australasia, or guarding the rock-built fortresses of the Mediterranean; yet their discipline was admirable, and it was surprising how few complaints had been made of their conduct by a people with whom soldiers had never been popular. Were their numbers too great for the purposes for which they were required? He found that on the 1st of January last the rank and file of the British Army amounted to 123,971 men, of whom 22,975 were in the East Indies, 35,792 were in the colonies, 26,296 were in Ireland, 29,839 were in Great Britain, and 9,069 were on passage or under orders to return home. With regard to the forces in India, he should say nothing—they were paid for by India—and 22,975 rank and file did not seem to him an extravagant amount of British forces for so enormous an empire. With reference to the colonies, he found that the number of troops in the colonies were to be fewer this year than they had been in any year for the last nine years. It was true that they would he nearly triple the force which was in the colonies in the year 1792; but since that period the extent of the colonial empire of England had more than tripled. For instance, since that period England had acquired, in the Mediterranean, Malta and the Ionian Islands; in Africa, the colonies on the west coast, St. Helena, and the Cape of Good Hope; in the East, the Mauritius, Ceylon, and those on the coast of China; in the South, the Australasiatic colonies and New Zealand. According to the existing system of the Colonial Office, each of these colonies required troops, and a naval or military governor. He acknowledged, that unless that system were considerably altered and reformed, he doubted whether the amount of troops in the colonies could be diminished. He found that on the 1st of January, 1845, the distribution of the troops in the colonies was (he presumed the distribution was about the same last year)—in the Mediterranean, 7,208 rank and file, in the North American colonies, 8,682, in the West Indian colonies, 6,804, in the African colonies, 3,761, in the colonies in the East, 6,306, and in the Australasian colonies and New Zealand, 3,686. He thought, if the Colonial Office were reformed, some portion of these troops would become unnecessary. He meant by a reform of the Colonial Office, that that office should adopt as its rule of conduct the greatest possible abstinence from any interference in the internal affairs of a colony, especially of the old established colonies. He thought, for instance, that the North American and West Indian colonies should be permitted to elect their own governors, subject to a nominal approval from this country; and then the greater portion of the British troops might be withdrawn, and the colonists left to protect themselves. Some colonies, in their infant state, might at times require military aid from the mother country, as had been the case both at the Cape of Good Hope and in New Zealand; but in both of these instances he believed that the necessity for armed assistance arose entirely from the mismanagement of the Colonial Office. And, without doubt, not one soldier would have been required for the whole of Australasia if no convicts had been sent to New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. He did not see, supposing the Colonial Office were reformed, and free institutions were freely bestowed upon all the colonies, what necessity there would be for troops in any of the colonies, except the military stations of Gibraltar, Malta, and the like, for which purpose some 20,000 men would be ample. He did not propose, as the noble Lord seemed on a former occasion to suppose, to abandon the colonies. On the contrary, he had always been, and still was, in favour of colonising uninhabited countries. He believed it was the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race to occupy the greater portion of the untenanted surface of the globe, to spread itself over the two Americas, and to take possession of Australasia, New Zealand, and the other isles of Polynesia, there to constitute thriving States, inhabited by men with wants and feelings similar to our own, carrying on with us a mutually beneficial commerce. Trade, not dominion, should be our object in colonising; for that purpose soldiers were the worst of emigrants; and a small portion of the sums expended on those soldiers would defray the necessary cost of planting many a flourishing community. With regard to the number of troops in Great Britain, he found, on the average of the last ten years, that 29,500 rank and file had been the effective force in this country. This year there would be 38,900, an increase of 9,400. For what purposes were they required? Was it to maintain peace and order at home? But that amount of force was considerably larger than that which had been found sufficient in the worst times; and as he had before observed, of late years the railroads had increased the efficacy of a small body of troops; and in all the large towns there was a well-organised police. But the surest safeguard for peace and order at home was to be found in the affections of the people. And he believed, that the people of England were at present sincerely attached to their institutions, and proud of them. Whilst every Throne in Europe was in danger, and crown-ed heads were running away in every direction, the Throne of England alone remained unshaken. Why was this? Because the institutions of the country were virtually republican; because democracy had triumphed of late years—because, in fact, no class was now privileged at the expense of another; and, above all, because the corn laws had been swept away. He told the hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should be most thankful—that they should express their deepest gratitude to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that there was no Corn-Law League now in existence—no corn laws to agitate and irritate the masses of the people. But though the institutions of the country were virtually republican, yet if they were wise, prudent, and sagacious men, they would hasten to make them still more so in appearance by a large extension of the suffrage. For he maintained that the working classes of the country had, especially of late, proved themselves worthy of the franchise; and it would be wise to grant them that franchise at once as a boon, in-stead of waiting till it be extorted by pres-sure from without; and by so doing they would ensure order and tranquillity far better than by any amount of military force. With regard to Ireland, the effective force was to be this year about 26,000 rank and file, which would be about 8,000 more than was found sufficient on the average of the last ten years. Therefore the whole of the effective force in the United Kingdom this year would be 65,204 rank and file—an increase of about 18,000 men beyond the average of the last ten years, the cost of which increase would be about 700,000l. a year. In his judgment, this: amount of force was excessive; he could not, however, deny the weight of the argument which had been urged against an immediate and considerable diminution of the military force of the country; and he should not, therefore, be surprised to find himself in a small minority with the hon. Member for Montrose. If this should be the case, as he had heard no valid reasons assigned for an increase of military force beyond that amount which was found to be sufficient last year, he should then propose to the Committee to vote the same number of men as was voted last year. The vote for last year (exclusive of India) was 108,398 men; the vote proposed to be taken for this year by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War was 113,847 men—an increase this year of 5,449 men, which occasioned an increase in the gross estimate of the effective forces of the Army to the amount of 174,699l. As he considered this increase was wholly unnecessary, he should, after the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had been disposed of, take the sense of the Committee on the subject; and he expected that every hon. Member who did not wish to be taunted in future years with having consented to an unnecessary increase of military force would vote for his Motion.

MR. COBDEN

observed, that where so much impatience was evinced on the question whether they should vote 7,100,000l. for the Army, in addition to 7,900,000l. for the Navy, he could scarcely hope by anything he could say to bring back the feeling of the House to a proper sense of its duty to the country. His hon. Friend proposed to reduce the Navy expenditure one-sixth, and now proposed to reduce that of the Army one-ninth. [An Hon. MEMBER: It is not a question of expenditure, but men.] But the number of men settled the whole question. The Select Committee of Inquiry on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, began by deciding that they had no right to determine the question as to the number of men; and the question could therefore be only dealt with by the House. The country was now suffering heavily from taxation, and anxiously looking for some remission; but the House by passing these large items would not leave itself any room for retrenchment. They could not touch the interest on the national debt, which was 27,000,000l., nor the unfunded debt, nor the consolidated fund; and if they now consented to this vote, they would have disposed of 49,000,000l. of the estimates of the country. When the Miscellaneous Estimates were brought forward, it was possible that some miserable trumpery vote about a messenger's wages would receive a warm opposition; some patriotic Member would perhaps raise his voice against the expense of the buckhounds, or against some claptrap vote of the kind. But it was only right the country should know, that if that House once allowed these large items of the public expenditure to pass, there was no hope for retrenchment. Were hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared for the great discontent which was rising up in the minds of the people in consequence of the present enormous weight of taxation? [Ironical cheers and laughter.] He wished that those hon. Gentlemen who jeered and laughed would come to him some morning and read the letters which he received on the subject. He believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite had not a single partisan amongst the working classes, and that they knew little or nothing of the feelings of the middle classes. He wanted to know how the Government were to make up the deficiency of 1,800,000l. on last year, and nearly 3,000,000l. on this. They were now asked to vote away money before they had got it, and he wanted to know how they were to get it. They were not to have an increased income-tax. Would the Government propose any other tax; and if so what was it to be? Would it be a tax on property? Were they prepared to propose a legacy and probate duty on land? or would they have recourse to the Bank at the risk of another panic? It was lamentable to hear talk of the danger we were in from France, or Russia, or any other country. The danger was in the state of our finances. He repeated what he said when the vote for the Navy was before them—that we should be stronger with a surplus revenue, and fewer ships and soldiers, than with an increased armament and a deficient revenue. Hon. Gentlemen talked of the state of Europe; but the people of Europe were too much engaged with their own business to come and attack us. He would not now attempt any argument on the subject; but would merely ask if hon. Gentlemen opposite were ready to incur the discontent of the people at the present amount of taxation? In their name he protested against the manner in which the question before the Committee had been received, against the perfect recklessness with which the public money was to be voted, and the impatience with which any opposition to it was met. He warned hon. Gentlemen that they would repent of having voted money which they had not got to spend.

LORD J. RUSSELL

Sir, if the Committee showed any impatience during a great part of this discussion, it was, I think, rather referable to the topics which hon. Gentlemen introduced, than to any indisposition of the Committee to hear this question fairly discussed. Hon. Gentlemen have discussed at very great length various questions, going through all the details of the Army Estimates, touching upon various points of finance, discoursing much of the Navy Estimates, the constitution of the Ordnance Board, and various other topics, which might have been all conceded for anything this debate was concerned, and yet the question of the number of men to be voted for the Army would be entirely untouched. Is it a reproach to this Committee that it did not listen with very great patience to all those details, seeing that no argument upon them would assist the House in coming to a conclusion as to the question now before us? I am quite ready to admit to the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire that this vote and others of a similar nature are the votes which are to determine the general amount of the expenditure of the present year. I quite admit that votes with respect to small salaries, although they may show a disposition in this House to economy and retrenchment, will not much affect the amount of expenditure under other heads in the present year; and that the question we have before us, together with the votes for the Navy and Ordnance, does in a great measure constitute the bulk of the expenditure on which this House has to decide. Well, then, Sir, the question is, whether or no we are justified in making, or whether the House will sanction the addition to the number of men to the Army which we propose? Let me observe, without discussing the figures with the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-wark, that he has been completely mistaken in placing to the account of the present year the very large increase in the military and naval expenditure. Taking the number which I have just admitted is great, as the test of the amount of expenditure, the number of men added since we have been in office is 3,000 marines, and to the ordnance and artillery 3,200. Now, that amount is not so large as to justify anything like the very great increase which the hon. Member for Southwark has pointed out. He says that we are now proposing an increase of 5,000 men to the Army. But the fact is, the general amount of the Army remains the same. We make no addition to the general amount. It so happens that men who are employed in India are expected at home during the present year; and the difference will be, that these men, instead of being in India, will in England. Well, Sir, is it desirable, or is it not, which is the question before us, to reduce the Army by 13,000 men, as proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose; or by the number proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark? What are the services for which the men are required? With respect to India, with its 12,000 miles of frontier, it has been admitted by the hon. Member for Montrose, and I think by the hon. Member for Southwark, that 22,000 men are not too great a force to defend so large an empire. Proceeding onwards, I find in Australia there is a general demand for forces, and we receive continual requisitions for larger and not diminished forces. In the Mauritius we require some force. Malta and Gibraltar cannot be left without a proper garrison. The force in the West Indies has been reduced, I believe, beyond what it was at any former time; and the force in Canada and the North American colonies is rather below the usual amount. There is, therefore, with regard to our colonies, and with respect to the means of keeping up regular reinforcements to supply the rule by which our troops are only kept ten years abroad and five years at home—with regard to that general rule, and with regard to your garrisons in the colonies, a sufficient ground for the estimates we now propose. But, Sir, it is said—really as if my right hon. Friend to-night based the necessity for this force on the ground of defending our institutions by military power—it is said the best reliance we can have for our defences is in the love and affection of the people. I do not deny any such maxim, but I am most ready to admit it; for we should indeed be in a desperate case if we had to rely upon the force we have in this country in order to defend the Throne and the institutions of the country. No, Sir, I quite admit, as much with respect to Queen Victoria as with respect to Queen Elizabeth, that the best guardian of the Sovereign must be in the affections of the people. But, Sir, I beg the House to recollect that we are not living in times in which every man in a country like this thinks fit to learn military exercises, and become a soldier for the purpose of guarding his own property. The state of society is such that a great portion of the people, especially those whom the hon. Member for the West Riding represents, having been entirely engaged in the occupations of industry and in commerce, and of pursuits of the most pacific kind, find themselves, in the case of the smallest disturbance, in want of protection; and immediately look to the military for that protection and security. During the time that I was in the Home Office I did not require to apply for military force for the purpose of defending the institutions and the Government of the country; but I was repeatedly applied to by manufacturers and by merchants in Lancashire and Yorkshire, on account of the military forces not being sufficient. They said, "Give us a greater amount of troops; we can't be safe where we are;" and more than once I was told by most respectable men, that they would take their wives and families to live in some other part of the country, unless greater military protection were given them. Why, this is not protecting the Throne and the institutions of the country. But the fact is, while there were all these alarms, and all this disquietude, in many cases towns of twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty thousand inhabitants, were thrown into disquiet by five or six hundred boys, between fifteen or twenty years of age, who went about with torches and with various other modes of annoyance, and they put a whole town of that population into commotion and disturbance. It is to defend the civilised, peaceable, and social condition of England—to defend the great majority, and to save them from the expense and trouble and disquietude of arming themselves to protect their own homes. It is for that purpose that we require a home force in this country. I trust, therefore, that Gentlemen will not think it necessary to repeat any more of those common-places about the affections of the people. We do not propose any additional force to keep up the honour of the country. But, Sir, I should have thought, while I say as I have said, that we do not propose any increase in the military force of the country—I should have thought that the consideration of foreign affairs would have been such as to induce almost every Member of this House to concede that we should not choose this particular year to make any reduction in our forces. It does seem to me, while there is nothing which should induce us to add anything to the estimates that we proposed at the commencement of the year, before those troubles broke out which have now spread over all the continent of Europe—while there is nothing to induce us to do that—it would not be wise or prudent to make a sudden diminution in our forces. No man can, I think, really look at that situation of affairs, and confidently say there will be no danger spring out of it—that he is quite sure, whatever change the affairs of foreign countries may take, the relations which may exist between this and foreign countries will remain the same for some time to come. At the same time I am happy to say—speaking at this moment—that there is nothing to call upon England in any way to interfere, even by way of formal remonstrance, against any proceeding that has taken place. There is nothing in the present state of affairs which has affected our position, or indeed obliged us to make any protest or remonstrance whatever. I pass, therefore, from the consideration of these concerns. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding invites us to another consideration, and says, "Have you taken a view of the finances—will you be able to bear this pressure on the finances?" Sir, I think that was a question that was argued well when we had under consideration the duration of the income-tax. It was one ground in proposing an income-tax for three years, that we did think, although there might be a deficiency in the financial year ending in April, 1849, that the income-tax should be granted for three years, as it might be very possible, on the one hand, that there might be an increase of revenue; and, on the other, a diminution of expenditure in future years, so as in future years we might make the income balance and exceed the expenditure. If in the next year it should appear that it is impossible to diminish any part of the expenditure, then we shall have time to consider in what way the deficit may be filled up, and what kind of taxes or burdens may be necessary to propose to the country. In that consideration we should include all those taxes to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, such as the legacy duties; but I do not think, in the present state of affairs, it is necessary to look to these points now. But I would repeat now what I have said on a former occasion, that, looking to the distress which prevails in many parts of the country—looking to the pressure of taxation with regard to different parts of the country—I think it is the duty of the Government to consider before the next year whether there are any of those taxes which press unduly, and whether our means will enable us to apportionate those taxes more equitably than at present. I can only say that I feel very deeply the condition of distress and embarrassment which, I am afraid, in many of our richest and lately flourishing commercial towns has prevailed, owing, I think, to the scarcity of food and other visitations, for which no Government can be answerable. I feel deeply the situation of many of those parties. I should be most happy, therefore, if in the present times we could propose a great reduction of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, so as to enable us to lighten the pressure of taxation. I think, however, under present circumstances, whatever measures the hon. Member for the West Riding should propose—whatever remonstrance may be made—I think that I should not promote the permanent and general interest of the country if I yielded to the complaints of those who hereafter would reproach us for yielding—if I proposed now to diminish the estimates for our forces—and if I did not ask this Committee to agree with us in the proposal for the military force for which we now ask you, feeling convinced that that force is necessary for the purpose and essential to the safety of the State.

SIR DE L. EVANS

had heard with much satisfaction the declaration made by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that it was their intention to consider, before the next Session of Parliament, the means of equalising the taxation of the country. That, in his opinion, was the great question to which the attention of the people of this country was now directed. The hon. Member for the West Riding had said that this was a vote for 7,100,000l. Now this was a specimen of the ad captandum exaggerations in which the hon. Member had indulged for some months back with respect to the Army and Navy. The vote was for 3,800,000l., and the estimate was essentially the same as last year. He contended that the regular force in this country only amounted to 22,000 men, cavalry and infantry. Though the army of America was smaller than our own, her territory was more concentrated, for the colonial empire of England extended to all parts of the world, and America had a militia of 1,800,000 men. He must say that the Executive Government was placed in a position of much difficulty, as it was told to reduce the regular force to the minimum, while no popular force of any kind was to be permitted. But, again, it was said that free trade would supersede the necessity of retaining a large military force; but it was somewhat singular that those who advocated that principle so warmly appeared now to have wholly forgotten it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had entirely abandoned his vocation, and had become the advocate of retrenchments and reductions of all sorts. After having achieved well-merited triumphs in every capital in Europe, he returned home, but uttered not a single word on the great principle of free trade. The hon. Gentleman told the House on the 19th of February that in France, and throughout Europe, there was no feeling but a desire for free trade; but in one month afterwards France and all Europe appeared to be thinking of something widely different. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that free trade was all settled; but a duty of 1,000 per cent was still retained upon some articles of importation; and as to saying that free trade had made any progress, save in this country, it was idle to maintain it. He did not know when it was that the hon. Gentleman became a military character; whether it was at Malta or at St. Petersburgh; but it was clear that the hon. Member had come back a thorough master of this very difficult subject, and now he was determined to effect a complete reform in our establishments. Nay, he had heard, that within the last week circulars had been distributed convening a public meeting to dismiss Her Majesty's Ministers, and call on the hon. Member himself to form a Government. In such a case, of course, the opinions of the hon. Member were of vast importance, and that was the reason why he had trespassed thus long on the House. This much was clear, that Gentlemen who were not connected with either service had set themselves up to reform both—had declared they knew better what was wanted for the defence of the country than those to whom that defence was entrusted—and, above all, that they know better what was wanted for the military defence than the illustrious Chief who was at the head of the army. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, seeing that the hon. Member for the West Riding had a great number of supporters, had, no doubt, acted very judiciously in appointing a Committee at their request—a Committee which, it seemed, was to decide on what was necessary for the military and naval defence of the country. All he could say was, that he, for one, felt very much obliged to the noble Lord for not having nominated any Members of either service on that Committee. He should wait for the result of that Committee before making any observations in detail on the subject; but, in the meantime, he would observe that in the naval branch of the service, as to which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had said, that there might be some jealousy of the force of France, though not with regard to the relative strength of the armies of the two countries—that the Navy estimate for England showed a force of 43,000 men, while that of France showed 52,000, being a majority of 9,000 men.

MR. BRIGHT

could not, in the few observations he intended to offer, attempt to enter into particulars with respect to military affairs, nor would he think of putting his decision on such matters against that of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. That hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be as good an authority on military affairs as any in that House; for so fond was he of warfare, that he was prepared to do battle, not only for his own Queen, but even for the queen of another country. On the present occasion, however, they were confining themselves to the interests of their own particular country; and, circumstanced as the hon. and gallant Member was, it would be anything but judicious for the people of England to take his opinion with regard to military policy, as limited merely to this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech could not be regarded as the happiest or the most fortunate that he had delivered in that House, notwithstanding that he had succeeded in obtaining the warmest manifestations of applause from that section of the House whose favour he had been but little in the habit of courting. He would leave the hon. and gallant Member to square his accounts with his constituents of Westminster; but he would venture to assure the hon. Member and the House, that where there was one man in Westminster who sympathised with the speech of the gallant Officer, there were at least ten who approved of the spirit of the remarks that had fallen from the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had not been very much more fortunate in his observations; for during the whole of his address every cheer that had marked his progress had emanated from the very party in that House against whom he had been contending almost ever since he had had a seat in Parliament. He had taunted the manufacturers of the north of England with going to the Home Office to ask for troops. It might be true that they done so; but such conduct on their part had nothing whatever to do with the question then under discussion. The noble Lord was perfectly well aware the military were only required in the north of England at periods when corn was at precisely that price that accorded with the views of the hon. Members opposite. So notorious was this the fact, that it had become a proverb in Lancashire with which every working man in that country was familiar, that the red coats came when bread was dear. From the return which had been laid upon the table of that House, showing the distribution of the troops, it appeared that the force in Great Britain was about 39,000, and that the number of soldiers stationed in Ireland was no less than 26,000. Now, that latter fact was one to which he thought it of importance to invite the attention of the House. It was right, however, in the first place to observe, that in addition to that great force, 1,000 men or more had been recently drafted into Ireland. There were, moreover, in that country 12,000 police, who constituted, to all intents and purposes, a military force. So that, in point of fact, there was in that part of the empire a military force of not less than 40,000. When, therefore, that question of voting men and money came before the House, they were bound to take into their consideration the circumstances which created a necessity, or from which, at all events, the necessity was assumed, of maintaining so large a body of fighting men. Before he had the honour of a seat in that House, the noble Lord at the head of the Government professed himself the ardent and enthusiastic friend of Ireland. He used to denounce mercilessly those who misruled that country, and not hesitate to predict the evils which were to follow in the event of his counsels not being adopted with regard to Irish policy. There was not a man in that House who had ever witnessed anything in party warfare equal to that—he would call it—ferocious warfare, which took place in that House some few years ago with regard to the introduction of measures for the improvement and conciliation of Ireland. Let them look to her political situation at the present moment. She had next to no constituency. True, she sent 105 representatives to that House; but she suffered under inequalities and wrongs with respect to her political institutions, which could not be denied, and which had been admitted to a greater or less degree on all sides of that House. She had, moreover, a Church Establishment, which, were it not that there was a Church Establishment in England as well, would not last in Ireland for a single Session. In one word, there was to be found in Ireland a condition of things so monstrous, so incredibly vile, that in some years to come their children or their grandchildren would find it difficult to believe how their forefathers could have tolerated it for one hour without having at least made an effort to remedy it. Last year more of their fellow-subjects died in Ireland of positive starvation—yes, literally perished of famine and pestilence in their hovels, in the workhouses, or by the side of the high roads—than England ever lost of her people in any war, ancient or modern, in which she had ever been engaged. Had the Government now in office done anything for Ireland, or was it their intention to do anything for Ireland? If that House was to be asked to vote millions of money to maintain a standing army of forty thousand fighting men in Ireland, was it not right that before they committed themselves to the act, they should obtain more information as to whether it was the intention of the noble Lord at the head of the Cabinet that anything should be done to remedy the intolerable and disgraceful state of things which existed in that wronged and ill-governed land? It was all very well to talk about "this great empire;" but, for his own part, he could not help thinking that unless the colonies and dependencies which were united to England were inhabited by a free, happy, contented, and prosperous population, it would be infinitely better for the English Crown and the English people to abandon the thought of dependencies, altogether, and to be content with this tight little island of their own. The fact could not be denied that there existed out of doors a degree of discontent and dissatisfaction, which proved that the Government of the noble Lord, if wise and fair, was, at all events, most unsuccessful. Without disregarding that particular class of the community for whose welfare the noble Lord appeared to be especially solicitous—the aristocratic and privileged class—he would take leave to say that there was a strong feeling, both in the cities and in the provinces, that it was full time that there should be exhibited in that House a feeling of more sincere sympathy for the industry of the country, and that greater regard should be shown for that economy which was absolutely necessary, in order to the contentment of the people. They might rest assured that sixty millions of taxation was an amount which could not be levied for any length of time from the people of this country without creating a deep and general feeling of dissatisfaction. To economy and retrenchment the Government would have at length to come, when the money they demanded would be denied; for the day would inevitably arrive when every effort to raise so large an amount of taxation as that which was at present levied would be wholly and entirely unavailing.

MR. NEWDEGATE

rose to refute the statements made by the hon. Members for Manchester and the West Riding, when they said that hon. Members on his side had not brought the distressed state of the people before the House. At the end of the last Session he and his hon. Colleague had felt it their duty to urge on the House the state of distress existing among the operatives of the midland counties; and only so late as last Wednesday the hon. Member for Leicestershire had done the same thing. When the hon. Member for the West Riding said that they knew nothing of the feelings of the middle classes, he begged to reply that, representing mixed constituencies as they did, they did well know those feelings; which were feelings of deep and bitter disappointment at the result of those measures which were passed at the instance of those hon. Members. He would tell the hon. Members, also, that should unhappily circumstances arise which would necessitate the interference of the State, it would not be the agriculturists who would need defence, but that, as before, it would be the manufacturers and the inhabitants of large towns who would demand the assistance of that Army which these hon. Members now proposed to reduce to a less force than the country required. Then, again, would be seen the spectacle of the yeomanry of England being called on to preserve order and property in the manufacturing towns and districts.

MR. HUME

, in reply, observed that on those benches opposite, which were now so crowded, there had not been six Members when he addressed the House. As to the gallant Member for Westminster, if he knew more of war, he would at least beat the hon. Member at figures. So far from the force required for Great Britain and Ireland being only 22,000 men, the actual number was 77,297, besides the pensioners, the yeomanry, and the dockyard men. These, with the Irish police and the coastguard, made a grand total of 123,000 men, all in arms, or ready to be in arms. And yet this was in the face of the admission that we must look to the future for money to pay them. How the gallant Member for Westminster would explain his speech to his constituents, he could not conceive.

SIR DE L. EVANS

, in explanation, said he was extremely glad to hear that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) intended to revise the whole system of taxation. With respect to what the hon. Member for Montrose said, he must observe that the whole available force at present in Great Britain Was only 22,000 men; and he believed that number to be totally inadequate to the defence of the country.

The Committee divided on the question that 100,000 men be substituted for 113,000:—Ayes 39; Noes 293: Majority 254.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Meagher, T.
Alcock, T.	Molesworth, Sir W.
Berkeley, hon. G. F.	Mowatt, F.
Blewitt, R. J.	Pechell, Capt.
Bowring, Dr.	Pilkington, J.
Bright, J.	Raphael, A.
Brotherton, J.	Scholefield, W.
Brown, H.	Scully, F.
Clay, J.	Smith, J. B.
Crawford, W. S.	Strickland, Sir G.
Duncan, G.	Stuart, Lord D.
Ewart, W.	Sullivan, M.
Fagan, W.	Tancred, H. W.
Gardner, R.	Thompson, Col.
Greene, J.	Thompson, G.
Hall, Sir B.	Wakley, T.
Hastie, A.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Henry, A.	Williams, J.
Humphery, Ald.	TELLERS.
Kershaw, J.	Hume, J.
M'Gregor, J.	Cobden, R.

List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N.	Adare, Visct.
Adair, H. E.	Adderley, C. B.
Adair, R. A. S.	Alexander, N.

Anson, hon. Col.	Dawson, hon. T. V.
Anson, Visct.	Deedes, W.
Anstey, T. C.	Denison, W. J.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Denison, J. E.
Arkwright, G.	Disraeli, B.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Dod, J. W.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Dodd, G.
	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bagge, W.	Douro, Marq. of
Bailey, J.	Drummond, H.
Bailey, J. jun.	Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.
Baldwin, C. B.	Duff, G. S.
Barkly, H.	Duncuft, J.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Dundas, Adm.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Dundas, Sir D.
Barnard, E. G.	Dundas, G.
Bateson, T.	Dunne, F. P.
Bellew, R. M.	Ebrington, Visct.
Bennet, P.	Egerton, W. T.
Beresford, W.	Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Ellice, E.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Emlyn, Visct.
Blackall, S. W.	Evans, Sir De L.
Blandford, Marq. of	Evans, W.
Boldero, H. G.	Fergus, J.
Boiling, W.	Ferguson, Col.
Bourke, R. S.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Bowles, Adm.	Floyer, J.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Forbes, W.
Brackley, Visct.	Fordyce, A. D.
Bramston, T. W.	Forster, M.
Bremridge, R.	Fortescue, C.
Broadley, H.	Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Brockman, E. D.	Fox, R. M.
Browne, R. D.	Fox, S. W. L.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Freestun, Col.
Buck, L. W.	Frewen, C. H.
Buller, C.	Fuller, A. E.
Bunbury, E. H.	Gaskell, J. M.
Burghley, Lord	Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Busfeild, W.	Glyn, G. C.
Cabbell, B. B.	Goddard, A. L.
Campbell, hon. W. F.	Grace, O. D. J.
Cardwell, E.	Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Carew, W. H. P.	Greene, T.
Carter, J. B.	Grenfell, C. P.
Castlereagh, Visct.	Grenfell, C. W.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cayley, E. S.	Grey, R. W.
Charteris, hon. F.	Grogan, E.
Chichester, Lord J. L.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Childers, J. W.	Guest, Sir J.
Cholmeley, Sir M.	Gwyn, H.
Christy, S.	Haggitt, F. R.
Clay, Sir W.	Hallyburton, Lord J. F.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Hamilton, G. A.
Clive, H. B.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Cocks, T. S.	Hardcastle, J. A.
Codrington, Sir W.	Harris, hon. Capt.
Coke, hon. E. K.	Hawes, B.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Hay, Lord J.
Coles, H. B.	Hayter, W. G.
Colvile, C. R.	Headlam, T. E.
Compton, H. C.	Heathcote, Sir W.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L.	Henley, J. W.
Courtenay, Lord	Hervey, Lord A.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Heywood, J.
Craig, W. G.	Hildyard, R. C.
Cripps, W.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Cubitt, W.	Hodges, T. L.
Currie, R.	Hodges, T. T.
Davies, D. A. S.	Hollond, R.

Hood, Sir A.	Prime, R.
Hope, Sir J.	Pugh, D.
Hornby, J.	Pusey, P.
Hotham, Lord	Rawdon, Col.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Renton, J. C.
Howard, hon. E. G. G.	Reynolds, J.
Hudson, G.	Ricardo, O.
Hutt, W.	Rice, E. R.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Rich, H.
Jervis, Sir J.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Russell, Lord J.
Jones, Sir W.	Russell, hon. E. S.
Keogh, W.	Russell, F. C. H.
Keppel, hon. G. T.	Rutherfurd, A.
Labouchere, rt, hon. H.	Sandars, G.
Langston, J. H.	Seymer, H. K.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.	Seymour, Sir H.
Lewis, G. C.	Seymour, Lord
Lincoln, Earl of	Shafto, R. D.
Lindsey, hon. Col.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Littleton, hon. E. R.	Shelburne, Earl of
Locke, J.	Sheridan, R. B.
Lockhart, A. E.	Sibthorp, Col.
Lockhart, W.	Simeon, J.
Lushington, C.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Mackenzie, W. F.	Smith, J. A.
Macnamara, Maj.	Smith, M. T.
M'Cullagh, W. T.	Smyth, J. G.
M'Naghten, Sir E.	Smollett, A.
M'Neill, D.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
M'Taggart, Sir J.	Spearman, H. J.
Magan, W. H.	Spooner, R.
Manon, The O'Gorman	Stafford, A.
March, Earl of	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Marshall, W.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Matheson, A.	Stuart, J.
Matheson, J.	Start, H. G.
Matheson, Col.	Sutton, J. H. M.
Maule, rt. hon. F.	Talbot, G R. M.
Maunsell, T. P.	Tenison, E. K.
Melgund, Visct.	Tennent, R. J.
Meux, Sir H.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Mitchell, T. A.	Thompson, Ald.
Moffatt, G.	Townley, R. G.
Monsell, W.	Townshend, Capt.
Moore, G. H.	Trelawny, J. S.
Morpeth, Visct.	Turner, G. J.
Morison, Gen.	Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Morris, D.	Vane, Lord H.
Mulgrave, Earl of	Verney, Sir H.
Mure, Col.	Vivian, J. H.
Napier, J.	Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Newdegate, C. N.	Waddington, H. S.
Newry & Morne, Visct.	Wall, C. B.
Norreys, Lord	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Norreys, Sir D. J.	Ward, H. G.
Nugent, Sir P.	Watkins, Col.
O'Brien, Sir L.	Wawn, J. T.
Ogle, S. C. H.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Paget, Lord A.	West, F. R.
Paget, Lord G.	Westhead, J. P.
Palmerston, Visct.	Wilson, J.
Parker, J.	Wilson, M.
Patten, J. W.	Wood, rt hon. Sir C.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir. R.	Wood, W. P.
Pennant, hon. Col.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Perfect, R.	Wyld, J.
Pigott, F.	Wyvill, M.
Pinney, W.	Yorke, H. G. R.
Plumptre, J. P.
Plowden, W. H. C.	TELLERS.
Power, N.	Tufnell, H.
Price, Sir R.	Hill, Lord M.

SIR WILLIAM MOLES WORTH

moved that the vote be reduced by 5,449 men, the number expected to arrive from India within the year.

The Committee again divided on Sir William Molesworth's Motion:—Ayes 45; Noes 246: Majority 201.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Osborne, R.
Alcock, T.	Pearson, C.
Berkeley, bon. G. F.	Pechell, Capt.
Blewitt, R. J.	Pigott, F.
Bowring, Dr.	Pilkington, J.
Brotherton, J.	Raphael, A.
Clay, J.	Reynolds, J.
Cobden, R.	Scholefleld, W.
Crawford, W. S.	Scully, F.
Duncan, G.	Smith, J. B.
Ewart, W.	Stuart, Lord D.
Fagan, W.	Sullivan, M.
Gardner, R.	Tancred, H. W.
Greene, J.	Thompson, Col, Hall, Sir B.
Hall, Sir B.	Thompson, G.
Hastie, A.	Trelawny, J. S.
Henry, A.	Wakley, T.
Hume, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Kershaw, J.	Williams, J.
M'Gregor, J.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Meagher, T.	Wood, W. P.
Mitchell, T. A.	TELLERS.
Moffatt, G.	Molesworth, Sir W.
Mowatt, F.	Bright, J.

List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N.	Buller, C.
Adair, H. E.	Bunbury, E. H.
Adair, R. A. S.	Burghley, Lord
Adderley, C. B.	Cabbell, B. B.
Alexander, N.	Campbell, bon. W. F.
Anson, hon. Col.	Cardwell, E.
Anson, Visct.	Carew, W. H. P.
Anstey, T. C.	Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Archdall, Capt.	Charteris, hon. F.
Arkwright, G.	Chichester, Lord J. L.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Childers, J. W.
	Cholmeley, Sir M.
Bagge, W.	Christy, S.
Bailey, J., jun.	Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Baldwin, C. B.	Clive, H. B.
Barkly, H.	Cocks, T. S.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Codrington, Sir W.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Coke, hon. E. K.
Bateson, T.	Coles, H. B.
Bennet, P.	Colvile, C. R.
Beresford, W.	Compton, H. C.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Courtenay, Lord
Blackall, S. W.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Boldero, H. G.	Craig, W. G.
Bolling, W.	Cripps, W.
Bourke, R. S.	Davies, D. A. S.
Bowles, Adm.	Dawson, hon. T. V.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Deedes, W.
Brackley, Visct.	Denison, W. J.
Bramston, T. W.	Denison, J. E.
Bremridge, R.	Dod, J. W.
Broadley, H.	Dodd, G.
Brockman, E. D.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Douro, Marq. of

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Lincoln, Earl of
Duff, G. S.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Duncuft, J.	Littleton, hon. E. R.
Dundas, Adm.	Locke, J.
Dundas, Sir D.	Lockhart, A. E.
Dundas, G.	Lockhart, W.
Dunne, F. P.	Lushington, C.
Ebrington, Visct.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Egerton, W. T.	Macnamara, Maj.
Ellice, E.	M'Cullagh, W. T.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	M'Naghten, Sir E.
Evans, W.	M'Neill, D.
Ferguson, Col.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Magan, W. H.
Floyer, J.	Mahon, The O'Gorman
Forbes, W.	March, Earl of
Fordyce, A. D.	Marshall, W.
Forster, M.	Matheson, A.
Fortescue, C.	Matheson, J.
Fortescue, hon. J. W.	Matheson, Col.
Fox, R. M.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Freestun, Col.	Melgund, Visct.
Frewen, C. H.	Meux, Sir H.
Fuller, A. E.	Monsell, W.
Gaskell, J. M.	Morpeth, Visct.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Morison, Gen.
Glyn, G. C.	Morris, D.
Goddard, A. L.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Grace, O. D. J.	Napier, J.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Newdegate, C. N.
Greene, T.	Newry & Morne, Visct.
Grenfell, C. P.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Grenfell, C. W.	Nugent, Sir P.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	O'Brien, Sir L.
Grey, R. W.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Grogan, E.	Paget, Lord A.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Paget, Lord G.
Gwyn, H.	Palmerston, Visct.
Haggitt, F. R.	Parker, J.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Patten, J. W.
Hamilton, G. A.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Hardcastle, J. A.	Plumptre, J. P.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Hawes, B.	Power, N.
Hay, Lord J.	Price Sir R.
Hayter, W. G.	Prime, R.
Headlam, T. E.	Pugh, D.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Pusey, P.
Henley, J. W.	Rawdon, Col.
Hervey, Lord A.	Ricardo, O.
Heywood, J.	Rice, E. R.
Hildyard, R. C.	Rich, H.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Russell, Lord J.
Hodges, T. L.	Russell, hon. E. S.
Hodges, T. T.	Russell, F. C. H.
Hollond, R.	Rutherfurd, A.
Hood, Sir A.	Sandars, G.
Hope, Sir J.	Seymer, H. K.
Hornby, J.	Seymour, Sir H.
Hotham, Lord	Seymour, Lord
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Shafto, R. D.
Howard, hon. E. G. G.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Hudson, G.	Shelburne, Earl of
Hutt, W.	Sheridan, R. B.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Sibthorp, Col.
Jervis, Sir J.	Simeon, J.
Jones, Sir W.	Smith, J. A.
Keogh, W.	Smith, M. T.
Keppel, hon. G. T.	Smyth, J. G.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Smollett, A.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Lewis, G. C.	Spearman, H. J.

Spooner, R.	Waddington, H. S.
Stafford, A.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Stanley, hon. E. J.	Ward, H. G.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Watkins, Col.
Sturt, H. G.	Wawn, J. T.
Talbot, C. R. M.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Tenison, E. K.	West, F. R.
Tennent, R. J.	Westhead, J. P.
Thicknesse, R. A.	Wilson, J.
Townley, R. G.	Wilson, M.
Townshend, Capt.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Turner, G. J.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Tynte, Col. C. J. K.	Wyvill, M.
Vane, Lord H.	Yorke, H. G. R.
Verney, Sir H.	TELLERS.
Vivian, J. H.	Tufnell, H.
Vyse, R. H. R. H.	Hill, Lord M.

Original proposition agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee to sit again.