HC Deb 26 February 1849 vol 102 cc1218-300

On the Question that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,


rose and said: I have ventured, Sir, to introduce the Amendment which has been placed in your hands, because I thought it would be advantageous to the House and to the country that before we went into Committee of Supply, or into the details of the Estimates, we should have the opportunity of discussing the question of the financial condition and prospects of the country, and the cause which has given rise to the great increase in the public expenditure which has been going on during the last thirteen years; and I have considered that by doing so we shall afford the Government the opportunity of ascertaining the sense of the House, and I hope also the sense of the country, on this subject. In giving notice of this Motion as an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, I by no means wish hon. Gentlemen to infer that the plan I propose here, or have propounded elsewhere, is one that I expect the Government will bring forward in their estimates to-night or on Friday next. I have no such expectation, and should be sorry to take the division in such a shape as to leave any hon. Gentleman to infer, still less to argue, that what I propose to do can be done instanter. All I wish is that the House should have the opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the desirableness and the necessity of the great reduction in the expenditure which I advocate. Now, Sir, there is just one other point to which I will refer for a moment. I have stated in the beginning of my resolution that our net expenditure for the year 1835 amounted to 44,422,000l., and that it was 54,185,000l. down to the com- mencement of the present year. I would have inserted the gross expenditure if I could have obtained it from the last accounts, because we are under a great delusion in this House and in the country in supposing that our expenditure amounts only to that which comes into the net account of our finances. Now, Sir, on this subject we can take a very much more severe view of our neighbours' affairs than we can of our own. We have had the finances of the French Government very much criticised and remarked upon in this country of late. Now, the French accounts are kept in a very different, and I think superior, way from ours. In the French accounts you have the gross sums put down on the debit and credit sides. For instance, the cost of collection, all the drawbacks, and everything which in this country is put down as charges of collection of revenue, you have put down in the gross revenue of accounts in France. Besides, in France you have a great number of items charged that we put down here as local expenditure. For instance, they have a large item for the religious instruction of the people; they have also items for roads and bridges, the whole of their education, and ateliers nationaux. We have heard a great deal of their cost of workshops, forgetting that we have our ateliers nationaux in every workhouse in England. I will just read to the House what is the amount of expenditure in England for public objects of the same kind as are inserted in the French budget. Our imperial expenditure is 54,000,000l.; and here I beg to say that I will only give the figures in round numbers, omitting the hundreds and thousands, and that in every case I will engage to be under the real amounts. Our imperial expenditure, then, is 54,000,000l. Our cost of collection and other amounts not paid into the Exchequer is 7,000,000l. Our expenditure for the relief the poor in the United Kingdom is 8,000,000l. Our county rates I put down at 1,000,000l.; our highway rates are 1,000,000l.; religion, 6,000,000l.—making a gross total altogether of 77,000,000l. Now, we have heard it stated in this country that the French Government, in the year of the revolution, and when they were in an exceptional state, had expended 72,000,000l. In this country we expended 77,000,000l. for similar objects. Nay more, I have left out our expense for hospitals and education, though I believe that if every item was included, and a fair comparison made, we should have an expenditure of 80,000,000l. in England against 72,000,000l. in France, for a population of 29,000,000 against a population of 36,000,000. Now, Sir, that I think is calculated to make us enter on the consideration of this question in a mode calculated, if possible, to diminish this enormous amount of expenditure; and in bringing forward these local charges, I must say that we have lost sight, a great deal too much, of the increase of late years which has taken place in the local taxation of this country—for this country differs from every other in this respect, that we have four or five different local and legislative bodies taxing the people in different ways for a variety of objects. If we look at the increase in our local expenditure, we shall see something deserving of our serious and solemn attention. I will take the amount for the relief and maintenance of the poor in the United Kingdom. In the year 1837 that amount was 4,300,000l.; by the latest accounts it was 8,341,000l.; and I take 1837 as the first starting point, because, in that year, the new poor-law was brought into full operation in this country, and we had effected a considerable reduction in the expenditure for the relief of the poor, and thought that the new law would have prevented any increase. Why, in England alone, since that time, the increase has been 50 per cent for the relief of the poor. In county rates it has been the same. For the year 1835 the county rates amounted to 671,000l. For the year ending Michaelmas 1847 they were 1,266,000l.—nearly double again for county rates since 1835. And I must say that I think local charges of this kind form a much truer index of the state of the country than the imperial taxation, for bear in mind that these items of poor-rates and county rates are for the support of pauperism, the construction and maintenance of gaols, and other objects of that kind. In fact, your local taxation is a kind of barometer, showing the social state of the country; and I must say that the progress of these rates for the last fourteen or fifteen years has been of a most discouraging and alarming kind. And there is another view of this question. You cannot diminish these local rates, you cannot keep them down, or prevent their increase, by any means you may resort to in the localities themselves. It is my firm belief that the progress of extravagance in your Imperial Legislature is the cause of the growth of pauperism and crime in your several localities, and that to amend and check this you must apply the remedy in this House by general legislation. Now, Sir, I think these facts will prepare us all for entering into this subject with a desire, if possible, to find a means of reducing the expenditure which leads to these evils. And now I come to the point upon which I have heard much cavilling, and which I do not wish to be an obstacle in the way of any hon. Gentleman joining with me this evening. It has been objected to me and asked, "Why do you take 1835 as the standard to judge by in making your calculations?" Why, I have taken it because I would avoid doing that, which indeed I have been charged with doing, I would avoid taking an arbitrary standard. I have been charged with being dogmatical and fanciful in taking an arbitrary standard. I have done as we all would do in the management of our private affairs. If we have done wrong, we would look back and see when we began to get wrong. And in doing this, I have only followed precedents set me by others who discussed similar quessions before. Why, I appeal to the hon. Member for Montrose, and other hon. Members of this House, whether, after the French revolutionary war, it was not the practice here to refer to the standard of 1792? [Mr. HUME: Whig and Tory did so.] Whig and Tory, my hon. Friend reminds me, pointed back to 1792 as the point at which they fell into these unhappy hostilities. I believe it was the practice of Mr. Pitt to refer back to the peace establishment after the seven years' war. Even the Finance Committee of 1817, appointed by Lord Castlereagh—even they referred to 1792 as the standard, as the point of departure to which they should endeavour to return. Why, I could quote from every leading man, who sat on the Opposition side of the House in 1816, down to 1822, arguments to show the propriety of the course I am pursuing. I will take one. I will quote from the Marquess of Lansdowne, who moved a resolution analogous to mine in March, 1816, and said, upon that occasion— With this view it would be necessary for him to compare the present with former estimates; and, indeed, this was the only practicable way in which they could be considered, drawing in aid of that consideration the experience and wisdom of former times. That this had been the practice upon former occasions was proved by the conduct of a right hon. Gentleman, whose authority the noble Lords opposite could scarcely dispute, he meant Mr. Pitt, who, in 1786, had a Committee appointed for the purpose of considering what would be the proper estimates for the then peace establishment, taking as a ground for their decision the estimates at the peace of 1763; thus showing, that the comparison with former estimates, and the experience of former times, formed the only practical grounds on which questions of this nature could be determined. Now, Sir, I hope I may not be considered as unjustified by precedent. I am not one of those who attach an undue importance to precedent; but I think the case I have referred to forms a good example for me in drawing attention to the expenditure of 1835. And when I say 1835, I might take the average of '34, '35, and '36, because it would make very little difference in the calculation; but I take 1835, and draw a comparison between that and the expenditure of last year. I find that the interest of the funded and unfunded debt in 1835 was 28,514,000l., that in 1848 it was 28,563,000l., so that there is not a difference of 50,000l. between the interest on the debt then and at the present time. Then I find that the expenditure for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance in 1835 was 11,657,000l., that in 1848 it was 17,645,000l., and that the Kaffir war in 1848—for I cannot separate that from our warlike estimates, because I know not when it may commence again—cost 1,100,000l., making a total for Army, Navy, and Ordnance, of 18,745,000l. for last year. The civil expenditure, Consolidated Fund, and miscellaneous for 1835 was 4,251,000l.; for 1848, it was 6,598,000l.; and the distress in Ireland last year cost 276,000l. The total, therefore, of expenditure in 1835 was 44,422,000l. against 54,182,000l. in 1848. Now I wish every hon. Member to look at this point. You have 28,563,000l. for the interest of the funded and unfunded debt, which you cannot touch for any reduction of your expenditure. Then, for civil expenditure, you have 6,598,000l. Well, upon nearly the half of that which goes to the Consolidated Fund you might probably, and you will in time, I hope, be able to make considerable reductions; but that sum, which is voted under permanent Acts of Parliament, is, I believe, the last to which you will apply for any reduction of expenditure. Well, then, Sir, we come to a sum of 3,000,000l. or 4,000,000l. a year for your miscellaneous expenditure, upon which you are to exercise the pruning knife, unless you adopt the plan which I most unfeignedly recommend, to reduce that enormous item of 18,000,000l., for your military establishment. Now, I have always advocated, feeling the necessity of a reduction of expenditure, the going to that item where great practical relief can he had. Hon. Gentlemen connected with the military service may think that there is a spirit of hostility in my mind to them, because I touch that item. I do it from absolute necessity. If you will give any substantial relief to the country, and make such a reduction as will amount to a sensible diminution of expenditure, you must apply to that great expenditure upon Army, Navy, and Ordnance. Now, Sir, I will endeavour—for that is the gist of the argument I have to offer upon the Army, Navy, and Ordnance—I will endeavour, with your permission, to show what has been the expenditure upon that since 1835, what were the causes of the increase, and I will then leave it to the House to decide whether those causes which led to the increase exist at present. Now, in 1836, there was an additional vote of 5,000 seamen to the Navy. I am speaking to hon. Gentlemen who will remember every thing that passed in this country since that time, and therefore I will not go into details. I will simply remind you, that in 1836 there was a great apprehension felt in this country respecting the Russian invasion. We had two or three gentlemen then in England who, I thought, had a monomania on the subject. I was so struck with that impression, that, although occupied at that time in private pursuits, I did perpetrate two or three pamphlets in answer to those gentlemen, who, as I said before, had, as I thought, a monomania about Russia. But the cry was propagated by those individuals, and echoed in the press, and in this House, and the result was, that the hon. Member for Halifax proposed the increase of 5,000 men for the Navy. The King's Speech recommended it; and it is no secret in the present day that the King had a strong feeling on the subject. Well, is there any ground now for supposing that Russia is coming to invade us? Why, we were to have had the French invasion since that; but who will now say that we want these 5,000 seamen to protect us? Still there they remain. Now I come to 1838. You remember the rebellion in Canada in 1838. That gave rise to an increase of 8,000 to our Army. That rebellion was put an end to very soon. Canada, since then, obtained every thing a country can desire in the shape of self-government. I can only say that I wish the people here were in as happy a position as the population of Canada are. I suppose hon. Gentlemen will not imagine that there is any danger now of a rebellion or of any collision between England and Canada, yet there the 8,000 soldiers still remain. Now, in 1839, the right hon. Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell), who was then Home Secretary, moved for an increase of 5,000 men rank and file for the Army, and he told us what they were wanted for. There had been an insurrection at Newport: I allude to the affair of Frost, Williams, and Jones. There was some turbulence in that part of the country by the Chartist party, and the noble Lord told us that 5,000 men were required to meet those domestic troubles. Well, but we have had an interval of several years of uninterrupted peace at home, during which the Chartists have been scarcely heard of, and yet there remain these 5,000 men. We never heard of their reduction. Now I come to the year 1840 and 1841. We had the China war, a war in Syria—we had a threatened rupture with France, and we were embroiled with America with respect to the arrest and trial of M'Leod. These were times of excitement, and I admit they were not without some peril to the peace of the country, and there was an addition of 5,000 sailors made at that time. Well, but the China war is at an end. Syria is in the hands of the Turks. There is no longer a threatened rupture with France or with America, and the M'Leod matter has been settled. Yet, here are the 5,000 sailors—we never had them recalled. Well, I come now to 1842. We had a dispute then with the United States about the Maine boundary—in fact, the irritation between England and America was caused by the burning of the Caroline, when the Maine boundary question was agitated, and then there was considerable excitement in America, and some excitement here. Four thousand sailors were added to our marine; but Lord Ashburton came back with an amicable treaty settling the whole dispute about the boundary. Yet we had no reduction of these sailors. Well, then, comes 1845. That was a serious state of things. We had a dispute with the United States respecting the Oregon boundary. President Polk sent over a warlike message. General Cass made some furious and indiscreet speeches, and there was a feeling that we were in imminent danger of a collision on that boundary question. America declared that she would take possession of the territory, and administer her laws there, and we said we would not submit to have Oregon taken from us. Well, there was a proposal to increase our Navy, and establish a fleet of evolution. We accordingly had a fleet at Spithead, and Her Majesty went there to see it, and I recollect it was stated in the papers at the time to be more formidable than the fleet that gained the battles of Trafalgar and the Nile. Well, in that year we had an increase of l,700,000l. in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Departments; and my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose gave a willing assent to that increase under the circumstances then detailed. Well, but the Oregon question was settled in the summer of 1846. I believe its settlement was the last act performed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth before he went out of office in 1846. Where, then, is the plea for keeping up that enormous armament? But, in 1846, no sooner was the Oregon question settled, than we entered into diplomatic quarrels with France respecting the Spanish marriages. I call it a diplomatic quarrel, though I might call it a Court quarrel—for the people of this country had no interest in it. But it gave rise to bad blood in France, and to a state of irritation in this country, and the press of the two countries fanned the flame, and no one could deny that there was a great alienation, if not hostility, between the two countries. That was increased by the previous publication of Prince Joinville's pamphlet, and also by the old grudge in the case of Mr. Pritchard. This produced a bad spirit between us and France, and, accordingly, we increased our "armaments" that year by 1,200,000l. In 1847 the same spirit continued between the two countries, until we had discussions about fortifying our coast against an attack from France; and at the end of '47 we had a panic among us, and we were then persuaded by Mr. Pigou, the gunpowder maker, that the French were actually coming to attack us. We had another increase of Army and Ordnance in '47 to the amount of 1,000,000l. The actual increase for Army, Navy, and Ordnance in '47 was, I believe, 1,600,000l., but whether exception be taken to some of the items I know not. I ask the House whether there is one of the causes which led to these suc- cessive augmentations of our Marine, Army, and Ordnance that now remains? The last of which I have spoken, I think, might have been the most serious of all, though, as I stated, it was only a diplomatic quarrel; but as it became dynastic, and as the second generation, in the person of Prince Joinville, had entered into it, it might have grown into something serious between the two countries, if the question had not been solved by a very rude hand—the late revolution in France, which has put an end to all possibility of quarrelling between us and France on the subject of the marriages in Spain. For, whatever other grounds of danger and apprehension may remain, no one need apprehend that France and England will quarrel about the successor to the Spanish Crown. Well, I ask hon. Members who are going to oppose me—those who will not admit that we may return as speedily as practicable to a standard such as we had in 1835 and 1836—to put their finger on any of the causes for those successive augmentations of our expenditure, and tell me one that now remains. Why, Sir, we stand at the present moment in infinitely a superior position as compared with our foreign relations to what we did in '35; for, in '35, when we had reduced our expenditure to that point, hon. Gentlemen will remember that we were not in a very friendly position with Russia. For several years we had no Ambassador at St. Petersburg. We were marauding, too, on the coast of Spain, for we had our Quadruple Treaty, by which we furnished mercenaries under our foreign marine. We were, then, in 1835, not in so secure a state with our foreign relations as we are now. I ask any one to point out where the danger is now threatened. Is it with America, and on account of those boundary questions which we were assured were to germinate a war for a quarter of a century? Is it with France? Is it with Russia? who is conscious that, with her 20,000,000 of serfs, she has quite as much to do at home as any other country. I say that if England takes due advantage of her insular position, and confines herself to her own affairs, and does not run into needless and rash disputes with other countries, there never was a time when she stood so free from danger of war as at the present moment. Our present political state, as regards our foreign relations, might be said to be as calm as still water. It may be objected, when asked to go back to the standard of 1835, that the expenditure of that year was too low. I do not admit that, my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose will not admit it. It has been said that the services were left in an inefficient state in 1835. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield said on a former occasion that the dockyards had been left in a state of destitution. My hon. Friend ought to have remembered that that was said once before. In 1816, when the noble Lord the Member for London, and all his leading Whig Colleagues, were advocating a reduction of the naval and military establishments to the standard of 1792, it was said that the standard was injudiciously low, and that Mr. Pitt had ever after regretted he had made it so low. This was repeated by Lord Castlereagh and others, ad nauseam, until Lord Granville denied that Mr. Pitt entertained such an opinion, and that he, on the contrary, always congratulated himself that he had reduced those establishments so low after the American war, because it enabled this country to come into war with France with recruited forces. For the reduction of 1835 we are mainly indebted to a right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), for whose administrative talents I entertain the greatest respect and admiration; and I call upon him to say whether the dockyards were left by him in the state of destitution described by the hon. Member for Sheffield? Turning from our foreign relations, I feel myself bound to advert to a question which is always presented to us in discussions of this nature. Let any hon. Member ask for a reduction of establishments, and he is immediately told that they are necessary for the maintenance of our colonies. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in his celebrated budget speech of Feb. 14, 1845, said— Of the 112 battalions of infantry in the British service, there now 23 in India, 50 are serving in the colonies, and 4 are on their passage, malting in all 77 battalions actually employed in the defence of our colonial empire. We have 35 battalions at home—not, as it is supposed, for the purpose of restraining the population, but for the purpose, and we effect it incompletely, of maintaining the system of reliefs for our regiments serving abroad. Now, I ask the House if the time is not come when we ought seriously to consider whether we cannot reduce the enormous expenditure incurred by this country for colonial possessions? That question was suggested by a Committee of the House in 1832; but how much more necessary is it to consider it now. What the ground is upon which free-traders can possibly advocate the keeping up of that enormous expense, I am at a loss to discover. I can understand Gentlemen who are protectionists, upon the principle that our exclusive trade with the colonies remunerates us for the expense of colonial establishments; I can understand them voting for these establishments, so long as they had a hope of keeping up the principle of protection. But if there be protectionists who think that the old protection principle can be restored, I am willing that they should vote against me on this occasion. If, on the other hand, there be free-traders who think that free trade is only an experiment, I am willing that they too should take a similar course. But I ask how they who think, with me, that free trade is not an experiment, but a permanent rule and principle, can any longer vote for the maintenance of these establishments in our colonies? According to our theory of free trade, we consider that we give the colonies a great boon in allowing them to trade where they please. We have got that liberty for ourselves, and by giving it to them we remove a great obstacle to their prosperity. But, we say they are bound to maintain for themselves those establishments which are necessary for their own defence and their own government. I hear some Gentlemen say that we must make them an integral part of the kingdom. But if we do, will they pay our taxes and share our debt? If that is done, I can understand the principle of doing so; but otherwise, the proposition passes my comprehension. The great mass of the people of this country can derive no benefit from our colonies unless through the medium of trade. It is only a very few who benefit by sinecures and appointments. Such being the case, I say it is manifestly unjust and indefensible, that you should tax the people of this country for the expenses of our colonies. There was a great difference between some places, such as Gibraltar and Malta, in which we must maintain a garrison, and colonies such as Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape of Good Hope, which are inhabited by an English race, which are placed in a temperate zone, and where Englishmen can become indigenous. I say it is monstrous that the people of England should be taxed for maintaining the establishments of these colonies. I wish that hon. Members would just reflect a little upon the comparative condition of the inhabitants of these colonies and the people of this country; for if they did they would find that the former were in an enviable state compared with the latter; and that a labourer in Australia is upon a par with a small Devonshire farmer. In a letter recently received from the wife of a Northampton emigrant in Australia, the writer states— Plenty of money, plenty of victuals. The only thing that grieves us now is to think of your starving in England, and we in a land of such great plenty. I wish you would all make up your minds and come. I am sure you would never repent coming hero; for there is plenty of work, and plenty of money, and plenty of victuals. We never eat less than a quarter of mutton a week for us three, and beautiful meat it is here. If hon. Gentlemen consider that I am speaking logically and fairly, and deducing from the principles of free trade, they will go with me to this extent at all events, that we must from this time prepare to relieve ourselves as speedily as possible from the expenditure we have incurred on account of our military establishments in our colonies. In New Zealand you have 2,000 rank and file, and not 20,000 European inhabitants—that is, about one soldier for every ten colonists—that one soldier having been carried from England, at the expense of the people of the country, a distance of 12,000 or 15,000 miles, to be fed and clothed in the midst of a people every one of whom carries his own rifle, and knows how to use it. In Australia, where there are no aboriginal inhabitants, and not even a beast of prey to injure the colonists, I do say it is bad policy and gross injustice to compel us to pay for a military establishment which the colonists themselves would prefer being without, provided you give them the control of their own affairs. I do believe that much of this force is kept up to enable our Colonial Office to administer its affairs in the way it does—that it is kept up more to enable the Government to keep down the population, than to protect that population against an enemy. I consider that free trade has enabled you to reduce your expenditure to a less point than 1835, and yet leave you all the necessary force you may require for protection at home. It has been shown that only one-third of our troops are permanently employed in this country, while two-thirds are maintained for the colonies. That is a system which requires a total change, and if you do change it you can no longer have any difficulty in making the reduction I call for. I am aware that respecting armaments at home, you have now a much larger force in England and Ireland than in 1835. I am very sorry it is so; and I think there has prevailed a most exaggerated idea as to the necessity of that force. Last year we were all in a panic, and could not reason on the subject. But we have no longer that excuse, while the trials in the courts of law in reference to the disturbances that did take place have thrown much light upon what has been unworthily dignified by the name of insurrection. It has been clearly shown that neither in England nor Ireland have there been 100 men confederated together with arms to war against the Crown and Government of this country. I believe that that comedy of a revolution was never sustained by meetings of more than 30 men, and of these six or eight were spies. I believe, moreover, if what I have heard from magistrates and others he true, that whatever of revolutionary feeling there was in the disturbance here, came from Hibernian inspiration—that if it had not been for the Irish elements there would have been no turbulence amongst the English population. Besides, it should be recollected in justice to this country and to the mass of the working people, that for eighteen months previous to the outbreak of the French revolution, they had passed through a crisis of great difficulty, privation, and suffering. This pressure of 1847 was felt particularly in the counties of York and Lancaster, and yet not the slightest tendency to turbulence or political excitement of any kind was evinced. The people believed in their conscience that every ounce of food that could find its way to this country was admitted into it—they knew that the navigation laws were suspended, and they felt that the Government had not placed itself in antagonism to them; and with this conviction on their mind they abstained from all acts of hostility towards the Government, and evinced those of perfect loyalty and order. Notwithstanding this, attempts, which, I own, have filled me with feelings of surprise, not unmixed with indignation, have been made to prove that it has been our troops, and our artillery, and the hundreds of thousands of special constables alone, who prevented a large portion of the people of this country from rising into rebellion. I don't believe it, and I am happy to think I have no reason to believe it; for if it were true it would be very unfortunate for the country. There is another point I feel bound to notice, in justice to the people of this country, and in mercy to those deluded men who are now expiating their crimes, or follies, or both. I hope that at some future time it will be considered, particularly in reference to the case of the young men, that when they erred, this country was exposed to the influence of an electric shock which had been felt all through Europe, and that it was not an unnatural thing that men with vivid fancies, or sanguine temperaments, or who felt keenly for the sufferings of the people, should have been seized with the idea of revolutionising the country. You had every reason to expect some attempt of the kind, and you have now reason to congratulate yourselves that after a short interval you should find so little trace of it. But the conclusion I draw from all this is, that you cannot at the present moment take the condition of the people as a justification for keeping up a larger military force in England than usual. On the ground, therefore, of our foreign relations, on the ground of our colonial connexions, and with reference to our domestic relations, I see no reason whatever to prevent the Executive Government from being authorised by this House, as an act of justice and mercy to the taxpayers of the nation, largely to reduce our naval and military forces. It is not my intention to tell you on this occasion what I would do with the money saved, or how you might relieve the commercial and agricultural industry of the country by a large remission of taxation. I will not anticipate the opportunities which hon. Gentlemen opposite will give me of proving to them that if they wish to abolish the malt tax and the hop duties, it must and can only be effected by their voting for some such measure as I propose. I am prepared to remove every obstacle I can to the full use and development of labour and capital, whether in agriculture or manufactures. But I toll hon. Gentlemen that it is useless to go to agricultural meetings, and talk of repealing the malt tax and the hop duties, unless they look at the arithmetical table which I have placed before them, and see whether I am not right in saying that it is only by largely reducing our naval and military establishments that they can effect any large reduction of taxation; without which their scheme of abolishing those taxes which are alleged to be an obstacle in the way of the agriculturist, cannot possibly be carried out. There are other taxes as well which claim consideration. There is the tax upon timber, which the Government, I doubt not, desire to make a corollary to the removal of the navigation laws. There are also bricks, and soap, and paper, and tea. I hear Gentlemen to the right and left whispering some favourite tax for repeal. You will have those doors besieged by petitioners anxious for the removal of those taxes. It is not necessary that I should now dwell upon the necessity of removing them—ample opportunity will be afforded me on future occasions; and I shall only say, looking to the growing demand for a reduction of taxation, that if you are determined to maintain these enormous establishments, you are incurring far greater risks to this country, than by reducing them you have any reason to apprehend from the chance of collision with foreign Powers. I never look at the question without considering what is the danger of reducing our forces, and what the danger if we continue the present enormous amount of taxation. If the Government of this country derived its funds from some source independent of taxation, I dare say it would never become the subject of controversy between me and hon. Gentlemen opposite how the money was spent. But when it comes out of the pockets of the people, and chiefly from the labouring classes, and is levied by imposts which obstruct the channels of trade and agriculture, it becomes a matter for serious consideration whether it would not be better even to run a little risk from abroad, and relieve the country, than oppress the people and injure the country for the sake of being prepared when the danger did come. I have already shown that the increase in our establishments has taken place to meet particular cases and alleged necessities which no longer exist. It is said now, that they cannot be reduced, because other countries have increased their establishments, and that we must not reduce, because they do not. I am strongly of opinion, that respecting the Navy we are the offenders, by being the first to increase, and by still increasing. Looking to the tendencies of opinion in France, there is now a decidedly pacific feeling amongst the people of that country; and I believe that any overture made by this House, or the country, for a reduction of armaments, would be freely met and responded to by them. It is acknowledged by them, that their finances form the great danger and difficulty of the new republic; and that the only means of meeting it is by a large reduction of their warlike establishments. But I would apply the pruning knife to our civil establishments as well, and have included in the list of our tariff the amount for civil expenditure which I think may justly he taken off. I would apply it also to the civil expenditure of the country; the sum is smaller certainly, but a great deal too exorbitant. But, be it remembered, it is not only the net amount of the revenue, that which finds its way into the Consolidated Fund, that we have to make our economy from—there is a large amount which never comes into the account at all, which goes in disbursements, and in the cost of collection; and if you can diminish that amount, in the same proportion you increase the amount of money which does reach the Exchequer. Though you have but three or four millions in the civil expenditure to which you can apply the pruning knife, yet you may make a considerable reduction there. In one item alone you may effect a considerable saving, that on which the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) the Member for Bath obtained a Committee last year, the Woods and Forests. Last year, when that noble Lord made a most eloquent appeal to this House for the removal of the window duty, he told us that he should go into that Committee (on the Woods and Forests) to save 600,000l. a year. Well, if he saves only one-half of that sum, it will go a great way towards enabling the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce our civil expenditure by a million and a half. For I take it that the Consolidated Fund is continually throwing up the means, from time to time, of suppressing unnecessary offices, and reducing others. At all events, I think it will not be difficult to reduce the expenditure to what it was in 1835. I can only say, if it were left to me to do it, I would do it in this way: I would spend not more than ten millions for our armaments; I would have them as efficient as they could be, but they should not cost more than ten millions. I would have the remainder for the civil expenditure; I would have 1,600,000l. more for that, as there would be 1,600,000l. less for the military and naval expenditure. Thus preserving the total amount as it was in 1835; but giving one and a half million more to the civil expenditure, and taking it from the military and naval expenditure, you may, I am confident, return to the expenditure of 1835. And I venture to predict, having had some previous experience in watching the development of public opinion, that nothing less will satisfy the people of this country. The feeling in favour of economy has grown much within the last year. This House itself bears witness of it. I have seen such evidence of the progress of opinion on this subject, that I have not the least doubt, in a comparatively short time, the expenditure of this country may be brought back to the expenditure of 1835. I will conclude by merely saying, that I consider, in advocating the reduction of expenditure, I am advocating the removal of those impediments to industry which cause disease, pauperism, and crime in the country; a measure which will tend to make the people contented and happy citizens, instead of being miserable, dejected, and disaffected—in giving men something to fight for in this country, something to preserve, and to love, instead of making them the enemies of our institutions. Every step that you take in that way, in mitigating the pressure of taxation on the people, and showing that a government of this kind may be carried on as cheaply as the governments in other countries, will do more to preserve your institutions; aye, and will do more to preserve yourselves from foreign attacks than any amount which you can expend in military and naval preparations. Sir, I have now to move the following resolution:— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, the not expenditure of the Government for the year 1835 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 260, 1847), amounted to 44,422,000l.; that the net expenditure for the year ended 5th January, 1849 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 1, 1849), amounted to 54,185,000l.; the increase of nearly ten millions having been caused principally by successive augmentations of our warlike establishments, and outlays for defensive armaments: That no foreign danger, nor necessary cost of the Civil Government, nor indispensable disbursements for the services in our dependencies abroad, warrant the continuance of this increase of expenditure; That the Taxes required to meet the present expenditure, impede the operations of agriculture and manufactures, and diminish the funds for the employment of labour in all branches of productive industry, thereby increasing pauperism and crime, and adding grievously to the local and general burthens of the people: That, to diminish these evils, it is expedient that this House take steps to reduce the annual expenditure, with all practicable speed, to an amount not exceeding the sum which, within the last fourteen years, has been proved to be sufficient for the maintenance of the security, honour, and dignity of the nation.


seconded the Motion.


, although differing from his hon. Friend who had brought forward this resolution, must express his satisfaction at the fair and temperate manner in which he had introduced the subject. On former occasions the hon. Gentleman had stated, that he intended to make no charge against either the present or any past Government; and certainly his speech that night was in perfect consistency with that spirit and temper. In answering the hon. Gentleman, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not, therefore, feel that he was called upon to defend himself or any Member of the Government from imputation or attack. The hon. Gentleman had truly stated, that several increases in the estimates had been made; with the general concurrence of this and preceding Parliaments; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would only so far draw an argument from this circumstance as to infer that measures in which so many large majorities of that House had concurred, could hardly be so very far wrong as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. He could assure him that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not disposed to take any exception to any of the minor points to which he had referred. He differed with him, not in the matter of a few hundreds or thousands, but upon millions, and he therefore wished to meet his arguments in general terms and in the fairest spirit. The hon. Gentleman had made allusion to the local taxation of the country; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must confess that he did not see the connexion that subject had with the conclusions to which the hon. Gentleman had come. He thought the hon. Gentleman would find that the general increase in the county rates, and other local taxation of that description, had arisen from the improvements introduced in recent years in the prison discipline of the country, the adoption of better means for carrying out secondary punishments, and the provision of comfortable asylums for destitute and miserable lunatics throughout the country. In fact, the general increase of local taxation was owing to the general improvement of the local administration of the country. He would now, after this passing remark, address himself to an- swering the main argument of the hon. Gentleman. He should not object to a reference to the expenditure of a former year, as the hon. Member for Montrose used to refer, in former years, to that of the year 1792. But when any particular year was fixed upon as a standard to which they were imperatively bound to go back, the hon. Gentleman would surely admit that these two conditions were necessary—first, that the year which he took for his standard must be one when there was an adequate provision made for the efficiency of the public services; and, second, that no subsequent changes had taken place in the state and condition of the country. Neither of these conditions were fulfilled in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had stated, in round terms, that, by returning to the standard of 1835 in our naval and military expenditure, a reduction of ten millions could easily be effected. It was right in the first place that the accurate figures should be placed before the House. The hon. Gentleman had stated truly that the expenditure for the year 1848 was 54,185,000l., and that the expenditure for the year 1835 amounted only to 44,422,000l, the difference between the two years being a little short of ten millions. But the whole of that increase was not to be attributed to an increase in the naval and military establishments of the country. The hon. Gentleman had erroneously included in the expenditure of last year what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must consider an extraordinary item, namely, the cost of the Kaffir war, which was an unforeseen and uncontrollable expenditure, and had been incurred almost before it was known that the necessity for it existed. This, together with the 276,000l. voted for the relief of Irish distress, as they could not be viewed as permanent causes of expense, must both be deducted from the hon. Gentleman's calculation of the expenditure of last year. The hon. Gentleman had also referred, but in milder terms, to the increase in the expenditure for civil purposes since 1835. There had been a very large increase under that head since the year 1835. The difference between the two periods in the civil expenditure of the country for various purposes, including an increase of 700,000l. charged on the Consolidated Fund, principally for judicial establishments and Irish constabulary, amounted to 2,372,000l., and if this sum, with the 1,376,000l. for the Kaffir war and Irish distress, were deducted from the apparent increase in the general expenditure, the increase upon the naval and military expenditure since 1835 would be reduced to 6,000,000l. in round numbers, instead of 10,000,000l. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman succeeded in his favourite notion of returning to the expenditure of 1835, for naval and military purposes, he could only effect a reduction of 6,000,000l., instead of 10,000,000l. If the hon. Gentleman only meant to say that the Government ought to carry into effect every practicable economy, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not differ from him; and he hoped, before he sat down, to convince the House that the Government had not been unmindful of the pledge given by them to the House last year—to effect every reduction in the expenditure that was consistent with what they believed in the present year to be necessary for the best interests of the country. The hon. Gentleman did not, of course, mean that the expenditure was to be reduced to the extent to which he had alluded at some distant or indefinite period—in those halcyon days when all internal disputes would be settled in a high court of arbitration, and when every sword should be turned into a ploughshare, and every spear into a pruning hook. He was a practical man, and of course he meant by his Motion, that all this large reduction was to be carried out in a short period of time. The position upon which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would take his stand was this—and he hoped the House would express its deliberate opinion upon it—that it was not possible, in the course of a year or two, to effect a reduction to the extent proposed by the hon. Gentleman, with a due regard to that protection of life and property at home, and of our trade and commerce abroad, which he believed to be necessary for the full development of the industry and enterprise, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial, of a great empire like this. He would commence by referring to the expenditure of the year 1835, and he believed that experience had shown that the provision made for the public service in that year was inadequate. In that year he had filled the office of Secretary to the Admiralty, and had to bring forward the naval estimates. For the four years during which he then held that situation, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was year after year exposed to attacks, not for any extravagance or for any undue increase in the estimates for that department, but, on the contrary, the blame he received was for a parsimonious disregard of the best interests of the country. In the year 1835 we had not a single line-of-battle ship in any of our ports; but the necessity for some such force has been more strongly insisted upon than any other measure, in every discussion which has taken place on our national defences. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the fear of Russian armaments being the cause of increase in 1836. The ground given for the increase in the number of men in the following year was the demands continually coming from almost every station that he could remember for increased protection to British subjects trading abroad; and it was not until 1838 or 1839 that the hon. Member for Birmingham and the hon. Member for West Kent dilated in the House upon the danger to which the coast of England was exposed from the possible ravages of the Russians. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobdon) had gone through the various causes that had led to successive increases in the naval force of the country, and had said that every one of those increases had been permanently maintained. But when he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) heard his hon. Friend's condemnation of all those causes that had led to these augmentations of our national strength, he must say he thought the hon. Gentleman himself had made a very strong case to show that almost every year since 1835, a larger force than existed in 1835 was necessary for the safety and security of the country. What with the threatened irruptions of the Russians in one year, the alarming state of Canada in another, the Chinese war in another, the Oregon disputes in another, the danger of a rupture with France with regard to the Tahitian affair in another, and various other causes, which the hon. Gentleman had cited as having led to the increase of our forces, the hon. Gentleman had himself convincingly shown the necessity for a larger force than the force of 1835, in almost every year since that period, for the due protection of our trade and commerce abroad, and for the security of our shores at home. In 1841 the naval force comprised 43,000 men; and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), who had always shown the greatest anxiety for reducing the force when it could safely be done, had reduced the number to 36,000 men in 1844. But one short year's experience taught the right hon. Baronet that he had reduced the number to too low a point to be permanently maintained; and in the very able statement that had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden), and which deserved to be regarded as a text-book of all financial statements, the right hon. Baronet in the year following the year in which he had made the reduction, namely, in 1845, laid it down not as a necessity arising from any extraordinary state of things in that year, but upon ordinary and permanent grounds, that the number of 1844 was not adequate for the due protection of the interests of the country, and he then increased the force to the number that stood upon the estimate for the present year, namely, 40,000 men. And even this number was evidently not considered enough in the next year by the right hon. Baronet, because when the present Government came into office in 1846, they found the number of men employed considerably above the number voted; and on the 1st January 1847, the excess was more than 4,000 men, so that there were upwards of 44,000 men employed in the Navy. The present Government had raised the vote in subsequent estimates in order to sanction the numbers borne; but in the course of last year a reduction of nearly 4,000 men had been made. The reduction proposed this year was 3,000 on the numbers voted; but the total reduction of men borne from the period when the number was the highest would be about 5,500, and they would stand for this year at 40,000, which was the number voted in 1845. Now what were the grounds for the increase beyond the standard of 1835? In that year the large field for the employment of our naval force in the eastern hemisphere did not exist. The trade with China was at that time mainly conducted by the East India Company. Now, however, we had to maintain a naval force at five separate ports in China, to protect our trade with that part of the globe. New Zealand, too, had been added to our colonial possessions; and, so far from agreeing with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) in thinking that free trade was an answer to all demands for protection to our colonies, it seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that the more our commerce was extended abroad— the more numerous the points occupied by British industry became—the more the demand must be met for protection to British subjects, in whatever part of the world they were placed, by a military and naval force. The same argument, of course, applied in this respect to the increase of the military as of the naval force. It was not for keeping down the population of Canada (who had truly been described by the hon. Gentlemen as about the most contented people on the face of the earth—and herein lay an answer to the frequent charges made of the misgovernment of that colony by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies—it was not for keeping the people of Canada or the people of New Zealand down, that these forces were required, but for their protection more especially with respect to the latter colony) from the warlike attacks made against them, and not repelled without some difficulty, within the last few years. And when these colonies constituted such rich and ample fields for the settlement of our surplus population, as the hon. Gentleman had described that night, it seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it was money not ill laid out to extend the protecting arm of the mother country over British industry and enterprise, so as to enable these colonies to become the great sources of supply for our raw material, and great sources of demand for our manufactures. It was necessary to remark also, that since 1835 a vast increase had taken place in our steam navy. In 1835 we possessed not more than two or three steam vessels. In that year no steamer had crossed the Atlantic, and an elaborate paper was written to demonstrate the impossibility of such an event. Since that period the application of steam to the purposes of the Royal Navy had been carried to a very large extent, and had now reached a point beyond which it was not necessary to advance. The increase of the steam navy rendered necessary an increased charge for stores, and also for buildings connected with the repairs of steam vessels and steam machinery. With regard to stores also, it had been necessary to increase the vote for the supplies of other articles. The votes for stores in the years referred to by the hon. Gentleman were unusually low, and this rendered necessary a large expenditure in subsequent years. Upon this point he requested the attention of the House to the following passage in the report of the Select Committee on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates:— The vote for stores differs essentially from the other votes, inasmuch as it is not an estimate to provide for the consumption of the ensuing year, but has reference to a more distant period of time. The effects of an undue reduction in this vote are not, therefore, perceptible until some years after the time when the insufficient estimate may have been proposed. In such a case it is obvious that the apparent economy in this vote is only a postponement of purchases necessary for the maintenance of the Navy, and, in fact, relieves the estimates of one year by easting the burden on the votes of a future Session. It was, therefore, obvious that the apparent economy in this vote in those years, was only a postponement of the unavoidable increase. The report did not state that there was any waste in this department; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not find on looking over the papers that any excess existed in the stores. Then a great part of the increased expenditure was caused by the increased facilities afforded to commercial transactions in distant parts of the world by our steam communications with America, the East Indies, and various other places. Taking the three heads of stores, buildings, and the packet service, upon them alone an increase of 2,300,000l. had occurred between 1835 and 1848. On two of these heads he thought a considerable reduction might now be made. He believed the steam navy had now reached its maximum; and the large buildings necessary for this purpose had now also attained a point where it would not be necessary to increase the expenditure upon them. The Admiralty was not unmindful of its duty in this respect, and a reduction of 638,000l. upon the two heads of stores and buildings alone would be made this year. He thought he had now answered the hon. Gentleman's objections to a considerable extent; so far as regarded the Navy. He would now turn to the Army, and he thought that by urging a larger reduction in the Army than they (the Government) found it in their power to make, due justice could not be done to that branch of the service. In considering this question, justice was rarely done to the British Army. There was no army on the face of the globe from which such hard service was demanded in time of peace. With the exception of the service of a portion of the French army in Algeria, and of the Russian army in one or two possessions, the armies of the Continental Powers remained always in time of peace in the countries to which they re- spectively belonged. With British troops the case was reversed. They were exposed alternately to the frosts of Canada, the tropical heat of the West Indies, and the burning plains of the East: year after year they passed from one extreme of climate to the other, and did their duty in all. He thought it would be cruel to make the service of such men harder than at present. The argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), in 1845, was, that with the amount of force heretofore maintained, it was impossible to provide the necessary relief. The period of service of the soldier was then stated—and he did not think anybody would deem it too favourable an allowance—to be ten years abroad, five at home, or fifteen in India. It was impossible to give five years at home, with the number of maintained men in 1835. The average period for the British soldier to be at home between the years 1834 and 1838, was, instead of five years, four years and a month, and from 1838 to 1842, four years and ten months. It was then found necessary to increase the Army, in order to give a due relief to the British soldier, so that he might recruit himself after the hardships to which he had been exposed in our colonial or Indian service. The increase of men had enabled the military authorities to give the due amount of home service, and, with the present number, rather more. At present, eleven regiments were at home, who had been more than five years here; and only one regiment in the colonies had been out there beyond the ten years, and that only a few months. With regard to India, though the period of service was nominally fifteen years, yet in former years it had often extended to eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and upwards; and in one instance it even reached twenty-five years. In consequence of recent arrangements there were now only four regiments in India that had been there more than ten years. This desirable object had been therefore accomplished; but if any attempt should be made to press more severely upon the British soldier, it would before long be discovered that such a system was anything rather than conducive to economy. It was the intention of the Government to make such reductions in the Army as, without infringing the rotation of the soldier's service, would be consistent with what he considered it the paramount duty of a Government to do, namely, not to maintain a larger establishment than in their con- science they believed that the interests of the country required. The hon. Member, in referring to the events of last year, had truly described the great mass of the people of this country as being attached to the Crown and the constitution. The spectacle which this country exhibited during the past year, would form one of the proudest events of British history; but it was apparent from the admissions of the hon. Member himself, that there was a risk of the contagious example of the Continent spreading to this country; and, under the circumstances, it was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) belief that no greater armed force was maintained than was absolutely necessary. Although the hon. Member had spoken that evening in a tone of commendable moderation, the language employed by the Liverpool Financial Association, in discussing the same question, was not equally temperate. In one of their speeches, or in one of the tracts issued by that association, it was stated that the Army was maintained solely for the purpose of feeding the younger sons of the aristocracy. Now he wondered when that new light had broken in upon these gentlemen at Liverpool. Within the last ten months the Government received application after application from Liverpool for additional troops. Troops were sent and encamped on the outskirts of the town; but the cry still came for more, and also for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Was it quite just, or indeed honest, in a town, after having benefited so much by the presence of troops in time of need, and after having so loudly called for more—was it for them to be the first and turn round and say, that all the use of an army was to afford a provision for the younger sons of the aristocracy? The manufacturing and agricultural interests of the country were essentially bound up together; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought any necessary expense should not be grudged if it secured protection to life as well as to property and capital of all kinds. But gentlemen connected with the manufacturing interests must remember that they would be the first to suffer from the effects of tumult and plunder; and the working population, too, would be amongst the first to suffer from the burning of the mills, and the general injury done to trade by riotous and rebellious proceedings. The working man had the most direct and manifest interest in the maintenance of an efficient military force, which protected him from circumstances that would throw him out of employment, and all those other evils attendant upon such a state of things as in the course of last year the existing military force so essentially tended to prevent. The next source of expenditure was that for the Ordnance department; and he believed it was most necessary to maintain in full vigour that branch of their military establishments. It was the most expensive to raise, and took the longest time to form. In this branch they proposed no reduction of men. If the hon. Gentleman would only refer to recent events in India, he would perceive, what was a strange circumstance with regard to a nation so far advanced in all the arts of war as well as of civilisation as they were, that they seldom went into action in India without being overmatched by their opponents in artillery. The principal increase of expenditure in this department had been not merely in the increase of the force, but also for the purpose of effecting those changes of armament, both in guns of larger calibre and small arms, which the improvements of recent date have introduced. He did not wish to detain the House on this matter, but would simply refer to those matters which would, of course, be brought before the House by his hon. Friends the Secretary at War and the Secretary to the Admiralty when they brought forward their respective estimates. In the construction of cannon and small arms, great changes had taken place, and it would, he conceived, be a great act of cruelty on their part if they were to send their troops into action anywhere without putting into their hands the best weapons that modern science could afford. It happened, that during the Chinese war, a small portion of their troops, armed with flint muskets, were surrounded by three or four thousand of the enemy; but when they attempted to fire on them, their muskets would not go off. They defended themselves with great bravery for some time, until, fortunately, a body of marines, armed with percussion muskets, came up to their assistance. The immediate consequence was, that the Chinese were dispersed by the arrival of those who had muskets that would go off. The great increase of expense in the Ordnance department had been incurred for the purpose of making that change; but when the change was completely made, they would then be able to make a reduction. This had been to a great extent accomplished already, and he believed in the Ordnance Estimates there would hereafter be found a great reduction as to stores. In consequence of a prevalent feeling in the country some time ago as to the defences of this country not being sufficiently strong, many persons even of those who now advocated great reductions were affected by the feeling which then existed; and although he never had participated in the extraordinary alarm of a French invasion, he thought, at the same time, that they would have neglected their duty if they did not take adequate measures to afford necessary protection to their naval establishments. There was also another matter which had led to an increase of expenditure. It was a great object in that House to raise the moral condition of the British soldier. For that purpose it was necessary to provide him with better accommodation in barracks, and that a separation of the married from the unmarried men should take place. Those objects could not be attained without additional expense; and if they were to have men of a better description, it was only just and right that proper accommodation should be provided, and that the soldier should be raised in his own estimation, by being placed in a higher position than he had hitherto occupied. That, however, could not be done without an increased expenditure on the part of the public. The hon. Gentleman had alluded very shortly to an increase in the Miscellaneous Estimates. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should not detain the House with too many figures on this point; but he might observe, that the increase in the miscellaneous estimates had almost altogether taken place in items which had been pressed on the Government by the House of Commons. Additional charges were thus put upon the general expenditure, and the Government were called upon to undertake duties that hitherto had been locally performed. In this manner new charges to an enormous amount were put on the miscellaneous estimates. It would be found that, since the year 1835, there had been new charges—perfectly new charges—put upon those miscellaneous estimates to the extent of 680,000l. a year. By the increase and transfer from other sources there had been an increase of nearly l,000,000l. He found that on four heads alone—by the transfer of the county rates, the expense of prosecutions and the maintenance of convicts, the increase for education, and the increased expenditure for printing—there had been an increased expense of nearly 700,000l. He had now gone through the principal causes of increase in the expenditure, and trusted that he had shown good grounds for what had been done; and those same grounds afforded a conclusive argument against so sweeping a reduction as the hon. Gentleman proposed. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was as much in favour of every practical economy as the hon. Gentleman himself could be; and no person could feel more interested in a reduction of expense than the person who was to provide the means for paying the money. But at the same time, if they were to give that protection to life and property, and to trade and commerce, which he believed to be necessary for the full development of their industrial resources, both at home and abroad, it was impossible to reduce their military and naval expenses to the extent proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Before he sat down, he would endeavour to show that they had not been unmindful of all practical economy where (keeping those objects to which he had referred in mind) they could effect it. He was happy to say that he very much concurred with the hon. Gentleman that they were in a very different position this year from that which they occupied this time last year, when it became necessary to bring forward the votes for the year. Be it remembered that although it was true that the French Revolution had not then broken out, there was a state of feeling pervading Europe, and existing in France, which might be expected to break out, and which actually did break out into revolution, through the greater part of the Continent. No man could say at the time what the effect might be of the effervescence that prevailed. No man could foresee what might happen from one month to another. Therefore they would not have been justified in reducing, last year, the amount of their Army or Navy. The noble Lord at the head of the Government accordingly said he was not prepared to reduce any men in the course of last year which he thought it necessary to maintain, and the maintenance of which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought was fully justified by the occurrences that subsequently took place. They were now, however, in a very different situation. He thought it was evident enough that, on many parts of the Continent, those parties who had been the most anxious for the move- ment, had not seen so much reason to congratulate themselves on the results. He thought that there, as well as in this country, the revolutionary movement had been rather a losing game. In France, there was a pacific disposition displayed throughout the country, and that feeling had been shown by a proposition for the reduction both of their army and navy to a very large extent. He believed that the course pursued by his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) had materially assisted the preservation of peace; passions had cooled—parties on both sides had seen what folly it was to engage in unnecessary revolutions or wars; all parties in France were desirous for the maintenance of peace; the prospects of the country were quite different from those of last year; and he believed there was no chance of this country being involved in hostilities. If the Government did not think so, they would not be justified in proposing the reductions which they should submit to the House. The few incendiaries in this country, to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded, had found how impracticable it was to excite the population of this country to take part in disturbances. The people were pretty well employed, the mills were generally at work. In the manufacturing districts, the danger of disturbance existed when the people were in a state of distress. That was always the case, and it was only natural that it should be so; but now the workmen were not only alive to the folly of causing disturbances, but had no inducement from want or distress to do so. In referring to the events of last year, the hon. Gentleman, singularly enough, avoided all mention of the sister country. In that country he believed it was not the fault of the parties themselves that serious disturbances had not taken place.


I did refer to it, and said there were only about 100 persons in arms.


There were well authenticated accounts received that a much larger number of persons were assembled together; and his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) impression was, that nothing but the presence of an imposing military force had prevented the outbreak of an insurrection which the parties were ready and wicked enough to promote. It was no fault of those parties that that insurrection did not, he would not say succeed, but that that insurrection did not come to a much more formidable head. The recurrence, however, of such events was not possible, unless there was a stimulus given by agitation. It was not likely that there would be a repetition of such acts on the part of the peasantry: and the House had wisely, as he thought, given powers to the Government which would enable them to put down those who were likely to promote agitation. The Government had felt it to be in their power to propose a considerable reduction in the Army. The state of affairs in India had caused an application to be made by the East India Company to the Government for assistance, which had been met by sending to India three regiments from this country. Those regiments were taken off the British establishment; so that out of the number from which it was proposed by reduction the country should be relieved, amounting to 10,000 men, the actual reduction of numbers would be 7,000. The Army last year, exclusive of the troops in India, amounted to 113,000 men; this year there was to be a reduction to 103,000—rather more than in 1845, rather less than it was raised to in 1846. In 1845 it was 100,000, and 108,000 in 1846. Last year they had effected a considerable reduction in the estimates without any reduction of force. He wished to state to the House what the amount of the reduction was which they were able to accomplish last year without any reduction of force; as also the reduction which was made in the estimates before the House, and which they had been able to effect partly by the reduction of force, and partly by the reduction of expenditure. In various items to which he then need not more particularly refer, the reduction effected last year in those estimates, amounted to 828,500l. And the reduction in the estimates of this year, as compared, not with the original estimates of last year, but the reduced estimates voted at the end of the Session, amounted, on the Navy, to 730,850l.; on the Army, to 378,624l; and on the Ordnance, to 337,873l., making altogether a reduction of the naval and military expenditure in this year of 1,447,653l. He did not anticipate any great reduction in the miscellaneous estimates, because the convict expenditure was increasing and had increased so largely; but the reduction made last year, and that in the estimates now on the table, amounted together to less a sum than 2,275,853l. He hoped the House would take this as a proof that the Government were not insensible to the call made upon them for reduction. It was hardly worth while to go into details of other items upon which they had effected, and were still attempting to effect, a considerable reduction of expenditure, though inconsiderable, no doubt, as compared with those larger items of expenditure to which he had referred. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the charges for the collection of the revenue, and that was a subject of which the Government had not been unmindful. Neither with a desire to secure patronage to his noble Friend at the head of the Government, nor to any other person, did they wish to keep up offices that were unnecessary. They had put down last year the office of Paymaster of Ex-chequer-bills and the Paymaster of Civil Services, and had consolidated them with the office of Paymaster General, by which a saving had been effected in salaries alone of 16,000l They had consolidated the office of Stamps and Taxes with the Excise, by which he had taken upon himself no inconsiderable responsibility; but he relied upon the energy of the present Chairman of the consolidated Board—a gentleman known to the House, Mr. John Wood, a most active and a useful public servant. They had thus effected a reduction of salaries in the higher branches of the department to the extent of 14,000l., with the prospect of ultimately reducing the charge for the collection and management of those branches of the revenue to the extent of 80,000l. or 90,000l. more. They had appointed Commissioners to inquire into the collection of the Customs. He did not expect that any very large reductions could be made in that department, because in effecting reductions they must take care not to withdraw accommodation from the commercial bodies of the country in the discharge of their goods and the transaction of their business. From the first report of the Commissioners, the draft of which he had seen to-day, it would appear, however, that reductions were already proposed to the extent of 50,000l When the hon. Gentleman had spoken of the extravagant manner in which the revenues of this country, and especially of the Customs revenue, were collected, he was entirely mistaken. In England, the charge for the collection of the Customs was under 6 per cent; but in Prance, where they had the system of one director general, as was advocated by the hon. Gentleman behind him, and a mode of keeping accounts which, it was said, necessarily enforced the utmost economy, the charge for collecting the Customs was between 12 and 13 per cent, just twice as much as in England. And in a neighbouring country that had the enjoyment of more democratic institutions, and very nearly universal suffrage—ho referred to Belgium—the expense of collecting the Customs revenue was no less than 43 per cent. He could quote items of revenue that were collected in this country at 3 per cent, but then the Post Office revenue was collected at an expense of 58 per cent. It was not fair, however, to take any one item of that description. They should take the whole revenue of the country, including the Post Office at 58 per cent, and they would find that the charge of collection on the whole revenue was under 7 per cent. In France, it was 11½. There might be merits in more democratic institutions than they possessed in this country, and in universal suffrage; but with respect to the charge for collecting the revenue, it must be admitted that the advantage was possessed by this country. With respect to what had been said in reference to the pressure of taxation upon this country, he would remark, that it was one of those assertions which it was very difficult to meet. His hon. Friend would find it difficult to prove that assertion; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might find it as difficult to refute it. If they were to take the incomes of individuals in this country, and the incomes of individuals in France, he believed the taxation would bear a less proportion to the income in this country than in Franco. He had a long statement to which he could refer in support of this assertion; but at the same time it was one of those documents which from the very nature of the question could not be considered as conclusive. It was a very difficult point to take a statement of that kind; but at the same time he was perfectly convinced that the proportion of the taxation in France to the in-come of the individuals in that country was infinitely heavier than it was in this country. But when they found that in the course of the last twenty years the people of this country had been relieved from taxation to an enormous extent, and when it was recollected that the taxation from which they had been relieved was principally that which pressed upon consumption and upon the materials for their manufactures, he did not see on what ground it was asserted now, almost for the first time, by various associations throughout the country, that this extraordinary pressure of taxation existed. During the last twenty years there had been taxes repealed, or reduced, to the amount of nearly twenty millions; in the same time there had been taxes imposed to the extent of about 9,800,000l., so that the country was relieved to the extent of very nearly ten millions of one description of taxation or another. And the change, he repeated, was more material than the amount; for, whereas the taxes had been put upon property, they had been taken off the articles that constituted what the people of the country consumed, or the materials by which they were employed. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) entirely approved of that arrangement. Let it not be thought that he was finding fault with or quarrelling with it in the slightest degree. He entirely approved of that change. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman in believing that the absence last year of all duty on food was an essential element in contributing to the maintenance of peace in this country. He took his part in supporting those measures of relief to the commerce and consumption of the country; and, so far from finding fault with those measures, he entirely approved of them. Upon the great articles of consumption or utility very considerable reductions had been made within the last twenty years. Corn was now admitted free of duty, and so were meat and cattle; the tax upon beer had been totally repealed, and so had the duties upon many other articles. A reduction had been made in the duties on colonial sugar from 27s. to 13s. per cwt., being a reduction of more than half, and on foreign sugar from 63s. to 20s. The duty on colonial coffee had been reduced from 6d. to 4d. per lb., and on foreign coffee from 1s. 6d. to 6d. These were articles which the great mass of the population consumed. Then the duties had been taken off sheep and cotton wool; and cotton and woollen manufactures, flax, hides, and glass, had been relieved from duty. The House would see from this enumeration, which, however, was far from being complete, how many of those taxes had been repealed or reduced which pressed the most heavily upon the consumption, and upon the sources of industry and the means of employment of the working population of the country. Before sitting down, he should take the opportunity of referring to another matter, and it was one to which very possibly he would not have alluded, were it not for the notice which had been given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. He did not agree in opinion with his hon. Friend as to the course which he thought it right should be taken in postponing the supply till after the statement of ways and means. But after what he had stated last year, the House might reasonably expect from him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) at an early day to inform the House how far the expectations he had held out last year had been warranted by the course of events. When he asked the House to renew the income tax for three years, he expressed his hope and expectation that in the space of three years, the income tax being renewed, and the other taxes maintained, the income of the country would more than equal the expenditure. He said so with some reserve in the early part of the Session, because things were then in so uncertain a state that no man could answer for the stability of events from one moment to another. At the close of the Session, however, he had renewed that assertion with greater confidence. He was happy to say that the experience of the period which had since elapsed had fully borne out his anticipation. The balance-sheet of the 5th of January last was the last authentic document of the revenue and expenditure of the year. The period to which his anticipations extended was the 5th of April next, while the balance-sheet only went to the 5th of January. It was not, however, an unreasonable supposition to assume that the income of the current quarter would not fall materially below that of the corresponding quarter of last year. The income for the year ending the 5th of April, 1849, as estimated by him in August last, was—

Ordinary and miscellaneous receipts 51,550,000
Old stores, &c 500,000
China money 80,000
Total estimated income £52,130,000
The actual income up to the 5th of January, as shown by the balance-sheet, was—
Ordinary receipts £52,422,338
Miscellaneous 118,656
Old stores (three quarters of a year) 308,415
China money 84,284
Total actual income £52,933,693
instead of 52,130,000l. The sum at which he had estimated the China money was 80,000l., and the sum actually received was 84,284l. The sum appearing in the balance-sheet was 539,305l., but this was mainly received before April 5, 1848, and ought not to be included in this year. The sum actually received for China money since April, was 84,284l. Thus the income of the year (without including any more than the China money actually received within the period), which he had estimated as likely to be 52,130,000l. on the 5th of April next, had really amounted on the 5th of January, to 52,933,693l., being 800,000l. more than he had anticipated. The estimated expenditure, as stated and voted in August, amounted to 52,422,335l. The actual expenditure shown by the balance-sheet was 54,185,136l.; but, deducting from this the following items—for the Caffre war, 1,100,000l.; for naval excess, 1846–1847, 245,411l.; Irish distress, 276,377l., which he had never reckoned in the current expenditure of the year, and which three items made a total of 1,621,788l., the actual ordinary expenditure to the 5th of January had been 52,563,348l. Thus the actual income, up to the 5th of January, was 52,933,693l., and the actual expenditure, after the deductions which he had enumerated, was 52,563,348l., leaving a surplus of 370,345l., which more than covered the deficiency which he had stated in August as probable, namely, 290,000l. [An Hon. MEMBER: How much from corn?] The receipts from corn had been 780,000l. He doubted not that it would be most satisfactory to the House to know that the revenue up to January had exceeded what he had calculated on for the present year up to April next, and that excluding the duties on corn the total income of the Customs up to January had exceeded what he had calculated upon receiving from the same source up to April. He disagreed with the hon. Member for Montrose in thinking that it was his duty to make a full financial statement at the present period; yet he would state, that although he should lose some income during the ensuing year from the cessation of corn duties, and although the extra amount of appropriations in aid, which had been available this year, and also the receipts from China money had come to a close, yet, making full allowance for the loss of income for the year 1849–1850 on these three items, namely—
Corn £780,000
Credits in aid 500,000
China money 80,000
Total loss of income £1,360,000;
still the reduction in the estimates of 1849–1850, as compared with the past year, amounted to 1,447,353l., which was more than the anticipated loss of income from those sources. He would add, that al-though he gave up the item of corn altogether from his estimate, there would probably be some receipt from corn, even at 1s. per quarter. He thought that it was not unreasonable to expect that the ordinary revenue of the country of this year would be better than that of last year; and though he could not speak with any degree of certainty as to the amount, yet he felt confident that, with the reductions now proposed, the expenditure for the year would be clearly within the income on which he had a fair right to rely. He hoped he had convinced the House that it would not be safe or wise to reduce their expenditure at once or immediately to the extent which his hon. Friend had proposed. He trusted that he had also shown that the Government had not been unmindful of due economy in making all such reductions as they could make, looking to the real interests of the country, and the development of its industrial resources. He would again bear his testimony to the fair manner in which the hon. Gentleman had brought the question forward. He had endeavoured to meet it as fairly; and he hoped the House would pronounce a clear and decided opinion upon the point, and declare that it was not consistent with the real interests of the country to make the reductions to the extent, in the time, and in the manner recommended by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire.


had waited some minutes after the right hon. Gentleman had sat down, in order that those hon. Members who took a more immediate interest in the question might have an opportunity of addressing the House, and of adding anything they could to the very able, lucid, and convincing statement of the right hon. Baronet. He confessed his surprise that no direct reference had been made to the state of Ireland. He did not know whether it was that they were afraid of the subject, but he was satisfied that in consequence of the manner in which that country had been treated, there was an undefined—not such perhaps as could be pointed out in words—but there was a danger hanging over that country which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding was probably unwilling to allude to. He certainly did allude to that country in a passing way; but he (Mr. J. O'Connell) thought that hon. Gentleman was unintentionally mis-stating the case in saying that England had borrowed some of its recent disturbances from Ireland. The seed, he was satisfied, was of the soil born, and did not proceed from Ireland; it was that physical-force Chartism which had been so long resisted in Ireland, but which had, unfortunately, recently got into that country. He did not wish to say anything offensive, but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had alluded in too flippant a manner to the agitation in that country. He had no right to confound, for the sake of turning a period, those who were using constitutional means with a small and weak party in that country who were wild and criminal enough to rush into what was, after all, but a mockery of an insurrection. There never were 100 men in arms; there never were 50 men, and he believed at no time was there above 30 men, and these armed with scythes, pitchforks, and rusty fowling-pieces. He thought, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman might spare that unworthy sneer against men who, in their endeavours to keep the peace, and in their allegiance to the Throne, were as pure and determined as the right hon. Gentleman himself. He could assure him that the policy of the Government was not calculated to put down the dangerous species of agitation that prevailed in that country. It was a policy that would powerfully promote and stimulate the agitation of secret societies. An explosion from that quarter would be far more dangerous than what had been called in mockery an insurrection. He rose merely to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) to the effect that Ireland might have on the revenue and expenditure. The finance accounts for the present year were not yet before them, and he would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to them when they did come. Let him see what the Navy expenditure had been in Ireland for the year ending 5th of April next. Let him look at the criminal prosecutions and the police expenditure, and then he would tell him that if Ireland was ruled justly and well—if the pledges given by the Minister in that House of remedial measures were carried out—the greater part of that expenditure would be saved. Omitting the year of what was called the insurrection, the average military expenditure in Ireland for many years had never been less than 1,100,000l.; the police expenditure had been also very large, while if the people were only contented—if they were treated like the people of Canada, who after being deprived of their just rights and liberties, were driven into a real rebellion, and who finally had every concession made to them, and were now contented—if the people of Ireland were only treated in the same way, there would be in the single item of military expenditure alone a saving of 700,000l. or 800,000l, per annum; and the police and Government prosecutions, which must amount to at least 150,000l., reduced to one-third. With regard to revenue, Ireland was capable of yielding a much larger amount: hitherto it had been comparatively paltry—not because she was exempted from particular taxes, because the taxes were common to both countries, although the disproportion was immense. There was a sum of 30,000,000l. of the revenue of the country obtained from taxes which were common to both. In England these taxes produced 27,000,000l., and in Ireland 3,000,000l. He alluded to the revenue from the Customs, Stamps, and Post Office. The only reason for that disproportion that could be assigned was, that the people of Ireland were so poor that they could not purchase customable articles nor stamps. Now the population of Ireland being one-third that of England, the amount of her contribution should be 9,000,000l. instead of 3,000,000l.; so here was a direct loss of 6,000,000l. sterling to the revenue of the country. The whole revenue of Ireland did not exceed 3,000,000l., whereas if her resources were properly developed she would pay at least 12,000,000l. It appeared now that the people of England were overburdened, and Ireland was so situated that she could not assist them. He had felt it his duty to call the attention of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for the West Riding to these facts, and if they did not alter their policy, he could assure them that instead of being any assistance, Ireland would continue to be a millstone round the neck of England.


said, that the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in his opinion, pointed out most clearly the discrepancy which existed in the financial statement of the hon. Member for the West Riding. He had shown it was not 10,000,000l. but 6,000,000l. which was the extra expense of the Army and Navy since 1835. That, certainly, was a slight error in the new budget of the hon. Member for the West Riding. He was not unfavourable to the principles of financial reform advocated by the hon. Member and his associates; on the contrary, he wished them every success in obtaining such reductions as were practicable and safe; at the same time, he thought they had done their cause some harm by mixing up personalities with the subjects which they were constantly in the habit of putting forth to the world. For his part, he could not see why a reduction of the Army or Navy to the lowest point might not be advocated throughout the country without any personal expression towards those who served either in the Army or Navy. If the newspapers had rightly reported the expressions of the hon. Gentleman, and if he had road those reports aright, it would appear that he had used some expressions not very honourable to gentlemen connected with those professions. If the armaments of this country had been excessive, or if the country had suffered in consequence of the large expenditure occasioned thereby, it was not the individual members of the Army, Navy, or Ordnance who were in fault—it was the fault of that House. No person had less influence with that House, in inducing it to decide that question, than the individual members of those three professions. There never was an Army or Navy which more obediently resigned themselves to the civil power than the Army and Navy of this country. Various expressions had also been used which might lead the people to believe that the military and naval wars had been brought about by the conduct of the general officers. Such was not the case; the general officers had been employed merely as individuals, acting under the civil power; and as a body he believed that they had done their duty in a manner which should have exempted them from imputations of that nature. The hon. Member had also alluded to the clothing of the Army, and had made use of expressions which were intended no doubt to be offensive—he had called them "a set of tailors." Now, he (Sir De Lacy Evans) did not complain of that on the part of the general officers; but he did on the part of the tailors themselves, because the term was used evidently with the idea of its being one of ridicule and opprobrium. He had the honour of representing many hundreds of tailors, some of whom were as good patriots, and as well disposed towards economy, as his hon. Friend himself; and it was, therefore, very unfair to use any term which might be considered as offensive or opprobrious to so respectable a body of tradesmen. It was not the fault of the general officers that they had been made contractors. For his own part, he should like to see the practice altered; but not having the power of making the alteration, they were certainly not to blame for acting upon the rule as they found it. He thought the regulation was a harsh one as regarded the officers; but as regarded economy, he was not quite sure how far it would be promoted by a change. The hon. Gentleman had made a personal attack upon himself, and upon the army which served under him in Spain; he had spoken of that army as mercenaries, and the fleet which acted in concert with it he had described as marauders. For his own part, he (Sir De Lacy Evans) had always treated unfounded assertions upon these points with the contempt which they deserved; and he had treated the strictures of the hon. Gentleman with contempt, because he conscientiously believed that troops serving by the desire and under the sanction of the Sovereign and the Government, and in promotion of an object declared to be interesting to England, ought to be exempted from such opprobrious remarks. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the troops as mercenaries. They had certainly received remuneration; and he was glad to say that every shilling which was due had been paid up. And when speaking on the subject of remuneration for services rendered, he could not help congratulating the hon. Gentleman himself upon having received a very handsome remuneration. He would not reproach that hon. Gentleman by saying that he had entered upon his course of public service with any mercenary views. He thought that any such reproach from the one side would be as contemptible as from the other. With respect to the squadron, it was employed under exactly the same circumstances as the army; and to speak of it as a marauding squadron, was only to indulge a malignant and unworthy feeling.


expressed his deep regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster should thus seek to infuse bitterness of feeling and personalities into a discussion of such grave importance, and which, by the previous speakers, had been conducted with such courteous moderation. No one had called the British squadron on the Spanish coast a marauding squadron, in relation to the conduct of the officers and men composing it, which confessedly merited no such designation. What his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) had said was, the squadron was a marauding squadron in a political and international point of view. There was one part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech quite accurate, and with which he could agree with him; that, namely, which declared the increase of our naval and military expenditure to have been the work of Parliament itself. Yes, it was the constitution of that House which lay at the bottom of the mischief, occasioning the creation of a number of officers in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, infinitely greater than the most efficient maintenance of these services could require. Most assuredly, Members of Parliament would never have dealt with their own property as they had dealt with the national property; yet they were the trustees of this property, and owed to it their conscientious and scrupulous care. There was a Tory report of 1817, delivered in March, 1817—the report of a Committee on expenditure, appointed under Lord Castlereagh, and what did their Tory report recommend? Why this, that, bearing in mind the establishments of 1792, which were considered sufficient for all national purposes at that period, in contemplation of a long continuance of peace, the House should, in 1817, taking, of course, into full allowance the altered circumstances of the country in various respects, carry out the principle which characterised those estimates. With that recommendation from the Committee, would it be believed that at the present moment for every naval officer afloat or employed there were five or six reliefs? Would any person keeping his carriage have for it five or six coachmen besides the one who drove him? Would any one deny that the number of officers in the Navy and Army were kept up for the purpose of affording patronage and the means of placing the scions of the gentry and nobility? Was there any untruth in the assertion that the establishments were kept up for that express purpose? In the Army there were no less than 1,023 officers, at an expense of 127,000l., who held commissions solely for the purpose of translating other officers from the regiments of the line, and vice versâ, and thereby to afford opportunities for promotion to the friends of the Government. Let them turn to the colonies. Was it possible for any one to contemplate those enormous establishments without feeling a conviction that they were kept up solely for the purpose of patronage? The Liverpool Financial Reform Association was perfectly right, therefore; and although the language used in that association's papers was strong, let those who quarrelled with it contradict the facts and figures contained in the papers published by the association, and never mind the language. He had only one or two observations to make on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was very sorry to hear from that Minister that the greatest efforts the Government was disposed to make would only just bring the expenditure within the income of the country. The papers now in the hands of hon. Members showed a deficiency in the ordinary revenue of 800,000l. on the current year, the deficiency last year being 2,900,000l. The House was now told that there was to be an equalisation of the receipts and the expenditure; and the right hon. Baronet had called for the congratulations of the House on his having achieved so much. His (Mr. Hume's) hon. Friend, the Member for the West Riding, had said very truly that the people would be dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Government. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also stated that great reductions had been made in the taxes. The only observation which that assertion called for was that, although taxes might be altered in their amount, they still bore heavily on the labouring classes, and always had a tendency to depress consumption. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had asserted that what he proposed to effect in respect to reducing the establishments ought to satisfy the people, and further, that they ought to be satisfied with what had been done since 1837 in reducing taxes upon the necessaries of life, and the raw materials of the manufactures. What was the state of the case with respect to the revenue and expenditure since the year 1837? In that year the revenue was 50,600,000l.; 1838, 51,300,000l.; 1839. 51,900,000l.; 1840, 51,800,000l.; 1841,52,300,000l.; 1842, 51,200,000l.; 1843, 56,900,000l.; 1844, 58,400,000l.; 1845, 57,600,000l.; and in 1848, 58,000,000l. Was this the way in which the people were to be satisfied? Every year the revenue drawn from their pockets increasing, and their burdens becoming heavier, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that night they ought to be satisfied. He (Mr. Hume) would tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the country would not be satisfied; the people wanted relief from their burdens, and the mere shifting of taxation would not satisfy them. The right hon. Baronet had asked wherein the pressure was so heavy, and had asserted that Belgium and France were heaxily taxed, and that the people of England were better able to pay their taxes than those nations were. He would tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, that his assertion, even if true, was no excuse for taking one shilling more from the people than was required for the service of the country—and there was much more levied than the real wants of the nation required. The Committee of 1848 had pressed that necessity on the House in their report, but with very little effect. The expenditure had still gone on, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer now told the country that they were to expect little relief. All he could promise was, that no new debt should be incurred, but there was no reduction in the expenditure or the taxation. That statement most assuredly would not be satisfactory to the nation. There would be meetings held throughout the country, and sorely would they regret to hear such a statement from the Government; He wanted to know what were the circumstances which rendered so much larger an amount of expenditure necessary now than was required in 1835. The hon. and gallant Officer (Sir De Lacy Evans) had asserted that his hon. Friend had made a mistake, and that the additional expenditure for the establishments of the country was 6,000,000l., and not 10,000,000l., since the year 1835. But if the hon. and gallant Officer looked at the revenue accounts, he would find that the expenditure of 1835 was 44,000,000l., whilst that of last year was nearly 54,000,000l. So that there was no mistake in his hon. Friend's statement. The mistake lay the other way. His hon. Friend called for reduction of the establishments, but not an instantaneous reduction. He only called on the Government to follow the precedents that already existed. There was ample excuse for every proposal made by him. In the year 1821 a resolution was agreed to by the House which was followed by the appointment of Mr. Bankes's Committee, and at that time the number of men in the Army was 81,240, whereas now it was 113,000. What was the language of Mr. Bankes's resolution? What was its result? The Motion was thus worded:— That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to assure His Majesty that we have regarded with satisfaction the measures which have been taken by His Majesty's commands for a general revision of the department of the Customs in Great Britain; and to entreat His Majesty to give directions that a similar investigation may be extended to all the other branches of the revenue, in order to render its collection more economical, and its management more efficient; that for the purpose of affording a further relief to the country, His Majesty will be pleased to order a minute inquiry into the several departments of the Civil Government, as well with a view of reducing the number of persons employed in those departments, which from the great increase of business were augmented during the late war, as with reference to the increased salaries granted to individuals since the year 1797. Let him refer for one moment to what took place in the years 1802, 1803, and 1804. They would find that all the Government officers received an increase of their salaries. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Henry Addington came down to the House and stated, that since the year 1797 the prices of all the necessaries of life had risen so much that the House must consent to raise the salaries of all the public officers of Government. So salaries of 300l. were raised to 1,000l., because food had risen in price, and food was at that time 50 per cent higher than it was at present. The reason why Mr. Bankes moved for a reduction in the salaries of the public officers was, that the price of corn had fallen in 1821–1822, and it was then much what it now was. There was no reason why the House should not assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend, having agreed to a resolution of a similar nature in 1821. Mr. Bankes's resolution then went on to say— Either in consideration of the additional labour thrown upon them during that period, or of the diminished value of money. And further, that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that every possible saving which can be made, without detriment to the public interest, shall be effected in those more extended establishments which the country is obliged to maintain for the safety and defence of the United Kingdom and its dependencies, and more especially in the military expenditure, by a reduction in the numbers of the Army, and by a constant and vigilant superintendence over that and all the other departments connected with the application of the ample supplies granted by the House. What more than this did his hon. Friend ask for? All that he had done that evening was to point out how the Army had gone on increasing from 81,000 to 113,000 men. Nor had the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered the inquiry as to what the circumstances of the country were, which rendered it necessary to keep up so large a military force. But it was not in one department alone that this increase of numbers and of expense had gone on year after year. In the Ordnance the same thing was witnessed; and to give the House an idea of how this increase had gone on, he would just state a few figures. In 1792, the whole of the force of the artillerymen and sappers was 4,848 men, the expense being 151,000l. In 1828 the force had Increased to 8,682, at an expense of 471,000l. But would the House believe it to be possible that in 1848, after twenty years' peace, the artillerymen and sappers were 14,123 men, and the expense of their pay alone 711,000l.? Here, in the single department of the Ordnance, the sum required for the mere pay of artillerymen and sappers had increased since the year 1792 from 151,000l. to 711,000l., the increase since 1828 being from 60 to 70 per cent on the charge for that year. What were the words of the second report of the Finance Committee of 1828 with respect to this branch of the Army expenditure?— Towards the conclusion of the late war, circumstances obliged this country to have a largo army in the field, and to maintain establishments much beyond what can, on any reasonable calculation-, be requisite on a future occasion. The Committee, therefore, are of opinion that the establishments of the country should be regulated, hot with reference to the policy of depending mainly on our Navy for protection against foreign invasion, and for the means of attacking our enemies. As the examination into the members of the Ordnance military corps presents to the Committee the first opportunity of making any remarks on the strength of our military establishments during peace, they feel it their duty to urge upon the House the expediency of bestowing a deliberate consideration upon the preceding observations, as very materially affecting the practicability of making a great reduction in the present scale of public expenditure. The Committee are of opinion that the pressure on our finances justifies them in making this appeal to the House. And if, upon acquiring a more complete knowledge of the state of the revenue and expenditure, they shall find either that a considerable reduction in the expenditure must be effected, or that new taxes must be imposed, in order to make the revenue bear such a proportion to the expenditure as is requisite to give stability to our finances, and to sustain public credit, they will have to consider the expediency of recommending in a future re- port a diminution in this branch of our military establishments. This was the recommendation contained in the second report of the Committee on Finance of 1828, and that at a time when the Army was 80,000 men in all, and the Ordnance expenditure for pay had been raised from 151,000l. to 400,000l. The Committee threatened to notice the subject during the next Session. But what did the Government do? They were so much alarmed that the Committee was not suffered to meet again, and consequently it was never known what the recommendation would have been with respect to the Army and Ordnance expenditure. Neither of those establishments were so large in 1821 or 1828 as they now were, and the House therefore had as much cause to address the Crown as Mr. Bankes had; and what was the result of Mr. Bankes's Motion? Six weeks before Parliament met, there was a reduction of 3,000,000l. in the Army expenditure, and a further reduction took place the year after. It was the duty of the House to effect these reductions; and, for his part, he saw no hope of safety, nor any means of relief, to the people but in this manner. For all these reasons he regretted very much to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk of congratulations, for there would be no response found in the country to these self-gratulations. There was one subject more that he wished to say a few words upon. His hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) had pointed out the excess of the expenditure now over that of 1835. Of the whole amount of the expenditure of 59,000,000l., 28,000,000l. was appropriated to the payment of the interminable funded debt. What was done with the remaining 31,000,000l.? It was not merely 10,000,000l. that they had to deal with, but with this vast sum, and therein consisted the elements of the reduction which his hon. Friend called upon the House and the Government to make. The time was coming when this must be done. The public would expect to see salaries which had been raised because corn had risen from 45s. to 100s. a quarter, reduced again, now that corn had fallen to 45s. 2d. The House ought to reduce them at once, in order to meet the growing discontent of the people. His hon. Friend deserved the greatest credit for having abstained from using any irritating topics in his speech. He (Mr. Hume, agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that all the surplus expenditure above that of 1835 did not originate with the Army. But much of it did, and that must be again reduced. On the grounds he had stated he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend. All that he asked for was as near an approximation to the expenditure of 1835 as could be effected; and the resolution, which was identical with that adopted unanimously by the House when proposed by Mr. Bankes in 1821, ought to meet with the approbation and support of every Member of that House. So far from his hon. Friend having a weak case, he had made out a very strong one, and he had placed his Motion on precisely the same footing as that on which the Committees of 1821 and 1828 were granted, and also his arguments were the arguments used by Mr. Pitt in his speech on the permanent peace establishment of the year 1792.


said, that the real question before the House was this—whether, before they went into Committee upon the Estimates presented to that House by the Ministers of the Crown, they should adopt a resolution to the effect that it was expedient to reduce the expenditure of the country by ten millions. That was, practically, the question before them; and he said this, because it was really an essential point that the House should clearly understand what was the vote they were called upon to give. He must say he had been surprised at the little interest which appeared to have been taken in the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) by Gentlemen on that side of the House from which it proceeded. The hon. Member for Montrose had certainly risen at last, as if in despair; and even he had not added any material weight of argument, nor any energetic assistance to the Motion of the hon. Member for the West Riding. The real question, as he (Mr. Herries) had said, Was whether the House would now, at once, vote that a reduction could and should be made in the national expenditure to the extent of ten millions; for he considered the words "with all practicable speed," as being a mere qualification as to time alone, and not affecting the extent or character of the pledge to be given. If the proposition had been, that they should use all possible diligence in endeavouring to diminish the expenditure of the country, the Motion indeed would have presented itself under a very different aspect; but the present Motion was a demand upon the House to make a rash and impracticable engagement, and to accuse itself of a total absence of any previous disposition to diminish the national expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had complimented the hon. Member for the West Riding on the moderation and forbearance which had marked his observations. In that compliment he (Mr. Herries) could not join; for, although the tone and language of the hon. Gentleman's speech were moderate, and sufficiently tempered to suit the atmosphere of that House, he (Mr. Herries) could not forget that the speech of the hon. Member was, after all, but a repetition of that which had been ringing in the public ear for the last six months from Liverpool, from Manchester, and every other scene of agitation, where the same things had been said, though not exactly in the same terms. There had been no diatribes against the aristocracy that night—no insinuations that the Army was kept up as a provision for young men of fashion-nothing so invidious and unjust as that had been uttered on the present occasion. The hon. Member for the West Riding was violent in one place, and decorous in another; but if the hon. Gentleman was to have the privilege of using inflammatory and irritating language in one place, and sober and discreet expression in another, he (Mr. Herries) would much prefer that he should give way to his violence and invective in that House, and reserve his decorous argumentation for those places where his audiences consisted of assembled multitudes composed of more inflammable materials. It was for this reason that he could not join in the compliment of the right hon. Baronet. He could not but think, too, that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in the last Session of Parliament had materially assisted in promoting that spirit of agitation of which this Motion was the result. If the question of the expenditure of the country, of the policy and propriety of the estimates, had been debated, as they ought to have been, last Session; if they had not, on the contrary, been withdrawn, as it were, from their cognisance, and submitted to a Committee—in his opinion far from a constitutional proceeding—there would have been, no doubt, that full discussion of these estimates which would have produced such explanations on the part of the Ministers of the Crown as would have rendered ineffective much of the language which they had heard elsewhere. He considered that they had not been treated at all fairly in regard to the estimates last year. It was understood in the House that the estimates were referred to the Committee unconditionally; yet one of the first resolutions that Committee came to was, that they would not enter into any consideration of the policy of the estimates. But that very policy was the whole of the question as far as the immediate duty of the House was concerned. The estimates having, however, been withdrawn from their cognisance, and referred, as it was supposed, unconditionally to another tribunal, the Secretaries for the various departments came down, one after the other, and very quietly took votes on account, the House believing that such a step was only taken until the Committee reported. The House had been kept in ignorance of the fact that the Committee would not report upon that subject; therefore he charged the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with, in some measure, having created the agitation, although he had certainly done good service that night in allaying it. He could not deny that he had listened with considerable satisfaction to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening; and he was glad that there appeared to be hopes of some material reductions in the expenditure of the country, and that in future it might be expected to approximate more closely than it had lately done to the revenue. He should not now enter into any detailed discussion of our financial prospects, because the right hon. Gentleman was the proper authority on the subject; but he had no doubt that when they came to the consideration of the details, every Member of the House would lend his aid, in a true constitutional spirit, to effect every practicable and reasonable reduction of the expenditure. But the hon. Member for the West Hiding had instituted a comparison between the expenditure of the Governments of England and France. He (Mr. Herries) being thus provoked to follow the hon. Gentleman in that contrast, was compelled to declare that he did not think he (Mr. Cobden) had studied that subject quite well enough to warrant him in coming, as he had done, to a conclusion, in respect to the financial administration of the two nations, unfavourable to that of England. Without at all affecting to criticise the proceedings of other countries—for they had quite enough to do to discuss their own affairs in that House—he could not but think, at the same time, that a very important lesson might be learnt by looking at the comparative financial progress of the two neighbouring countries. If they reviewed the financial progress of the English and French nations for the last twenty-eight years, they would see much more cause for congratulation than for blame, or regret, in the comparative good management of our own Government, under the sanction of Parliament, when placed in contradistinction with that of France. In confirmation of these views, he would show to the House, as briefly as he could, the comparative progress of expenditure and revenue in the two countries; and in doing so, he would also incidentally show the comparative expense of democratic and monarchical institutions. He would first take the expenditure of France, commencing from the year 1820—a year in which the Government of that country might be said to have settled down to a normal state, and when, the army of occupation having been withdrawn, their budget might be considered as placed upon something like a permanent footing. The expedenture of France in the year 1820 was

1820 was £35,000,000
1821 do. 35,280,000
1822 do. 38,000,000
From this period until the year 1830, it would appear that the affairs of France were administered, generally, with much regard to economy, and, consequently, with little variation in the yearly expenditure—with the single exception of the year 1823, in which the ill-advised expedition into Spain was undertaken. That measure added 8,000,000l to the budget of 1823, which was; however, again reduced in the following year to about 38,000,000l.; which continued to be its average amount, with no material fluctuations, until the year 1830. In that year a great change occurred—there was a revolution. Revolutions were expensive things—a fact which it would well become those who were disposed to promote them to bear always in mind; and, above all, to inculcate, if they would deal honestly in their agitations, on the minds of the multitudes whom they incited to plunge into them. In 1830—the happy year of three glorious days—an enormous increase of expenditure was incurred for the revolution itself, whereby the amount of the budget of 1831 was swelled to the sum of 60,000,000l; and though a part of that excess was reduced in the year following, all the subsequent years exhibited a greatly advanced rate of expenditure, which never fell back into the average of the previous ten years. The figures were as follows:—
In 1831 £60,000,000 In 1839 £44,000,000
1832 44,000,000 1840 46,800,000
1833 44,800,000 1841 54,000,000
1834 40,000,000 1842 52,000,000
1835 41,800,000 1843 55,700,000
1836 40,600,000 1847 60,000,000
1837 41,560,000 1848 72,000,000
1838 42,500,000
It was well deserving the attention of the House that the rapid expansion of the public expenditure in France seemed to keep pace with the progressive infusion of more popular elements into her government and constitution; and this remarkable circumstance suggested an observation on a doctrine which had been propounded to the good people of Manchester, by the Member for the West Riding, the effect of which was, that the minute and progressive subdivision of property which prevailed in France, under the laws of that country, was an admirable safeguard against a propensity to war, by its tendency to arrest the expenditure by which war was always accompanied; his theory being, that inasmuch as a vastly greater number of persons were made sensible of the burdens of that expenditure in their own persons, as proprietors, the resistance to it would be proportionably increased, and the tendency to war be counteracted. He (Mr. Herries) had been greatly surprised by the maintenance of such a doctrine in the face of history and experience. Why, let the hon. Member but look at these papers to which he had just been referring, and then tell him what he meant by stating that this subdivision of property must have the effect of preventing war, because it prevented expenditure. Did he not know that this very subdivision of property, and all this expanding expenditure, had been going on together in France—and that a great part of that expenditure was for the Algerine war—a war which had been forced upon the Government by the pressure from without, and carried on in opposition to the feelings as well of the Government as of the moderate portion of the French people? Let the hon. Member, then, whenever he again addressed the people of Manchester on the subject of agitating for a reduction of the national expenditure, and compared democratic with monarchical institutions— let him, if he chose to give the preference to democracy, tell his audiences that all history taught, that if they must needs have republics and democracies in preference to such a monarchy as that under which we live, they must be well prepared to put their hands deep into their pockets to pay for the change. [Mr. HUME: Look at America.] He would willingly make the comparison between England and America, if the hon. Gentleman would tell him what the expenses of America were. But without knowing the separate expenditure of each member of the Confederation, as well as that of the Central Government, all attempts at such a comparison would be idle. But he would now proceed to exhibit, in contrast with the expenditure of France during the period from 1820 to 1848, that of England in the same series of years; and in doing so, he would show how much more regular and economical our public expenditure had been. He found that the average annual income and expenditure of the united kingdom, in every five years of the period, had been as follows:—
Income. Expenditure.
From 1820 to 1825 £56,472,000 £56,150,000
1825 to 1830 54,612,000 55,636,000
1830 to 1835 47,233,000 47,543,000
1835 to 1840 47,262,000 47,924,000
1840 to 1845 49,840,000 50,733,000
1845 to 1848 54,127,000 55,596,000
On a comparison, then, they found that, whilst in England they commenced in 1820 with 56,150,000l, and ended in 1848 with 55,596,000l, in France they commenced in 1820 with 35,000,000l.—and ended in 1848 with 72,000,000l. But there was another topic which, in reviewing the expenditure of this period, was worthy of consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had touched upon it, when he told them how much taxation had been reduced within a certain period in this country; and it might be as well further to remind the House what had been the changes in taxation since the year 1816. There had been a reduction of taxation in that time, the annual produce of which amounted to 53,390,000l., while, on the other hand, the new duties imposed amounted only to 14,000,000l.; the difference, being 39,000,000l., showed the amount of annual taxation remitted within the thirty-two years. Notwithstanding this vast relief from taxation, the public income stood nearly the same at the close of the period as at the commencement of it: a result, of which, he thought, this country had great reason to be justly proud; for it was such a proof of increasing wealth, and strength, and prosperity, as no kingdom in the world had ever be-fore been able to exhibit. And there was another lesson to be derived from this great remission of taxes without a corresponding loss of revenue. There were many persons out of doors who were very clamorous for the substitution of direct for indirect taxation; but this relief would have been impossible if they had derived their whole public income from direct taxation, instead of that system of mixed, direct, and indirect taxes which had prevailed during all this period. This, then, was another lesson from that very remarkable comparison which he had read to the House as to the progress of expenditure in England and in France. And now, with reference to this Motion of the hon. Member for the West Riding, he must again say that it had been singularly ill-supported that night. They had heard of it for months past; and how had the battle been fought that evening? Why, nobody rose, at least for some time, even to second the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had certainly manfully resisted the hon. Gentleman. After that the hon. Member for Montrose rose; but he did not grapple with the subject with his accustomed vigour. The hon. Member for the West Riding did not, himself, make a good fight for his proposition. He told the House of things past and things to come, and of his intense desire for the reduction of our expenditure. In that he was not singular. Why, so was he (Mr. Herries) also for reduction. He was ready to go heartily along with the hon. Member for the West Riding, if the hon. Member would only go at a different pace; if the hon. Member would only go on step by step; but, as it was, he must confess that he did not believe that the hon. Member for the West Riding anticipated any success for his proposal, and he was not quite sure that the hon. Member was imprudent enough even to desire it. [Mr. COBDEN: Wait.] Why, he must wait; but he must own that what he had heard that night encouraged him to hope that no violent changes would be attempted, much less effected. He trusted that they would all come to the discussion of the estimates with the earnest desire to effect every possible reduction that could be made; but that there would not be the thought, much less the wish, to take a single step which might be conducive to endanger the credit or diminish the strength of the country, or lay upon the military servants a heavier burden than they could bear, if with diminished numbers they should be called upon to do increased duty. He trusted, then, that there would be as much caution on the one side, as economy on the other. Theirs would be the earnest desire to effect every possible reduction. With agitators he was not content to go—with an agitation that was based on no solid foundation he could not co-operate—an agitation, too, that was conducted in a spirit of hostility and hatred against particular classes, upon which obloquy and abuse had been heaped which were wholly unjustifiable. He would tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had no right to impute to him or his friends any indisposition to retrenchment and economy. They were prepared to promote both to the utmost. There had been much said by the hon. Gentleman on subjects which he did not know why they were introduced, because the hon. Gentleman did not explain himself fully with regard to them. For instance, as to the heavy burden of local taxation. [Mr. COBDEN: The money expended on rates for the relief of the poor, including Ireland, was increased from 5,000,000l. to 8,300,000l.] That is, the hon. Gentleman instituted a comparison between 5,000, 000l at one period, and 8,000,000l. at another; but at the former period the hon. Gentleman forgot that there were no poor-rates in Ireland—that there were no poor-rates in Ireland in 1835. Altogether, there was some obscurity, as it appeared to him in that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and he should not therefore further refer to it. They were told by Her Majesty's Ministers that this year a considerable reduction might be effected—that the aspect of public affairs would enable them to make that reduction. Now he felt bound to say that the aspect of public affairs, at the present juncture, was in no respect so favourable as at the period when the estimates for the last year were presented to the House. The reverse was the fact; and the noble Lord at the head of the Government was in error when, on a former occasion, he stated otherwise; for the estimates for 1848 were prepared at the close of 1847, when nothing had yet occurred to disturb the peace of Europe. He (Mr. Herries) was, therefore, justified by the intervening occurrences in recom- mending great caution in the diminution of our military establishments. He was not disposed to take a gloomy view of our prospects with respect to the maintenance of peace. The state of public affairs might, and he hoped would, take such a turn as would best accord with the wishes of all lovers of peace, and satisfy the expectations of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department; but with all respect for that noble Lord, he said that there was nothing in the present aspect of affairs which should induce them to rely entirely on so happy a result, and to make such extensive reductions as would materially diminish the strength of their Navy and Army. He hoped that the result of the present state of affairs might be peace; but still there was some danger abroad, and they should be prepared for whatever might occur. They had been told in the most emphatic language that disaffection in Ireland was not extinguished; and that there were reasons for fearing that the present distress might increase the disaffection beyond that even which now existed. Such at least was the effect of the reports of the Poor Law Commissioners. They ought then, in such circumstances, to use the greatest precaution before they adopted any reduction which might impair those services on which they must rely in the event of any untoward occurrences at home or abroad. He did not mean to trouble the House any longer; and he would not have risen, on the present occasion, but for what fell from the hon. Member for the West Riding, who had provoked him to do so by the comparison he had made between the expenditure of the Governments of England and France, which was in every way so greatly to the advantage of this country.


thought it was not very consolatory to the landed interest to find a financial leader of the agricultural party holding out such slender hopes of any material reduction in the expenditure of the country, and even attempting to discourage those who had plans to offer; carrying the principle of discouragement so far as even to throw some censure on the Government for the efforts they were making to reduce the expenditure. Let him remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) and his hon. friends, that whatever they proposed in the nature of relief to the landed interest must have its foundation upon a reduction of the expenditure. He (Mr. Gibson) had been invited by his constituents, and many hon. Gentlemen had been in a similar position, to vote for the repeal of this tax, and for the repeal of the other tax, and it was an agreeable thing sometimes to give a popular vote of that kind; but he said, emphatically, that no man could give an honest vote for the repeal of any tax, unless he was prepared to reduce the expenditure, so as to place the surplus revenue at the disposal of the State to apply to the relief of taxation. Therefore he said that the right hon. Gentleman, unless prepared to reduce expenditure, was not justified in holding out any hopes whatever of relief to the landed interest in other places. A noble Duke, in another place, had said that the malt tax was doomed; he said he would not give one year's purchase for the malt tax. What expectations were these to hold out to the occupying tenantry of the country, unless you were prepared to take the honest course of reducing the expenditure? Did you mean to repudiate the debt—were you prepared to endanger or put in jeopardy the public faith? If you naturally rejected such an idea, then he said do not hold out expectations of that kind through your leaders, whether in Parliament or in your public meetings, unless you were prepared to join those who had an honest desire to reduce the expenditure of the country, and thus put this relief and these advantages within the reach of the tenant-farmers of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had complained of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) holding one kind of language in this House, and another sort of language at a public meeting. Decorous here, his hon. Friend was said to be, but violent and inflammatory at Manchester. He (Mr. Gibson) must own that there was an earnestness in these public meetings, upon the question of relief from taxation, which might draw speakers into a degree of enthusiasm. It was quite natural; a speaker always sympathised with his audience. If you were addressing those who, as the right hon. Gentleman had truly said, were apathetic upon the question of reducing public burdens, you felt a heavy weight, and it was difficult to give that spirit to your remarks that you did in an assembly where all was earnestness and all was animation. But he was surprised at some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman; he was surprised at his accusing his hon. Friend of what he termed a democratic tendency. He used the term as one of reproach, although he (Mr. Gibson) did not know why it should be so. His hon. Friend thought it was desirable there should be a great many people in the country possessing property. His right hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding said, there were more people who possessed property in France than were to be found in England. The right hon. Gentleman's principle was, that the fewer the people that had property, the safer were the institutions—that the greater the number of the paupers, the better the chance of their institutions being saved from disorder. [Mr. HERRIES: No, no!] That was the tendency of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, as he understood them. His hon. Friend said, that the more property was divided in proportion to the population, as in France, the less danger was there of their institutions being disturbed; whereon the right hon. Gentleman had laid down the opposite principle, condemning the division of property, and thus leading to the conclusion that the increase of pauperism was favourable to the preservation of peace! [Mr. HERRIES: No!] That seemed to him to be the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. It had been said, in answer to his hon. Friend, that it was not known why the subject of local taxes was introduced into this discussion—that they would not transfer any of the local burdens to the State. They certainly could not do so without reducing the expenditure of the country; and if they did reduce that expenditure, then, he said, they might be enabled to deal with some of the local burdens. The greater the amount of local taxes paid by the people of this country, the stronger were their claims that the general taxes should be reduced. Such was the case in England; and it was his firm belief that England, with a large amount of the wants of society supplied by local taxation, might be the cheapest governed country in Europe, as far as the expense of general government was concerned. He was for a reduction of the Government expenditure, which was supported by general taxation from the resources of the tenant-farmers, and all other classes of the community. He believed that it was not necessary to carry to so large an extent the peace establishments of military and naval armaments. The right hon. Gentleman's whole speech was beside the question. He told us the French expenditure had been increasing for forty, or thirty, or twenty years, and had got up to what ours was now; but he did not tell the House that any of his hon. Friend's facts were questionable. His hon. Friend said in his speech, you have increased your expenditure ten millions since 1835; that is a strong primâ facie case against you, and the onus probandi lies on you to show that the augmentation was necessary, and the continuance of it was warranted. That was what his hon. Friend said; but no answer had been given to that view of the question, and no attempt had been made to show that any of the facts which his hon. Friend submitted to the House were incorrect, or did not bear out his argument. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that there was some discrepancy in the matter, for the proposed reduction in armaments to the standard of 1835 would only save 6,000,000l., and not 10,000,000l. If going back to the standard of 1835 would save 6,000,000l. out of the 10,000,000l., it might be easier to make a reduction of 10,000,000l. than his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) thought, for it would require a less reduction in the armaments than was stated by his hon. Friend. He (Mr. Gibson) really believed that this would be the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that his hon. Friend had introduced into his speech a great number of specialities, and had shown that the expenditure had been much increased by specialities occasionally arising, and which had now passed away. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not satisfied with this part of the speech of his hon. Friend, mentioned other cases of a similar character, such as the creation of the steam navy, upon which a very large sum had been expended, but upon which they had been told that the extraordinary expenditure might be considered as nearly closed. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the expenditure last year of 2,300,000l. for naval stores, and that many of those charges were of a peculiar character, and must not be regarded as a part of the permanent expenditure of the country. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to argue more strongly for the proposition of his hon. Friend than any of his (Mr. Cobden's) friends had done. The right hon. Gentleman had not expressed the slightest doubt as to any of the specialities mentioned by his hon. Friend as to the causes of increased expenditure, but had added others of his own. He (Mr. Gibson) was, therefore, very sanguine that between his hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a reduction of 10,000,000l would be effected in the general permanent expenditure, if time was only given for that purpose. The right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) went hack to 1827, and said that the expenditure in that year was nearly equal to the present expenditure. [Mr. HERRIES observed that he had mentioned the year 1820.] The expenditure in 1820 and 1827 was nearly the same in amount. From the latter year they went on reducing until they came down to the year of the lowest expenditure, 1835, to the very amount which the hon. Member for the West Riding now wished the House of Commons to adopt as its standard scale. This process of reduction was first of all commenced by the Duke of Wellington, then at the head of the Government. Soon afterwards, the Whigs came in, and having carried the Reform Bill, continued this great business of the reduction of our national expenses. Every successive year, for some time afterwards, economy and reduction continued to make important advances, thanks to the influence of a pressure from without. Year after year the expenditure was lowered, till in 1835 it stood at a figure which was ten millions less than it had been before, and than that it had now attained, and to which it was the object of his hon. Friend to bring it back. Since then, however, the professions had continued to dictate to the Governments which had by turns attained to power, their own views of the proper scale at which our military and naval establishments, and the contingent expenses connected with them, should be fixed, with a view to the due protection of the interests of the country, until the expenditure had reached an excess over and above that of 1835, amounting to 7,000,000l for armaments alone. Well, then, it was under these remarkable circumstances that his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding invited that House to commence again the same sort of campaign against this inordinate tendency to excessive expenditure on the warlike establishments of the country, which had been undertaken in former years, in the same spirit, and had been conducted to results that had been so signally successful. His hon. Friend asked of that House once more to interpose with its authority and sanction a reduction of the same sum of ten millions, of which, in 1835, as compared with preceding years, the expenditure had been found safely susceptible. Hon. Gentlemen on his side, then, had the test of experience to show that their project was practicable. The proposition before the House was no matter of mere speculative possibility. Besides, the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself recognised the plan of the Member for the West Riding as practicable in principle; for he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) himself had that night voluntarily announced his intention of making reductions in certain items of the public charge that would amount to no less than 1,500,000l. per annum. Then, again, the same eminent authority had remarked to the House, that the large amount of 1,100,000l., appearing on the last balance-sheet on account of the expenses of the Kaffir war, was one which would not occur in the future expenditure; so that here was a total of 2,600,000l. towards the aggregate of ten millions by which his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) desired to reduce the expenditure. By that proposal his hon. Friend by no means intended to impair the necessary force of those establishments which were essential to the full protection of the interests and safety of this empire. He only implored them not to uphold a scale of excessive expenditure, which was not required by those interests, and the discontinuance of which would not endanger the safety of the country; nor did he (Mr. Gibson) at all despair of the success of his hon. Friend's most useful efforts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already helped him on his way by indicating reductions to the amount of two millions and a half. Now, he (Mr. Gibson) was sanguine as to the feasibility of his hon. Friend's scheme for reducing the expense of our military establishments much further. And he was the more sanguine on this head, when he found men of the highest official station, and of great professional standing, widely differing from one another on the important question touching what should be the proper permanent scale of these establishments. This singular discrepancy of opinions in such quarters assuredly gave them reasonable ground for believing that there was, in fact, nothing like any settled principle upon which those establishments were founded. It seemed, in every case, to be a mere haphazard estimate. On no point did these opinions differ more widely than on the amount of force necessary to be kept up for the exter- nal defences of the country. It was but a very little while ago since an illustrious Duke—the Duke of Wellington—had told them, in a memorable letter, that the country was defenceless, and that it was essential that a much larger military force than that we now possessed should be maintained, with a view to making due provision for the protection of this country; and that there should be a vastly increased outlay immediately made upon the fortifications of our coasts. Now, the Duke himself was an example to justify the conviction which he (Mr. Gibson) entertained, that on matters of this kind every one fixed upon some particular standard to which (as the hon. Member for the West Riding to the year 1835) he was accustomed to refer. The standard of the illustrious Duke seemed to be the year 1804, and he had distinctly assigned his reasons for choosing it. He (Mr. Gibson) wished to be cautious in quoting the recorded opinions of any individual with all possible correctness. He had therefore taken care to refer to the letter of the Duke, wherein his Grace's notions were clearly expressed, and from which he would read to the House a passage that was certainly of a very remarkable character:— I would recommend to have an alphabetical list of stores, examined by a Committee, and made out in form as upon the enclosed half-sheet of paper, by ascertaining what there was in 1804, and what there is in store now, of each article, and the difference between the two accounts. I have taken the year 1804 as the standard, as that was the year in which the invasion was threatened. It was previous to the employment of the armies in the Peninsula and North America, in short, as nearly as possible similar to the political circumstances in which we stand at this present moment, except that we are now at peace with France, we were then at war. It was not necessary for him (Mr. Gibson) to remind the House how greatly other professional opinions differed from this. In 1845, as the House would remember, the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) now at the head of the Foreign Office, came down and complained, in his place in Parliament, that there was no country of Europe which was at that time in so defenceless and insecure a condition as England, on account of the inadequacy of her establishments. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), however, who was then at the head of Her Majesty's Government differed from that noble Lord; and declared that he thought England was properly and sufficiently protected by her then existing establishments; and he stated, that he should be very sorry to see two such countries as France and England running the one against the other, in a race, not of commerce and of civilisation, but in a jealous increase of their naval and their military establishments. So that there was, among even the most eminent of public men, a great difference of views and opinions on matters of this nature. In truth, he began to suspect that the secret of these conflicting opinions upon the scale of the armaments we ought to keep up was this—that the whole question was a sort of party-card, which was alternately played by one set of public men against another. Thus it had always suited the Gentlemen who were out of office to say to those who were in office, "You are cutting down the Navy too much; you are crippling the Army, you are endangering the safety of the country." Nothing was more easy than to produce a species of panic in the public mind on subjects of this nature; and this might have been the reason which had induced many who would otherwise have opposed such extensions to push the increase of armaments to a scale much beyond the real exigencies of the country. The differences between the views of the military and naval authorities on such points were most perplexing to men like himself, who, without professional experience on such subjects, were willing to be taught, and to bow to authorities. The inquiries before the Committees on Army, and Navy, and Ordnance Estimates would throw no light on the question of what force was required; for, as the right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) had most truly observed, the very point on which it might have been imagined that the Committee to whom it was referred to report on these estimates, would most especially have directed its attention, was that which it now seemed they were expressly precluded from going into at all—namely, what was the proper amount at which the several establishments of the united kingdom might properly be fixed. He wanted some explanation about the charge that the stores in the dockyards were improperly reduced previous to 1835. He wanted to know how it happened, if, in 1835, the naval stores were so inadequate to the defence of the country, an officer of Sir T. Hardy's high standing and character, one of the most eminent and distinguished in the British Navy, could have been induced as a Lord of the Admiralty to certify to the propriety of the reductions which were then proposed and carried out. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) left, upon quitting office in 1834, a memorandum stating what he considered an adequate naval force for the peace establishment at that time. The memorandum left by the right hon. Baronet comprised a distinct statement of the force which he deemed essential for the maintenance of the interest and the honour of the country. All he would say on this subject was, that one half of the amount of the present naval force was then deemed sufficient by the right hon. Baronet—was then deemed sufficient as compared with the amount which was now on hand. Whatever, therefore, was the justification for their increase under his successor, in reference to the presumed dangers of intervening periods, we had now double the quantity when that danger no longer existed. If the amount of stores and force was really so low then—and it had been requisite since so largely to increase it—he begged to ask Gentlemen opposite how it happened that in the very first estimate presented by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel in 1835 they had proposed 1,000 men less, with a reduction of nearly 100,000l., on account of stores, than the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), from the estimates prepared by him, had deemed sufficient for all requisite purposes of protection? Were the hon. Gentlemen prepared to explain how the noble Duke and the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), with all the facts officially before them, could have proposed such further reductions then, if the amount of stores and the number of men had been previously reduced too low, or were not now raised too high? He could only explain this anomalous state of things by supposing that the people themselves had since that time gradually become indifferent to the necessity of reducing the growing expenditure of these services, and that all Governments, whether Whig or Tory, were compelled to permit the increase of their establishments by the power of professional influences around them the moment the public attention happened to be withdrawn, from any cause, from the growing excess of our expenditure. A gallant Admiral (Admiral Bowles), who was a Member of this House, in the printed evidence which was attached to the report of the Committee on the Estimates, had strenuously contended that the naval force now kept up by this country was utterly inadequate to the duties that devolved upon it—that no man who knew anything of the service would venture to say that it was maintained upon anything like the scale at which it should be kept up. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring) the present First Lord of the Admiralty asked him this very significant question—"Did you ever know a time at which the profession to which you belong was satisfied with the existing scale of that force?" An obvious inference might be drawn from this question, on which he would not now dwell; but what he (Mr. Gibson) wanted to know was this—supposing that that gallant Admiral had had the whole of our naval force increased, or even doubled, according to his wishes, what would be have done with it? To what purpose was the existing naval force applied? What was the use of such large establishments on foreign stations during peace between this country and foreign States? A few facts might demonstrate to the House its excess. On the 1st of March, 1848, we actually had 31 ships of war, manned by 8,337 men, on the Mediterranean station alone. He would ask what possible object was to be effected by maintaining this large armament in the Mediterranean? Did it ensure us more trade? What protection did it afford—did the knowledge that we had all those ships of war in those waters enable our merchant ships in the Mediterranean to enter any port of Italy or France on better conditions than the shipping under any other flag? Did English shipping enter those ports under any greater advantages than those which were extended to the merchant vessels of Hamburg, of Bremen, or of Lubeck? Or was the presence of such large armaments under our flag in the Mediterranean necessary to protect our merchantmen from the attacks of pirates? Were there any pirates in those seas? He believed there were none. But if there were, would these line-of-battle ships be capable of running into the creeks and ports to which only the pirate vessels would resort to protect themselves from pursuit? These were not at all the class of shipping adapted either to the protection of our commerce from piracy, or by which pirates could be effectively attacked. But in the Pacific ocean, and on the south-eastern coast of America, we had a large increase in our force. In the one quarter we had fourteen, and in the other twelve, ships of war. [" No, no!"] Yes, altogether we had 26. He had purposely given the largest number, because, although at one time there were only 17 or 18 ships upon these stations, he was including the reliefs which were absolutely necessary to be supplied to them, and which should therefore be comprised in the estimate of the whole force required for the two stations which were now divided (though they had formerly been one), of the Pacific and the south-; eastern coast of America, namely, 26 ships, with 4,200 men. Now, what were all these ships there for? It had been admitted by a gallant Admiral that he did not see why go many were required on the Pacific station; and the late Lord Auckland had said in the Committee, when examined, that if all the various questions respecting the Oregon, Tahiti, and Mexico, were settled, and the causes of the great increase on these stations thus removed, there could be no objection to return to the same establishment which we maintained there in 1835. Here, again, was an approximation to the spirit of the principle which had been advocated by the hon. Member for the West Riding, namely, that when wars and rumours of wars, which had given rise to such additions to our armaments, had passed away, those armaments should be reduced to the condition at which they would have stood under ordinary circumstances. I Such was the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, and such were the dictates of common sense. He could not understand what object of public interest was promoted by this large Pacific squadron. Was Chili or Peru going to make war upon us? What country was there in those latitudes which menaced British interests or British commerce? Not only was there not a single enemy to cope with us, but no ground of justification for such a force. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to rely for their justification of the scale on which our naval force was maintained, on that at which France kept up her squadrons; but facts would not bear them out, as the French naval force was far less than ours. But if France chose to rush into the expenses of a foolish and extravagant establishment, utterly beyond that which was warranted by the necessity of the case or the aspect of affairs, that was no reason why we should follow her bad example. When our commerce should be seriously threatened, it would be time enough to make the increase in our naval armaments. It would be for us to await events, but lot us not in the mean time die out of mere fear of death. The expense of armaments, as far as taxation was concerned, was ruinous to all the interests of the nation, and most disastrous to the prosperity of commerce. They had heard a great deal about the necessity of regulating their expenditure, and especially that of their Navy, by the expenditure of foreign nations for the same objects. There was also some speculative apprehensions lest foreign armaments should be used for the purpose of some sudden attack, and it was said we ought to be prepared to meet them. A comparison had been drawn between the number of our own ships and officers and those maintained by France, and other countries, and it was argued that we must maintain our force on the same footing and establishment as France maintained hers. But did the House know what was the establishment in these respects which was kept up by France and the United States? Did the House consider what was the actual relative expenditure of these establishments in these States, compared with the charge upon our own revenue? And now a few words as to the relative number of officers in the naval service of those countries. He had carefully compared the French navy list with that of England, and he found that in the French navy there was but one full admiral; in the English there were 31. In France there were 10 vice-admirals; in England 45. In Prance the rear-admirals were 20; in England 72. The French navy had 100 captains; the English 554. There were 200 French commanders; 876 English; and whilst on the navy list of France there were 600 lieutenants, on our own there were 2,353. So that while 981 officers in France were all that was required to take care of her navy, and protect the interests of her commerce, more than 3,931 were required to take care of our own. But did the House know what was the complement of officers in the United States' navy? What would they say when they understood that the United States navy did not maintain one admiral, whilst we had 150; that they had no vice-admiral, no rear-admiral, and that their establishment consisted of 67 captains, 47 commanders, and 327 lieutenants. The excess of our own establishments was felt in the charge not only of our effective force but, also in our ineffective force; and this was, or should be, a material item for the consideration of the House. He was at a loss to understand why Her Majesty's Government should hitherto have confined the reductions both in Army and Navy to the reduction of the men, and not of officers. He considered that whatever might be the extent of reductions determined on in establishments, the complement, whether of regiments or ships, should be carefully maintained. Reduce regiments, but not their complements, reduce the number of ships, but not the effective strength of their crews. He neither wished to see regiments that were retained crippled to a degree of inefficiency, nor crews cut down to a scale incompatible with the proper working of the ships. Get rid, he would say, of some of these unnecessary excesses of your establishments prospectively, but get rid of them by ships and regiments. The economy resulting from reductions in our armaments, by paying off ships and placing them in ordinary, and by reducing regiments altogether, would be much larger and much safer than by retaining them on reduced establishments. He remembered that at the beginning of the present Session he had brought forward a Motion to reduce the length of speeches; and though he should be sorry to offend against his own principle, he was anxious to give expression to the sentiments he entertained on the Motion of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) had taunted them with lukewarmness and languor in supporting his hon. Friend the Member for the West Hiding. He could tell that right hon. Member that he gave to his hon. Friend's Amendment his most cordial and conscientious support. He did not think the proposition either a wild or a visionary one. His hon. Friend did not ask the House to carry it out either this day or within this year. He only asked them to affirm that their present expenditure was excessive. He did not ask them to reduce their establishments below the scale necessary for the protection of their commerce, but within limits compatible with the future safety of the country. He asked them to affirm nothing that was impracticable, but to put the country in that condition of financial security under which alone she could be safe in the event of foreign invasion or foreign aggression; for to proceed under the same excessive expenditure we were now incurring, would subject us to imminent danger. He entreated the House to reflect whether it would be possible for us to face great exigencies, and the additional demands they would impose on the people, with an expenditure to start from, the aggregate of which, at this moment, was little short of 60,000,000l. He should recollect that in 1793 they commenced an enormous expenditure from very small beginnings. Let them take care. If they were, at a moment's notice, called upon to make a great national effort, were they sure that a nation taxed up to sixty millions, in a time of profound peace, would readily respond to the call? Since the passing of the Reform Bill, the people had obtained some power in that House; and it was not at all certain that if Government proposed to make a great national effort, the people would as readily as formerly permit them to do it. In his opinion, financial strength was of more importance in case of sudden danger than any empty parade of military or naval armaments. He believed that a knowledge on the part of foreign countries that our finances were in a prosperous condition—that taxation was not wound up to its utmost pitch—that a great addition might on an emergency he made to our burthens—would have more effect in preventing invasion or any other description of offensive hostility than any mere demonstration of ships in commission, or of regiments on the war establishment. What was the value of a great number of ships or of regiments, if foreign nations could say, "They are taxed up as high as they can bear, so high that they will not go to war. Their demonstration is all a sham." ["Oh, oh!"] He believed that that was our real position in the eyes of foreign nations. He believed that the present feeling over the greater part of Europe was, that with a debt of eight hundred millions round our necks, and our other large expenditure, we were unable to undertake a great war. Was the present amount of taxation no argument, when considering our capability of meeting an emergency? Would hon. Members deny that, last year, when Ministers asked for an addition of two per cent on the income tax, they were met with an universal no, even from the agricultural and conservative Members. They had not the same House of Commons as formerly, nor had the Executive the same power of creating an addition to the income; and therefore it would be prudent in them to husband their resources in time of peace, to leave as large an amount of money as possible in the pockets of the people to fructify. The effect of this would be to create a large amount of trade, to give you an increased number of merchant ships, and consequently of sailors to man your future navies, more manufacturing establishments and engineers to prepare your war-steamers, should you require them; while if their energies were exhausted in time of peace, there would be no margin left for any great or continuous effort in time of war. Before he sat down he must call the attention of the House to one important deficiency in all the Ministerial statements they had heard of national armaments, and of our state of preparation against war. They were told of what British dockyards could do, and of what foreign dockyards could do, but they were never told of what the private shipyards of this country could do in case of emergency. Why, for his part, he would rather rely upon the private dockyards, provided there was money to pay them, than he would upon the national dockyards. They had no estimate of power, which was always increasing in time of peace. He contended that, in estimating the means of fitting out a naval armament, that credit should be given for the power possessed by the private manufacturers in this country of fitting out steam ships, and everything else that related to steam warfare. But that had not been considered. Steamers had been built far outnumbering those of foreign Powers, while at the same time we had more sailing ships, large and small, than any other country in the world. Our sailing ships had been kept up without any reference to the increased efficiency of our steam navy, or how far the latter might be used as a substitute for the former. Even the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty (Mr. Ward), in enumerating the number of sailing ships in commission during the last ten years, had never inquired in how far their places might be filled by steamers. He called upon the House, before it ventured to treat lightly the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, to remember that propositions such as his, when first propounded, were generally looked upon as visionary, but afterwards came to be received in a different spirit. His hon. Friend had enumerated specialties; he (Mr. Gibson) entreated the House to go into those specialties, and to see whether they did not furnish hopes of a reduction of permanent expenditure; and he did hope, connected as he was with agriculture, that the leaders of the agri- cultural party would not turn their backs on what was sure to give relief to their constituents. His belief was, that agriculture and manufactures were equally interested in the success of the present Motion, and that his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding had, in proposing it, no object in view other than the interests and welfare of all classes of the community.


wished to correct one statement which had been made by the right hon. Member for Manchester. Sir T. Hardy was not a Member of the Government in 1835.


had said, that before Sir J. Graham left the Admiralty in 1834, Sir T. Hardy was a party to all his reductions. That was to say, to all the arrangements for 1835, which that night they had heard, left the Navy in a state of absolute destitution.


did not wish it to go forth that those who should vote for this resolution were the only friends to retrenchment. He himself was a longer advocate for retrenchment than the hon. Mover, and went further. He went further than any man in that House, and yet he could not vote for the resolution. The Manchester school founded its economy on general theories of an Utopian nature: he founded his on the knowledge that the so-called defences of England were her only danger. That school was economical to save money: he wished to be economical not only to save money, but to pay off debt. The right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had assured the House that he did support the Member for the West Riding. The declaration was needed. He recollected having seen on the occasion of the propounding of the present budget at Manchester, the right hon. Gentleman following it up by a resolution which was the most contradictory that any man could have devised, namely, "that no permanent reduction was practicable until there was a change in the constituency of the House of Commons," The one hon. Member proclaimed a budget—the other moved a resolution to contradict it. When he saw two such propositions jostling in the same door, and issuing from the same factory, it became him, if he had never considered the matter before, to look to the character and the motives of the projectors, and, giving them credit for sense, if not for wisdom, he did come to the conclusion that this movement was not sincere. The right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Herries) had commented on the discrepancy between the tone and language of the hon. Mover (Mr. Cobden) out of the House and in it; but he had failed to note the purpose of the difference. It appeared to him (Mr. Urquhart) that there was there the same purpose as in all the other parts of this agitation—a false impression to be produced on one side, and disgust for reduction on the other; so that the agitation should at once be got up and kept within manageable bonds. The disgraceful exhibition of hired patriotism which had been made on the other side of the Channel, was now to be repeated here. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had told them that he had himself moved in an unreformed House resolutions for reductions which were unanimously carried. The House that had changed this course and sanctioned extravagance was the reformed House. The men who had supported the public armies which had been so costly were the popular and liberal Members opposite. How, then, could the hon. Mover (Mr. Cobden) exclaim, "Perish the aristocracy," that we may have retrenchment. He could not be ignorant; he could not be mistaken; he then had a purpose. The manner of introducing this Motion was as objectionable as the purpose. He would leave that point as stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horries; he could not consent to adopt some particular year as a standard, and a certain lump as the economy to be made; this was a compound of those empiricisms which constituted the staple of the Manchester school. The way to deal with the case was to call upon the Government in the terms of the report of the Committee of 1817, to propose to the House its number of men and ships, and then to require the House to do what it had so long neglected—to "judge in its wisdom" of the great proposal. Why did not his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) take that course—he who had financial traditions, who, at least, was no hired agitator—why did he allow so grave a question as this to fall into such hands? He (Mr. Urquhart) would render him his most strenuous support if he would, in some such manner, bring forward the measure, now so objectionable and embarrassed with assertions, which the hon. Member's own speech disproved. His principal object in rising had been to reiterate a contradiction often given to a misrepresentation which it pleased the hon. Member for the West Riding to repeat that night. The pamphlets he had written in 1835 contained no such idea as that which the hon. Gentleman stated; so far from speaking of invasion from Russia, he had represented her as physically weak and contemptible—as dangerous, indeed, but not by the invasions of her armies, but by other means. He had shown that whenever there was in England a Minister worthy of his post by knowledge and integrity, that Russia would at once become innocuous, as England had, by commerce alone, the means of entirely paralysing her power. There could be no mistake. This had been asserted over and over again, and in a great variety of forms: it was perfectly notorious. This had been recently again explained, and reasserted to the hon. Gentleman, yet he persevered in his misrepresentations, and must have, as in the other case, a purpose. The first increase of our armaments did take place in 1835, and Russia was the object; but it was not as resisting an invasion—it was on the pretext of resisting her pretensions elsewhere, in Poland. No fruit came—Russia was not curbed by our armaments, but advanced to the accomplishment of her ends by those who pretended to arm against her. Here was a legitimate ground of attack for the hon. Gentleman; but this he studiously avoided, and created another which should not disturb the real source of the evil he pretended to attack. He could not sit down without referring, though with the greatest deference, to maxims he had heard with surprise that night, respecting the Finance Committee. The right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Herries) had expressed disappointment at finding on the close of last Session that that Committee had considered itself debarred from entering into the "policy of the armaments," and had confined itself to the details. He (Mr. Urquhart) was so far grateful to them. He believed he was sustained by the highest authorities in saying, that that was a matter far too grave for any Committee to undertake, and for that House under any circumstances to delegate. It had long neglected that duty, and he trusted it would be the task of some Member of greater experience, ability, and weight, than himself, to urge upon it the resumption of that essential function.


would at all times give a practical vote on an economical question, and if he could vote with the hon. Member for the West Riding on the principle of economical reform with reference to taxation, he should do it. But he would not take the year 1835, or any other year, for his guide for taxation and expenditure. He could not go so far as to say that at the present time it would be practicable to reduce the expenditure of the country to the extent of ten millions. He looked to the expenditure of the Army and the Navy and Ordnance as offering the best field for reduction. The Army and Navy could not be very greatly reduced all at once, but he believed a great diminution of expenditure in the Ordnance might take place. He agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire as far as a reduction of the Ordnance charge was considered. He agreed also with the hon. Member for the West Riding in everything he had said respecting the colonies, and went so far as to contend that if we could not preserve the Canadas without a garrison of 4,000 men, we could not keep them at all. The fact was, we must retain them by good government, or lose them altogether. There were 2,000,000 of inhabitants, with 120,000 militia, every man of which would turn out if occasion warranted. How, then, was it possible to maintain those colonies with a force of 4,000 men? The same would apply to our other colonies in Australia and elsewhere. One suggestion he would throw out with respect to the troops sent to our colonies, and that was, that instead of their being brought back at the end of their term, those troops should get the option of remaining and settling in the colony. With regard to the taxation of the kingdom, he contended it was more burdensome than the taxation of any other country in the world. England and Scotland paid twice as much in taxation in proportion to any other country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to make some considerable reductions in the Ordnance estimates; but reductions were much more easy to propose than to carry into effect. He believed that the public expenditure might be reduced some 6,000,000l. or 7,000,000l.; but this could not be done all at once. When we were on the plan of reducing the expenditure in particular departments, he much regretted we did not take proper steps to reduce taxation throughout the kingdom. He thought the constabulary and army expenses ought to be reduced, or at least that Ireland ought to sustain those charges; for he was satisfied the people of England and Scotland would not consent much longer to be taxed for such purposes. Then, with reference to the navigation laws, if we wanted to enable British ships to compete with those of other countries, we must make reductions in all articles necessary for the building of ships. He would vote with the hon. Member for the West Riding on the principle of economy in the public expenditure, and with the view to a revision of taxation, but not because of a particular expenditure or amount of taxation in 1835 or any other year. With these remarks, he trusted he should be justified in voting with his hon. Friend, and he should do so on principle. He looked forward to the reductions which might be made on entirely practical and safe grounds.


contended that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding meant this, that before the House went into a Committee of Supply, it would pledge itself to a present reduction of 10,000,000l. [" No!"] Yes, that was the effect of the Amendment, if it had any meaning at all. Since the Reform Bill they were told the expenditure of the country had increased to a degree of profligacy never before known; and, therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite called for more Parliamentary reform. Those hon. Gentlemen—and the hon. Member for Montrose in particular—should remember, that in all the events since the Reform Bill, by which the national expenditure had been so increased, they had been parties. They had given their sanction and approval to the passing of measures which had tended to induce that profligate expenditure of the public money which they now so indignantly repudiated. They had supported the Minister in his interference in Spain by a mercenary army—they had supported the war with China, which was sanctioned by the House by a majority of ten only, in opposition to the Motion of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), denouncing it. They, too, it was who sanctioned the war with the Affghans, in order to shower plaudits down on the head of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control. And again, in the case of the Syrian war—that calamity Would never have taken place if the "Liberals" had done their duty, and, joining with the Conservatives, had upheld ancient treaties, and maintained, in concert with France, the freedom, peace, and independence of Turkey. The question the House had now to consider was, whether, in the present state of the world—placea as it was by the mad, mischievous, and cowardly policy of the so-called "Liberals"—we could afford to reduce the war establishments to the limits which those hon. Gentlemen now thought fit to prescribe? He did not think such a reduction safe or possible. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had quoted statistics; but on a comparison of that which he knew with that which he did not know, and judging by the falseness of the first of the inaccuracy of the rest, he was bound with hon. Gentlemen at both sides of the House—with the exception of the small and miserable majority of the Manchester school—to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the West Riding had given a very inaccurate description of the pamphlet written by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart); for so far from leading the people of this country to suppose they had anything to fear from Russia, he distinctly told them that Russia was physically the weakest Power in the world, and that we had nothing to fear from her even if we interfered to prevent the extirpation of Poland. These were some of the statistics of the public life of the hon. Gentleman, and from the falsehood of these the House might rightly conclude the falsehood of all the rest. For these reasons he would give his vote against the Amendment.


had no reliance on the assertions or the conduct of either the hon. Member for the West Riding, who brought forward the Motion, or of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who opposed it. He should feel it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden), but vote with Her Majesty's Government he could not. He looked upon the Motion as a snake in the grass, but he was determined it should not bite him. Having no confidence cither in the Motion or the opposition to it, he should abstain altogether from voting, and leave the House.


rose: He said, I should be sorry to detain the House longer on this occasion, were it not that I feel that no fitting reply has yet been given to some of the observations which have fallen from the other side of the House, and that I consider the subject is of that importance that we may well be excused for spending one night upon it. The right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) has read us a lecture. It is quite evident that out of doors agitation is not palatable to him, and yet he has found fault with the quietness which has reigned during this debate in this House. The right hon. Member may possibly have received no stimulus from his constituency on the subject of reform in the taxes and expenditure of the country. He alluded to what had been said by my hon. Friend at Manchester, and spoke of what he had addressed to parties whom he described as "some people down there," by which he referred to some thousands of respectable taxpaying people of this country assembled in the free-trade hall of Manchester. Well, now, we have heard occasionally of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman. The last thing we heard of them was this, that a considerable portion of them petitioned this House to be relieved from the privilege, or duty, or burden of their enfranchisement, because the borough the right hon. Gentleman represents was not a free borough, but was under the power of a noble Member of the other House of Parliament. Now, I may inform the House that the Member for the West Riding, my Colleague (Mr. Gibson), and myself, sit hero as representing a great many thousands of electors; and those electors, on this question, I am hound to say, do most accurately represent the feelings of a vast majority of that dense population among whom they live; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will excuse us if we think this question not only important in itself, but important also because of the vast interests that we feebly, it may be, but honestly, represent here. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward a great many papers, but, nevertheless, wished to make it appear that he delivered himself of an, impromptu speech, the object of which was to show that my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding was wrong about France. My hon. Friend did not say what was imputed to him. The simple fact he had in view was, not to prove that we were taxed more heavily or more lightly than France, but to dispute the notion that a republican government in France, against whom you have been bringing various charges, had succeeded in imposing a greater amount of taxation than is imposed in this country, though we have had no such convulsion as they had there. But I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go to another country. We ought not absolutely to regulate our politics or our expenditure by any other country under heaven. If we do not understand our own business, I fear, although we may see something hotter in other countries, we shall not be competent to practise it. But go to a country where our own race is governing itself, under institutions which carry out in practice that which is the theory of the constitution of this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman made some allusion to America. We have heard during the progress of the discussions upon this question, that the increase of population from 1835 to 1849, is no small reason why there should be some increase in our expenditure. That would be a very valid argument, if it were the duty of Government to feed and clothe the people; but as the Government only professes to govern the people, I doubt the strength of the argument. I have, however, a memorandum here, which I have taken from a work that it would be well if hon. Members would all read; it is written by Mr. Mackay, of the English bar, and is entitled The Western World, a book which every person may read with profit. The memorandum I have taken from it is on the special subject of the expenditure in America and in this country. It appears that from 1832 to 1836, the annual average expenditure of the United States was 21,000,000 of dollars; and that, in the four years ending in 1846, in was 22,000,000 of dollars. In 1835 the population was 15,000,000; in 1845 it was 20,000,000; so that while the population of the States had increased by thirty-three per cent, the expenditure of the federal Government had not increased more than 4 per cent. But the right hon. Gentleman pointed to the state of taxation in America. Let me refer him to the taxation of the State of New York. The whole taxation of that State—its contribution to the general Government and its State taxation—does not amount to more than 11s. per head of its population. Why, your expenditure last year, exclusive of your national debt and civil service, and inclusive only of your Army, Navy, and Ordnance, amounted to more than 11s. per head of the population of the United King, dom. You cannot help these comparisons being drawn, and I must say they are most unfortunate and unfavourable to the institutions of this country, and to the management and patriotism of the two Houses of the Legislature. But, now, the whole of the State taxes, throughout the United States, do not amount to more than two millions per annum, and that, added to the four or five millions of the general Government taxation, amounts to an insignificant sum as compared with the taxation of the people of this country. But look at another circumstance. See how the seaboard of America has extended, and see how little it has entailed of increase in their naval expenditure. Not many years ago, their only seaboard was on the Atlantic from the Bay of Fundy to the St. Mary's, north of Florida. Now, it has passed the peninsula of Florida, and extended itself along the north of the Gulf of Mexico to the Rio Grande. On the Pacific, too, they have now an extended seaboard from the Straits of Fuca, or from the northern point of American Oregon to the southern point of Upper California. Notwithstanding this, their navy is not permitted to increase in force and cost. Besides, the American commerce has increased. Their ships are in your ports, and in all the ports of the Mediterranean and the East; but any Chancellor of the Exchequer in America would expect to be laughed at if he stated what our Chancellor of the Exchequer uttered to-night—that there was a great field opened in the East for the employment of our naval force. Why, of course, you have great fields, if you will direct your captains into those seas; but there is no American merchant whose ship, and freight, and crew are not as safe in any port of the world as the ship, freight, and crew of any merchant trading from this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give a very novel reply to the arguments of my hon. Friend. He said that the expenditure of those immense sums by which we maintain our colonies, enables us to obtain supplies of raw materials. But do we get any more wool from Australia because we have soldiers there? Or, would we get any more cotton from the United States, or any less, if we had not a fleet on that coast? Or, would not corn flow to this country from every part of the globe, although we may not have ships abroad? It is a delusion. The right hon. Gentleman is either deceived himself, or, which I do not believe, he is trying to deceive the House, when he says that this large navy you keep afloat enables you to bring large supplies of those raw materials, and that though the expenditure may appear heavy, and you grumble at it, yet that it is comparatively cheap when you consider the great advantages you receive from it. And the right hon. Gentleman slipped by one argument my hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) made use of, for he said we cannot do without those forces if we maintain the colonies, and if we are to keep up a rotation of troops to India. But it is a monstrous thing that this country should send out thousands of men to India to keep them there, if they live, which they seldom do, for 25 years; and a man has just reason to complain of it, especially if he did not enlist with a knowledge of the fact. Why are 9,000 men in Canada at this moment? We are now paying a larger number of soldiers in Canada than the whole standing army of the United States of America; and to me it appears a most absurd and destructive line of policy that we should sustain an army there at the expense of this country. And so I might go on to speak of New Zealand, the Capo, and other colonies. So long as this army are paid out of the taxes of the people of this country, so long will you have no security that there will not be wars between the tribes and the colonists, because it is of importance to the colonists that English troops should be there, and English money scattered among them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, no doubt, be supported by many hon. Members on this side of the House; but I beg to remind those Gentlemen that they voted with the Government last year, and that at the end of the Session the Government did what at the beginning of the Session they declared that they were unable to do. It may be so again. The Government will, at the end of this Session or the next, come down and make further improvements and reductions, and then they will be dragging their supporters through the mire. Now, soon or late, they just do that which the country says they shall do. The question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is how much he will lop off that will take the edge off the agitation out of doors. When the present movement out of doors becomes more universal and combined, then he will reduce, one, two, three, four, five, or even the ten millions my hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) asks for. It is a question of pressure, and he knows it well—no one better. Now, the question that we ask you to consider seriously is, that you diminish the expenditure to the greatest possible limit. We do not ask you now to square off 10,000,000l., but we do ask you to consider from whence you came, whom you profess to represent, and what is the opi- nion of your constituents about this question. The right hon. Member for Stamford is a leader of the protectionist party. It is a triumvirate now; I believe the government of that party is now in commission; but the right hon. Member for Stamford will support the hon. Member for Buckingham's Motion for granting relief to the agriculturists. Well, who has not seen the reports of numerous meetings in the southern counties, where agricultural distress is most felt, owing to the deficiency of the harvests, and the inferiority of the produce for the last year. What have the farmers said? They are escaping from their old leaders, who met at 17, Old Bond-street, the other day, and who could not come to any conclusion, finished with a wrangle, and adjourned to the 6th or 7th of March. I hope on the next occasion they will be able to tell the farmers something. But do not tell them that we are in fault. We never played the farmers false. You told them that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was pledged to support the corn laws. We always told them he was not—that he would repeal them. He repealed them because he happened to be Prime Minister, but any other Premier must have done the same. The farmers are now becoming in favour of free trade all over the country, and they ask for a reduction of taxation, and particularly of the malt tax. They observe what is passing in other countries; they knew something of the expenditure in the United States; for they have found out that there is a country like America, because corn comes from it, and they compare the expenditure of that country with their own. The farmers are suffering from the circumstance that small produce and inferior quality are bringing them but low prices. But, if Gentlemen opposite represent them truly, it is their duty to press upon the Government, with us, for all practicable reduction, in order that some diminution may take place in the present enormous taxation, from which the farmers, as well as the manufacturers, are severely suffering. You vote millions here as if they were nothing, or as if every country was a California, and that gold was not produced in this country by the sweat of millions of men, who are entitled to as just and merciful a consideration of their interests as the highest and wealthiest man in Parliament. Looking to the heroic manner in which the manufacturing population have borne the mi- series of the last three years, considering that this question is supported by the universal opinion of the country, and is fortified by facts and arguments which there has been scarcely an attempt to answer, I do say the question is deserving of the deepest consideration of this House, and that it is the duty of the House to go as far as it can go in reducing the expenditure, and thereby diminishing the sufferings and grievances of the people.


remarked, that he could not recommend the farmers to be influenced by any expressions of good will towards them by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright), for they should remember the old saying, "We ought not to trust our enemies, even when they bring gifts." A question of this nature was to be considered not merely with reference to the situation of our own country, but to the strength and situation of other countries. The advocates, however, of diminished expenditure had entirely omitted that consideration. They had argued this question as one of finance, which was totally another subject. He found that people did in public matters what was done in private matters. When they lived in a tranquil and peaceable village, as he had some times in Cornwall and Wales, they could leave their doors open; but he was afraid that in the quiet and peaceable town of Manchester they would find it advantageous to use locks and bars. He believed that it was the character and situation of one's neighbours that induced the introduction of the precautionary measures of locks and bars. This proposition was a delusion to the farmers, if it was brought forward as a means of relieving them from their burdens. He prayed the House to bear this in mind—they had, in round numbers, thirty millions of people, that was to say, five millions of families, one million of whom consumed five times as much as all the others, another million of families consumed four times as much as the others, another million three times as much as the others, another million consumed twice as much as the others, whilst as to the last million, one half were in misery and indigence and the other half in absolute starvation. Their taxation then ought to press upwards, as their assessed taxes did. They ought to make the pressure increase as it went upwards, as far as the highest person in the country. Their old plan of sumptuary laws was not bad in principle, although it was found to be im- possible in practice. They must endeavour, however, to return to that principle as much as possible. But these new financial reformers swallowed the camel of 20,000,000l. levied for the payment of the public debt; that they never said a word about; but the little gnat of 18,000,000l. for carrying on the government of the country they could not at all tolerate. The way to diminish the burdens of the people was by promoting the employment of capital in agriculture and manufactures. It was necessary for all of them to be united upon this point—that there was no way whatever by which they could give employment to the labourer, but by increasing the capital of the employed. But these new financial reformers were using all the means in their power to diminish that capital; it was that party which domineered in that House; no matter who lived in Downing-street, there was not one Member of any Government who dared stand up for the English labourer against the foreign labourer, and every one of the free-traders was going to give employment to the foreign labourer, and discard our own English ones.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:"—The House divided:—Ayes 275; Noes 78: Majority 197.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N. Bramston, T. W.
Acland, Sir T. D. Brand, T.
Adair, R. A. S. Broadwood, H.
Anson, hon. Col. Brockman, E. D.
Anson, Visct. Brooke, Lord
Anstey, T. C. Brooke, Sir A. B.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Bruce, C. L. C.
Archdall, Capt. M. Bunbury, E. H.
Armstrong, Sir A. Buxton, Sir E. N.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Callaghan, D.
Campbell, hon. W. F.
Ashley, Lord Cardwell, E.
Bagshaw, J. Carew, W. H. P.
Bailey, J., jun. Carter, J. B.
Baillie, H. J. Cavendish, hon. C. C.
Baines, M. T. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Bankes, G. Cavendish, W. G.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T. Chichester, Lord J. L.
Baring, T. Christy, S.
Baring, hon. F. Clements, hon. C. S.
Barrington, Visct. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bellew, R. M. Clive, hon. R. H.
Bennet, P. Cocks, T. S.
Beresford, W. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Coles, H. B.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Compton, H. C.
Bernal, R. Conolly, T.
Birch, Sir T. B. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Blackall, S. W. Craig, W. G.
Boldero, H. G. Crowder, R. B.
Bourke, R. S. Cubitt, W.
Bowles, Adm. Currie, H.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Davies, D. A. S. Jervis, Sir J.
Deedes, W. Johnstone, Sir J.
Dick, Q. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Disraeli, B. Jones, Capt.
Dod, J. W. Keppel, hon. G. T.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Kildare, Marq. of
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Duff, G. S. Langston, J. H.
Duncuft, J. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Dundas, Adm. Legh, G. C.
Dundas, Sir D. Lennard, T. B.
Dundas, G. Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Dunne, F. P. Lewis, G. C.
Du Pre, C. G. Lincoln, Earl of
Edwards, H. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Egerton, W. T. Locke, J.
Ellice, right hon. E. Lockhart, A. E.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Lockhart, W.
Enfield, Visct. Lowther, H.
Farnham, E. B. Macnaghten, Sir E.
Farrer, J. Macnamara, Maj.
Ferguson, Col. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Mahon, Visct.
Fitz Patrick, rt. hn. J. W. Maitland, T.
Floyer, J. Mandeville, Visct.
Foley, J. H. H. Manners, Lord G.
Forester, hon. G. C. W. Marshall, W.
Forster, M. Martin, C. W.
Fortescue, C. Masterman, J.
Fox, R. M. Matheson, A.
Fox, S. W. L. Matheson, Col.
Fuller, A. E. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Glyn, G. C. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Gooch, E. S. Melgund, Visct.
Gordon, Adm. Miles, P. W. S.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Miles, W.
Grace, O. D. J. Mitchell, T. A.
Graham, rt hon. Sir J. Monsell, W.
Granby, Marq. of Moody, C. A.
Greene, T. Morison, Sir W.
Grenfell, C. P. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Mulgrave, Earl of
Grey, R. W. Napier, J.
Guest, Sir J. Newdegate, C. N.
Haggitt, F. R. Newport, Visct.
Halford, Sir H. Norreys, Lord
Harcourt, G. G. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Harris, hon. Capt. Nugent, Sir P.
Hawes, B. O'Brien, Sir L.
Hay, Lord J. Ogle, S. C. H.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Ossulston, Lord
Heald, J. Owen, Sir J.
Heathcoat, J. Paget, Lord C.
Heathcote, G. J. Paget, Lord G.
Heneage, E. Palmer, R.
Heneage, G. H. W. Palmer, R.
Henley, J. W. Palmerston, Visct.
Herbert, H. A. Parker, J.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Patten, J. W.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hervey, Lord A. Peel, Col.
Hildyard, R. C. Peel, F.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Pennant, hon. Col.
Hobhouse, T. B. Pigot, Sir R.
Hodges, T. L. Pinney, W.
Hollond, R. Plowden, W. H. C.
Hood, Sir A. Plumptre, J. P.
Hope, Sir J. Power, N.
Hope, A. Price, Sir R.
Hornby, J. Prime, R.
Hotham, Lord Pryse, P.
Howard, Lord E. Pugh, D.
Reid, Col. Sutton, J. H. M.
Repton, G. W. J. Talbot, C. R. M.
Ricardo, O. Talbot, J. H.
Rice, E. R. Talfourd, Serj.
Rich, H. Taylor, T. E.
Richards, R. Tenison, E. K.
Robartes, T. J. A. Tennent, R. J.
Roche, E. B. Thesiger, Sir F.
Romilly, Sir J. Tollemache, J.
Rumbold, C. E. Towneley, J.
Rushout, Capt. Townley, R. G.
Russell, Lord J. Townshend, Capt.
Russell, F. C. H. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Rutherfurd, A. Turner, G. J.
Sandars, G. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Sandars, J. Vane, Lord H.
Seymer, H. K. Verner, Sir W.
Seymour, Lord Verney, Sir H.
Shafto, R. D. Villiers, Visct.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Shelburne, Earl of Waddington, H. S.
Sheridan, R. B. Wall, C. B.
Simeon, J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Slaney, R. A. Ward, H G.
Smith, J. A. Watkins, Col. L.
Smith, M. T. Williamson, Sir H.
Smyth, J. G. Willoughby, Sir H.
Smythe, hon. G. Wilson, J.
Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W. Wodehouse, E.
Spearman, H. J. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Stafford, A. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Stansfield, W. R. C.
Staunton, Sir G. T. TELLERS.
Stuart, Lord J. Tufnell, H.
Stuart, J. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Adair, H. E. Hindley, C.
Aglionby, H. A. Horsman, E.
Anderson, A. Humphery, Ald.
Bass, M. T. Jackson, W.
Blewitt, R. J. Kershaw, J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Lushington, C.
Bright, J. M'Gregor, J.
Brocklehurst, J. Meagher, T.
Brotherton, J. Mangles, R. D.
Brown, H. Marshall, J. G.
Brown, W. Moore, G. H.
Clay, J. Morris, D.
Cowan, C. Mowatt, F.
Crawford, W. S. O'Connell, J.
Dashwood, G. H. O'Connor, F.
Devereux, J. T. O'Flaherty, A.
Drummond, H. Osborne, R.
Duke, Sir J. Pattison, J.
Duncan, G. Pearson, C.
Ellis, J. Perfect, R.
Ewart, W. Pigott, F.
Fagan, W. Pilkington, J.
Fergus, J. Rendlesham, Lord
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W. Reynolds, J.
Fordyce, A. D. Ricardo, J. L.
Fox, W. J. Salwey, Col.
Frewen, C. H. Scholefield, W.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Sidney, Ald.
Greene, J. Smith, J. B.
Hardcastle, J. Strickland, Sir G.
Harris, R. Stuart, Lord D.
Hastie, A. Tancred, H. W.
Headlam, T. E. Thicknesse, R. A.
Henry, A. Thompson, Col.
Heyworth, L. Thompson, G.
Thornely, T. Wilson, M.
Trelawny, J. S. Wood, W. P.
Walmsley, Sir J.
Wawn, J. T. TELLERS.
Willcox, B. M. Cobden, R.
Williams, J. Hume, J.

Main Question put, and agreed to:—Supply considered in Committee:—Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday.