§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ MR. HUMEsaid, the House would re-callect that on Friday night, after voting 98,714 men, a proposition was made to vote 3,521,070l. for the charge of the land forces. He was a Member of the Committee which had been sitting for three years upon the Army Estimates. In the Committee the most important questions would have to be considered with respect to the consolidating the department of the Ordnance, and the Sappers and Miners, with the Commander-in-Chief's office, and the doing away altogether with the establishment in Pall-mall. Questions likewise with respect to the Engineers, to the clothing, to the commissariat, and to agency, would have to be considered by this Committee; yet all these important subjects of investigation, of reform, and of economy, were involved in the vote of 3,521,070l., which 793 the Secretary of War asked the House to vote in Committee at once. It would be impossible to effect any reduction if they were at once to vote the whole of the money. He had proposed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to take a Vote on account; but the noble Lord did not agree to that. He (Mr. Hume), therefore, now asked the House not to agree to this Estimate until the Committee had had the opportunity of coming to some conclusion on a subject so important. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had properly observed that in the evidence before the Committee they would find that almost every item had been fully discussed. That being the case, ought not the Committee to have an opportunity to decide upon that evidence? But there was another objection to this Vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward a Budget which had been pronounced by the whole country as altogether unsatisfactory, and the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn it for a time in order to reconsider it. Inconvenience always resulted from a change of taxation, and it was the business of Government to prevent that as much as possible. Now, what was the situation of the country? The timber trade, the coffee trade, and the seed trade, all of which were affected by the Budget, wove at a standstill. Seeing that, it was the duty of the House to demand the new Budget before the public money was voted. He had no objection that they should take a Vote on account if they would fix the day on which the Budget should be brought forward. He wanted to know whether it was proper that taxation should be kept up as it was when one great portion of the community, the agriculturists, were in distress? In 1836 the revenue amounted to only 46,000,000l.; in 1842 it was 48,000,000l., and now it was 54,000,000l., and, if they added the expense of collection, very nearly 4,000,000l., it was 57,000,000l. It was on these grounds that he wished the Budget to be brought forward before they voted any money, in order that the House might have an opportunity of doing as they did three years ago—compel the Government to make a reduction. If they had permitted Government to have the supplies they then asked for, did they think there would have been a reduction in the Estimates of more than 3,000,000l. since that time? No; not a farthing of it. He moved that no further 794 supplies be granted till the financial statement was made.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'no further supply be granted until the Financial Statement has been made,' instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. S. CRAWFORDseconded the Amendment.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, as far he could understand it, was to obtain a repetition of the pledge which his noble Friend had given on a former occasion that the financial statement should be made on Friday next. He could assure his hon. Friend that there was no man in that House so anxious that that statement should be made as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was, because he was anxious to say what he had to say in explanation and defence of the course he had adopted. Unless any unforeseen circumstances should arise which he suggested as a contingency, the Financial Statement would be made on Friday next. There had been no delay on his part. But his hon. Friend knew as well as he did that a considerable length of time had been occupied by the discussion of a measure in which an overwhelming majority in that House had by their votes shown they had great interest. His hon. Friend knew that the financial year closed that day, and from that day forward no money could be issued from the Exchequer for the payment of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, until it had been voted by the House, and therefore it was requisite that these Votes should be come to on that day. His hon. Friend must know that whether the statement was made on that day or on Friday, it was perfectly impossible that the points to which he had referred then could be decided. A considerable time must be occupied in the discussion of those various points, and it was impossible that either on Friday or on Monday those points could be settled. If, therefore, his hon. Friend was really anxious, as he believed him to be, to despatch public business, he would allow them to proceed with that which really was the business of the night.
MR. ELLICEsaid, as a Member of the Committee to which his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had referred, he 795 would entreat his hon. Friend not to proceed at present with the Motion which he had made. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the Committee would have wasted its time if certain improvements were not the consequence of the inquiry before the Committee, and that when the other Votes came under consideration it would be the duty of those who sat on that Committee to press on Her Majesty's Government the necessity of considering whether, by consolidating the establishments and other arrangements, considerable economy could not be effected both in this country and the colonies. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to tell them that Government had had these subjects under consideration; and as the particular Votes came before them he would state the opinion of the Government on the subject. He thought the Committee generally agreed that a consolidation of these offices might safely take place in the colonies, and it was of importance that they should have the opinion of the Government on the subject. But the Vote which the right hon. Secretary at War was about to bring before the House was one for the pay, clothing, agency, and foraging of the Army; and, do what the House might, money would have to be paid to maintain our troops. A division on this Vote would, therefore, only be a waste of the time of the House.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely mistaken his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. The complaint was, that the right hon. Gentleman had not made his statement before the Votes for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, were asked for. He was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman had not some compassion on those important trades—the Timber trade and the Coffee trade, which were now quite at a standstill. He had no hope whatever that any good would come of the recommendation of the Committee which had been sitting for three years. Whatever they recommended, he did not believe Government would pay any attention to. The present Government required 20,000 men more for our forces than any former Government had; and if the noble Lord could not carry on the Government as economically as other Ministers could, the House must insist upon his doing it.
§ MR. S. CRAWFORDcordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. He thought it was a principle that the House should insist upon, that the means of defraying expenditure should be stated to, and determined upon by, the House before they agreed to the expenditure. That was a principle they ought most particularly to insist upon under existing circumstances. The Budget which was brought in at the commencement of the Session was so objectionable that the people would not have it. They ought to know what the alterations were before they agreed to any Votes. He thought that there ought to be only a Vote on Account. There were other reasons. It was an established axiom of the constitution that the representatives of the people should have some satisfaction with regard to the redress of grievances before they voted any money. With regard to the question of reform, the noble Lord had made a kind of promise that that question should be considered in the next Session of Parliament; but they did not know whether the measure to be proposed would be of any value or not. The noble Lord had said, he was satisfied with the working of the Reform Bill, and that a franchise founded on numbers would be dangerous to the House of Peers. He wanted to know what kind of a measure the noble Lord, with these fears, would bring in. He also wanted to know what the noble Lord intended to do with the measure proposed by the hon. Member for East Surrey, and whether the noble Lord's measure would include the ballot or not. Then there was another important grievance connected with Ireland, the question of Landlord and Tenant. That question had been held in suspension by Government for years, and he wished to know whether they really intended to bring forward a Bill this Session or not. These were questions which be, as a representative of the people, was entitled to put, and if answers were not given, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would press his Motion.
§ MR. MOWATTsaid, he understood his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had already stated that, supposing the Government fixed a day definitively, he did not intend to press his Motion to a division; and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an assurance that he would make his statement on Friday next. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry and the right hon. Gentle- 797 man the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as a reason for proceeding with the Vote, that this was the last day on which money could issue from the Exchequer for the payment of the troops. He was surprised that any Member of the Government should bring forward such a reason as that. He denied that it was an argument, seeing It that the remedy was in their own hands. Why had they not gone into Supply two months ago? It was quite true there had been a Bill, which, as the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, an over-whelming majority of the House had taken great interest in, but it had not occupied the whole of the Session.
§ MR. WAKLEYsaid, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a distinct pledge that the financial statement should be made on Friday next. What the right hon. Gentleman said was, that if nothing unforeseen occurred, he would make it. He did not think the terms made use of by the right hon. Gentleman were sufficiently distinct. He wished to know whether it was really his intention to make the statement on Friday next? He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction on the subject, and he did not know why the statement had not been made before, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman was himself so anxious to make it. The right hon. Gentleman had made in that House a distinct proposal for the repeal of the window tax, and the public thought that that tax was virtually repealed.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought he had been sufficiently explicit. His noble Friend had stated, that on Friday he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would make his financial statement. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had just stated again that he should do so; and he now stated, for the third time, that he should bring it on on Friday next.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question put and agreed to.