GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War a question with respect to the manner in which certain troops were set down in the Army Estimates. His question had reference to a Vote which had already passed. Early in the Session he obtained a Return which be had expected would have shown the number of men on the British and Indian establishments respectively; but the Return did not afford him the desired information. However he had hoped that, in reply to questions 1065 put to him on Monday evening, when the Estimates were moved, the right hon. Gentleman would have made the matter clear, but the explanations given on that evening had so complicated it that it was now impossible to say how it really was. There was now but one army, and the distinction between the English establishment and the Indian was kept up for the purpose of appropriating the charges. On Monday evening the hon. Member the late Under Secretary for War stated that the number of men on the British establishment included 4,000 men of the Royal Artillery, whom the English Government were raising for India, but who would be paid for by the Indian Government. He thought, then, that by deducting those 4,000 men from the British establishment and adding them to the Indian, he could arrive at the correct numbers; but it appeared that he was wrong, because on the Indian establishment there were 5,000 or 6,000 men in depot who were charged on the British He did not want to tax the calculating powers of the right hon. Gentleman with any minute details, but he wanted to know whether these 3,000 or 4,000 men of the Royal Artillery raised for the Indian Government were included in the charges for the British establishment; and, if not, whether the expenses of those men were included in the amount estimated to be received from the Indian Government, and which would be paid in the Exchequer during the year. If they were not pro vided for in either way, he should like to know how they were charged. He was also desirous of learning how for the future hon. Members were to word Returns in order that the latter might give that in formation which the House was entitled to have with respect to the number of men borne on the respective establishments.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not prepared to answer this minute question at that moment. He could only state his impression that those men were in eluded in the numbers already voted; but if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the kindness to allow him to answer the question on a future night, he should, no doubt, be able to do so in a satisfactory manner.