SUPPLY—REPORT. (Hansard, 14 March 1862)

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, he had come down to the House on the previous day for the purpose of dividing with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge, and he confessed that after the vote which they had come to on a previous occasion, he could not but regret that they had not an opportunity of again taking the sense of the House upon the question of restoring the Vote for the Sandhurst College. He did not know what mysterious influence had been at work to prevent a division. The benches on the Opposition side were thickly tenanted on Thursday evening, by those who, on a previous occasion, had been most strenuously opposed to the extension of Sandhurst College. It was true that on the Ministerial side there was a change of opinion on the part of some hon. Gentlemen who had voted against the Vote before they had heard the explanation of the Minister for War; but he had heard nothing to alter his opinion. 1555 He believed that it was detrimental to the public service to keep up a kind of Horse Guards preserve at Sandhurst; while, on the other hand, it was not the system of open competition that had led to the outbreak at Woolwich. There was on questions like this collusion, occasionally, between the Government and Gentlemen on the Opposition side; there were Ministers in esse on one side and Ministers in posse on the other, and that was the reason why the opinion of the House was not fairly.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, that if the hon. Member who had just spoken felt so strongly on this subject, he wondered why he did not divide the House himself. If he did so, he should divide against him.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he would admit that he had characterized the conduct of the cadets at Woolwich in the recent disturbances as disgraceful, but he must deny that he had attributed the outbreak to the effect of the principle of competition. What he had said was, that the young men who had taken part in that outbreak had no ideas of discipline and no esprit de corps. The hon. Member for Brighton might himself have divided the House on the previous night. As he had not thought proper to do so, why did he come down that evening and make a "row"?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that nothing was easier than for an hon. Gentleman—who was disappointed at the smallness of the minority in which he found himself, and who was not likely to persuade the majority to agree with him—to state that there had been collusion between the different sides of the House, and to represent the decision as having been brought about by undue means, when it was the result of careful debate and the closest scrutiny. Since he had been a Member of that House he had hardly ever heard a question of secondary importance, such as the question of Sandhurst must after all be considered, receive a more careful investigation. He utterly denied that there was any collusion, concert, or understanding between the different sides of the House. He was in the recollection of the House when he said that when the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Selwyn) stated that he did not intend to divide the House he (Sir G. Lewis) told him that nothing that he had said precluded him from doing so; and, for himself, he had rather wished 1556 that the hon. and learned Gentleman would go to a division. He did not think it necessary, in consequence of what the hon. Member for Brighton had said, to recur to the case at Woolwich, in regard to which he had already given an explanation. With respect to Sandhurst, however, all the information he had received led him to believe that the administration of that college was perfectly pure and free from objection. He must add that it was hardly fair to make general imputations against a place of education of this kind without supporting them by some authority in respect to the cogency of which the House might be enabled to form an opinion.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge having communicated with him, he was enabled to state that his refusal to go to a division last night, so far from being a proof of collusion, was just the reverse. In considering how best the system of which he complained could be assaulted, the hon. and learned Gentleman had come to the decision that the real question at issue could not be properly raised in Committee or on the Report of Supply. The question being one of principle, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) thought it better to reserve his objection, and raise the point at issue under such circumstances as would give him the best chance of success.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, he wished to explain that he intended to cast no imputation on the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn).

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, that the Votes which had been agreed to, as well as others, ought to be investigated by the Committee on Public Accounts before they were submitted to the House. He wanted to know who was responsible for the preparation of these large items, and where the guarantee was that the ways and means would not be exceeded. Although he did not wish that the Committee should come into collision with the Executive, he should like to know where the real responsibility rested.

MR. PEEL
said, that these Estimates were prepared in the first instance by the respective revenue departments, and were afterwards examined by the Treasury. Under an Act passed last Session the expenditure under these Votes was classified, so that the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of examining and com- 1557 paring them. The Votes would not, he believed, be found larger than was necessary for the service of the coming year. If, however, there were any balances unexhausted at the end of the financial year, they would be surrendered to the Exchequer.