Commons Sitting of 9 March 1863

MINUTES.
— SUPPLY — Army Estimates — considered in Committee.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution, Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000.)
RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE—reported, Customs Acts (Tobacco Duties).
PUBLIC BILLS—(Second Reading—Salmon Exportation [Bill 42]; Naval Coast Volunteers Act Amendment (Lords) [Bill 55]
Committee—Tobacco Duties [Bill 21]; Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amendment [Bill 29].
Report—Tobacco Duties [Bill 56], and re-committed.
Considered as amended—Post Office Savings Banks [Bill 22].
Third Reading — Malt Duty [Bill 37]; and passed.

ENGLISH POLICE IN POLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNBSSYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, after the state of siege had been proclaimed in Poland, the Russian Government applied to Her Majesty's Government for the services of two English Detectives for the instruction of the Russian police in Poland; and whether, in compliance with that application, Her Majesty's Government sent Superintendent Walker and Inspector Whicher, of the A division to Warsaw, during the months of August and September, 1862?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, in answer to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman I have to state that neither immediately after the state of siege had been proclaimed in Poland nor at any other time did the Russian Government apply to Her Majesty's Government for the services of English detectives for the instruction of the Russian Police in Poland. But that is not the answer which I wish to give to the hon. Gentleman, for it would not be a fair and complete one. I have to state, in answer to the second Question, that two officers, the Superintendent and Inspector named, did go to Warsaw in the month of August last under the circumstances and for the purpose which I will briefly state; and when I have made the statement, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that they did not go for the purpose which is rather implied than expressed in the terms of his Question. I may be allowed first to state that I have found few things Lave attracted the attention of intelligent foreigners in this country more than the maintenance of public order, and the protection of life and property, by means of a police force exclusively civil, unarmed, and acting on all ordinary occasions without any assistance from a military force—each member of the police force acting under regulations authorized by law, and being amenable to the culinary tribunals of the country for any excess of authority or any violation of the law which he may commit. The feeling of surprise which has been excited among foreigners by the observation of these facts has led from time to time to applications from the representatives of foreign Governments for full information as to the organization of the police, the principles upon which it is established, and the details of its management. That information has in all cases been freely given, and
  1226
  without reserve, as we have no secrets in our police system, the object of the applicants being, as was understood, the improvement of the police in foreign countries by their assimilation, as far as circumstances will admit, of their system to our own. In the month of July last I received a private letter from the Russian Ambassador, in which he informed me that the Grand Duke Constantine had, during more than one visit to England, been particularly struck with the admirable results of our police system, and with its character and management so far as he was able to form an opinion. He further stated that the Grand Duke, having been recently charged with the administration of the affairs of Poland, was desirous to effect a reform in that branch of the public service in Poland by placing it as nearly as possible on the system of the English police, with a view at the earliest period practicable of putting an end to martial law which was then in force in Poland. For that purpose the Ambassador therefore requested that, not a detective, but an intelligent officer of the metropolitan police might he put into personal communication with the local authorities at Warsaw, with a view of giving the fullest information as to the organization of the English police, in order that, if possible, the desire of the Grand Duke Constantine might be carried into effect. I thought that desire of the Grand Duke was honourable to him; and if it could have been accomplished, it would have conferred one of the greatest boons on the people of Poland. With that feeling, I informed the Chief Commissioner of Police of the contents of the letter I had received from the Russian Ambassador; and, with my sanction, he complied with the request by sending these officers to Warsaw for the single purpose of communicating to the local authorities there that information which had been repeatedly given to every Government that had applied for it. The Commissioner, acting in accordance with a general rule, thought it desirable that instead of one officer two should go. They went, taking with them the forms of proceeding and the regulations for the management of the police which exist here, which they communicated to the local authorities at Warsaw, with whom they were placed in communication. They gave such personal explanations on the subject as they were called upon to give. Having done that, their duty was performed, and they returned to England

  1227
  from Warsaw as soon as they were enabled, one of them having been seriously ill, to undertake the journey. I am only sorry to say that the object with which the information was sought and given was not attained, for the authorities of Warsaw came to the conclusion—unfortunately, I think — that however well adapted our police establishment might he to a country like England, the materials did not at present exist for applying it to Poland.
  MR. AYRTON: — The right hon. Baronet has not stated whether this was done before or after the knowledge came to the Government of the breaking-out of the insurrection in Poland.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: —It certainly was long before the recent events occurred. The letter was dated in July, and the officers went on the 6th of August.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the table of the House a copy of the letter from the Russian Ambassador making the application? He would also ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the table two Despatches received from the Consul General at Warsaw describing the atrocities which have been committed by the Russians?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: The letter from the Russian Ambassador was marked confidential, and, without his permission, I could not lay it on the table. I have no knowledge of the Despatches referred to.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to ask whether the instructions given to the police would be produced.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: There were no written instructions given to the police. The object for which they wore sent was clearly defined and understood, and I have no doubt they performed their duty strictly within their instructions.

  THE VOLUNTEER ACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill during the present Session for the Amendment or Repeal of the Volunteer Act, 44 George III., c. 54?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS, in reply, said, he had mentioned that it was his intention to introduce, on as early a day as might be convenient, a Bill to amend and consolidate the laws upon this subject.

EXAMINATION OF ACTING TEACHERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table a statement of the Examination to be passed by acting Teachers in order to obtain a certificate?
  MR. LOWEsaid, in reply, that he might inform the right hon. Gentleman that the subjects of examination to which acting Teachers were subjected before they could obtain their certificates, embraced reading, writing, and arithmetic as far as Practice; the leading facts of geography, with a more detailed knowledge of the geography of the British Islands; the leading facts of British history, and, in the case of the Church of England schools, a knowledge of the Bible and Catechism. He had no objection to lay the Papers, relating to the examination, on the table.

LICENCES FOR THE SALE OF BEER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORRISsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill during the present Session to alter and amend the Licensing Act, 9 Geo. IV., c. 61, or the Beer Act, 4 & 5 Will. IV., c. 85, so as to place Retailers of Beer under each of these Acts on an equal footing as to the cost of Licences?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he understood his hon. Friend to refer to the state of the Law under which beer was sold by persons who sold beer exclusively, and who obtained licences at two different prices. In the one case the licence had been obtained under the Beer Acts at one price; and in the other a licence had been obtained originally for the sale of spirits as well as beer, and the spirit licences being dropped, the beer licence was retained at another price. This state of things appeared to be anomalous, and the Government would be glad to avail themselves of an early opportunity of bringing in a Bill to amend the Law in that respect.

THE BUDGET.—QUESTION.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to

1229
bring on the Budget before Easter; if I not, whether it will be brought on upon an early day after the Easter recess?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have no intention to submit the Budget to the House before Easter, but it will be my desire to select the earliest day after Easter that may be convenient.

ARMY—STAFF APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is not an Order of the Horse Guards still in force according to which all Officers on the Staff are only allowed to hold their appointments for five years, and whether at this moment there fire not three Officers holding appointments in contravention of that rule?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the general rule was as the hon. Baronet had stated, but in some exceptional cases it was not strictly enforced.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to ask, whether the rule applied to such appointments as that held by the Duke of Cambridge?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the appointment which the Duke of Cambridge held was not considered a staff appointment, to which the rule applied.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee rend.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

TRANSPORTATION AND PENAL SERVITUDE.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  MR. ADDERLEYrose to move an Amendment—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for having issued a Commission of Inquiry into the operation of the Acts relating to Transportation and Penal Servitude, and into the manner in which sentences under the provisions of those Acts had been carried out, and praying that, pending that inquiry, the conditions on which any remission of punishment, or Licences to be at large, are given, may be strictly enforced according to the intention of those Acts."
  He said, that before the House proceeded to the discussion of the Army Estimates there was a prior question to consider, and that was, the personal security of the
  1230
  people at their own doors. Of what avail a costly regular army, if the police could not secure the inhabitants of this metropolis from being throttled and robbed in the streets? The Home Secretary had just told the House that our police were the envy of the world; but only a few months ago—during the last autumn—it was not safe for any gentleman to walk through the streets of London after dusk. It had been said that the death of a railway director in a collision was the best means of procuring reform of railway regulations; and as the garrotters last autumn fortunately selected a Member of that House as their first victim, attention had been strongly drawn to the acts of violence which were perpetrated in the streets. Upon this hint, Punch warned garrotters to be more cautious in future, and especially to avoid a Secretary of State for the Home Department. He held in his hand a petition from the Bristol Association for the amendment of Convict Discipline. The petitioners stated that they had heard with satisfaction of the appointment of a Commission on the subject of the discharge of men on tickets of leave; but that probably, while the Commission was inquiring, more than 2,000 criminals would be discharged with tickets of leave during the present year. The outcry raised on this subject last autumn was not confined to the metropolis, but was universal throughout the country —it was universal, and so loud as to compel Ministers either to action, or to an active avoidance of action; and of these two alternatives they selected the last, and referred the matter to a Commission. There was a good deal for a Commission to inquire about; but, in the mean time, he asked the House to press the Government to do that which they ought to have done at once—namely, to put the existing law in force. The outbreak last autumn was not unprecedented, but appeared to be a matter of periodical recurrence in this country; not on the part of an influx of new criminals, but generally on the part of old criminals, who having tasted what was called punishment, had found it so wholly devoid of terrors that when the opportunity recurred they recommenced their course of crime with only greater audacity. No one could tell whether the new Commission would take a long or a short time to make its Report. If it should be a long time, was it to be allowed that in the mean time

  1231
  thousands of criminals should be discharged in this country upon tickets of leave, the conditions of which he could show were never carried out, and which had, in fact, become nothing but a sham and delusion? If, on the other hand, the Commission should only take a short time to report, the argument was a thousand times stronger, that before the Report might lead to an alteration of the law, at all events the existing law should be properly tried, and that a needless repetition of changes should be avoided. The cause of the outbreak of crime to which he had adverted was the laxity of penal administration, rendering criminals more audacious than ever; and considering the powers with which the Ministers were invested by the law, he might say that they knew themselves to be the primary cause of that outbreak, and that they needed to do little else but stand out of the way of the existing law and let it take effect. Transportation was for a hundred years perseveringly looked on by this country as the main expedient for secondary punishment next to death, the proximo, morti paena; but during that time repeated experiments were made and successive modifications effected, until at last the sentence of transportation became wholly unintelligible, not only to the population, but to the Judges, and in its original sense practically became impossible. In 1853 an Act was passed, substituting penal servitude for sentences of less than fourteen years transportation, and licences to be at large, which were commonly called tickets of leave, were first introduced into our system as a mode of gradual discharge from punishment under check and control. A Select Committee of that House, presided over by the late lamented Mr. Baines, passed sixteen Resolutions, and in 1857 the last Act on the subject was passed, suppressing altogether the sentence of transportation, and substituling entirely for it penal servitude, accepting the recommendations of the Committee, and the system of licences under conditions and guarantees. These two Acts of 1853 and 1857 applied equally to England and Ireland; but they had been differently carried out in the two kingdoms. He would not enter into any comparison of the two administrations. He wished simply to point out the undoubted fact that the practice in England was utterly at variance with the law. Every Member of the House would admit that it was a most serious thing that
  1232
  the language of the criminal law should be at variance with the practice. That state of things was quite sufficient to account for any increase of outrage and crime, and it was enough to make the people tremble for the security of their lives and property. The law said that a man guilty of a crime just short of the penalty of death should be subjected to penal servitude, and under that sentence might ultimately be removed out of the country; or, if not—and that was what occurred in the great number of cases—that he should after imprisonment, in the first place, for a rigid unremittable term, varying from two years and a half to nine years, afterwards be liable to a further remissible term, which was capable of being reduced from one-sixth to one-third by the good conduct of the criminal while in prison. The conditions upon which that remission was given rested with the Secretary of State; and it would be easy to show that neither the remission nor the conditions upon which the remissions had been granted had been carried out by the Home Secretary at all in accordance with the intention of the Act, but rather in direct contravention of it. In speaking of the Home Secretary he wished it to be understood that he was not making any personal attack, but was dealing with the system of the Department in this matter. The intention of the Act might be gathered from the Resolutions of the Committee which it embodied, and it was, that when a sentence was remitted, it did not then terminate, but was only suspended during the good behaviour of the released prisoner. That suspension of punishment was to be granted on a guarantee of past good conduct, and a certain test of labour, which the prisoner might perform in prison. It also could be cancelled by the same discretion which granted it. Nothing could be clearer than the meaning of the Act, which was based upon the 5th, 12th, and 16th Resolutions of the Select Committee in 1856, which stated distinctly that the remission should be a provisional abridgment of the second part of the term of imprisonment, the first part being rigid and incapable of abridgment; and that such abridgment should involve the sentence being still held over the head of the criminal. The practice, however, during the first few years after the Act of 1853 was passed, was to turn loose all sorts of prisoners, good, bad, and indifferent, at the end of the minimum period of incarceration, on the assumption that they had all

  1233
  behaved well and were all fit to receive the proposed conditional liberation to its utmost extent. He could not conceive a more direct and complete contravention of the law than such a practice as that; and he was sorry to find that even down to the present day it was, to a large degree, continued. The latest Returns showed that the proportion of convicts who were discharged at the end of the minimum term was so large and regular, as to preclude the notion that the test of industry and good conduct was really applied. He did not wonder under such circumstances at the general misunderstanding of what was implied by a "licence." The word was equivocal, like the old phrase "licensed to be drunk on the premises," and was capable of a very different interpretation from that intended. The reckless manner in which licences had been granted had rendered the precautions of the legislature a farce, and the sentences of Judges absolute lies. The conditions on which licences were to be held also, had been, and were still, not fulfilled. Endorsed on the ticket of leave was a condition which distinctly stated that if the holder were found consorting with bad company, or were suspected of pursuing criminal courses, he would be liable to be sent back to prison to finish the full term of his original sentence, without any fresh conviction. In point of fact, however, the practice was quite the reverse, for down to the present moment a ticket of leave was not cancelled until the holders had committed a new infraction of the law. The Returns from Wakefield and other places illustrated that feature of the system in a very striking manner. Sir Joshua Jebb, at the Social Science Congress of 1862, had himself stated that the Returns prepared by the direction of the Home Secretary showed that out of 300 ticket-of-leave holders known to the police, at out a half were pursuing criminal courses. [Sir GEOBGE GREY: That was a mistake.] Sir Joshua Jebb further stated, that upon the Return being made, the Home Secretary directed that the holders of licences should be informed, that if they continued to pursue a criminal course, their licences would be revoked; and that after the expiration of a month another Return was ordered to be made, but not one of the ticket-of-leave holders could be found. In England, it seemed that a fresh infraction of the law was always waited for, before the cancelling of a licence. Without going into a comparison of the Irish system with
  1234
  the English, he would only call attention to the fact, that, besides conditions being enforced, the conditions under which licences were held in the former case were much more stringent than in the latter; and yet, in adopting that stricter course, the Irish Government had only followed out the recommendations of the Committee of 1856. Every ticket-of-leave man in Ireland was placed under the surveillance of the police, to whom he had to report himself once a month, failing which a warrant issued for his re-capture. General Cartwright, a high authority on such a subject, had declared that there was no reason why the same system should not be introduced in England. Moreover, a licence could not be obtained in Ireland until a convict had gone through not only the stages of punishment enforced in England, but an intermediate stage besides to which there was no parallel in the sister country. But he did not intend to propose the addition of a single word to the endorsement on a ticket of leave. He knew, that if he were to propose anything new, the Government would at once suggest another inquiry. He simply wanted that the House should press the Government, pending the inquiry now in progress, to put the existing law in force. There could be no doubt, as he had shown, that the recent extraordinary outbreak of crime was due, not only to the confused state of the statute-book, but also to the lax state of penal administration and the lenity of prison discipline. A Committee of Inquiry had been appointed on that last subject in another place. It really seemed as if a Royal Commission and a Committee of Inquiry were two wet blankets held up by the Government in the face of every man bold enough to propose any practical amelioration either of the law or of the practice. He would even abstain from asking the Government to carry out the existing law if he saw any intention on their part to do so. The steps recently taken by the Home Office showed, on the contrary, an intention still further to depart from the law. A Home Office circular had been sent even after the Commission was appointed to all the Judges, informing them that in future there was to be no remission of punishment to men sentenced for the second time to penal servitude. That circular, at first sight, seemed to indicate a tendency towards a more stringent carrying out of the law; but, in truth, its real

  1235
  tendency was precisely the reverse, much as it had pleased a great many Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. It would have no effect whatever on the length of sentences; the only difference it could make would be that in the worst cases—cases of second convictions for serious crimes—the discharge, whenever the sentence ended, would be given without any of the checks and safeguards supplied by police supervision. The second step volunteered by the Home Secretary pending the inquiry by the Commission would prove equally ineffective. Finding the country to be very anxious that something in the nature of police supervision should be exercised over persons having licences, he had directed that prisoners should be discharged only from Milbank, and in the presence of officers of police. Such a kind of police parade, if it deserved the name of supervision at all, would have all the evils of espionage without a single practical advantage. The police could not retain a knowledge of all the prisoners whom they might see discharged from Milbank; but every discharged prisoner would fancy that the police were always dogging him, and the effect upon him could not fail to be unfortunate. Another circular had been issued from the Home Office, calling upon the mayors of boroughs and Chief Superintendents of Police, to make a return of all convicts discharged on tickets of leave residing within their respective districts. It was quite impossible that such a return could be made. Mayors and police Superintendents did not possess the requisite knowledge, nor could they obtain the desired information even from the prison authorities. It was much to he regretted, that in the Cabinet itself, no clear understanding seemed to exist as to what new regulations, if any, were being made. Not many days ago Lord Derby asked in another place, whether there were any new regulations issued. Earl Granville replied in the affirmative. On the same evening the Home Secretary stated in that House that there were no new regulations issued. The contradiction arose, he believed, from several operations in addition to those already mentioned having been suggested by the Home Secretary, but having been deferred. Those alterations extended to impoverishment of the dietary and other internal arrangements of prisons. He had shown that the law and the practice were at variance in England, and that the present state of things was well calculated to produce alarm; that a
  1236
  Commission might find much to inquire into, but that the Government were playing fresh tricks all the while they were inquiring, and he thought he was making a moderate request, when he asked the House to agree to address the Crown for a stoppage of further experiments, and an enforcement of the existing law at least till the Royal Commission reported.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for having issued a Commission of Inquiry into the operation of the Acts relating to Transportation and Penal Servitude, and into the manner in which sentences under the provisions of those Acts have been carried out; and praying that, pending that inquiry, the conditions on which any remission of punishment, or Licences to be at large, are given, may be strictly enforced according to the intentions of those Acts,"
  — instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would be extremely inconvenient that the House should agree to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that they should tendor their thanks to Her Majesty for appointing a Commission of Inquiry; and then to take one important branch of the subject referred to that Commission out of its hands, without waiting till it had had fair time to finish its labours. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of robberies with violence having been very frequent in the metropolis during the last six months, and had stated that the manner in which the law was administered against their perpetrators gave them such comparative impunity that no man's life or property would be safe. He would not now dispute with the right hon. Gentleman as to the cause of these crimes, though men quite as competent to judge did not agree with him in attributing them to the lax administration of the law. He would simply say, in justice to the police of the metropolis, that the measures they had taken, which it would not he very prudent to explain, aided by the efficient administration of the law by the Judges, had led to the apprehension and conviction of the offenders, and had put a stop to these outrages. The House would shortly be put in possession of the Report of the Royal Commis-

  1237
  sion, which he believed would tend to correct many of the misconceptions of the right hon. Gentleman. As the Commissioners were still sitting, he would not attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman through all the points he had raised. Had it not been so, he should have thought it his duty to explain much more fully than he now proposed, the way in which the law was administered. For his own conduct in administering the law he wished to shrink from no responsibility; but as the present system had been administered under five successive Secretaries of State, he thought the right hon. Gentleman might be more diffident in asking the House to endorse his opinions. The right hon. Gentleman was under a total misapprehension in regard to the Act of 1857. It was the Act of 1853 which substituted for shorter sentences than fourteen years sentences of penal servitude, leaving it in the option of the Judge to pass a sentence of transportation or of penal servitude; and that statute authorized the Crown, in respect to either of those sentences, for the first time to grant licences to be at large to persons convicted of offences so punishable, those licences to be revocable on such conditions as the Crown might prescribe. The Act of 1857 did not refer at all to those licences. What it provided, following out the recommendation of the Committee of 1856, was that shorter sentences than seven years, formerly the minimum term of transportation, might be passed, and that sentences of penal servitude might be passed of not less than three years; and the result had been that the great majority of sentences of penal servitude since 1857 had been for three, four, or five years. But he was at a loss to find in these statutes any enactments that convicts released either absolutely or on ticket of leave should be placed under police surveillance. The conditions on which the licences were to be revoked were left entirely to the discretion of the Ministers of the Crown. The right hon. Genleman was quite mistaken in supposing that it was the practice immediately after 1857 to give unconditional remissions of punishments, and that therefore the public had been injured. The endorsement on the licence stated that the holder, though not actually convicted of another crime, was liable to be sent back to prison for the whole of the unexpired portion of his sentence if he associated with thieves or led a disorderly life. The question of the en-
  1238
  forcement of these conditions was one which was under the consideration of the Commission. The whole difficulty of the case lay in this:—That there were no means of instituting a judicial inquiry into the conduct of such a man, unless he were positively charged with a specific crime. The conviction for any offence, however small, of a man holding a ticket of leave was taken as indisputable proof that the condition on which he received his licence had been violated, and the licence was accordingly revoked. No doubt, there were some instances in which, notwithstanding conviction for some further offence, the licence had not been revoked; but those were chiefly cases in which the punishment for the second offence exceeded the unexpired portion of the previous sentence. Where, too, the new offence was not of a sufficiently grave character to indicate a return to the criminal class—as, for example, hawking without a licence, bastardy cases, find the like—the licence was not revoked; but in all other instances—even where the second charge was drunkenness and assault —it was taken away, and the holder sent back to prison. There had been many instances in which, without the actual commission of any new offence, but yet where there was enough evidence to show that the ticket-of-leave holder was associating with thieves or relapsing into criminal courses, the licence had been withdrawn. But the difficulty was, as he had said, in obtaining clear proof on that point without a judicial inquiry. He thought the House would not like to pledge itself to an opinion that licences should be revoked without proof of any kind, but on the mere suspicion of some individual policeman that the conditions of the licence had been broken. In the pamphlet referred to by the right hon. Gentleman it was stated that a large number of these licence-holders were at large in Sheffield. Being greatly surprised at the statement, in September last he wrote for information on that point, and received from the Sheffield police a very long list of names. He afterwards communicated with the Mayor, and he learnt that most of these names were names of persons who, having expiated their offences, were then at large, and belonging, no doubt, a considerable portion of them, to the criminal class. But under no construction of the law could these persons be placed under the surveillance of the police; they were as free as any other class of

  1239
  men in the kingdom until they again rendered themselves amenable to punishment. Seven of the entire list were, however, believed by the local police to be relapsing into criminal courses. On an investigation it was found that of these seven only one was the holder of a ticket of leave; but it took six weeks to satisfy the Mayor of Sheffield, who undertook the investigation, that the circumstances were such that the licence should be revoked. That would be the real difficulty of the case; and if the views of the right hon. Gentleman were allowed to prevail—if the holders of tickets of leave were to have them revoked without any judicial inquiry —it would be necessary to establish for them what, indeed, existed in penal colonies, a code applicable only to those persons, rendering them subject to a summary jurisdiction to which no other class was amenable.
  Before sitting down he wished to notice two or three statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. One of them related to an error which appeared in a statement of figures appended to the letter of the West Riding magistrates in reply to Sir Joshua Jebb. Now, he had written to those magistrates on the subject, and it turned out that the numbers, instead of 200, should have been only 29, and they promised to correct the inaccuracy if the pamphlet reached a second edition. Then again, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that there had been any interference in regard to holders of tickets of leave sentenced a second time. In point of fact, some time before the Commission was issued, in consequence of the number of robberies attended with violence supposed to be committed by licence-holders, although subsequent investigation proved that they had not been committed by them at all to the extent alleged, it was thought desirable, to meet these very cases, that instructions should be given that the published rules with regard to the remission of sentences should not be acted on in the case of any prisoner so circumstanced; on the ground, that if a second crime were committed, the person committing it proved by that fact that he belonged to that class of offenders to whom no indulgence should be shown. With respect to the circular to mayors and borough authorities, he had never heard of it till the extracts were read from it at the table. He supposed it must have been issued by the Commission—certainly he
  1240
  had never seen it. An erroneous impression was entertained in regard to the extent to which street robberies accompanied by violence had been committed by persons previously convicted. Of a list of those violent street robberies it turned out that only two were committed by men who were licence-holders, and four by parties who had been sentenced to transportation or penal servitude. With regard to penal servitude, the right hon. Gentleman complained that very different language was held by different Ministers on the subject of the dietary of prisoners. Now, the Commission had only reference to those prisoners who passed through convict prisons under the conduct of the Government; while the Committee of the House of Lords had reference to the management of borough and county gaols, which were regulated quite differently from convict prisons. The administration of punishment in county and borough gaols, which were chiefly under the justices, formed a very useful subject of inquiry; but the right hon. Gentleman proposed for inquiry what would undoubtedly come before the Commission; and if the Address were adopted, the subject would be withdrawn from their attention. With respect to letters of licence, it was a condition that a ticket of leave or licence should be available only within the limits of the United Kingdom; and therefore, knowing that the moment a convict left the country he was illegally at large, the Government had not encouraged emigration. But they had shut their eyes to it, knowing how desirable it was that discharged men should seek the means of obtaining an honest living; and they had paid the gratuities, which would otherwise have been paid to the discharged prisoners themselves, to the Prisoners' Aid Society, which had undertaken to promote emigration among this class. The system of directly encouraging emigration among this class was adopted in Ireland, and no doubt it had its advantages arising from the peculiar circumstances of that country; and a gentleman was salaried to visit and ad-vise discharged prisoners. He wished to draw no invidious comparison between the two countries; but if the Address of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, the effect would be that many would be found at large who had no legal right to emigrate. He hoped, when the Commission reported, the right hon. Gentleman would carefully read the evidence, and thereby

  1241
  correct his knowledge of facts. At present it would certainly be premature to adopt his Address.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he thought the House was deeply indebted to the right hon. Member who had moved the Address, for bringing forward the subject; and regretted that the Secretary of State had not given a more satisfactory answer. He confessed that he was unable to sec where the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) had fallen into inaccuracy. The twelfth recommendation of the Commissioners' Report was conditional only. In the fifteenth and sixteenth recommendations they suggested that the convicts should be watched by the police. Now, the facts were, that great numbers of convicts were being discharged from the prisons, and tickets of leave were given to prisoners set at large, who might be watched by the police, without any Act of Parliament being passed for that purpose; and it was for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had brought this Motion before the House. He was under the impression that the system in Ireland, and in England, was equally under the control of the Home Office, and that the right hon. Baronet was at the head of either system. Yet in the two countries we had two systems in operation founded on two different principles. he could not understand the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to giving them that security for persons and property, when convicts were sent out on a ticket of leave, which was recommended by the Committee of that House, by a number of Magistrates, by General Cartwright, Inspector General of Constabulary, and by many of the Chief Constables of different Counties, and which really, as far as he could find out, had no opponents in this country except the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) and Sir Joshua Jebb. It all depended upon the fiat of the right hon. Gentleman, whether convicts dismissed to-morrow on tickets of leave should be placed under the surveillance of the police. The system of the right hon. Gentleman had proved an utter failure; whereas the surveillance that was required would not act in any kind of way to prevent a man from obtaining employment. He certainly could not understand why seven years should have been allowed to elapse with two different; systems in operation, without a comparison being made to ascertain which excelled, so that we might have one uniform plan. If
  1242
  the right hon. Baronet had taken this course, there would have been no need of a Commission. What had the Commission to discover beyond what was found by the Committees in 1856? If those recommendations had been carried out, the whole system of secondary punishments would have been gone into; but the right hon. Baronet, in not having dealt with the whole convict body, had not got his case ready for a Commission to deal with. Looking at the results of the Committee of 1856, he could not understand what the present Commission were to find out additional, and he was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) had not acceded to the Address of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There was £11,000,000 worth of property consumed annually by crime, either in its repression or in depredations; and of this sum £4,000,000 were spent in its repression. There were 21,000 policemen, or one to every six of the criminal class, which was not the proper proportion, or one that ought to exist in any well-ordered state. This was a subject which must interest every Member of the House, and he trusted, that notwithstanding the opposition which had been given, the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the question, and be prepared to examine and see whether he could not place the convicts, which are henceforward liberated, under some kind of surveillance that would enable the police to know what had become of him.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was not his intention to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. H. Seymour) in the wild and discursive field which he had travelled over. He thanked God, being a member of the Commission, that they had not to go into the whole subject of secondary punishments. It was a large field; and he was quite sure, that if they were to undertake that matter, it would be made a very short inquiry indeed. Nor would he go into the question—also not a small one—whether any and what means ought to be taken to obtain a more perfect surveillance of the police over the criminal population. That, also, was a rather large inquiry. Many people thought that the police had got power enough; and, at all events, it was a very large question. He would confine himself strictly to the Motion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley). He would abstain from going into the comparative merits of the Irish and

  1243
  English systems, which was a question his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) himself had not raised; indeed, so far as he could upon such a subject, he had carefully avoided it. He could only say this, that he knew of nothing that would lead him to the same conclusion as the hon. Member opposite had come to. When the facts of the Irish system were looked into, he doubted very much whether any one would be able to come to the conclusion which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Seymour) seemed to regard as so certain. Of this he was quite sure, that if all the recommendations of the Committee were to be carried out, there would be considerable difficulty in following the Irish system. He believed, that if a man received a licence of leave in Ireland, he could walk into England and Scotland without the least check; and therefore if they were to be hindered, and kept under strict surveillance, the result would be that some of the criminals who figured in the English prisons we might not have the privilege of seeing so frequently as we do now. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) had gone at considerable length into the recommendations of the Committee of 1856, and he stated that in 1857 there was a wholesale abuse of the system; and that for two or three years after the practice was even more lavishly resorted to. Well, what was the result? Why, from 1857 to 1860 there was the most remarkable diminution in crime ever known in this country; so that during the time that, according to him, the greatest abuse of this system was going on, the gaols were almost getting empty. Anybody who knew anything of the condition of our prisons in 1860 would know that we never had so little crime. Still, if there were any force in the reasoning of his right hon. Friend, there must have been a great benefit and advantage to us, so far as security of life and property was concerned, from this relaxation of a system whereby criminals were let out upon us. In 1860 a more stringent, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley), a sounder line was adopted; and from that time criminals began to increase, and gradually crept up; and though we had not yet got so bad as we were in 1857, yet he was afraid, that when the Returns for 1862 were laid before the House, it would be found that we were getting back to the state of things that existed at that time. He believed that this increase and decrease of crime
  1244
  did not rest upon the treatment of the criminal population. He believed that they were to be accounted for by deeper causes; and that, from time to time, we should have ebbs and flows in crime; and if we set to work to alter our laws upon every occasion—-upon every ebb and flow of crime—we should be led into a greater mass of confusion than we were in at the present. His right hon. Friend alluded to the Return from the different police authorities of the country ordered by the House for that Commission. It was not ordered, so far as he knew, for any other purpose. Of course the information obtained that way was good, so far as it went; it was valuable as showing two things—how far the police were vigilant, and what number of criminals they knew of and what they were doing; and if the police, who were in the proportion of 1 to 1,000 of the population of the country, and of 1 to 500 in the metropolis, were worth their salt, they should be able to exercise considerable oversight over the criminal population. For himself, he could not see what good such a Resolution as this, if carried out, would do; and he was one of those who thought the right hon. the Secretary of State had not exercised an unsound discretion when he required something like proof that a man was going wrong after he was let out. He quite agreed with him, that the simple assertion that a person was doing wrong ought not to be received, except upon a full inquiry. He was one of those who thought that no man ought to be condemned unheard; and certainly to deprive a man of the remission of sentence of one year or six months was a thing that ought not to be done without his having the power of answering what was alleged against him. He would vote against this Motion if it went to a division; but he hoped his right hon. Friend would not divide the House upon it, but be content with the expression of opinion that had taken place.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) might congratulate himself upon some of the results he had attained by bringing the subject before the House; and he must say, that looking to the state of public opinion upon this subject, it would hardly have been satisfactory if this House had allowed the Session to pass without some discussion on be important a question. Some points elicited in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the

  1245
  Secretary of State were not unsatisfactory, and they would tend to dissipate some erroneous impressions which existed in the minds of the people on this question. But with reference to what had just been stated as to the possible utility of such a Motion as this, there was one point of view in which they should look at it. A Commission is now sitting to inquire into the whole subject; that Commission would shortly make its Report, to which he should expect some weight would he attached, while upon its recommendations possibly some legislation might be founded. They had had in former years inquiries by Committees of this and the other House of Parliament, and upon the recommendations of those Committees Acts of Parliament had been passed and steps had been taken with the intention of carrying out the suggestions of those Committees. The question was whether the recommendations of those Committees had been actually carried into effect— because this fact had a certain bearing upon the Report which they expected from the Commission. The Act which was passed following the Report of the Committee some years ago was expected to prove satisfactory, because it was supposed to carry out the recommendations of that Committee. What they wanted to know was whether these recommendations had really been acted upon or not, because they wanted also to know whether the recommendations which they expected from the Commission would be carried out or avoided in practice by the Legislature; and whether, pending this inquiry, Government would give directions to carry out the Act as was intended by the Parliament which passed it? Attention had been called to one particular point — namely, the conditions endorsed on the ticket of leave. His right hon. Friend did not mean to say that the law was violated by the executive Government, because the Act gave the Secretary of State the power of issuing these tickets of leave under such conditions as he thought fit. It was, however, clearly the intention of the Committee of 1856, and of the Government which endorsed their recommendations, that when the conditions were so endorsed, the tickets of leave given should be a reality and not a sham—not that they should be tickets allowing a person to act unconditionally free, and that the person should be subject to severer punishment in case he committed a second
  1246
  offence—and it was undoubtedly the intention of that Committee that these tickets should he some kind of security for the good conduct of the prisoners allowed to go at large. The general impression of the public was that the ticket of leave was a sham, and the ticket-of-leave men themselves seemed to be of the same opinion. They thought all they had to do was to keep themselves out of the clutch of the law a second time. The right hon. Gentleman had told them there were great difficulties in revoking the ticket of leave, unless the law were a second time violated by the holder; and yet, he said, he had sometimes revoked it though no new crime had been committed. It was evident there was a great deal of confusion in connection with the whole subject. His right hon. Friend had done good service in bringing the question forward, and in doing so he had given expression to the feelings of the public. He hoped the Commission would recommend some intelligible course of action which the Legislature might adopt, and that the Government would give an assurance that whatever might be agreed upon would be carried into effect.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he was of opinion that the Report of the Commission would show that the ticket-of-leave system had been completely successful. Nearly 6,000 persons had been discharged under it, and at least 90 per cent of them had not relapsed into crime. In Ireland, out of 724 tickets of leave, only 71 persons (51 men and 20 women, or less than 10 per cent) had again offended. Of these 51 men 21 did not offend until the full term of their imprisonment had expired, and of the 20 women three only had offended before that time. If the number of recommittals as shown by the Returns were reduced for offences of a trifling character—for felonies not accompanied with violence — it would be found very small indeed. But it was a subject of great regret that no provision should be made for persons who, having lost their character, were let loose upon society without a friend in the world. The majority of these persons were penniless, powerless, and friendless, and, in fact, the greatest objects of compassion a Christian mind could look for.
  MR. NEWDEGATEtrusted that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) would withdraw the Motion before the House. He was bound to ask his right hon. Friend to do this, because his right hon. Friend

  1247
  had made a proposal in the quarter sessions for Warwickshire, at which they were both present, similar to that before the House, and he (Mr. Newdegate) had presented a petition to the House signed by the magistrates there present, which was adopted in opposition to the proposal then made. The feeling amongst the magistrates was one of thankfulness to the Government for having issued the Commission, and their petition was that the existing law with respect to secondary punishments might be changed. That was the general feeling of the country and of the magistrates; it would therefore be impossible that their representatives could concur in condemning the Government for not carrying out satisfactorily a law which they believed to be imperfect. He believed that the opinion of the great majority of the people and of the intelligent classes was that the abandonment of transportation had been a very great misfortune to this country, and a misfortune to those unhappy persons who had fallen into crime. The fact that such persons were unable to find employment here was a proof of the high tone of the morality of the country. It had been admitted over and over again by Sir William Denison, by the Home Secretary, and by Earl Grey, that under the system of transportation and of assignment in the colonies, persons who had been convicted of crime were enabled to recover themselves and become honest members of society. Such a system, therefore, was merciful to the unhappy person who had fallen into crime; and he trusted that nothing that had passed in that debate would be held to prejudice the consideration of that question by the Commissioners. The people of this county were earnest in their desire that the Commissioners should investigate the subject, with a view of ascertaining whether some new sphere might not be discovered to which our criminals might be transported, where they could have a chance of recovering their position, for this they could not do in this country unless its tone of morality had been degraded. A comparison had been instituted between the success of the present system of secondary punishments in this country and in Ireland. The fact was, that England had not yet a system of police like that in Ireland, and he spoke confidently when he said that the people of this country did not wish or need to have a like system; if any system of secondary punishments were introduced here that would require such
  1248
  a change in the character of our police force, the people of this country would consider that system very dearly purchased.
  MR. BENTINCKconcurred with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) in proposing that immediate steps should be taken to make the law with reference to this question more stringent. Nothing had been said as to when it was likely that the Report of the Commission would appear; and it seemed to him that one material point had been altogether over-looked in this discussion—namely, whether, when they had the Report, it was likely that they would be able to act upon it. He thought that the speech and the Motion of his right hon. Friend were contradictory of each other, because in one he asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) to deal in a summary way with this question, and in the other he sanctioned delay. He objected to the Motion of his right hon. Friend because it countenanced delay. It appeared to him that the great error that had been committed in this matter was in the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) in referring this matter to a Commission. The right hon. Gentleman had not touched on that subject. He was at a loss to understand what ground the right hon. Gentleman, in the position he occupied, had for referring this subject to a Commission. He was at a loss to understand how any Commission, however ably it might be composed, could become possessed of better or more reliable information than that which was in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman. It was simply shifting responsibility. What was the use of an executive Government at all if they were not prepared to deal with questions like this? It seemed to him that this was one of those cases in which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have acted on his own responsibility. It had been said that there had not been lately such a marked increase in crime as there had been previous to 1857. That might be the case with regard to general crime; but there had been a large increase lately in a particular description of crime perpetrated by a particular class of men—men who had been liberated under the existing system; and it was for that very reason that it was incumbent on the right hon. Baronet himself to deal with the question. He (Mr. Bentinck) entirely concurred with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that they would never

  1249
  arrive at a good result until they again resorted to the system of transportation. Nothing else would save society from a repetition of those practices which had recently created such a strong feeling in the public mind.
  MR. CAVEsaid, the real reason why the present system worked well in Ireland was because the convicts were obliged themselves to report to the police what their mode of living was. It was quite a mistake to suppose that these men could only be employed in a degraded state of society. The reason they were employed in Ireland was that in reality a ticket of leave there was a certificate of good character, A ticket of leave in this country, on the contrary, was a mere certificate that the person had been convicted of crime. The Act of 1853 gave the Home Secretary the widest power to endorse on tickets of leave whatever conditions were thought desirable; and if the conditions were less strict in this country than in Ireland, the Home Secretary had authority in his own hands to remove the discrepancy. The proper object of a ticket of leave was to prevent an offender, by means of the supervision to which he should be subjected, from committing a second offence; but, instead of that course being pursued in this country, the ticket-of-leave man was now told that after he committed a second offence his ticket of leave would be revoked. That was not the right course of proceeding, for it was calculated to set every man against the criminal who obtained a release, to make every one his enemy, and also to exasperate the criminal against society, because it was rendered impossible for him to obtain a livelihood in an honest manner. The Home Secretary had spoken as if his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) had started at a ghost which no one saw but himself. Why, during the whole winter the country had been sounding the alarm. If this question had been raised for discussion a few months ago, there would not have been such empty benches as were to be seen in the House on the present occasion. Every one then felt his life and property unsafe on account of the prevailing outrages. But the tide had now rather turned, in consequence of the extraordinary exertions of the police in driving these offenders into the provinces, and there was, unfortunately, at present a certain stagnation. This was a most unfortunate circumstance, when it was wished that the law should be enforced. Precisely the
  1250
  same thing occurred in 1856. A series of outrages between 1853 and 1856 roused the nation, and a call was raised for some change in the law, but the question was shelved by being referred to a Committee. There was, as the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had said, an ebb and flow in crime, caused by various circumstances. It was during the flow that the laws were tested; and because the pressure of the flood of crime ceased for a time to bear against the gates, which had proved inadequate to restrain it when that pressure was at its height, it by no means followed that the law was in a satisfactory state. Returns, such as that which had been quoted, showing the proportion of reformed ticket-of-leave men, were perfectly illusory, for it was admitted that little was known of what became of the holders, he remembered what Serjeant Adams had once told him of the advice he gave to the holder of a ticket of leave—namely, to throw it over the first bridge, in order that he might not be known in that capacity, he was by no means one of those who advocated a return to the severity of penal discipline, but he was decidedly opposed to the continuance of a system which suggested to the struggling, honest man whether it might not be better after all to become a criminal.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had always considered it a gross inhumanity to release felons without affording them some means of obtaining a honest livelihood. Destitute, of the means of self-support, they must either steal or starve. Transportation was unquestionably a means of ridding the country of this class of the population; and if colonies objected to receive transported criminals, there were plenty of waste lands in which communities might be founded, as that in New South Wales had originally-been. That colony was founded by felons, and yet it had become a highly respectable community. In nine cases out of ten want of employment was at the root of the evil, and no legislative act had tended to diminish juvenile vagrancy like the establishment of the Shoe-black Brigades, the boys in which not alone earned sufficient for their on support, but were actually putting money into the savings banks.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, as allusion had been made to the working of the convict system in Ireland, he wished to remind the House that the position of the two countries was very different. There were two causes of its failure in England —

  1251
  the existence of large and crowded cities, and the existence of a professional criminal class, neither of which were to be found in Ireland. Whenever there appeared in Ireland men desirous of following crime as a profession, they generally came over to England, from a belief that there was a larger field open to them there for the exercise of their abilities. Under the ticket-of-leave system there should be established a proper surveillance, by which the conduct of the holders could be observed and reported upon. He, however, believed that our criminal system would never work properly without transportation. There were plenty of the possessions of the Crown that were suited for the purpose, and he deprecated that morbid sensibility which would hesitate to send criminals to places because they were too but or too cold. He objected to the principle of considering the health of the criminal more than the health of the soldier or the sailor.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ACCOUNTS OF ARMY EXPENDITURE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYrose to call attention to a subject relating to the Army Estimates, which he could not introduce in Committee, because it did not relate to anything connected with the Estimates of the year. That subject referred to the payment of £19,385 for German Military Settlers in Vote No. 3, Army Estimates, 1860–1. In his opinion it was a blot upon our financial system that for two years past, they bad received no detailed account of the army expenditure, and yet they went on voting the Estimates without that information. At the present moment they had had no account of the details of the army expenditure of 1861–2, nor, of course, of the expenditure of 1862–3. Yet those two years' expenditure amounted to upwards of £30,000,000. It was singular that for so long a time they had been in the habit of voting the Estimates without the slightest evidence of the manner in which those enormous grants had been expended in the previous year. The last detailed account submitted was that of 1860–1, which was only delivered on the 30th of May, after the Army Estimates had all been voted, and was, consequently, of no avail fur the discussion of the army
  1252
  expenditure of last year. He wished to call the attention of the House more particularly to a certain payment of £19,385 fur German military settlers at the Cape. In the Estimates for 1860–1 it was true that the words "paid to German Military Settlers at the Cape" appeared; but they were printed in italics, which was the customary form when it was intended to intimate that there would be no call for that money in the current year. That being the case, it was a matter of much surprise to him, on examining the detailed account alluded to, of the expenditure of 1860–1, to find under Vote No. 3, called "For Miscellaneous Purposes," this item of £19,385. The Accountant General of the War Office, an able officer of considerable experience, seemed to say that this was an excess which, amongst others, was occasioned because Parliament had provided no pay for the German military settlers. Now, he (Sir Henry Willoughby) wished to ask, by what authority the Secretary for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this payment of £19,385? The right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) some time since put a question on the subject to the Secretary of State, but received an answer which he (Sir Henry Willoughby) did not consider at all satisfactory. If the Government were to be held justified for the expenditure of the public money not actually voted by that House, then there was an end to any control exercised by that House. He thought it right to bring this question before the House, but he did not wish to make any Motion in the matter.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Government had taken great credit fur reductions in the army and navy; but, looking closely into the Estimates, he did not believe there was any reduction in the force and expenditure of the army. The boasted reduction was in reference to the stores and manufacturing departments. He had hoped to find a great reduction in the number of our standing army, but it appeared that the army for the year was to consist of 436,000 men of various grades in the military service. The hon. and gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel North) seemed incredulous, but he would give the details. The number of men in the standing army was 147,000; from which he deducted 40,000 for the colonies, leaving 107,000 for home service. The pensioners amounted to 15,000, the marines on shore to 11,000, and the

  1253
  militia to 128,900, the Volunteers to 160,000, and the yeomanry cavalry to 4,000; milking a total of nearly 436,000 men. The cost of this enormous force amounted to about £15,000,000. If to this number were added the Native army of India, it would be seen that they had the largest military force of any country in Europe. In 1852, when the Government of Lord Derby was in office, the number of men in the army of all grades was 205,000 and the expenditure £9,100,000; in 1853, when Lord Aberdeen was Prime Minister, the number of men was 200,000, and the expenditure £8,550,000. Was it not astounding that the expenditure should now be £6,000,000 more than it was in 1852, and £6,500,000 more than it was in 1853? Where was the necessity of this increase? No Government of France had ever been more friendly towards this country than the present one, and he had seen a Return which showed that the number of the French army was only 336,000 men of all ranks, while the total number of the English army was, as he had shown, 436,000. What did this mean? Then there was our colonial expenditure, amounting to £4,250.000. No doubt, Gibraltar and Malta required a large military force to be kept up; but our other colonies ought to pay for any military aid they might require, and in this way we might reduce our expenditure £3,000,000 sterling.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that after the House had gone into Committee, he would show the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams), that he had taken an inaccurate view of the number of our army and of the expenditure on its account. With regard to the question of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Willoughby), it was quite true that there was no item of £19,000 for the Military Settlers in the Estimates of 1860; but, under the provisions of the Appropriation Act, the Treasury sanctioned an application of the War Office with regard to the pay of the German settlers, as set out in a letter appended to the Estimates, and he believed the transaction was perfectly legal. The War Office sanctioned the transfer of money from one Vote to another, with the sanction of the Treasury at the time, and of the Parliament subsequently.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the complaint was, that there being no Vote taken for the German settlers that year, there was no power so to appropriate the money. The
  1254
  explanation was that under the Appropriation Act there was power of transfer. But that power was confined to Votes in Committee of Supply, not to expenditure where no Vote had been taken; and there was an abuse of authority both in the War Office and in the Treasury.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Appropriation Act knew nothing of items; it dealt with general heads, and he contended that the payment for the German Military Settlers came under the general head of "Pay and Provisions fur Troops."
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHcalled attention to the form in which the Estimates were drawn up. In some respects an improvement had been made, but in others in reverse was the case. It was impossible to analyse the Estimates critically and compare them with former ones, without an immense amount of labour. He also complained that an item was omitted from the present Estimates which had always been given in previous years—the Number of Men. The House should not be asked to vote money without first knowing the number of men who were to receive it.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that the first item to be submitted in Committee would be the Number of Men.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the £19,000 for the German Military Settlers never appeared in the Votes at all; and if items were to be paid out of the public money besides those contained in the Estimates, of what use was it for the House to go through them at all? He thought the Treasury had been betrayed into an excess of authority; and hoped that the item would be submitted for the consideration of the House.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: It has been printed and laid on the table.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Supply considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, in reference to what has fallen from the lion, and gallant Officer opposite (Sir F. Smith), I have to state that the Estimates for this year have undergone a certain change of form in order that they may be laid before the House in a more convenient shape. The first Vote, which used to consist of Men only, has been omitted, in imitation of the mode in which the Naval Estimates are

1255
submitted to the House. The statement of the Number of Men is included within the Estimates, and I shall follow the usual practice of moving that number in the first Vote; so that if any Gentleman wishes to propose a simple reduction of the number, it will be competent to him to do so. In bringing the Army Estimates under the notice of this House last Session, I stated that the sum included in them had undergone a considerable increase since the period of the Crimean war, and I attempted to explain the causes of that increase. I trust that the expenditure on the army may have reached its culminating point about two years ago. Last year the Estimate which I presented to the House was less than that of the previous year; and the Estimate which I propose this year is as nearly as possible £1,000,000 within the Estimate of last year. In order, however, to arrive at the true amount of the Army Estimate it is necessary to bear in mind certain other virtual and practical deductions which ought to be made from it. the sum which was voted last year, including the Militia, which is included in this Estimate, was £16,060,350; the amount which I propose to take for the present year is £15,060,147, showing, as I have said, a decrease of somewhat more than a million sterling. It is to be borne in mind that there are certain important sets-off to be made against that sum. According to the best estimate which we can frame, there will be sums to be paid into the Exchequer this year as receipts, virtually in aid of the Army Estimate, amounting to not less than £1,364,000. This will be a real payment into the Exchequer, and must be considered as a deduction to that amount from the Army Estimate. A large portion of that sum is in respect of charges which this House will be asked to vote towards the expenses of the Indian army incurred in this country, and which will be repaid by the Indian Treasury. These sums were formerly, to a great extent, made matter of account between the India Office and the War Office, and were never submitted to Parliament. Last year that practice underwent a change, and certain charges in respect to the Indian army appeared for the first time in the Estimates. If, therefore, a comparison is made between the Estimate of this year and that for any year previous to the last, it is necessary to deduct the sum of £660,000, which is estimated in the accounts for this year, but which was not
1256
included in the Estimates for the years previous to the last.
Sir, when we speak of the Army Estimates we generally are thinking primarily of the regular army; and I think that my hon. Friend (Mr. Williams), who compared our force with the military force of France, mainly had in view the regular army of that country. But a very considerable sum is introduced into these Estimates for forces auxiliary to the regular army. There is for the Disembodied Militia, £751,000; Yeomanry, £94,000; Volunteers, which is larger than in any previous year, £321,000; Enrolled Pensioners and Army Reserve, £55,000; and for half-pay of the Disembodied Militia, £32,000; making a total amount of £1,255,000. That sum, which is included in the total amount of the Army Estimates, is for forces auxiliary to the regular army, and not in any respect for the regular army itself. The Army Estimate also includes what was formerly the Ordnance Estimate. The Ordnance Department, I need not say, makes ordnance and other weapons for the navy as well as for the army, and there will be included in the Army Estimate for this year a sum of £680,000, which is for the sea service. But then the Navy Estimate also includes a sum for military transport amounting to £381,000; and therefore the sum really charged in the Army Estimates in aid of those of the navy is the difference between those two amounts. There is another circumstance to be adverted to in regard to the Estimates for the present year—which is, that there is a considerable extraordinary expense for the army on certain foreign stations; and that therefore as far as the sums charged for China, New Zealand, and British North America are concerned, this cannot be considered a year of ordinary peace expenditure. In the year 1858 the military charge for British North America was £285,000; the Estimate for the present is £887,000. For New Zealand, in 1858, the charge was £86,000; for this year the Estimate is £347,000. During the four years from 1853 to 1857 inclusive, the military expenses of the China station were £84,000 per annum; this year they amount to £334,000. Therefore a comparison of the Estimates, taking these three items together, shows a difference between £456,000 and £1,569,000, the difference being the amount of extraordinary charges to which we are put this year on account of these three foreign stations.

1257
The principal reduction in the present Estimate is under the head of "Stores" and "Works." The plan upon which the Estimate has been framed has been to make no material or serious reduction in the strength of our army, for reasons which I will shortly state to the Committee, and which appear to me to be cogent and quite decisive; but for various reasons, one of which is the great exertions that have of late years been made in the manufacturing departments, it has been found possible to propose a considerable reduction in the Votes for Works and Stores. Another reason why it has been thought to be undesirable to take as large a Vote as usual under these two heads is that at present the question of ordnance is to a great extent in suspense. There have been former trials of the comparative merits of different guns which either are in use or are proposed for introduction into the service. A Committee of scientific officers and civil engineers has lately been appointed to inquire into the relative merits of the Armstrong and Whitworth guns, and it has not been thought advisable to incur any great expense for the manufacture of iron ordnance while the trials are still pending. And I may add that the activity and energy of the manufacturing department during the last few years has placed the Government in possession of a large supply of guns, in consequence of which there is no necessity for any rapid increase of their number. I have taken scarcely any Vote for guns for the army during the present year. What I have taken is almost exclusively to meet the demand for the navy. I believe I may state that the whole amount asked for for guns for the army in the present year falls short of.£5,000; in fact it is not intended to proceed with the manufacture of guns except for merely temporary supply. It is in that part of the Estimate, as the Committee will see, that the great reduction in the present year is effected. I do not concur with my hon. Friend in thinking that any inconvenience will be caused to the public service by reducing our stores to the extent of £1.000,000 during the present year, nor do I believe that our resources will be in any way crippled. I have no doubt that I have asked for a sum sufficient to supply all the additions that will be wanted during the present year, and that this sum can without difficulty be spared from the public service.
I now come to the question of the
1258
strength of the army. The Committee will observe that in Vote No. 1, the first in which money is involved, there is an apparent increase under the head of Staff and Regimental Pay and Allowances of £255,000. If, however, hon. Members will refer to a paper which I have caused to be circulated since the Estimates were printed, they will perceive that £209,000 of that excess over last year, is attributable to the augmentation of the number of of the depôts in this country of regiments serving in India, the whole amount of the excess being covered by a capitation grant payable from the Indian Government to Her Majesty's Exchequer. The excess is, in fact, apparent and not real, and will be reimbursed to the Exchequer by repayments from the Indian Treasury. But the Vote which I am now about to ask you to agree to is one for 148,242 men as compared with 152,403 last year—thus showing a diminution of 4,161 in the strength of the army. There has, I may add, been no reduction made in the number of battalions, which remains precisely the same as last year. We propose, however, that there should be a reduction of 100 rank and file in all the battalions serving at home and in the Colonies, except at Ceylon, where there is only one battalion, for the increase of the strength of which a demand was lately made; in China, where there is a great draught on the troops; and in New Zealand, which is in a state of war; no diminution being proposed to be effected also in the first five battalions for foreign service. The reduction will operate on sixty-nine battalions; and that is the manner in which the strength of the army will be reduced to the extent which I have stated. Now, I am desirous of laying before the Committee the precise grounds on which Government have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to reduce the number of the battalions below that at which it at present stands, or to diminish the number of men in them beyond the amount which I have mentioned. If the reasons on the point which I have to submit to them should appear to hon. Members to be satisfactory, they will at once perceive that the grounds on which we determined to propose these Estimates have no reference to the subject which has just been adverted to—the fear of a French invasion or of invasion from any other country in Europe—but that the number of men is made to depend on the peculiar distribution of our army. If we look to

1259
France, and to other continental States, we find that their armies are, for the most part, confined within the limits of their respective countries. The French, it is true, have a certain amount of force in Algeria and a garrison at Rome, while they have fitted out also an expedition to Mexico; but the great bulk of the French troops is contained within the limits of France. To Prussia, Austria, and other continental nations, the same observation applies. Their armies, to a certain extent, resemble our militia, if we were to suppose it to be called out throughout the year. The English army is, however, placed in totally different circumstances. In the current year, 1862–3, the infantry force of our army is distributed as follows: — The number of battalions of infantry on the establishment at home is 40; in the colonies, 45; in India, 56:—that is to say, 40 at home and 101 abroad; so that nearly two-thirds of our army is at any one moment on foreign service. I pass now to the year beginning the 1st of April next, to which these Estimates apply, when, in consequence of the return of one of the Indian regiments, our battalions in this country will amount to 41, the number in India and the colonies being 100. The perfection of our system of relief, according to the view taken by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and others competent to pronounce an opinion, should be made to consist in our being able to allow a regiment to pass five years in England for every ten it might have spent on foreign service. The Committee will therefore see that if we haved only 41 battalions at home and 100 abroad the required proportion cannot be maintained; a battalion will not be able to spend five out of every fifteen years in England, where the bulk of the troops might be recruited, and they might be more restored to the character of English troops, forming part of an English army. Now, if this circumstance be borne in mind, and if it be recollected that by reducing the battalions by 100 men we come to the lowest possible point at which the efficiency of our military force can be maintained; if, moreover, we look to the number of battalions on foreign and colonial service—which I assume cannot be diminished, because, unless our system of Imperial management be altogether altered, we cannot reduce the number of our troops in India and the colonies—starting them from that number as a fixed datum, it is,
1260
I think, quite clear that we cannot reduce the number of battalions in the United Kingdom below 41, or reduce the strength of the battalions more than is now proposed. Neither can we diminish the number of battalions in India, because they have already been reduced to a point as low as possible by the Indian Government; while, if the demand made upon us by the colonies be taken into account, the Committee must, I think, concur with me in the conclusion that it would be impossible for the Government—entirely placing out of view all question of the defence of our own coasts, which is, of course, a material question on this occasion — to propose a less number of battalions or of men than we propose in the present Estimates. Indeed, I feel the most entire confidence that the more the Committee investigate the subject the more completely will they admit the necessity which exists for the amount of military force which I ask them to sanction.
There are some figures to which I would wish to call attention as throwing some light on this question of the distribution of the army—namely, the proportions as to population and area which exist between the foreign possessions of the British Crown and the United Kingdom. The area of the United Kingdom in statute square miles is, I find, 112,000, while that of the British possessions abroad is 7,383,000; the population of the United Kingdom at the last Census is 28,947,000, while that of the British possessions abroad is 183,191,000. Under these circumstances the Committee will deem it no matter of wonder that so vast an empire—an empire vaster than was, I believe, ever governed effectively under a single sceptre—should require the large military force which I have described. They will, therefore, have no difficulty in agreeing to the Vote which I am about to place in the hands of the Chairman.
But there is another Vote on which there is an increase. I allude to Vote 10—that for the Volunteers—on which this year there is an increase of £198,000. The House will observe, that although there is this increase proposed for the Volunteers there is yet a considerable diminution in the total amount of the Estimate. The Committee may, perhaps, remember that a Royal Commission was issued last year to inquire into the petitions put forward from various parts of the country for some subsidy to Volunteer

1261
corps, in order to prevent that which many persons feared as probable—the dissolution of a large number of those corps if they should not receive some public assistance, The Commission made a careful inquiry, and ended by suggesting that a certain sum should be allowed for each regiment, to be calculated according to the number of its effective members, and appropriated to the objects specified in their Report. I will not trouble the Committee by describing what these objects are, but they are all the principal purposes to which the expenditure of Volunteer corps is applied. After taking that Report into their consideration, the Government concluded that on the whole it would be desirable to give effect to its recommendations. Accordingly, I have inserted in these Estimates a sum which will be sufficient to carry these recommendations into effect; and I shall be prepared, when the Vote comes on, to state to the Committee the precise conditions on which we propose that the grant should be given, and in what manner it can be safely expended. I cannot but think that the Government are taking a course in accordance with the general feeling of the country in proposing this additional sum for the Volunteers. The total number of the enrolled members of this force on the 1st of August last was 157,818, and the number of effectives was 131,420.
There is an increase this year of £35,000 to the Militia Vote, which is principally owing to an additional charge for clothing.
I have now gone through all the Votes upon which an augmented charge is proposed. Upon the rest there is either no material variation or else some diminution.
Sir, having submitted these explanations to the Committee, I will not detain them now by further details. I shall be prepared to give more detailed information as the several Votes are proceeded with. Before I sit down I would only make this remark, that the whole of our military system seems to me to have the same character as is most prominent in the Volunteer force—namely, it is designed for defence. I cannot at all agree with those who think that our army, large as it is, acts as any provocative to aggression, or that any Government likely to accede to power in this country will pursue an aggressive policy. Our military system appears to me to be exclusively framed for purposes of defence. It may be that precaution can be carried too far. It may be that vain alarms may be occasionally entertained,
1262
and that different Governments may from time to time incur unnecessary expense for maintaining that system. But, taking our military expenditure from beginning to end—whether we look to our fortifications, whether we look to our Volunteers and Militia or to our regular army — the whole is intended for our defence against apprehended danger from foreign countries, and not. to be the means of aggression upon others. Sir, I will now place in your hands the first Vote, that providing for the number of men.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 148,212 (including 9,349, all ranks, to be employed with the Depôts in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of Regiments serving in Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, but exclusive of the numbers actually serving within Her Majesty's Indian Possessions), be maintained during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864."
GENERAL PEEL: I am extremely happy that the right hon. Gentleman has supplied what must have appeared to everybody a most extraordinary omission in the Estimates as laid on the table—namely, the omission of the Vote for the number of men, which always stands first: so that it would appear as though Parliament was not to be called upon by any specific Vote to sanction the number of men to be raised, although it will be recollected that the Mutiny Bill is founded upon the number of men, which is inserted in the Preamble of the Bill. I do not mean to say that there was the slightest attempt at concealment as to the number of men provided for in the Estimates; an abstract of the numbers is shown at page 4, and the most ample details of the regimental establishments are given, with one important exception, to which I shall refer presently. Perhaps this omission of the number of men may have struck me more than others, because it obliges me to reverse the operation of that very simple rule which I laid down for the benefit of hon. Members who have not been in the habit of framing Estimates—namely, that by adding a couple of 00 to the number of the men, you get at the amount of your army expenditure. So also, by deducting two figures from the expenditure, yon will get at the number of the men. The result of the latter process in the present case will give you 150,600 as the number of the men. When I look at the total force stated in the Estimates, I find the number given is

1263
148,242. But that is not correct. At page 12 is an item of repayments to the Indian Government for the pay and clothing of two regiments of infantry employed in China. These regiments are not included in the total force stated at page 4 to be paid for out of grants made by Parliament. If you reckon the strength of these two regiments at the same standard as the European regiments in China, and add them to the force voted by Parliament, you will find the number of men 150,600, which, taken at an average of £100 per head, to cover all your military expenditure, is about the most correct estimate of the cost of the army that can possibly be framed, I am happy to see that these Estimates include the expense of the disembodied Militia, which was not included last year. The very improved manner in which the Estimates are this year laid before us will enable me to show how little power the House really have when they have once voted the number of men. Under the present arrangement the Estimates are divided into six parts. The first includes all those Votes which depend entirely on the number of men, and may be said to constitute the actual price per man for the regular army. If you take that Vote and divide it among the number of men, you will find the absolute cost per head is £57. The next part is for the auxiliary force. Over that you have no control whatever, with the exception of the addition proposed, as I think judiciously, to be made to the Volunteers, The number of the Militia is fixed by Parliament. You anticipate that only three-fifths of them will be present, and you have provided for them on the minimum scale of twenty-one days' pay instead of a month's. If to these two parts you add the charge for the non-effectives, over which you have no control whatever, these three parts together amount to 79 per cent of the whole Estimates, or, as nearly as possible, four-fifths of the entire expenditure is comprised in these Votes. All that the House have left on which to make such reductions as they may deem right is the remaining one-fifth. As regards this, the right hon. Gentleman has shown that of the manufacturing departments and the War Office stores a great portion is for the navy, and over it he has no control. Depend upon it, until you have a more complete control, you will never come within the estimate of £100
1264
per man to cover your whole army expenditure. If the state of Europe were different, and you could reduce your force to 100,000, making a similar reduction in the three Votes to which I have referred, that would not alter the proportionate cost, but rather increase it, because the non-effective establishment would press upon you in a heavier ratio. Instead of 14 per cent of the whole, it would become 28 per cent. As long as you have between 120,000 and 150,000 men the average charge of £100 per head will cover all your military expenditure. I have said that there is one exception to the force included in the Appendix in the regimental establishment, but that is a most important one. It relates to the native troops employed in China. The Recapitulation at the bottom of page 4 is not correct, because that is not the total force. There are in addition to that the Native troops employed in China. I admit that it is a very great improvement that they should be mentioned at all, because year after year I have moved that some notice should be taken in the Estimates of the troops employed in China. Nothing can be more irregular than the practice with regard to those troops; since they went out in 1858, when I was in office, they have not been provided for by Parliament. I defy any one to show any account by which either the numbers or a detailed account of the expense can be ascertained, and, what is still more extraordinary, the manner in which they have been paid. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: By the Indian Council.] We were told before that they were paid out of the military chest in China. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: Last year.] Last year we are told they were paid out of the military chest in China, The accounts were sent to China to be checked, and there they remain I suppose, for they have never come back again. I think it is quite worthy the attention of the members of the Committee on Military Accounts to see what number has been employed. Although the number has varied from 3,000 to 12,000, no account has been laid before Parliament. Year after year I have moved, that if these men are employed, they should be included in the Estimates. I was always told that they would be removed before the commencement of the next financial year; but they are there now, and not only are they still there, but the regiments have been relieved by others, and thus they have become a new and permanent part of

1265
the British army. I say, that if any Government can employ the Native army of India, which consists of 1,50,000 men, without any vote and without any account, except a gross sum, there is an end to any control whatever over military expenditure by Parliament. These troops, too, are the most expensive which can by possibility be employed, because not only do they receive Indian pay and allowances, but their employment renders it necessary to give Indian pay and allowances to all the troops employed in the same service. This accounts for the discrepancy between the payments to officers of the army and the payments to officers in the navy. When the contrast was made the other night, I was quite astonished at the amazing advantages enjoyed by the service to which I belong. But if you refer to page 115, you will see that the Major General commanding in China receives just four times the amount of a Major General employed elsewhere, because he is receiving Indian pay and allowances; and that his aide-de-camp, who may be an ensign or lieutenant, is actually receiving more pay than a Major General commanding elsewhere. A Major General in command in China receives £2,535, and his aide-de-camp £697; while a Major General in command at Ceylon only receives £691, and his aide-de-camp £173. This is the effect of employing these Native troops in China. I do not mean to say that troops serving in China are not entitled to some extra allowance; but when the Native troops went there, I was the person who granted Indian pay and allowances, as I felt it was perfectly impossible to pay the European troops less than the troops were receiving with whom they served. What I want to do is to prevent any one having i the power to employ a force without its being voted by Parliament, and without its being provided for by the Estimates. It is my intention to move that the number of men proposed by the right hon. Gentleman shall be increased by these regiments now serving in China; and should the Committee disagree with me in that proposal, I shall move to diminish the Vote by the extent of their pay. Another important question connected with the employment of these troops is whether any Mutiny Act applies to them. Certainly the same Mutiny Act as that under which the troops employed with them are serving does not apply to them. When in India they would be under the Indian Mutiny Act; but that
1266
is a local Act, and I do not know that it extends to China. It was stated that the reduction of the establishment here was sufficient to meet the increase of pay in China. That of itself is a grave irregularity; but I incline to think it is a delusion. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) moved for an account of the expenses of the troops in China; and when it was laid on the table, it appeared that no account had been received of the India force. I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can have paid an account which he has not received; but if he has paid money into the military chest, it may account for the fact to which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) called attention, that with less men more money was required. Last year the pay for officers on furlough only amounted, or was estimated to amount, to £45,000. This year, it amounts to £130,000. If, then, the expenditure was under estimated last year, it is impossible money enough could have been saved out of the less number of men at home to pay for the troops in China. I should like to know what the capitation Vote does actually cover—because it is perfectly impossible to ascertain that accurately from these Estimates. They give merely the expense of the pay for the Horse Artillery and Artillery in the Indian depôts; but for the Line and Cavalry in the same depots, besides the pay, there appear extra charges for beer money and additional pay. The capitation Vote ought to cover all the expenditure which has been thrown upon the Estimates by the change of system. With reference to the reduction of men proposed in the depots, I deny that 100 men are enough in a depôt. How is the reduction of 100 men per regiment to be carried into effect—by reducing the men or by stopping the recruiting? [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: By stopping the recruiting.] Then I beg to tell the right hon. Baronet, that this reduction coming into operation with respect to ten years' service men, unless you induce them to re-enlist you may at any moment find your regiments become mere skeletons. Rather than stop recruiting it would be better to discharge those men who were not likely to renew their engagements. I conclude by moving that the Vote for the Number of Men be increased from 148,242 by the addition of the strength of the regiments serving in China, namely by 2,152.
THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman is founded on the fact alleged that a sum of money is asked for wages and provisions greater than is necessary for the amount of men proposed in the Vote. If that be so, the proper course is to move a decrease of the money Vote. With regard to the employment of two Indian regiments, it is not my province to interfere; but a Motion to increase the number of men proposed by a Minister of the Crown would be a departure from the elementary rules of a Committee of Supply, which it would be inconsistent with my duty to permit.
GENERAL PEEL: I certainly understood that if I could make out that these men were provided for in the Votes, there could be no objection in point of form to a Motion which would have the effect of causing them to appear upon the Estimates.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentlemen had proposed merely the rectification of an error, there might have been no objection; but a Motion to increase the number of men proposed by the Minister could not possibly appear in the Journals of the House without a manifest departure from the ordinary rules of a Committee of Supply.
GENERAL PEELsubmitted that what he proposed was in effect the rectification of an error; but he would, of course, bow to the decision of the Chairman.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I will explain why I produced the Estimates in their present form. My attention had been directed to the particular point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I considered whether I should propose the number given in the present Estimate, or increase it by the two Indian regiments referred to, and also the force maintained at Labuan. I came to the conclusion that the proper course was that which I have adopted. In the first place, there is a difficulty, which, perhaps, the Committee will consider decisive—that we have no materials at the War Office from which we can ascertain the precise number of these Indian regiments. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: It appears in your own paper.] Well, I am told we have no exact account of the strength of those regiments. At all events, I have followed the practice pursued for many years with respect to the force at Labuan. They are not upon the establishment. The sum asked for the force at Labuan is £4,500; and I propose that with respect to this, as well as with regard to the Indian
1268
regiments, the expense should be voted by the House. In former times the money was found by the Indian Treasury, and a settlement took place periodically with the War Office; but in the present year they are brought in upon the Estimates.
CAPTAIN JERV1Sthought, unless they knew what the force of men was to be, they could not fix the precise sum to be voted.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Estimate was founded on the information furnished by the East India Government; but the exact strength of the regiments could not be stated.
CAPTAIN JERVISthought it would be a great advantage if the House could possibly know what was the arrangement proposed by the Indian Government with reference to the capitation money.
COLONEL SYKESconsidered the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (General Peel) a very proper one. The real question was, whether they were to pay for 148,000 or 150,000 men. A clause in the India Act of 1858, introduced by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, prohibited the employment out of India of troops paid by the Government of India, without the consent of Parliament, but part of the Indian troops were nevertheless employed in China, and their pay had been charged to the British Exchequer, and these numbers ought to be added to the numbers in the Army Estimates. To cover the expense of the recruiting depôts in England and other Contingent charges, £10 per man for the European force employed in India was fixed; and as there were this year 72,000 men, the sum of £720,000 was paid for them from the taxes of India; but £3 per man was also charged in addition, for pensions and invaliding, so that £960,000 was paid by India to England in the present year for the European force maintained there. This capitation charge was nothing but a premium for keeping up the European troops in India at the highest possible amount, for the greater the number of European troops there were, the greater would be the receipt here. But what was the meaning of this? The maintenance of the present large European force in India was a great drain upon the youthful blood and sinew of this country, for 7,000 to 8,000 of the flower of its youth had to be sent out annually to keep the troops up at their proper quota. That policy betrayed an unworthy distrust of the Native army of India. It was unjust to India to

1269
assume that all her soldiers would be unfaithful to us. Two of our Indian armies, the Madras and Bombay, had proved faithful; and by a Return lately made to the House of Commons it appeared that in Bengal even sixty-two native regiments remained true to their allegiance during the mutiny. The Committee had been told that we could not diminish the number of our troops in China, amounting, according to the last Return, to 5,837. But if we had not committed a breach of faith, and mixed ourselves up with the internecine war, 1,000 or 2,000 men would have been a sufficient force there for our purposes. The charge under that head ought to he considerably reduced, but the forms of the House would not permit him to move an Amendment.
MR W. E. FORSTERcongratulated the Committee that the Estimates were now presented in a more intelligible shape than formerly, and also on the absence of any reference, in the right hon. Baronet's speech in introducing the Army Estimates, to an apprehended invasion. What, then, was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman demanded so large a force? The right hon. Gentleman said that the army at home must be at least a third of its total strength, because the military authorities declared that five years at home for every ten years abroad was the smallest time that could be allowed a corps consistently with a due consideration for its health and discipline. He was not disposed to dispute that statement; but then it was quite a mistake to suppose that the Indian army cost this country nothing; for though it was quite true that the Indian Government paid for the troops actually employed in that country and in the depôts, any increase in the army in India rendered it necessary for the army at home to be proportionately increased. Supposing the augmentation of the European troops in India since the mutiny to have been 30,000 men—[Sir GEORGE LEWIS: It has been raised from 22.000 to 56,000]—but supposing them to have been increased by only 30,000, that would involve, according to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, the necessity of the army at home being increased by at least 10,000, which, at the ordinary rate of £100 per man, would represent a sum of a million sterling cast annually upon the finances of this country. Some persons might, perhaps, think that should also be thrown upon
1270
the Indian Treasury; but he confessed that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should not like to see the people of India called upon to sustain any greater burdens than those which they already bore. But the fact ought to make the House seriously consider whether or not the Indian army might not itself be reduced. Things were not quite in so deplorable a condition as they were just after the mutiny, for we had then an enormous Native army, and a, large European force kept up apparently for the purpose of watching it. The Government deserved great credit for having reduced the Native army; but he thought that now the Committee ought to look more narrowly at the expenditure on the European army. He thought it suggested the question whether further reduction might not be made in the number of troops required both in India and in the colonies.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that India paid the whole of the expenses of the troops in India, and also of the depôts in England; and therefore, although he admitted that, to a certain extent, there was a drain on the resources of England to keep up the strength of the British army in India; yet, on the whole, he did not think this country suffered by keeping up that army in India. He thought that the argument of one hon. Member that the £10 grant was quite sufficient, and of another that the charge was an undue imposition on the finances of India, proved that the estimate had been founded upon a just basis. It should be remembered that two Committees had considered the charge of £10 per head for the men in the depôts, and they were of opinion that it was a fair charge.
MR. W. WILLIAMSrose to propose that the Vote be reduced by 10,000 men. If his Amendment were adopted, the standing army would still be larger by 35,000 men than it was in the time of Lord Aberdeen's Government; in addition to which the Militia, would be 70,000 stronger, and there were now 160,000 Volunteers. So that in reality, even if his Amendment were carried, there would be 265,000 more men for the defence of the country this year than in the year 1852. He mentioned that year because it was the year previous to our preparation for the Crimean war. He desired in particular to call attention to the charges for the Ceylon Regiment, the Cape Mounted Rifles, and the Canadian Rifle Regiment. The Canadians were proposing to raise more militia, but not suf-

1271
ficient to protect the colony in case of invasion. The Government of this country ought to make an arrangement with the Government of Canada either to take care of themselves, or to maintain a force sufficient for their own protection. For these reasons he moved for a reduction of 10,000 men.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 138,242 (including 9,349, all ranks, to be employed with the Depôts in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of Regiments serving in Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, but exclusive of the numbers actually serving within Her Majesty's Indian Possessions), be maintained during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864."
COLONEL NORTHsaid, if the entire force was composed of one particular class, he could understand the proposed reduction; but if the hon. Gentleman really meant to divide the Committee, he ought to point out in what branch of the army — cavalry, artillery, engineers, or infantry— he meant the reduction to take place. What proportion of each force would the hon. Gentleman propose to reduce? The cavalry, for instance, were 11,800. Would the hon. Gentleman strike the 10,000 from that number? Or from which force would he take them?
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had heard many questions put when it was proposed to reduce the army, but never such a puzzling one as the gallant Colonel's. He would leave the matter entirely to the Government, and after the great ability displayed by the gallant Colonel he would recommend them to consult him.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if the Committee agreed to the hon. Member's Amendment, and it were left to him to give practical effect to it, he should feel no little embarrassment. He had already explained how impossible it was to reduce the battalions of infantry, on account of the system of reliefs. The hon. Gentleman could hardly mean to reduce more than half the artillery force, which consisted of 19,000 men; nor could the cavalry force well be spared. The Engineers and the other branches of the service of course would have little chance of escaping extinction; and he hoped therefore that the hon. Member would give some further details as to the manner in which he meant his Amendment to be carried out.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he should be glad to see that the Government paid
1272
more attention to the recommendations of the Committee which sat last year. He should be glad to see the charge for the Canadian Rifles reduced; and if the West India regiments disappeared from the Army List altogether, he should be well pleased. He believed them to be in a very inefficient state, and were altogether an anomalous force. With regard to the forces in the East Indies, he could only hope that the amalgamation of the Queen's and the Indian armies, which he had opposed at the time to the utmost of his power, would turn out more successfully than appeared likely at present.
MR. BUXTONthought it most necessary that the House should express itself in favour of a reduction of military expenditure. He, too, was surprised to find that the Report of the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure had been entirely ignored by the Government. He thought nothing had ever been more clearly demonstrated than the inexpediency of maintaining garrisons in distant parts of the world which would be entirely inefficient in case of war. It was also shown that it would tend to draw out the self-reliance and resources of the Colonies if they were called upon to supply the forces requisite for the maintenance of order, and that the expenditure might be reduced by more than £2,000,000 if a different system were adopted with regard to the Colonies. He was glad it had been shown that English taxpayers had an interest in the reduction of the forces in India. Before the mutiny we only had 40,000 men in India, whereas we now had 72,000. The Native army, which was formerly 300,000, was now reduced to 100,000; there was no foreign enemy to contend with in that country, and the only purpose for which English troops were required was to keep the Native army in check. 72,000 were far more than were required for that purpose. The loss of life amongst the English troops was frightful; and though not so great as it had been, there must always be a painful sacrifice of life and health connected with the maintenance of a large army in India.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, it must be allowed that the Army Estimates were extremely difficult to deal with in detail. What he believed his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) meant to effect by this proposition was to declare that the sum of £15,000,000 was in excess of what the Government ought to spend upon the army for the present year. He did not see any-

1273
thing in the state of Europe to call for such an outlay, and it seemed the less necessary when it was considered that we had about 160,000 Volunteers, beside the Militia, and other forces. With the view of expressing this feeling, he should divide with his hon. Friend if the question were carried to a division; but he would rather recommend him to move a reduction in the amount of the Estimates than in the number of men.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the Government had already been congratulated on having proposed a considerable reduction in the Army Estimates. What hon. Members below the gangway now seemed to regret was that they had not reduced the efficiency as well as the expenditure. A proposal more illogical and inconsistent than a wholesale reduction by rule of thumb of 10,000 it was impossible to conceive. From the extensive depôts kept in the country there must always be a great many soldiers retained in Great Britain not available for immediate service, but yet on the muster-rolls of the army, and absorbing a considerable portion of the expense. Even although—as was proposed by some hon. Members—the force in India and the Colonies were reduced, it would not be practicable, consistently with efficiency, to reduce their home force below its present point. As he saw the learned Judge Advocate (Mr. Headlam) in his place, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House with respect to the Question that had been asked by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) as to the operation in the Mutiny Act, and whether the troops in China came under its provisions. In regard to the reduction in local stores, he stated that it had been the object of successive Governments to have a large amount of stores on hand—equal, he believed, to five years' consumption—in order that in the event of the country being unexpectedly engaged in war they might have a supply on hand to meet that emergency. He would regret if, in order to make a reduction in the Estimates, the Government had departed from that course. He regretted that it was not intended to give the Militia that minimum of training which the Royal Commission declared should be the very least they should receive; and could not imagine a more unfortunate kind of economy than n reduction in the period of their training.
MR. DODSONsaid, the Secretary for War argued that the number of men could
1274
not he reduced because there must be troops enough at home, periodically to relieve those abroad. The gallant General (General Peel) maintained, that if the number of men were once voted, all the money asked must necessarily follow. If so, there was no use in having the Army Estimates submitted to the House at all. He saw no difficulty in diminishing the number of men; for if a certain proportion was required to be maintained between the establishments at home and the establishments in India and in the colonies, it was surely easy to make such arrangements as would preserve that proportion; but the Government ought to be prepared to make reductions both at home and abroad, if the House of Commons thought that reductions were expedient.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that with respect to the Native Indian troops employed in China they were not under the European, or the Indian Mutiny Act, but under Articles of War entirely distinct. He was not aware that there were any of the regiments formerly composing the European force of the Indian army in China. He thought, however, that it would be very desirable now that the amalgamation of the Queen's army and the Indian army was complete that the whole should be governed under one Mutiny Act; and steps would be taken for that purpose.
GENERAL PEELasked what Articles of War those were to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded?
MR. HEADLAMreplied that he had no knowledge of them.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the real question to be decided was, whether the charge for the troops engaged abroad in colonial service could not be reduced. If any reduction was to be made, it must be in the West India garrisons, in those of Ceylon and the Mauritius, and in New Zealand and the Cape, where the relations of the colonists to the natives had occasioned the maintenance of military establishments out of all proportion to the European population. The expenditure for the East and West India colonies (including Ceylon and Mauritius) was estimated at £502,000; and that for the Cape at £575,000. Some explanation was required as to why nothing had been done towards making these colonies contribute more largely to their expenditure, as recommended by the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure. The revenue of Ceylon was £767,000.a year, its expenditure was only £700,000.

1275
He was aware that Ceylon contributed to the extra allowances and also to the commissariat charges, but he thought the colony should pay as fixed contribution more than £24,000. The Mauritius cost us £150,000; its revenue was between £500,000 and £600,000; and he doubted whether it contributed more than 1–16th of that revenue. He thought at least a further amount of £100,000 ought to be advanced by these two colonies. Further, with regard to New Zealand and South Africa, he thought the Committee should receive some assurance that their cost should receive the attention of Government, otherwise the House should interfere. New Zealand ought not to continue to figure on the Estimates for an average charge of £360,000 a year. He trusted to hear that some means would be taken to satisfy the Committee on these points before the debate closed.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) had not given notice of his Amendment. Such a course would have been but an act of courtesy that was due to the immediate parties concerned. He (Mr. Seymour), however, had no doubt but that 10,000 men might be struck off with safety if proper means were taken to effect that object He also thought a considerable reduction might be made in our colonial military expenditure. Considering, too, that the Yeomanry force cost only £94,000 for 19,000 men, he thought that some reduction might be made in the Voluntary force, and that the Yeomanry force should be made more efficient. The War Department was proverbial for being in a state of disorganization, where, as it was commonly said, six men were employed to do the work of one. Now, why had not the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War employed his mind to improve that Department? He found that the administration of the army cost no less a sum than nearly £400,000. He thought that a due retrenchment might be made in that respect. If they had a better administration, they could then hope to see large reductions both at home and in our colonies. There were other colonies that cost money besides those mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontefract. There was China, where, notwithstanding the presence of our large fleet, we had an army of 6,000 men, which he did not consider at all necessary amongst so peaceable a population. This force cost £560,000.
1276
No doubt, whilst the present administration of the army lasted, some of those charges were inevitable; but why should not the system of administration be changed? Whilst he thought that great reductions might be reasonably made, in addition to the million already reduced, nevertheless, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon Member for Lambeth.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 77: Majority 58.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,709,733, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the General Staff, and Regimental Pay, Allowances, and Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864 inclusive."
GENERAL PEELmoved that this sum be reduced by £38,000, "repayment to the Indian Government for pay and clothing of two regiments of Native infantry employed in China." Those two regiments were not included in the number of men just voted, and it was necessary to cut off this Vote in order that 148,242 men might be the total force to be provided for out of the army grants. The two regiments in question were not under the Mntiny Act, but were under some Articles of War, but what those Articles were did not appear. The course which he was about to take was the only way by which he could bring those Native regiments under the notice of the House. If, as had been stated, these men were paid for last year out of the establishment then voted, how was it that they were not so included this year? He had great objection to the Government employing Native troops out of India, and he should therefore move to reduce the Vote by the sum which he had named.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,671,733, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the General Staff, and Regimental Pay, Allowances, and Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864 inclusive."
SIR GEORGE LEWISfound himself very much perplexed as to the mode in which he ought to deal with those Indian

1277
troops employed in China. He was told, when they were not introduced in the Estimates, that they ought to have been introduced, and that he was following an irregular course in making a transfer from one Vote to another, when providing for those regiments out of the monies voted for other services. In order to obviate that objection, he had introduced into them the Estimates this year, and had followed the precise practice which had been adopted with regard to the force maintained at Labuan. If, therefore, the sum of £38,000 for those two regiments in China ought to be omitted, so also ought £4,500 for the troops at Labuan. If it was admitted that it was desirable that the regiments should he employed in China, he did not see what other course he had to take. The reason why Native troops were employed in China was because they were less costly than European troops, and Sepoys, from their physical constitution, were better able to bear the Chinese climate. The same remark applied to the small force in Labuan. The Sepoy troops in India were subject to Articles of War passed in a perfectly regular and legitimate manner by the Indian Government, and having the authority of law in India. These Articles of War contained certain special provisions applicable to the Native troops. If he added the numbers of these regiments to the number to be voted in the first Vote, that would not subject them to the English Mutiny Act, and it would be a proceeding inconvenient in practice and never hitherto followed. Should the Committee strike out the item, the only thing to be done would be to recall these two regiments from China, and send out two battalions from this country— supposing that the force in China could not be reduced. He trusted that the Government would be able to effect a reduction of that force, but their effort had been to reduce, not the native Indian troops, but the English troops stationed there.
GENERAL PEELsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated his wish to be the direct contrary of what he (General Peel) desired. His object was to prevent any Government from employing a Native Indian army in China at the charge of this country, without the House knowing and having control over the expenditure. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to add these two regiments to the number to be voted, and then the House would know
1278
what the actual force was; for it was quite evident that the number 148,242 set down in the Estimates was not the total force.
MR. W. E. FORSTERwas of opinion that the Committee ought not to grant money for men that they had not voted.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the course taken by the Government was unconstitutional, and he should support the Amendment.
SIR GEORGE LEWIScould not admit that there was the smallest force in what the hon. Member called the constitutional objection to passing the item. If he had attempted to procure payment for these two regiments without a Vote of Parliament, something might have been said as to the unconstitutionally of that course, though he believed there were precedents for it. He had, however, taken no such course, but had put the expense in the Estimates. If the Committee chose to refuse it, it was competent for them to do so, and it was impossible for the Committee to have more ample power than they possessed over this expenditure. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should wish to substitute European troops for Native Indian. So far from there being the smallest desire on the part of the Government to keep up an unnecessary number of men on the coast of China, they were using every effort to diminish the force on that station; but if the present force should be necessary, and if, nevertheless, the Committee omitted this item, the Native Indian troops must then be replaced by European troops. There was something capricious in the objection to the item, for the gallant General took no notice of the item of £4,500 for the force at Labuan, which was precisely in the same position, and which was proposed in a former year by the gallant General himself. It certainly would not conduce to the public service or promote economy to negative this sum of £38,000.
MR. WHITEhad much pleasure in supporting the reduction of the Vote. It very often happened that Indian troops were sent to China, and a large amount of expense incurred without notice being drawn to the circumstance; whereas attention would be at once excited if it were proposed to send English instead of Indian regiments.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYconsidered that the arguments of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Lewis) were mutually de-

1279
structive of each other. He had first urged the inconvenience that would result from any interference on the part of the Committee with his proposition; but he then stated that he had taken the constitutional course of including the item in the Estimates in order that the Committee might have an opportunity of objecting to it;—and that was the course they were then adopting.
MR. DODSONsaid, that the Amendment was one more of form than of substance. The regiments in question could not be included in the 148,000 men voted, because the exact number of men composing them was not known.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it would be impossible to include the troops referred to in the 148,000 men voted by Parliament. The Indian troops were subject to Articles of War containing stringent provisions peculiarly applicable to themselves, and had never been brought under the clauses of the English Mutiny Act.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the question put by the gallant General with regard to the health of the troops had not been answered. He believed the plan suggested would be of great benefit in a sanitary point of view.
GENERAL PEELsaid, when he held the office of Secretary for War, troops had been sent from India to China without communicating with him in any way. They were not included in the numbers voted during the present Session.
MR. T. G. BARINGobserved, that the high authority of Sir John Lawrence was in favour of the course proposed by the Government. It would be exceedingly detrimental to the discipline of a Sikh regiment to withdraw them from subjection to the terms of the special Act of the Legislative Council, passed in 1860.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 64: Majority 6.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR MORTON PETOthen moved the reduction of the Vote by £255,156, being the difference between the estimate on Vote No. 1 this year and last year. He saw no ground that could be shown for the larger sum now asked for. It was stated that the Estimates had been reduced by over one million sterling; but he maintained that practically they were not reduced at all. £1,133,800 less was taken for Stores; but inasmuch as the total reduction upon
1280
the Estimates was only £1,000,000, it followed that there could be no diminution upon any of the other items. In the year 1853 the total amount of the Army Estimates was £8,550,000. This year the amount was £15,060,000—the difference between the present Estimates and those of 1853 being £6,510,000. Was the country at peace or at war? If at peace, on what grounds were they asked for a quarter of a million more on this Vote now than they voted last year? The total military force at present for home service was 436,000 men—an amount which was not at all justified by the present condition of Europe. As regarded our own country various Members of the Government had, again and again, expressed the opinion that there was nothing in the attitude of the North, notwithstanding all the distress which prevailed, to cause apprehension.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding.£5,454,733, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the General Staff, and Regimental Pay, Allowances, and Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864 inclusive."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Motion of his hon. Friend was founded on the erroneous assumption that there was an increase in the Vote of this year over that in the last. The truth was that the increase was not real, but only nominal. It was simply a question of account, and arose from the additional outlay caused by the increase of depots of regiments in India, which would be defrayed out of the capitation grant of the Indian Government, and therefore would be cancelled by payments from India. In fact the expenditure thus created was greater than £255,000, and it was only by a saving in other items that the apparent increase in the present Vote was reduced to that figure.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Aves 28; Noes 96: Majority 68.
Original question again proposed.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMinquired how it was that the item for Instruction in Engineering had increased from £3,630 to £3,920, although the number of persons for whose remuneration it was to be voted was one less than last year.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was unable at that moment to explain this

1281
minute point, but he would do so on the report.
GENERAL LINDSAYsuggested that the difference was owing to a misprint.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he found that this Vote included a large expenditure for the army in the Colonies, and before it was passed he thought the Government ought to give a reason why they had not acted upon the recommendation of the Committee of last year, which, if followed out, would have led to a material reduction. The state of the country was not such as to warrant them in spending a single farthing that could be saved.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the number of battalions to be employed in the different colonies was a matter of general policy, which was determined upon by the Government at large; and when it was decided, it was the duty of the Secretary for the War Department to prepare his Estimates accordingly. Therefore, it was not a question to be debated on a special Vote of the Army Estimates—it was a question of general Imperial policy. He had before him a statement of the number of battalions stationed in the colonies and of the number of men forming those battalions; and if the Committee wished it, he would state precisely the number in each colony. The subject had been very carefully considered during the recess with the assistance of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and this was the number of battalions which it appeared to be necessary to maintain in each colony. The Mediterranean stations came first. They must be considered in the light of advanced guards of England. They occupied the line of the Mediterranean and covered our communications with India. Their climate was healthy, provisions were cheaper than in England, and these battalions cost less to the Exchequer than if they were in the United Kingdom. In Gibraltar there were five battalions, in Malta six, and in the Ionian Islands four. On the west coast of Africa there were 987 men; St. Helena 718; Cape of Good Hope, four battalions, consisting of 4,687 men; the Mauritius, two battalions, 2,260 men; Hongkong, including the detachments at Shanghai and other parts of the coast, three battalions, 3,308 men. In the Island of Ceylon there was one battalion, which with the Ceylon Rangers, a local corps, made a force of 2,219 men, which, considering the extent of the island, did not seem excessive. In Australia there was one battalion of 1,048
1282
men. That, certainly, was not an extravagant force for Australia. In Now Zealand, where hostilities were going on and where we were maintaining a war establishment, there were five battalions, consisting of 5,594 men. A constant correspondence had been kept up with the Governor of New Zealand with a view to the diminution, if possible, of that number, but it hid not been possible for the Government to diminish the force. In Canada there were eight battalions of the line and two of the Guards, making in all 11,825 men. The Committee remembered the circumstances which gave rise to the sending out of large reinforcements to Canada, and the disturbed condition of the United Status had rendered it impossible to reduce the force in that colony. In Nova Scotia there were three battalions, 3,655 men. That garrison had been kept up for the same reason as that of Canada. In Bermuda, which was an important port off the coast of America and a great naval station, there was one battalion, 1,168 men. At Jamaica there was a regiment of the line and also some West Indian regiments, making altogether 2,019 men. At Honduras there was a detachment of 302, at the Bahamas 308, and in the other West India Islands 2,316 men. At the Falkland Islands there were 37 and in British Columbia 135 men. Altogether, forty-five battalions, and 59,314 men. These numbers had been carefully examined from time to time, but Her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that under the present circumstances this was the lowest force which we could maintain in the colonies, and the estimate which he had submitted to the House had been framed on that footing.
SIR HARRY VERNEYasked whether, if the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands was abandoned, there would be a diminution of four battalions.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands were relinquished, the four battalions kept there would be withdrawn. Whether it was possible to reduce the strength of the army by these four battalions would have to be considered when the time arrived. As to a question put with reference to the expenditure in the Engineering Department, the principal increase was in the salary of the Director, which was made in consequence of his promotion in rank. The number of men was twenty-eight, find not twenty-six, as it was misprinted.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsuggested, that the further discussion of the Estimates should be postponed until the Committee was furnished with the figures which the Secretary for War had laid before them, in a shape which would enable them to test more accurately their bearing and value.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there was included in the Estimates such a statement as the hon. Gentleman seemed to desire.
MR. HENRY SEYMOUR: The number of men for each colony is not given in detail.
MR. CUILDERSdrew attention to the Votes of men for the Cape of Good Hope, the West India Islands, Ceylon, and the Mauritius, contending that 4,700 men was an excessive number to keep up in the West Indies, while the charge for troops for Ceylon and the Cape of Good Hope was open to a similar objection.
SIR GEORGE LEWISmaintained, that when the importance of the Colonies in question was taken into account, the charge for troops was sufficiently moderate. A reduction of our present force at the Cape of Good Hope might expose us to the risk of another of those Kaffir wars of the cost of which the House had had painful experience.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the balance of revenue over expenditure at the Mauritius averaging nearly £50,000, that Colony might fairly be asked for a larger contribution towards its military establishment than £10,000.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, while maintaining that the Mauritius was valuable to us on Imperial grounds, yet hoped that the prosperity of the colony would soon warrant the demand of a larger contribution from it.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYanimadverted upon the creation of new Field Marshals, involving additional cost to the country, and insisted that it ought to undergo discussion. He would move to report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, that of the four Field Marshals promoted on the attainment of the Prince of Wales's majority only one—namely, his Royal Highness the Commander-in Chief—was now in active employment, and on his appoint-
1284
ment it was understood that he was not to claim the increased pay attached to that rank.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 25; Noes 80: Majority 55.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. WHITEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to report progress, otherwise he should move that the Chairman leave the chair. He (Mr. White) was a Member of a Railway Committee which, had been sitting all day. He had afterwards gone away for a short time to take a little fresh air, and he had happened to be absent while the right hon. Gentleman made his explanation. He would, however, carefully read his speech to-morrow. He begged to move that the Chairman leave the chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
LORD LOVAINEthought it rather hard that the business of the nation should be stopped because the hon. Member was absent, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would, on reconsideration, waive his personal feelings, and consent to the continuance of the debate.
Motion negatived.
SIR GEORGE LEWISstated, that as it was the usual custom not to prolong the Committee of Supply after midnight, he should not persevere.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported on Wednesday; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
Ways and Means,—considered in Committee.
MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £10,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported on Wednesday; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.

  CUSTOMS ACTS (TOBACCO DUTIES).
  Resolution reported.
  "That the Duty of Customs on unmanufactured Tobacco imported into Great Britain and Ireland, which shall contain less than 10lbs. per cent of moisture, shall be … per lb. 3s. 6d."
  Resolution agreed to.

  TOBACCO DUTIES BILL.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 56]; re-commmitted for Thursday 19th March.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Wednesday.