The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-09 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

The house then went into a committee of supply—Mr,
Bouverie in the chair.

On the sum of 407,G671. being proposed to defray the
expenses of Government prisons and convict establishments
at home.

Mr. HUI4IE rose to ask whether any plan had been
adopted for the carrying out of secondary punishments?
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested, that it would be better
to defer any discussion on the subject till the question
came before them on the second reading of the Transporta-
tion Bill to-morrow. _ .

The vote was then agreed to.
THE MILITIA.

On the sum of 478,7401. being proposed to defray the
expenses of the militia in Great Britain and Ireland,
Mr. S. HERBERT said, he would take that opportunity
of saying that, according to the last returns, the militia
amounted to 62,000 men. The amount of the vote was
larger than was absolutely necessary, but it was necessary
to make allowances for all contingencies. There would
have to be deducted from the vote about 100,0001. for the
old militia staff, and for non-effective men dying off. He
would take that opportunity of complimentinc, the right
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) on the complete
success of his bill for embodying the militia. (Hear.) In
every part of the country the authorities had borne testi-
mony to the good conduct of the men, and experienced
officers had been surprised at their excellent discipline in
so short a period, a circumstance which reflected great
credit on the colonels and other officers.
After a few words from Col. SIBTHORP,
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know if it was intended to in-
crease the militia to 80,000 ? The noble lord, the Secretary
for the Home Department, bad given the weight of his
authority to the statement that 60,000 Frenchmen were
likely to land on these shores. He supposed that the
80,000 militiamen were necessary to be raised to meet
them. (A laugh.) Now that Admiral Dundas had re-
ceived the French officers on board his ship at the Darda-
nelles, and that Queen Victoria's health, and that of the
Emperor of the French, had been drank with enthusiasm,
and as it was not likely that they were to have a Russian
war—he wished to know if the militia was to be increased
to the point stated? It appeared, from what had recently
taken place, that men could be made very efficient soldiers
in 28 days—such, at least, was said to be the case—for he
was no judge on the subject—(No, from Col. Sibthorp)—
(a laugh)—and this being so, he begged to repeat his ques-
tion, whether the militia force was to be increased from
60,000 to 80,000, and the country be subsequently put to
the expense of 400,0001. or 500,0001. a-year, depriving the
Chancellor of the Exchequer of the opportunity of still
further relieving the burdens of the country? He begged,
in conclusion, to know, what coarse the Governmentin-
tenbierd. 4.! lllMartrhissain(rittt
was
er?
true that the militia had
shown a great desire to learn the duties of soldiers; but
still it was not possible that they could be as efficient as
was to be desired. after a drill of 28 days. It was the in-
tention of the Government to proceed with the enlistment
for the militia. The act gave them the power to raise
80,000 men, but, taking into account the ineffective, the
number to
be raised would not exceed 75,000 men. With
respect to the amiabilities which had taken place between
the French and English officers referred to, he was not
aware that that was a reason why this country should re-
frain from the duty of placing the defences of the country
in an efficient state. ft was the duty of the Government
to provide an efficient force for the country, and not allow
its numbers to be sent up and down according to circum-
stances. (Hear, hear.) They ought to have a sufficient
force for the purposes of the country, irrespective of our
relations with foreign countries. (Hear, hear.) The in-
crease in the expenses of the country on account of the ad-
dition to be made to the military would not be very great.
After a few words from Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. S. HERBERT,
and Col. SIBTHORP,
Mr. J. DUCKWORTH bore testimony to the efficiency
and character of the militia, and said that he thought barrack

accommodation ought to be provided for the militia. The
billetting system was objectionable in every respect. It
was inconvenient to the soldiers, and was equally so to
the licensed victuallers of the town in which they might
be quartered.
Mr. HUME deprecated the whole system of the militia,
and said it was especially objectionable at that moment,
when there was no cause whatever for an increase in the
defences of the country.
Mr. WALPOLE reminded the hon. gentleman that the
militia was not raised on the ground of any fear of a
foreign invasion, but Government after Government had
recommended the formation of such a force, as being a
desirable means of defence for the country. That was the
ground upon which the militia force was raised.
Mr. S. HERBERT, in reply to Colonel Dunne, said that
by law the towns and counties were obliged to provide
efficient stores for arms.
After a few words from Colonel NORTH and Colone

SIBTHORP,
Mr. LAING said he did not see any reason for increasing'
the number of men in the militia. He should like to place
upon record his opposition to the increase.
Mr. HUME complained of the increase in our army,
which was stronger than that of France when the amount
of the population of each country was considered. Our
army was 385,000 strong, while that of France was
425,000. ,
Mr. V. SMITH asked what care was to be taken to have
efficient officers as superior officers of the militia ?
After a few words from Sir J. SHELLEY,
Mr. S. HERBERT said that care should be taken by

providing that there should be a colonel and lientenani-
colonel commandant ; and when the militia were stationed
in a town where there was a regiment of the line, the co-
lonel of the regiment of the line would take the command ;
and in respect to the question put by Sir J Shelley, care
would be taken that an officer holding a permanent ap-
pointment abroad, should not hold a commission in the
militia.
The vote was agreed to. ,
The house resumed, and the report was brought up.
DUTY ON MALT.

On the motion for going into committee of ways and
means.
Mr. EDWARD BALL moved, " That, in the opinion
of this house, the duty on malt loperates injuriously to
the community at large ; that it greatly tends to in-
crease the cost of animal and cereal food; that it pro-
motes drunkeness, by withholding beer from the la-
bourer in his work, and driving him to the public-house ;
and that, therefore, it is expedient that the excise regu-
lations relative to malt be relaxed." Having alluded to
his previous efforts on this subject, when a motion for the
reduction of the malt duty was defeated in consequence
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking against time,
and thereby enabling Ministers to muster their forces, the
hon. gentleman said he never contemplated the total re-
peal of the duty, but in his opinion some relaxation of the
duty towards the producer was a fair and reasonable pro-
position—one that would be regarded as a boon by the
agricultural body, and would prove in a very slight degeee
detrimental to the revenue of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, while it would confer a benefit on society at large.
Meat was now dear, but if the malt duty was reduced. the
preiepatorepthroecirurmeailtt
farmers could produce meat at a cheap rate, successfully
compete with the foreign feeder, and place the food of the
Pabco,ple. before the people much cheaper than they were now
barley •y in what i n Thet
h e farmers ethrseyoutghhotugthotbbeepset,rmiandttetodutose
judges
of
thatthepresentia which fattened animals. At such seasons as
it was well em was a large quantity of inferiorbarley; but
while it knownwas charged
that it did not paythe expense of malting
to the same excise
the same amount of duty, and subjected
It should be borne in as barleyof the best quality.
that there existed nun mind, in considering this question,
quite the reverse. Strikes
a redundancy of labour, but
general, and with no classsfor an increased!rate of wages were
remuneration smaller than of labourers was the amount of
who were obliged to orlaTith the labourers in the field,
and to whom cheap,, mood be all hours and in all weathers,
be matter of great abdvantar,eer,' sit his own fireside, would
ciples of free trade, it was tile dutilveafrrYing out the prin-
mit British farmers the same amOuntGovernment to per-
foreigners enjoyed. The approaching
I,l>f freedom which
would be seriously defective. The yier.sp, he feared,
mised to be not only bad in average but deficiewtheat pro-
tity from the effects of blight. For these reasnonismbquan-
particularly anxious that the reduction of duty andeoresr
relaxations for which he contended should be made, believ-
ing that if
' his request were acceded to it would be the
means of keeping our labourers on our own soil, and of
spreading contentment and plenty throughout the land.
Mr. SPOONER seconded the motion.
Mr. CAYLEY expressed his full eon.cuo. en in th t e
b d rreshircee. Indeeesdathe
ments of the hon. member for Cam
al:lliswerable that ,he
conceived his arguments were so un
the Chancellor of
commended the right hon. gentleman
them, for if he
the Exchequer not to attempt answannig
t and admitted
did so, notwithstanding his great f 11
and admitted
He
ingenuity,'he would be certain to fail.
the
hoped, however, that between this anon
next session
ect into
right hon. gentleman would take the whole subj
consideration, and endeavour to make some of the conces-
sions, the advantage of which had been so clearly shown
by the hon. member for Cambridgeshire.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured his
hon. friend that he had not the slightest intention of even
endeavouring to answer the speech of the hon. member for