The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-01 00:00:00

below that economical year of 1822.--(Hear.) In the
new colonies the total amount of troops was 16,691,
nearly the same as in the old colonies, and the population
had increased nearly in the same ratio. The actual
amount of population in the new colonies was 1,699.169,
and this showed that the number of troops increased in
the same ratio as in the old colonies, with the population.
With regard to the present expense of the new colonies,
he would not compare it with that of 1792, but be would
compare it to the expenses of the year 1822. The ex-
penses in that year were about 32,000/. ; in the present,
year• they were about 15,000/., making a reduction of
nearly one•half.—(Hear.) With respect to the lonian
Islands, the government would be happy to lay before the
house the papers of the committee; and he assured lion.
members that they had no intention to stifle this point.
If a complaint had been made that the expenses of the
lonian Islands establishment had been excluded from the
list, it was because the subject required further inquiry;
and he hoped that the result of that inquiry would be a
considerable saving to the country. The hon. member
tells the house that there is no cause for keeping up this
amount of troops in the colonies ; but he considered that
he had fairly shown that in the old colonies and in the
new the amount was nearly the same, and that such
amount was justified by the proportionate increase of po-
pulation. The whole amount of troops for the old and
new colonies was 32,500 men, and then, considering
their present state, it would be bad policy to make any
reduction in that number. Hear.),—( And if that was
the force which it was necessary to keep up there, it
would be impossible to diminish largely the force that we
were bound to keep up in this country. He would ask
the bon. member whether there were no demands for an
increase of troops at home? The hon. member had said
the life guards were only fit for show and parade, and for
keeping the peace now and then ; but did the bon. mem•.
ber look to the increase of service now imposed on the
cavalry regiments in this country ? Did the hon. member
reflect on the increase in extent and in population of the
metropolis and of the different manufacturing towns, all of
which required increased protection ? For his own part,
he should now be sorry to see the military force
drawn out ; but the fact was, that it was sometimes
necessary that it should be, particularly in crowded dis-
tricts, when the civil force failed in its effect. Upon
such occasions, and only upon such occasions, it would be
necessary to fall back upon the cavalry. He begged the
house to look to the situation of Ireland. In the military
establishment of that country a reduction had taken place
since last year, and he hoped that they would be enabled
to continue that reduction, as well as other reductions
elsewhere. However, he felt that those reductions should
be gradual and steady, and not sudden and precipitate like
those of 1822. The bon. gentleman quoted the year
1823 as a specimen of proper reduction. He said that in
that session there was a goad steady opposition, and that
the consequence was, that he was enabled to get the
number of the standing army reduced by 10,000 men,
and that the estimate for the service of that year was
consequently only 68,494 men. He (Mr. Stanley)
admitted that the statement of the hon. member was
true, so far as it went. The army was reduced to 68494
men, but did it remain so thereafter? No. The very
next year it was raised to '72 000, the following year to
85,000, and the year after to 86,119.—(Hear, hear.)
But this mere rise that followed was not the only conse-
quence of this reduction. It was true that the effective
part of the army was reduced by that vote, but the
ineffective part was increased, and, in fact, it turned out
that in that year the expense of the non-effective part of
the army was increased' by 100,0001.—(Hear, hear•.)
This was the effect of the reduction of which the hon.
member for Middlesex boasted.—(Hear.) The hon.
member said, " Domot be satisfied with the reductions
made by the right hon. Secretary at War. I admit that
he has made great reductions—that he has reduced the
army 8,000 men—but notwithstanding that, I call upon
you to join me in a proper sweeping reduction. I
call upon you to look to the blessings which will
ensue from such a reduction." He (Mr. Stanley) joined
the hon. member in calling on the house to look to the
blessings which would ensue from such reductions as he
proposed, and in estimating them, he trusted they would
look to ►,he blessings which followed the reduction in
1823, or the years 1824, 1825, 1826, and 1827.
(Hear.) If they would look to that, they would find
that they had just returned to the same situation in which
they were before they precipitately and unwisely agreed
to the reduction proposed by the right hon. member for
Middlesex.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Stanley) joined the
hon. member in wishing for a further reduction in the
army—(Hear)_but,•looking to the manner in which the
estimates laid before-,them were made up, he hoped he
did not ask too much when he begged of them to a,tree to
the moderate and safe reductions instead of the large, hasty,
and imprudent reduction proposed by the hon. member
for Middlesex.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME rose to explain. He hail no objection to
fair comments being made upon his statements—but the
right hon. secretary for the colonies had misstated almost
every word he said.—(A laugh.) With regard to what
the right honourable gentleman said of his making
economy his business in that house, he would only say,
that his was an honest calling, whatever the right boo.
gentleman's might be.—(Hear, and cries of Oh, oh.")
Mr. STANLEY was sorry he had said anything which
could give the hon. gentleman pain. He certainly had
said that the bon. member made economy his business;
be believed be had almost said profession, but he assured
the hon. member that he did not mean the expression in
a derogatory sense, neither did he mean to give pain.

Mr. HUME would say no more on the subject ; the
right bon. gentleman had made a personal attack upon
him—(No, no, and hear)--hut he was satisfied with The
explanation given. With regard to the reductions of 1823,
of which so much was spoken, he reminded the house, that
at that time be complained of the manner in which the re
ductions were made, and that afterwards he complained
when the establishments were increased. In 1825 he also
complained, but during that year the country appeared to
be getting so rich, that bon. members became careless of
the estimates, and allowed government to take what sum
they chose. He did not, therefore, think that so much
blame was to be attached to him for the reductions pro-
posed by him in 1823.

Colonel EVANS said that the population of the colo-
nies was not one-fourth of that of Ireland. Yet in the
colonies there were 33,000 men, while in Ireland there
were only 22,000. If the population, therefore, were the
ratio by which to decide the number of men to be employ-
ed, it would appear that there were five or six times as
many emroyed in the colonies as in Ireland, when taken
in proportion to the population. Anti did the House
remember that, besides the army in the colonies, there
was a large navy on those stations? They kept up as large
garrisons in the colonies as if there was no navy to protect
them. In 1792 the navy of France bore a much larger
proportion to that of England than it did at present; yet it
was not found necessary to keep up so large a standimi army.
He could therefore see no reason why the army was kept up
at present, but merely for coercing the population. He
thought that, after the excitement of the late act for the
abolition of slavery, which was undoubtedly a blessing,
bad in some measure passed away, which it would soon
do, a much smaller force would be required in the colonies
than before the passing of that act. The hon. and gallant
member then quoted an extract from a speech delivered by
the 'Ale lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1822,
on the subject of the army in the colonies. The noble
lord then said that the colonies did not add to the com-
mercial wealth of the mother country, and that it was
only in a military point of view that they increased her
wealth, That was the view taken by the noble lord in
1822 ; he did not know what his opinions now
were.—(Hear, hear.) He (Colonel Evans) could not sit
dawn without alluding to an appointment which he ob-
served had lately been made at Chelsea Hospital. He
meant the appointment of Mr. Gleig to the chaplaincy.
He (Colonel Evans) happened to know Mr. Gleig, and
those who knew that gentleman would agree with him
(Colonel Evans)—(Cries of " Question, question'.)—that
there was not a more exemplary man in his profession
than he was. He did not think the comments made on
that appointment in the newspapers were fair. Mr. Gleig
was spoken of, in the course of the remarks made, as the
editor of a violent political paper, and he (Col. Evans)
could not avoid that opportunity of stating that the report
Was totally erroneous, as Mr. Gleig had never been editor
of any newspaper.—(Hear, hear.)
Major BEAUCLERK was sure that the statement
made by the right hon. Secretary at War would give
more satisfaction to the country generally than any army
estimates ever brought before the house. If the govern-
ment had not kept the pledge which they gave on coming
into office, he (Mayor B.) would have opposed them ;
but when his hon. friend proposed to reduce the army
9,000 men, in addition to the 8,000 proposed by the
right hon. gentleman opposite to he reduced, he could
not go along with him in the proposition. The conse-
quence of such a reduction would be, that all the young
men would go away, and only the old remain, and itl a
year or two a great additional expense would have to
be incurred in older to get young men to supply their
places. He thought that the statement made by the right
bon. Secretary at War did honour to him. It was manly,
candid, and fair; and made as great a reduction as cir-
cumstances would allow. He trusted, however, that a
farther reduction might be made ; if not, he should think
it necessary to oppose them. But for the present he