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

nation is taxed for defending their country. Why were
they obliged to send 5,000 men to North America? Why,
because the Canadiars coal•! not b. trusted—because they
'ould not enact a me sure tin!ess it received the sanction
if Downing-street. Let them be treated with kindness,
and they might withdriw these troops. The house was
not aware, nor were the people of England, of the ex•
penses the colonies were to this country. Formerly they
dispensed nearly altogether with troops, as he would be
prepared to show by incontestible proofs. It was not
necessary to grant a vote of 81,900 men, which would
he an increase of 5,000 men on the average amount of
troops, from the years 1822 to 1825. It would be better
to draw troops from the 23,000 men stationed in Ireland,
or the service of the colonies. For the years 1788
and 1789, there were but 9,000 men kept up in
Ireland ; and be, for one, would deem it more advisable
to take away the parsons from that country, and bring
them here ; and if the house should consent, he would
support a vote of morey for the support of these parsons,
until they all died off.—(Hear and laughter.) The sums
that were paid for the support of an army in Ireland
would be more than sufficient for the support here of all
the parsons that were such a grievous burden to Ireland.
—(Hear.) There were 23,000 troops in Ireland, without
including Bor 9,000 armed constables. The house would
excuse him, if he called to their recollection the opinion
of the government committee which sat on this subject in
1822. The government was a Tory one then, and they
had a very efficient opposition—every body knew of whom
that opposition was composed—and that opposition com-
pelled the then existing Tory government to reduce the
military establishment of the country by 10,000 men
lower than what it was at present. The hon. member
here referred to an amendment proposed by Mr. Bankes,
to a resolution of his proposed at that period. That
amendment was to the effect, " That his Majesty would
be most graciously pleased to direct that every possible
saving, without any detriment to the public service, should
take place in the public establishments maintained for the
defence of the United Kingdom, and more particularly in
the military establishments." The house then agreed
unanimously to this amendment, when a reduction of
10,000 men, lower than the present establishment, took
place, bringing down the army to 68,000 men. Was
not the house now in a better condition than it was in
1822? Had they not a reformed Parliament? and if so,
would not that reformed Parliament see the necessity of
reducing the present establishment to the amount of that
year ? After the resolution of 1823, he considered he was
demanding nothing preposterous, when he called for the
present reduction. The hon. member here referred to se-
veral committees that sat upon the subject, from the time
of Lord Castlereagh's administration up to the year 1828,
all of which recommended extensive reductions in the army
establishment. For these reasons, he contended that the
colonial establishments ought to be reduced by 5,000 men,
consistently with the average reductions of the years to
which he had already referred. He would state what
troops ought to be reduced. 14,000 men were too much,
and were not necessary for the colonies. As for the Life
Guards, he did not object to them as troops that were ne-
cessary for show and parade, and for sometimes aiding the
civil force ; but still a reduction might be made in them.
Let them look to the number of those troops ; there was
an excess of 300 or 400 more than what they were in
1792. They amounted altogether to 1,311. The Dra-
goons formerly amounted to 2,788, and there was now an
excess of cavalry, compared with what they were in 1792,
of 3,000 men. There was an excess of 1,500 men in the
Foot Guards, compared with what they were in 1792.
He considered that these excesses might be fairly reduced.
I❑ the colonies we could spare very well, at least, a reduc-
tion of 9,000 men, which would be only a very moderate
one, as fsr as regarded the wants of the country. He
wished that a reduction should be made, corresponding
with the average reduction that had taken place between
the years 1822 and 1824. If they did not do this,
he was not aware how they could effect, in any possible way,
a reduction of any importance in the expenditure of the
country. On the present occasion they would not be doicg
their duty, if they voted the number of men demanded,
which was much more than was asked for in the years
1822-3. Ile bad been informed, upon good authority,
that even to-morrow a reduction of 10,000 men might be
made, by giving their discharge to such soldiers as would
rake it, without having any claim on the government what-
ever. He was aware that by this means good men would
go away; but by adopting it, not a single pensioner
would be added t o the list. Though in some respects
satisfied with the statement of the right hon. gentleman,
and though that statement seemed satisfactory to many
bon. members, he still thought that the present House of
Commons ought to demand a reduction of the army
etab:ishment equ il to what it was in the year 1822. If
they were as obdurate in their demands of reduction as
the house was in that year, he felt confident that their de-
mands would be acceded to. He would therefore move a
reduction of 9,000 troops, or rather, that the present
vote be limited to 72,268 men ; this vote being only
9,000 below the Duke of Wellington's establishment.
The question having been put
Mr. STANLEY rose and said that it would be scarcely
necessary for him to trouble the house after the able ad •
dress of his right hon. friend the Secretary at War,were it
not for the objections of the hon. member for Middlesex.
He beli-veil that the house was satisfied that the reduc-
tions proposed by the hon. member were not neces-
sary. The hon. member did not seem to object to the
expense, he only said that he objected to the number of
men ; but this was only a proof that it was a part of the
hon. member's business and profession to outbid govern-
ment in all matters of economy.—(Heir.) The hon.
gentleman did not perceive that the present estimate was
lower by 300,0001. than it had been formerly, and that it
was lower by 290,0001. than it was the last year. Yet
after all this reduction the hon. gentleman exclaimed, " Is
this your boasted econoney ?"

Mr. HUME—No, no.
Mr. STANLEY—It was true they were about to re-
duce the army to what it was in the year 1830. The
army charges were then 3 388,000/. In 1833 they were
3.168,000/. for the effective service.—(No, no, from Mr.
Hume.) The hon. gentleman perhaps thought he was
more correct than the documents of the War.,ffice.

Mr. HUME—I know nothing about the documents of
the War-office. My calculations are founded on the esti-
mates that are placed on the table of the house.
Mr. STANLEY—The whole expenses of the establish-
ment now were 5,752,0001. Now he would take the
years 1792 and 1822, which seemed to be the favourite
periods of the hun. member fur Middlesex. He would
look to the colonial expenditure of those periods, and
he would not shrink fit:al a compati-on with what
it was at pre-ent.—(Hear, hear.) The house would
find, on reflection, that on the amount of the co-
lonial forces depended, in a great measure, the total amount
of the whole army. In the year 1792 Great Britain had
twenty-two colonies, and the total amount of troops em-
ployed in that service was then 15,100 men. In the same
number of colonies now the number of troops amounted to
16,518, making, no doubt, an increase of about 1,700
men. But be hoped the hon. gentleman would allow that
New South Wales, one of these colonies, had considerably
increased in population since 1792.—(Confusion at the
has.) He was aware that these oetails were dry and un-
interesting ; but in order to be able to answer the lion.
member for Middlesex, he was obliged to enter into them.
In 1792 the number of pet sons in New South Wales was
6,000, and the number of troops employed there 420. In
the present year the population was—and he begged the
house to recollect of what sort of pers,ns it was composed
—36,598: so that it had increased six-fold since 1792.
and of course required an additional number of troops.
The number of troops now employed in that colony was
2,217, being an increase of about 1,800 men compared
with the number employed in 1792 He thought he thus
satisfactorily accounted for the difference between the year
1792 and the present year. He hoped the house would
anew him to make similar statements with respect to the
other colonies. In the Windw,rd and Leeward Islands,
the number of troops in 1792 was 3,200 ; they were at
present 3,073. 1n Jam,tica, in 1792, 2,680 ;in the pre-
sent year they were—and it would not be necessary for
him to explain the causes of the increase-4,888. In the
Cimadas, 2,800 in 1792, and now 2,075 notwithstanding
the immense increase of population which had taken place
there, for in New Brunswick alone the increase of popula-
tion was from 101,000 to 316,600. In G.braltar the
number of troops had been reduced from 3,600 to 2,755.
From this statement it clearly appeared that there was only
an increase of troops in two colonies, viz., Jamaica and
New South Wales, in the latter of which the population
nad increased, as be had already mentioned, six-fol.
since 1192. After this the hon. member cotild not argue
that the number of troops bad not decreased in New South
Wales, comparing the population now with what it was in
1792. Now the total amount of troops in the colonies
was, in 1792, 15,100. The number now was 16,088.
In 1792, the amount of the population of the colonies
was 920,000. In the year 1824, their population
amounted to 1,697,000. He would now ask, with re-
spect to economy, whether they were not better off in the
,ear 1834 than in 1792. In 1792, in sixteen colonies,
the staff and garrison expenses amounted to 34,2671., aim
in the favourite year of the hon. member for Middlesex
(Mr. Hume), viz., 1822, those expenses amounted to
46,3591. while in the present year they were only
29,9571.; so that the actual reduction was 4,3101. below
the amount expended in 1792, and absolutely 16,4021.