The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LOND7ONI WEDNESDAYI VEN NG, MARCH 17, 1858

notice, but he had expressed his opinion when the late
Government was in office that the number of officers
thanked was too limited, and that officers of lower rank
than those who were thanked had performed very signal
services. The right hon. gentleman had adverted to the
difficulty, if the house went below a certain rank in
naming officers in votes of thanks, of drawing the line
where to stop, but he would remind the house that there
wail a time whelk votes of thanks were reserved for ge-
neral officers of high command, and the line had been
gradually extended to other ranks in the army. How-
ever, he would leave the matter is the bands of the right
bon. gentleman hoping that he would take it into his
serious consideration.

Mr. NISBET, as a personal friend of Mr. Halliday,
who had been under his immediate direction in India,
bore testimony to the great abilities of that officer, whose
success be thought Afforded the best proof of his merit.
(Hear, hear.)

Lord PALMERSTON—I entirely concur with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that the daty of selecting
the officers whose names should be proposed to Parlia-
ment in the motion conferring on them the high honour
of a vote of thanks is best vested in the Executive
Government, who are the most frilly aware of the rela-
tive claims of all those who may come under their con-
sideration, and who also are the best judges whether it
would be expedient to depart in any case from those
general rules which have hitherto guided Parliament in
the expression of their thanks. I think that on the pre-
sent occasion it would be best for my gallant friend not
to press the vote of which he has given notice. With
respect to the question about Mr. Halliday, my hon•
friend the member for Guildford has correctly stated the
circumstances of the case. The vote of thanks was com-
municated beforehand by the President of the Board of
Centrol to the two Chairs. It did not contain the name
of Mr. Halliday because it did not appear to us that ac-
cording to the words in which the resolution was put his
peculiar position brought him within the scope of the
vote. The draught of the motion was returned by the
Chairs without any suggestion that Mr. Halliday's
name should be inserted. Some time afterwards my
hon. friend the member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles)
stated to me what he has just represented to the
house—that there were certain circumstances con-
nected with the peculiar duties which Mr. Halliday
had performed relative to military arrangements
Bengal which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the
Directors of the East India Company, entitled that gen-
tleman to the thanks of this house. I pointed out to
the hon. gentleman—as also did my light non. friend
(Mr. V. Smitb)—the difficulty and inconvenience which
arose from revising a vote that had been adopted by
Parliament ; but I stated that if the Chairs would offici-
ally communicate their view of the matter to the Board
of Control, and would recommend that a proposition for
a vote of thanks should be submitted to Parliament, we
shoald be ready to give due consideration to such a re-
commendation. It appears that a recommendation on
the subject has been made to the present Government,
and as they have thought fit to adopt it, I certainly am
not going to object to the vote now proposed.
General CODRINGTON thought the rule laid down
with the apparent consent of the leaders of both sides of
the house, that the executive Government ought on
their responsibility to determine to what persons the
thanks of Parliament should be proposed, was one which
it was most desirable to observe ; and he would not
have said a word had not the hon. and gallant member
for Westminster (Sir D. L. Evans) given notice of his
intention to move the thanks of the house to several
officers who were named in his motion. He (General
Codrington) did not wish to enter into any discussion
with regard to those names, but, as several brigadiers
were mentioned in the hon. and gallant member's mo-
tion, he thought it right to remind the house that there
were other brigadiers who had led assaults at Delhi ;
that there was a
general officer whose name, as he was
dead, be might mention—General Barnard, who had
for some time commanded the forces before Delhi, and
in several actions ; and that there was also Major-General
Windham, under whose command one of the brigadiers
mentioned in the gallant officer's motion served, to
whom the thanks of Parliament had not been proposed.
(Hear, hear.) He had merely rises to say that if the
proposal of the hon, and gallant member for West-
minster had been brought forward he (General Codring-
ton) would have moved the addition of other names
to the resolution. He agreed, however, in the pro-
priety of the principle that the Government should
upon their responsibility, submit to the house the names
of the officers to whom they considered thanks ought to
be voted.

Colonel SYKES said that, had the hon. and gallant
member for Westminster persevered with his motion, he
should have felt it his duty to move the addition of an•
other officer's name. (A. laugh.) He alluded to Maj
General Lester, commanding the Bombay army it, the
Southern Mahratta State, who, with 100 European
troops had contrived to preserve that province in tran-
quility and security amid the symptoms of conspiracy
and mutiny which were manifested around him.
Capt. VIVIAN found, on reference to a book which
recorded the votes of thanks passed to the army •n va-
rious occasions that in some instance as many as 14, 15,
16, and even 24 officershad been included in the votes, and
that all officers in command of brigades had invariably been
thanked. It appeared that when a ♦ote of thanks was passed
in 1812 to officers who had commanded at Salamanca,
the names of seven officers were omitted, and among them,
singularly enough, was that of Marshal Beresford ; but
' iu February, 1813, an amendment, ir.cluding the seven
omitted names, was proposed and adopted. He did not
wish to say anything in the sbghteet degree disparaging
with regard to the gentleman who was the subject of the
vote before the house, but he thought if it was a slur to
omit the name of that gentleman from the vote lately
adopted by the house, the omission of the names of offi-
cers who had commanded brigades before Delhi, and in
other parts of India, was quite as much a slur upon
them. In his opinion this was especially the case with
regard to General Barnard, who had commanded the
army before Delhi for some time, and to other officers
who had lost their lives in the struggle. He hoped her
Majesty's Government would take this subject into their
consideration, and that, acting upon the precedents to
which he had referred, they would include in the votes
of thanks the names of brigadiers and of officers holding
independent commands.

111. r. ELLIOT observed that, in his opinion, Lord
Elphinsts e.had deserved the thanks of Parliament, not
merely f.)r his civil services, but also for the admirable
military azrangements which he had made at Bombay,
and he believed it was on that ground that his name had
been included in the former vote.
The motion was then agreed to.
SUPPLY.

The report of the committee of supply was then
brought up by Mr. Fi
The first vote, 500,0001. for the militia, having been
read,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said—l wish to ask for some ex-
planation from the Government in addition to that
which has already been given with reference to this vote.
The house will remember that last year the army esti-
mates were voted before the news of the Indian mutiny
arrived, and the votes of men, and for pay and pro-
visions, were taken on the supposition that the ordinary
number
ansent to Indian us u during
l u
numberring the
year.
tes had been voted
e
mutinyestimates
unusual
received, and it
Afterof
transfer
a bene ssf
r
bonfe7fmineen of
thenetco India,ia
essalnrydton
tie effect of this proceeding
being that the pay and provisions of the regiments sent
to India were provided by the East India Company, in-
stead of being defrayed from the army estimates. It
also became necessary fur the Government to bring in a
bill to enable them to embody the militia, and a vote of
200,41001. was taken for this purpose. At the same time
a statement was furnished to the Treasury by the War
Department, that, although the estimated expense of
the embodied militia would exceed 200,0001., there
would neverethelese be a saving upon other branches of
the army estimates, in consequence of the great number
of men who would be transferred to India, and the re
payment of whose expenses was to be expected from
the company, and that therefore the sum which had
been voted for the arm,- estimates would probably
suffice for the service of the army during the year.
Now, I had not heard before I left office whether
that anticipation was likely to be fulfilled. I had
DC; ben informed that any supplementary vote
would be required for the army estimates. The
right honourable gentleman the secretary for War
proposed yesterday, however, in committee of supply,
an additional vote of 500,0001. for the expenses of the
embodied militia. That vete was agreed to, and it was
explained en the part of the Government that there was
a deficiency in the army estimates to the extent of
500,0001., and that consequently 500,000/. more than
the sum voted iast year would be required for the ser-
vice of the present year. I don't doubt that that state-
ment was ourrect, but before the report is agreed to I
am desirous of knowing what will be done with the large
saving which must necessarily accrue from the number
of regiments transferred to India, and whether the esti-
mates furnished by the War Department in the last ses-
sion, and which the Treasury at that time were led to
believe correct, have proved incorrect.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—After
the army estimates were voted last year the house will
recollect that a bi:l for empowering the embodiment of
the militia was passed as late as the 22d of August. The
consequence of that bill being passed is that the provi-
sion which was made in the estimates for the embodi-
menthead hoafvtirig hemanailoituia:tecrilamely, 200,0001., WAS exceeded by
to 7 000, 1. There
the sum of 500,0001., the whole expenditure under this
a clear deficiency
that we were only taleing a Parliamentary course in
of
SGo,
0 0001.0, and
w e washav
e therefore,
thought
asking the house to vote that sum without seeing whe-
ther we eou'd under the Appropriation Act, by availing
ourselves of surpluses is other items in order to meet
ieficie,:cies, find other means for obtaining that supply.
(Hear, hear.) It is our opinion that, although under the
Appropriation Act there is a power to apply surpluses
to meet deficienc:es, that is a power which ouoht only
to be exercised by a Minister at a moment of emergency
and certainly ought notto be xercised when Parliament
is sitting—(hear, hear)—and when, therefore, you can
apply to Parliament in a straightforward manner.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the other sources to
which the right hon. gentleman has referred as pro-
bably supplying means equal in amount to this
I.
500,0001., or more, from other military voted,
shall be very glad if eventually that turns out tof be
b
the case ; but it is impoosible that the account this
expenditure
present
be
as
towhat may be b
concluded i n t forte
ust
amounto fo
of
r any
opinion at
the
saving which may be effected under that head. If, how-
ever, the amount of that saving be equal to the 500,0001.,
or even greater, we Should not be able to avail ourselves