The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 10, 1861.

.Aldershot, on the other hand, had only cost £l5 an acre,
and anybody would say that there could hardly be a better
investment in land than that. Why, if the property should
ever cease to be wanted for the public service, it could be
sold again for many times the sum which had been expended
in its purehase. (Hear.) Then his hon. friend complained
of the huts ; but those huts were required suddenly. Per
haps, as it had turned out, it might have been more judici-
ous to have built them of bricks; but that would have
taken a much longer time; and the wooden huts were at
any rate much better than tents. As to the effect of Alder-
shot in forming regiments, in forming officers and gene-
rals, no military man whc knew anything about the mat•
ter would concur with his hon. friend in saying that it had
been useless. (Hear.) He hoped, therefore, that those
light and violent expressions of opinion—(a laugh)—which
his hon. friend was so very fond of throwing right and left
would not find any sanction from the house. (Hear.) His
hon. friend talked about the demoralising effects of the
camp. He (the noble lord) really did not know what the
hon. member meant by that ; but this he could say, the
troops at Aldershot had been more healthy than any other
body of men in her Majesty's service. (Hear.) With regard
to Portsdown-hill, his hon. friend, who had erected him-
self into the supreme judge in all military matters, pro-
claimed his opinion that if he were shut up in the contem-
plated works he should be afraid of being undermined by
the enemy. But mining and undermining implied a long
siege. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Osborne.) " Hear hear I"
Exactly. But did his hon. friend suppose that they were
going upon the assumption that a foreign army would be
left quiet before Portsdown-hill till it had completed its
mining operations ? (Hear.) Why the only object we
had in constrneting these works was to prevent any force
that might suddenly be landed upon our coast from taking
up a position on that commanding hill and destroying our
dockyards at Portsmouth. It was nonsense to say that an
army landing at Chichester or at any other point within
an easy, distance, could not seize Portsdown-hill, if it were
undefended, and from thence damage our fleet and dock-
yards at Portsmouth. (Hear.) Our object, therefore, was
not to resist a regular siege, like that of Coblentz or Mentz,
but it was merely to prevent the enemy taking possession
of the hill by a coup de main. If we could keep it our-
selves until the enemy could take it by undermining, he
believed that we should have good reason to be perfectly
satisfied with the proposed works. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
Capt. JERVIS thought that this debate would not be
thrown away if it led in future years to the framing of more
intelligible estimates; for in their present state it was diffi-
cult to learn from them what our army really costs us. It
appeared, however, that the price of the army at home was
£49 Bs. 4d. per man ; but in the colonies it was £54 lls. Bd,
whereas the cost of the Berkshire police was £5B per man,
the Kent £57, and the metropolitan the same, so that the
army actually cost less than the police. The cost of our
colonial army depended upon the political exigencies of the
moment, and therefore varied greatly. Thus Malta cost us
in 1853, £359,464; in 1855 it rose to £496,046; but in 1857
it fell again to £442,722. So the Cape of Good Hope cost us
for troops in 1853 the sum of £527,514 ; and in 1856 that
amount rose to £924,000; but in 1861 it was little more
than the charge for Malta. The increase in the estimates
since 1853 had principally arisen in the item of materiel,
for which, in consequence of the enormous revolution that
had taken place in the art of war, they must expect in-
creased charges for some time to time.
Col. DICKSON then withdrew his motion.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to ask how that portion
of military expenditure which was voted by the colonies
themselves was accounted for ?

Mr. CIIILDERS said that that question was under the
investigation of the committee sitting upstairs on the subject
of military colonial expenditure ; and he ventured to suggest
that the Under-Secretary for War should not commit him-
self to any distinct statement, for the answers the commit-
tee had at present received were very unsatisfactory.
Col. NORTH begged to ask if it was intended to carry
out the recommendation of the select committee on military
organisation, as proposed in the scheme of the Secretary of
State for War, for reorganising the War Department ?
Mr. T. BARING said the Government were engaged in
carrying into effect the recommendations of the committee.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for Evesham
he could not altogether shelter behind the recommendation
of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Childers). The allowances made
to the troops by the Australian Government, for example,
were extra, and consequently did not come into the accounts.
With respect to the questions of the hon. and gallant mem-
ber for Chatham (Sir F. Smith), no steps had been taken
with regard to the central depot because the survey had not
been completed. With regard to the state of the fortifica-
tions he would tell the hon. gentleman exactly what had
been done. [The hon. member then read a report, the de-
tails of which did not clearly reach the gallery.] The Se-
cretary of State for War would take care that the house
was not pledged beyond the estimate which was already
sanctioned, and which was not £10,000,000 or £11,000,000,
as the hon. and gallant member said, but £5,345,000.
In answer to Sir F. SMITH,
Mr. T. O. BARING said that Netley Hospital was not
yet finished, and that there was no intention of removing
the Medical School.
lair. Og BORNE saki that the noble tura s
seemed to have been a little disturbed by the dinner at the
Mansion-house. The explanations that had been given were
evasive and unsatisfactory. Did the Under-Secretary for
War mean to tell the house that works were in progress,
the plans for which had not as yet been approved of ?
Mr. T. G. BARING said that it was the plans which he
had said were in progress.
Mr. OSBORNE—Then it appeared that the plans had
been altered for which the money had been voted. If he
had said thus much he would have been set down by the
noble lord as light and violent. Re thought it was the
noble lord who was light and violent. He (Mr. Osborne),
as an independent member, and one who had not been re-
turned by the influence of the noble lord, would take the
liberty of criticising even the noble lord's own pet subjects
when they were extravagant. The noble lord talked as if
he (Mr. Osborne) had been merely expressing his indivi-
dual opinion ; but the fact was that he had for-
tified himself with the opinion of the Director-
General of Fortifications, who had said they were
unnecessary and extravagant. He fortified himself with
the.opiuion of the eminent engineer officer opposite, whose
word was quite as good as the ipse dixit of the noble lord.
He repeated that the explanations given by the Under Se-
cretary for War were most unsatisfactory. All he could
gather was that five millions were b be spent, as he be-
lieved, in a" light and violent" way. (A laugh.) It ap-
peared that they were not to be allowed to consider the
estimates. They were to go into committee forthwith, and
then, their business was, not to consider, but to vote. It
was for holding a different opinion he was lectured by the
noble lord, who was perhaps suffering under large doses of
colchium, and wished to give him (Mr. Osborne) a share of
the twinges he was suffering himself. (A. laugh.)
Lord PALMERSTON was sorry that anything he had
said should have so much disturbed the equanimity of his
hon. friend. Perhaps it would be advisable if his hon.
friend took a dose of colchium himself, as it was supposed
to be of a very sedative quality. His hon. friend ran off
on a mere play of words. What his hon. friend the Un•
der-Secretary for War had said was, that the plans were
under consideration, but the plans were not what they were
going to discuss. The fortifications were distinct from the
army estimates. It was obvious that before works of such
importance as the fortifications were undertaken, it was es-
sential that the scientific working of the plan should be
most carefully considered, and should be subjected to the
opinions of scientific and capable men over and over again.
What his hon. friend had said was, that the detailed plans
was not so far advanced as to enable them to take the con-
tracts.

Colonel LINDSAY expressed himself still dissatisfied
with the Government explanations.
Sir F. SMITH wished to know what were the works, and
where they were to be placed. They knew that a million
and-a-half of money was to be spent, but they were not
told how or where.
The house went into committee.
The first vote was the balance of the vote for pay and
allowance of her Majesty's land forces, £1,780,000.
Lord W. GRAHAM objected to the manner in which
the expense of the military force in the colonies was set forth
in the estimates, in some cases the total expense requiring
to be looked for under different heads.
Mr. WILLIAMS noticed an increase in several of the
minor votes.

Colonel DUNNE complained of the annual increase in
the expense of the recruiting department, and yet the result
was never more than an average of 18,000 men. There was
also an increase this year in the number of supernumeraries,
although he knew that the majors coming home from India
were to be left on the strength of their regiments.
Colonel DICKSON believed that the army estimates this
year would be nearer 16 millions than 14 millions, and that
the alleged reduction was fallacious. The reduction of
£427,000 in fortifications had nothing to do with this year's
estimates. Besides, there would be a supplementary esti-
mate for the militia of £500,000. He found an increase of
£9,227 in the expense of the medical staff, and an increase
of £40,000, and another of £50,000 for food for the hospital
department. Every one knew that seven per cent. was a
large rata of sickness for the army, and there was an addi-
tion of £lO per man. He thought that this required some
explanation.

departmentSAYeosnoifdethreed
Colonel LINDSAY D a trhmeyr e. were
eghr
ee
natl
d m defectsneh
in the
rather have the assist int-surgeons attached to regiments
than to the staff. (Hear, hear.) He regretted that there
had been a reduct!on of one assistant-surgeon in each
regiment. The evidence taken before the committee was,
that the medical men had done their work well. He could
bear testimony that the increase of medical officers in
regiments had been productive of great benefit to the ser-
vice. With regard ta London, in which there were five
regiments, and in which the barracks were permanently
divided, there were only ten medical officers. They had
three detached hospitals in the district, and while in the
country medical officers were allowed to reside away from
the hospitals, in London one medical man was obliged to
reside in the hospital. The medical meu were insufficient
in number, and ought to be increased. With respect to
corporals and lance corporals in regiments, he begged to
say their number was by no means sufficient for the require-
-4814t0 vi the reginacts, aAd their duty wtis comequentiy

very severe. He therefore thought thelVar Office oug
to resolve to increase the pay of that class. (Hear.) Then,
with regard to the men, his opinion was that their pay
ought to be increased 2d. a day, after their re-enlistment
at the expiration of their term of service. The proportion of
soldiers who re-enlisted was certainly comparatively very
small ; but he thought the increase of 2d. a day would have
the effect of inducing the men to re-enlist.
Colonel KNOX entirely concurred in all that had been
said by his hon. and gallant friend who had just addressed
the committee in relation to the medical officers, and he
joined with him most earnestly in urging upon the War
Department to take the recommendations made into their
serious consideration.

Colonel NORTH, for one, could not agree in what had
been said by the hon. and gallant officers in relation to the
medical department, and in his opinion the Government
instead of meeting with censure were entitled to credit in
this matter.

Mr. BARING thought that that would appear in the
votes. In answer to the difficult question put by the noble
lord the member for Herefordshire, viz., whethar it was
possible to ascertain the military expenditure on behalf of
each colony, he said it was a matter under the consideration
of the committee upstairs, and he did not see any objection
in giving the different amounts of expenditure in each colony.
(Hear.) The question of the hon. member for Lambeth
might be answered by stating that the increase in the esti-
mates for the supernumeraries was in consequence of there
having been an increase in the regiments. (Hear.) At
present there was no intention to remove the second surgeon
from the battalions of the Guards. (Hear, Mar.)
Colonel NORTH thought it was an injustice that cavalry
officers should not receive command money as well as
artillery officers.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he found that the cost of the
staff abroad was £193,557, and the cost of the staff at home
was £133,340, making a total of £326,898. Now that was,
is his opinion, an enormous sum to pay under that head.

Mr. B. OSBORNE called attention to the fact that a
major-general had recently been appointed to command the
brigade of Foot Guards. Now he was not at all prepared
to say that that was not a proper appointment to make.
But if they were to adopt that arrangement, he did not see
why they should continue to maintain three colonels of the
three regiments of that force. The 'practice that formerly
prevailed was, that each of those colonels should command
the brigade in turn, but that could not be maintained if a
brigadier was permanently to receive a large amount. He
also wished to know why it was thought necessary to
appoint a major-general in the Australian colonies, where
there was only a regiment or two stationed, with a lieutenant
general in New Zealand, as well as a major-general in
Nova Scotia.

After a few words from General UPTON',
Mr. CIIILDERS agreed with the hon. member for
Liskeard, that no necessity seemed to exist for the appoint-
ment of a major-general to the command of the Guards
Brigade, or of a major-general in the Australian Colonies,
or of a lieutenant-general in New-Zealand. He disap-
proved of 13 surgeons being added to the Medical Staff at
the Cape of Good Hope, while the troops in that colony
were reduced one-third.

Major STUART KNOX believed the appointment of a
major-general in command of the Brigade of Guards was
quite unnecessary. That officer only had to perform the
ordinary duties which were discharged by colonels in the
line.

Lord A. CHURCHILL thought there was no necessity
for continuing the appointment which had been made after
the Crimean war. He should move that the vote before the
house be reduced by £1,038, the expense of the major-
general and his staff.
Colonel DICKSON proposed that the vote of £105,000
be reduced by £9,823, the increase of the medical staff re-
muneration for this year.
Mr. BARING said the effect of the course proposed
would be to increase the number on the half-pay vote. He
thought the committee would hardly be inclined, without
further inquiry, to carry out such a redaction.
Mr. CHILDERS recommended the hon. and gallant
gentleman to persevere in his motion. Those who thought
the medical staff ought not to be increased were bound to
vote with him.

Colonel NORTH said he would vote for maintaining the

present staff.

Mr. B. OSBORNE said there had been an appeal ad
nrisericorcliam made on behalf of the medical staff, but no
sympathy was manifested for the taxpayers. He hoped
they would divide, and then the country would know who
attended to their interests.
After some conversation the committee divided, and there
appea red—

For the reduction 46
Against
Majority. .. —2O

The vete was then agreed b.
Lord A. CHURCHILL moved to reduce the pay of the
general commanding the brigade of Guards by the sum of
£1,028 14s. 7d.

Colonel LINDSAY said the Adjutant-General now had
become, he was sorry to say, little better than acleik in his
own department. A lieutenant-colonel commanding a
regiment of Guards was, in point of fact, brigadier.
Colonel DUNNE said they ought to take the whole sys-
tem of ate atitfi generally, and not oe taene6 it ;„ cues-
tions of detail. Let them take the whole question—Was
the staff fitted for the service ?
Mr. B. OSBORNE wanted to know how they were to
deal with such questions except by taking them in detail.
After a few words from Mr. T. G. BARING,
Mr. MONSELL said that the expense of the brigade of
Guards had risen from £170,000 per annum to £330,000,
and if that system of extravagance went en they could not
know to what extent that system of extravagance would
run. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel KNOX thought that the appointment in question
in this vote was unnecessary.
Lord PALMERSTON said that as to the system of the
organisation of the battalion of the Guards, they had heard
from the hon. and gallant gentleman who had commanded
a regiment of Guards, a cl?.ci,lei opinion that the arrange-
ment would tend to the efficiency of the brigade of Guards.
Hon. gentlemen who were not military men were not de-
barred from forming an opinion upon military matters, but
they ought to give due weight to the opinions of military
men who were interested in this matter, and who were
anxious for the good of the service. With respect to the
point as to which was the best method of ensuring the effi-
ciency of that nucleus of our military force—namely, the
Guards—the question being whether those six battalions of
Guards were to be alternately under the command of dif-
ferent officers belonging to the Guards, or under the per-
manent command of a major or lieutenant-general, it was
clear to him that for the unity of system and for the regu-
larity of arrangement the proposition under coasideration
was the best calculated for that purpose. (Hear, hear.) It
might be matter of opinion what should be the amount
of our military force, but whatever that force was
all persons must agree that it abraulcl be as efficient as pos-
sible. He was of opinion that if -Placed under the direct
inspection of one officer, who was not changed from month
to month, the brigade of Guards would be more efficient.
He hoped the committee would place confidence in the
opinion of military officers and sanction the arrangement.
Lord A. CHURCHILL said that if a General was ap-
pointed to the position in question it ought to be one who
had command of all the troops in the metropolis.
After a few words from Mr. A. SMITH,
The committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment B6
Against it
Majority
Mr. B. OSBORNE then moved that the allowance of
£691 19s. 7d. to the Major-General in lieu of the Govern-
ment of Anapolis Royal be omitted.
Mr. BARING said the appointment in question had been
held by the Commanders,-in-Chief of Nova Scotia. When
that appointment was abolished, this grant of money was
given to the military officer, who was also the civil officer of
the colony.
Captain JERVIS said the objection to the vote might be
got rid of if the grant had been converted into "table
money."
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that after the explanation of the
hon. gentleman opposite (Captain Jervis) he should not
divide. (Laughter.)
Mr. HUNT then proposed the omission of the vote of
miscellaneous contingencies, amounting to £75,028 in page
7, on the graund that there was no explanation of the item.
Mr. BARING said that the explanation was to be found
in page 29.
Mr. A. SMITH said there was no item in page 29 cor-
responding with the item of £75,000.
Mr. CIIILDERS wanted to know wby there should he
an increase in the expenditure for the medical officers of
the Cape.
Mr. BARING was not then prepared to give an expla-
nation on that point.
Mr. CIIILDERS then said he thought the vote ought to
be postponed.
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY remarked that the vote of con-
tingences had been increasing from year to year.
Mr. A. SMITH moved that the vote bo postponed.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wishzd to know why it was
such an enormous increase took place since 1858.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the vote could not be lessened
while those establishments were efficiently carried on.
General PEEL said it was utterly impossible that every
document could be given, or the details of each vote spe-
cified.
Mr. A. SMITH did not wish for details but details that
they could understand, in order to know what the vote was
for.

Mr. BARING said the vote could not be divided, nor

each particular item given.
Col. DICKSON believed that hon. members were always
talking of economy, but here they were voting large sums
of money without any reduction whatever.
Sir M. PETO urged the Government to postpone the vote
until an explanation be given.
.A.fter a few words from Mr. BARING,
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the vote
122
Against it ..........
28

- --
Majority —.94
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was £lO,OOO for annual allowances to the
Grenadier Guards.

Mr, CQNINGHAAL wished to know wily it was so large

an allowance was given to the Grenadier Guards, while in
the line it was only £4OB. Ile wished the Under Secretary
of State for War would give some explanation of that dis-
crepancy between the two sums.
Lord DUNKELLIN said the difference was owing to a
greater number of men being in a battalion of the Guards
than in. those of the line, and of course the allowances
must be larger.
Mr. BARING, in explanation, said that certain work
that was done in recruiting and certain allowances, caused
the increase to which the hon. member referred.l

Mr. BRUCE said the Guards had certain advantages
over other regiments, but he was at a loss to know why
they should have allowances and advantages in the pro-
portion of five to one over the other regiments.
Col. LINDSAY, after a few words from Sir HARRY
VERNEY, explained the grounds upon which the allow-
ances were made.

Mr. 'WILLIAMS said he found in the Life Guards one
officer to every ten men, and a non-commissioned officer to
every five men ; while in the ordinary cavalry regiments he
found there was one officer to every 1G men, and a non-
commissioned officer to every nine and a half men. Now

it was well known that the Life Guards had nothing to do.
(Laughter.) Well, they had nothing to do but to attend
upon her Majesty. He also found that in the Foot Guards
the pay of the officers was much larger than that of officers
of the same grade in other regiments, while the latter were
the men who were commonly called upon to go abroad, and
to fight for the country, and bear all the hardships of the
service.

Some discussion ensued, in which Sir F. SMITH, Col.
LINDSAY, and other hon. members took part, and termi-
nated in Mr. Coningham withdrawing his opposition to
the vote, which was then agreed to.
On the motion that a sum of £648,090 be granted to-
werds defraying the miscellaneous expenses.
Major STUART KNOX objected to the amount of the
vote, and having expressed his disapproval of the battalion
system of depots as most unsatisfactory, he moved as an
amendment that the vote be reduced by £41,337.

Some discussion ensued, inwhich Col. NORTH and Capt.
JERVIS defended the depot battalion system as operating
in a most beneficial manner in relation to the Fervice.

Colonel DICKSON hoped his hon. and gallant friend

:Major Stuart Knox) would modify his amendment.

Colonel DUNNE called attention to the different systems
of drill that was in operation at the depots, and said he
knew of no system which was more objectionable. It was
a bad system, and ought to be altered.
Some discussion ensued, in which Colonel SYKES and
Mr. CARNEGIE took part, after which
Mr. BARING said he entirely concurred with the hon.
and gallant officer that the question was wholly one of
discipline. But the important question was whether the
soldiers were to be left to drill themselves, or to be drilled
by officers attached to the depot battalions for the purpose.
His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had ex-
pressed his most decided opinion in favour of the system.
Sir George Wetherell (a most distinguished officer) ani
General Love, Inspector-General of Battalion Depots, who
was also a most disinguished officer, were in like manner
in favour of the system. He might also state to the com-
mittee that he had received a letter from a high military
authority in France approving of the system, an l informing
him that they had adopted depot battalions of instruction
in that country in imitation of the English syptem.
Colonel DUNNE thought they ought to have an expla-
nation why the estimated expenditure for recruiting was
raised by £5,000 or £6,000.
Sir J. PAXTON wished to know if the vote of £41,337
were disallowed, would any further sum be asked from the
house in connexion with the expenses of staff battalions.
Mr. BARING feared, if the vote were disagreed to,
that provision should be made for the supplemental pay of
officers.

After some further conversation,
Major S. KNOX expressed a desire to withdraw the
amendment, but it was put and negatived without a divi-
sion, and the item of £11,337 was agreed to.
On the question that the main vote of £648,096 be passed,
Mr. CHILDERS moved the omission of the sum of
£11,157, the allowance for the Foot Guards in lieu of the
stock purse formed for recruiting and hospital expenses.
Mr. 'WILLIAMS said that he had several amendments
to propose, and he claimed the right of doing so.
The CHAIRMAN said that it was not competent for the
hon. member to do so, as the vote for the depot battalions
had been agreed to.
Mr. CHILDERS withdrew his amendment, in order to
enable the hon. member for Lambeth to move his amend-
ments.

Mr. WILLIAMS complained that he had not been al-
lowed to ask for explanations respecting some items in the
votes. In page 9 there was a charge for marching allow-
ances, escorts, &c., £6,000 last year, and £15,000 this year.
The vote of last year for medical services was £148,000, this
year it was £lBB,OOO, being £40,000 more than that of last
year. Another item for the movement o troops amounted
last year to L 73,000, and this year it was charged at £llO,OOO,
being £37,000 more than the charge of last year. Water
carriage last year was £64,000, this year it rose to £69,000.
On those two items there was an increase of £42,000.
Col. DICKSON rose to order. He hoped the hon. gen-
ttemau•„ es,hle" into those items would not precludo others
from taking something earlier in the vow.,
The CHAIRMAN said the hon. member (Mr. Williams)
was out of order unless ho intended to conclude with a
motion. (Cries of "Move, move.")
Mr. WILLIAMS—No, lam not done yet. (Laughter.)
There are several other items here altogether exceeding the
votes of last year by £90,748. I move that those items be
reduced by that amount.
The CHAIRMAN said the hon. gentleman might move
for a reductioa in the amount of the first item.

Mr. WILLIAMS then moved that the item for march-
ing allowances and ccnveyance of troops be reduced by
£9,000, which would make the vote the same as that of last
year. _ _

- Col. DUNNE said he would support the motion of the
hon. member for Lambeth. He could not see why, when
the army was decreasing the expense should be increasing.
Mr. BARING said the estimates had been carefully pre-
pared, and the excess, as compared with last year, was ac-
counted for by the votes of last year being inadequate.
After a brief discussion, in which Sir F. SMITH and other
hon. members took part,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY complained that sums of money
voted for particular purposes were disposed of in other ways.
After a few words from Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR,

Mr. 'WILLIAMS concluded that the Government were
not justified in altering the applications of votes of money
mado by the House of Commons. If this were allowed, the
votes of that house could not but be considered as a mere
farce.

Lord PALMERSTON said that certain charges could be
ascertained with perfect precision, such as the number of
troops, clothing, and the like, but in other cases there could
not be the same certainty, as was the case in reference to
the number of recruits and the removal of these recruits.
The expense in this latter must be conjectured, and last year
the estimate upon this point was not equal to the amount
required, and this year it was thought desirable to raise the
estimate in this particular. This was the explanation which
he had to offer to the committee on the subject.
Mr. MONSELL thought the observations of the noble
lord did not meet the objection which had been raised to
the vote.
Mr. HENLEY must say that he did not see the force of
the noble lord's observations. It was clear that Govern-
ment meant to recruit a smaller number of men than was
recruited last year, and therefore it was strange that the
vote should be increased.
Mr. BRUCE thought that £15,000 for moving 20,000
men was no very extravagant sum.
Lord BURGHLEY having said a few words,
Mr. T. G. BARING said in explanation the amount of
this vote would not be more than was necessary.
General PEEL having said a few words,
The amendment was negatived without a division.
On the question being put that the sum of £llO,OOO
should be voted for the removal of troops,
Sir F. SMITH moved as an amendment that the vote
should be reduced by the sum of £37,000.
Mr. BARING explained that a great portion of the ex-
pense was occasioned by officers moving about from place
to place to acquire a knowledge of their duties.
Sir F. SMITH then withdrew his amendment, and the
vote was agreed to.
The CHAIRMA.N then reported progress, and the house
resumed.