The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-09 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1 850

Non. MI

fO7
i?!,'
11!id I`,) itit ; E C :

t Hit
Cornmitten with as sine:•'re a desire as aqy Ito,. att:er
to reduce :).3 far as possible q!:u a,"O eNlim:.:to, which
s,ete to be Proposed to th4m.—(Einar, iI ar.)
Mr. M. GI SON found G,itieuvan
up ~n this :notion pretty much ie the s?lbe mind. was
he was last year; and that: he luid Kivei, fir stiti
factory view of the vropositik.a than thee Elor. Gentle-
the Member 19r North War wicksiLire. The Hon. M.m.

ber for North Warwicksl:ire- hail no: 1.411 e n into the
error of refining overmuch upon the words 4f the reel -
lutions; be did not hypereritteise, but he took the hron.,
mewling of the proposition in the sense in which it would
be understood by the public; and being an a:IvOCAte row
the repeal of oppressive tele. s, and, there fore, for a re -
duction of expenditar,', he arts perfectly ear-istent iii
voting for it. 'l'h,-ta was no other mode of submitting
the proposition than that which iia:l been a lo;:t.al by
his lion. Ft iend (Mr Cobden). If he fuel deferred it
until the estimates themselves cane before the House,
in order that each particular item might he discussed, it
would have been impossible to explain his general views,
or to propound a plan upon every minute detail. He (Mr.
Gibson) voted for this proposition mainly because he was
desirous of seeing the policy carried reit of removing the
taxes which impeded production, limited the field for the
employment of labour, and prevented the progress of im-
provement. Put our taxes upon one side, and our military
and naval armaments upon the other; and he would ask
what was the preferable course to be taken iu the pre-
sent condition of England, with its vast population and
its limit( d field for the employment of labour ? On the
one hand the people were t used in order to Maid them
from some contingent danger that might possibly arise,
and we limited the field of employment, increased pau-
perism and crime, and prevented tne spread of know-
ledge, in order to have large defensive armaments to pro-
tect them against remote, imaginary, and contingent
evils; on the other hand, to weigh the probabilities of
foreign dangers, and consider whether 'it would not be
more rational to risk the remote contingencies, and give
the relief to industry which would ticetue from the re•
peal of taxation. On balancing the advantage a upon one
side and the other, with every desire to take that course
which %as best for the country, he had cometo the conclu-
sion that our defensive armaments must be considerably
reduced, and the surplus so created applied to the re-
peal of the taxes which pressed down industry, in
creased pauperism and crime, and produced evil results
to the welfare of the community.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Honourable Gentleman the President of the Board
of Trade had not quite fairly represented the objects
of his Honourable Friend. The Right Honourable Gen-
tleman said, " I will not consent to abandon the defences
of the country—l will not leave England unprotected
by an army and a fleet." But who asked the Right
Hon. Gentlemen to do so? Nobody had ever asked
the House to do more than consider the probabilities of
danger from a fair and reasonable reduction in our de-
fensive armaments. His Hon. Friend had brought the
motion forward at a proper time; and by fixing upon
a year when the general expenditure of the country was
less than it was at present, he called upon the Executive
to explain why the increase upon that particular year
should become a permanent addition to the national ex-
penditure. It was not sufficient, upon a question of this
nature, for the Government to account for any temporary
increase arising out of special causes. What they were
asked for was, a reason why there should be a perma-
nent increase in the expenditure of neatly 6,000,0001.
since 1835.—(Hear, hear.) They must show either that
the protection and defences of the country in 1835 were
inadequate, or that circumstances had arisen subse-
quently which called for an increased permanent ex-
penditure. It was not enough to talk of Oregon, Tahiti,
or Don Pacifieo, fir they were special matters, and could
not be urged as grounds for a permanent annual
increase of expenditure. It was on such grounds as
these that his Hon. Friend the Member for the
West Riding brought forward his proposition.
The first question, then, was, were the arma-
ments of 1835 adequate to the defence of the country,
or were they not? He had frequently heard it said that
eery hasty and inconsiderate reductions had been made
in all the material preparations for warfare; and as such
a statement bore materially upon the question of whether
our defences were inadequate in '1835, he had taken some
little trouble to inform himself as to the real facts of the
case. He found, then, that in this year of destitution,
1835, there were in the dockyards 59,671 loads of tim-
ber; and in 1848, the date of the last return, there were
only 56,048 loads. Of another important article, deck
deals, averaging 40 feet in length, there were 32,145
loads in 1835, and only 22,311 loads in 1848. He further
found that in the important article of hemp there were
in 1835, the year of " destitution," 7,221 tons, and in
1848, the year of " abundance," only 5,067, being one-
third more in 1835 than in 1848. Next, as to tar. In
1835 there were 15,250 barrels, and only 8,977 in 1848.
Of fitted-rigging there were 52 sets in 1835, and only
47 sets in 1848. Of bawls of yarn there were 5,584
tons in 1835, and 3,554 tons in 1848. But no article
was of more importance than chain cables. He found
then that in 1835 there were 857 chain cables, and 645
in 1848. In 1835 there were 170 lower masts, and
160 in 1848 ; in 1835 there were 237 top-
masts, and 228 in 1848 ; in 1835 there were
52 bowsprits, and in 1848 54. He had thus gone
through a few of the principal articles of naval stores ;
and he thought the facts were strong in relation to the
argument that the de fsnces in 1835 were inadequate to
the safety of the country. The Government would
forgive him for reminding them, as they had censured
his Hon. Friends for bringing forward this economical
proposition, when they were themselves disposed to re-
duce the expenditure, what might have been their posi-
tion at this moment, if they had followed the policy
which they indicated to the House in 1848. They came
down to the House in 1848 2,000,000/. behindhand-
-2,000,0001. deficit, not caused, he admitted, by their
own policy, but by circumstances over which they had
no control; and they actually proposed, with the ordi-
nary expenditure exceeding the revenue, to increase the
ordinary expenditure. Had they pursued the policy
which they then indicated, instead of having now a sur-
plus of 2,000,0001, he was prepared to show they must
have had a deficit this year of more than that amount.
Had they, then, any reason to complain of those who
scrutinized the subject of the national armaments, be-
cause they showed how the expense was growing year
after year? With regard to the army, it was open to
question the policy of maintaining the present scale of
military force now kept up in the United Kingdom.
Afeer the peace, in the year 1816, the Noble Lord
now at the head of her Majesty's Government
foresaw that unless great efforts were made to
counteract it, the habit of having a large military force
would become engraf ted upon the people, though in a
state of peace. What did the Noble Lord say in re.
ference to this question? He said—" Among the many
reasons urged for enormous peace establishments, the
most absurd appeared to him to be the assertion that
they were necessary for our own security, in order to
avoid a speedy renewal of hostilities. The House could
not fail to recollect that for twelve years Ministers had
been soothing the impatience of the country by stating
that the war was continued to prevent the necessity of
au armed peace; yet now they ventured to tell the people,
after all the sacrifices they had undergone, au armed
peace was all they had acquired." Lord Grenville, too,
said the same thing. Just as the war which ended in
1815 caused the subsequent establishment of what the
Noble Lord very forcibly called a system of armed peace,
so each successive little military effort had led to an in-
creasein our military establishments; and when the oo-
casion for that effort had passed away we had not
returned to the position we had occupied before. The
same system still prevailed; and his Honourable Friend
was perfectly right in asking, not for the records of all
those particular and special occasions, but to ask the Go-
vernment, inasmuch as the onus probandi lay upon them,
to give some rational sod intelligible grounds for the
permanent increase, mainly caused by our naval and
military defences, in our expenditure to the amount of
6,000,0001. a year. Our colonial policy had been stated
as an argument for an increase in the army. Fresh
colonies had been addei to the empire it might be said.
Teat was true ; but it did not answer the proposition of
his lion. Friend, namely, was it reasonable that these
colonies, instead of being a source of strength, should
be a source of weakness by drawing upon us for money
and for armies? His Hon. Friend wanted to know
whether the people of this country should be taxed in
order to supply the means of defence to colonies well
able to defend themselves. Indeed, it was obvious that
the amount of the forces we did send to them was quite
inadequate to prevent the invasion of an enemy, whilst
they were not entitled to ask of us that which was
merely for their own police purposes, or their own in-
ternal regulation. Neither was it reasonable that. we
should increase our military establishments for the pur-
pose of supplying troops to our colonies. He denied, in
the next place, that our increased military power was
for the protection of trade. Whenever there was any
interference with foreign powers, either by our fleets or
our forces, he received letters from his constituents im-
ploring him to go to the Foreign-office, because their
trade was injured by it. At the present moment we had
an immense fleet in the Mediterranean, and the moment
there was interference in Greece he received letters from
his constituents comoplaing of Admiral Parker stopping
merchant vessels. And very naturally so, because
they knew it was impossible to interfere with them
without directly or indirectly injuring our own interests.
To tell him, then, that the Mediterranean fleet was thus
protecting our trade and interest was a little too much.
The American flag was just as much unmolested in every
port in the Mediterranean as the British. flag, though it
was not supported by the same amount of naval force. In
1848 we bad 31 ships and 8,000 men in the Mediterra-
nean. Was it possible such a force could be viewed by
foreign powers as anything but a parade of armaments?
Could it have any effect on foreign nations but to excite
some feelings of apprehension that we had intentions of
internal
affairs? some country, or interfering with its
affsirs? This constant parade of our arms in foreign
countries bad rather a tendency to provoke hostilities
and to excite jealousy and bad feeling in foreign nations.
We prided ourselves on having done something with our
sword for foreign trade; we fancied that the Chinese
war, which had ended in the necessity of maintaining a
large fleet on the Indian and Chinese stations, and keep-
possession of Hong-Kong, had opened fresh markets, and
would very materially extend the trade of the country.
What was the fact? Why, that our exports to China
and Hong-Kong were gradually declining every year, and
it was his belief, would go back very nearly to what they
were before we interfered at all. We should then
find ourselves in this position—that we should have
saddled ourselves with the necessity of maintaining a
large fleet in those seas, and expensive establishments at
Hong-Kong, without any corresponding advantage to
the trade and manufactures of this country. If the
House were asked to take the only rational course for
extending trade, by reducing the tea duties, the answer
was that the sbite of the revenue would not admit of it,
and our expe ndtture was so large that we ceuld not
afford to sacrifice so great a branch of the national
revenue. Any reasonable person would infinitely pre.

fel fm;ilitievg of having a la.l-4cr consul/4,6,n of h:s
th:.t would b,, obtaH,,d by the re:;tic'ion the .a.
to ;1 ~vpiy ..24V4/1,: IUV lot ot3;10-0
t ;t: of Chins. wes irmt• dal to egtwicier
wi:h a reduction of the a-nty in this country, we were to
Inerf asg our torces iu lad' a. Although these were p&g.l
ifry the East India Compaq, and did not figure in the
es,inntt, s, yet they swelled the littlf-pay list and it,(-ifee
Live He very much doubted whether our
syg tern in mills, on which we prided
ourselves so mw,b, was, alter all, benefiting
Engl,ind to the extent to which some persons rep e-
:lowed. 'rho lion. Memher below him seemed to think
that ti.e annexation of the Pati.aub had opened fre,,h
Markets tor our manufactures. He very much doubted
i his, and suspected that it' our military ardour in India
had not been inflamtd by very large amounts of
prize money, we should not have had these constant
wa-s. Ile thought the gnat difficulty we had to con-
tend with in the reduction of the military, naval, and
ordnance establishments was the excessive zeal
which the members of those different professions had for
the interests of their respective callings. He did not
blame those gentlemen; he would not impute to them in-
terested motive.; it might be a desire to see the particu-
lar branch to which they belonged increased to what
they reget ded as its greatest pitch of efficiency; but that
was not the point of view in which the House must look
at a matter of this description. He would read a pas-
sage from Sir Henry Parnell's work on Financial Re-
form, which expressed the Matter much more clearly and
forcibly than any words of his own could do:—" Every
public department stands prepared to give the most con-
tideet tea;:ons why it is absolutely necessary to keep up
the amount of its expenditure to the exact point at
which it now is. Every kind of sophism, insinuation,
and assertion is worked up with vast ingenuity into a
case to resist every attempt at effective retrenchment,
and not only Government and Parliament, but also the
public, sutler themselves in this way to have their judg-
ment influenced rather by the personal authority of offi-
cial men, who are always endeavouring to keep their re-
spective services in the highest possible state of efficiency
and show, than by the principles of a sound system
of finance, which requires that that portion of the public
expense set apart tor purposes of military preparation
and protection should be regulated by the quantity and
measure of the danger to be guarded against." He
thought this extract fully expressed the views with which
his lion. Friend had submitted this motion to the House.
As to any sudden or unforeseen danger arising to this
country, from a collision with a foreign power, that ap-
peared to him, in the present state of the intercourse be-
tween the principal countries of Europe, to be quite out
f the question. When we considered the power of the
press, of commercial intercourse raising up interests to
counteract those feelings that might spring up betwixt
nations where no such extensive trade existed, it was im-
possible to suppose that any hostilities of importance
could arise between this and any foreign powers without
ery lung and ample preparation, and a vast deal of pub-
lic notoriety and discussion. It was not possible, out of
any accidental circumstances, to bring great countries
into a state of hostility, and he did not believe we should
again see the time when wars would be undertaken for
purposes of conquest, when hostile armaments should be
sent forth to establish the ascendancy of one race over
another.—(Hear.) These were matters that belonged to
past ages, and which it would not be wise in that
House to make the groundwork of their policy, when
considering the amount of force necessary fur the de-
fence of the country. He found that the whole naval,
military, and ordnance expenditure of the country for
1849 was 17,000,6951., and rather more than 11,000,000/.
in 1835. He could not understand by what process of
reasoning or dexterous haedling of figures, it was con-
trived to make out that there was an increase in the naval
and military expenditure to the amount of not more than
2,000,0001. But even if it were as his Right Hon. Friend
stated, the question still remained to be auswered—Why
were we to spend more by 6,000,000/. than we spent in
1835? Why was his Hon. Friend to be represented as
proposing to leave the country defenceless, when he con-
sented t apply no less a sum than 10,000,0001. to the
naval and military defences, a sum more than double the
amount of the whole expense of the civil and military go-
vernment of the United States? Those who supported
this motion could not be charged with any indifference to
the security and independence of England, or to the inte-
rests of the public creditor. He hoped before the debate
closed that some Minister would explain clearly what was
the meaning of the policy of reducing men without reduc-
ing officers. It was true that the number of seamen em-
ployed was to be diminished, and some regiments reduced
in force but they kept up the number of officers as a
framework upon which the number of men could easily
be augmented, and they sent ships to sea with too many
officers, but inefficienctly manned. It had been stated
over and over again by some of the most distinguished
officers of the British navy, that the number of officers
was entirely disproportiored to that of men; so great
was it that many were unable to get employment, and
thus prevented from acquiring experience, or obtaining a
fair share of the emoluments of their profession. This
was one of the many reasons why the list of the ineffec-
tive service was so extremely large. We had 150 ad-
mirals when there was only work for a dozen; and
when the Right Hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Gra-
ham), in the Committee moved by his lion. Friend,
asked on what principle this number had been fixed, the
late Secretary for the Admiralty (Sir H. Ward) could
only answer that he did not exactly know. The list of
captains and commanders were in the same condition;
the rules of promotion established were departed from
constantly on slight pretexts. He thought these exces-
sive numbers were maintained through some mysterious
interest, which prevented the House from being the fair
representatives of the people. He appealed resrect
fully to agricultural Members not to turn
their backs on motions of this description. He
could not understand, now that the corn-law hail
been disposed of; upon what principle it was
that the mere possession of land should make a man
feel bound to support extravagant establishments. He
undertook to say that the share which any landed gen-
tleman might, at some time of his We, get in spoil
arising from extravagant establishments could not re-
compense him for the burden of taxation that must
be imposed upon his property to maintain theta. He
called upon them to act up to the professions they had
made in the country, to go into the whole question of
expenses, and cut down needless offices and places. They
could with perfect consistency give their votes for his
Hon. Friend, and he believed that by so doing they
would be taking the only course open to them to obtain
the reduction of the malt-tax and the hop duties. He
believed they would thus be conferring an important
benefit on the country at large.—(Divide, divide.) He
saw no reason why the motion should not have the sup-
port of Hunourahe Gentlemen opposite. If his friends
had framed a clap-trap motion for the purpose of en-
snaring gentlemen opposite, they would have left out all
the matters relating to naval and military defences, and
couched it in some such words as these :—" That in con-
sequence of the altered state of circumstances brought
about by the repeal of the corn-laws, it is necessary to
reduce salaries and establishments."—(Loud ironical
cheering from the Opposition.) Unless Honourable
Gentlemen opposite would honestly and clearly join in
support of the reductions now proposed, it would be im-
possible to effect that removal of taxation which they
had in view.
Mr. HENLEY said that the question te be determined
was, how they were most likely to achieve that economy
which, he believed, both sides of the House were anxious
to procure.—(Hear, hear.) But when the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down talked of clap-trap
motions—when he recollected the speech of the Hon.
Member for Montrose that night, and when he remem-
bered the able and temperate speech of the Hon. Mem-
ber for the West Riding of Yorkshire—when he found
that none of those lion. Gentlemen grappled with any
particular branch of the question, or gave an opportu-
nity to the House to express an opinion upon it—and
when he heard the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Manchester mixing up with this question questions
of ()lions and tyrannical taxation, pauperism, and crime,
cheek-by-jowl with the public credit, he naturally asked
what did all this mean?—(Hear, hear.) Was this mo-
tion sincerely intended to effect reduction or not?—
( Hear, hear.) Now, he was not going to vote upon the
speeches of Hon. Gentlemen that night, but upon the
motion before the House. The first clause of that
motion was incorrect, for he (Mr. Henley) did not
admit that the increase of 6,000,000/. was in the army
and navy estimates ; 4,000,C00/. out of the 6,000,0001.
might bo so.—(A. laugh.) In the miscellaneous
expenditure there might have been an increase
of forty per cent., but in the military and naval ex-
penditure there was not the same proportion. But when
he came to the operative part of the motion he found
that, with Chinese exactness, it proposed to go back to a
previous standard of expenditure without reference to
whether the course was fitting, expedient, or necessary.
He asked therefore whether the motion was intended in
sincerity?—(Hear, hear.) Was it a motion which its
supporters thought would be carried? The object of the
supporters of this motion was this. A party, which he
admitted was a great one, and possessed the means of
agitating in the country, having refused to vote the taxa-
tion proposed by the Government a year ago, and the
Government having accordingly taken the hint, were
enabled to say to the country, " See how the Government
are reducing taxation," in order that they might go on
agitating. That was the A B C of the present motion.
Into no one branch of the expenditure had the supporters
of the motion gone to enable the House to come to a
vote. The speeches of lion. Gentlemen were temperate
enough, but it was impossible to go back to the expendi-
ture of 1835. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Manchester had given a curious illustration upon the
subject of naval stores. To prove that the year of which
he spoke was a year of destitution the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman pointed to the expenditure of the year 1835, and
then pointed to the amount of stores in 1834.
Mr. M. GI BSON—The first vote proposed to Parliament,
after 1834, by the Government of the Right Hon. Baro-
net the Member for Tamworth.was a still further reduc-
tion upon previous ones.
Mr. HENLEY—And very natural that it should be.
—(Hear, hear.) But to prove his position, the Right
lion. Gentleman hal talked about cables and hemp and
other things in store in 1834, but not in 1835. But if a
prudent Minister found his warehouse full, why should
he purchase more in 1835?—(Hear.) To do that would
be like buying in a second barrel of ale before the first
had been exhausted. But the Right Hon. Gentleman
had not explained why the estimates had been so low in
1835. We had then a decrease in the force of men, and
the necessary consequence was an accession of stores.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for the West Riding
and the Hun. Member f Montrose, in the motion before
the House, declared their readiness to accept the expen-
diture of 1835 as the minimum; but in their speeches
they said they would be contented with the average of
the three years. Now between which of the two did they
mean to make their election? The average of the
three years would amount to a million more than the
average of the year 1835. The truth was -that
motions of this kind only expressed the views of
particular persons, and were intended to effect parti-
cular objects. He dared say it was convenient for

Hon, Genicraeu oppOstte to bring fn.rvard motioirt,
bebur they krt,w, tho satcn: time, that they wc:e not
proicetive of real iboonvehi, uce to t,ll,:tt-,t, who Faro:: the
Tr,a,;uty :erelic.,.—(Lqt.:Otter.) If Hon. Gcntiemen
opposite really wanted to etlect reiuctions in the public
burdens, they would endeavour to effect their object by
bringing forward specific and tangible motions. lie was
himself prepared to vote for a reduction of taxation in
p4rticular directions, and he should renew a motion upon
the subject which he had I:rought forward before, but it
would not be a general or vague statement like the one
now before the House.

Lord J. RUSSELL—The Right Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last but one (Mr. M. Gibson) concluded his
speech with a pathetic appeal to those connected
with the agricultural interest to vote in favour of this
motion; but I cannot say that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man paid them a very high compliment ; because he
urged that they were not likely to derive so much ad-
vantage from the continuance of the burdens to which
they were subjected, as from the share they might claim
in the proposed reduction of expenditure.—(f Lear,
hear, and laughter.) Sir, I own I do not think the
compliment was a very high one ; and I doubt very
much whether the plea used will prove so effective as
that cajolery of the ladies of which we heard so
much in the debate of last night.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) With regard -to the question before the
House, I must say that, agreeing with the Hon. Member
for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and others who have
spoken in this debate, I think the Hon. Member for the
West Riding has made a most judicious speech in sup-
port of a very injudicious motion.—(Hear, hear.) Tee
motion begins by calling upon this House to affirm that
the increase of 6,000,0001. since 1835 has been caused
principally by successive outlays fur defensive armies.
It does not say in terms that that successive augmenta-
tion has continued to the present day, but any ono read-
ing the motion would conceive that if the House of Com-
mons affirmed the motion there had been that successive
augmentation. The fact is, however, as my Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year,
that there was a reduction of 1,400,0001. in the military
establishments of last year, and in the proposed
estimates of this year there is a reduction of 700,0001.
making in the two years a reduction of 2,100,000 L-
- hear.) I say, therefore, it is not fair
to talk of successive augmentations, and not admit
that the Government has made reductions in these
establishments. But then the Right Honourable Gen-
tlemen the Member for Manchester says the Govern-
meat is bound to show how this increase of 6,000,0001.
has arisen. Sir, I should have thought that the speech
of my Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of
Trade had shown to a very great extent how this in.
crease of 6,000,0001 had arisen, partly in the civil es-
tablishments, partly in taking charges which were local
charges on the Consolidated Fund, and partly in increase
in the military establishments. But the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Manchester either did not
listen to my Right Honourable Friend, or he requires
some further explanation on the subject. With
respect to the increased amount on account of mili-
tary establishments, which, according to the Honour-
able Member for Oxfordshire, was upwards of
4,000,0001., there is a great reduction to be made.
There are the excesses for establishments of former
years, appropriations in aid, which, in 1835, were de-
ducted from the expenditure. There is then the item
fur Post-office packet service, which is an increase over
the expenditure of 1835, to no less a sum than 737,000/.
I beg the attention of the House to these particular
items. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Man-
chester, says that all this is an increase in our esta-
blishments. Now, a portion of this sum of 737,0001. used
formerly to be defrayed out of the revenue of the Post-
office; and it never came before the car of the House of
Commons at all.—(Hear, bear.) That course was fre-
quently objected to by the Hun. Member for Montrose,
who at that time, as at others, said that the whole ex-
pense of the country ought to come before the view of
the House; and that if you have a sum taken out of the
revenue, that sum should be placed in the estimates and
voted in the House. Sir, as a matter of principle, that
is a fair claim, and different Governments have endea-
voured to comply with the request. But what do we see
as the consequence? No sooner is it done than the
Right Hon. Gentleman;the Member for Manchester gets
up and says there is an enormous increase in our expen•
diture.—(Hear, hear.) But, in point of fact, the ex-
pense to the country is the same, although the mode of
voting is more regular. Now, Sir, the observation of
the Right Hon. Gentleman applies not only to this
charge, but to many other charges in the shape of in-
crease since 1835. No doubt there has been an increase
of expense in the packet service since 1835, but the ob•
ject with which that expense was incurred, whether wise
or not is not now in argument, was to facilitate trade,
and the communication between this country and its
colonies, as also with foreign countries. So that it is
altogether a misrepresentation to say that this increase
has been on account of our military establishments, when
it has been incurred for the purpose of facilitating our
oommerce and communication with other countries.
These various sums reduce the whole amount of increase
in our military establishments in 1649, as compared with
1835, to 2,365,0001. With regard, again, to the army,
which is the first of those questions which we should
propose to enter on to-night. The army has had in-
creased duties to perform since 1835. I will not at this
moment enter into the important question, whether or no
it is wise to defend our colonies; but it is certain that
the army has been called upon to perform various duties
of that kind, and that in every duty they have had to per-
form, whether against the enemy in the field, or in ex-
hibiting temper and good conduct at home, they have
preserved all that energy and good conduct which have
always distinguished them.—(Cheers.) But the whole
amount of increase since 1835, on account of the army,
has been only 111,000 Z; and that amount, considering the
increase in the empire, and the situations in which it has
been placed, is assuredly no extravagant or extraordi-
nary increase. With regard to another of the sums
with respect to which it is stated that an increase has
occurred, and which has taken place, it is contended, on
account of the aristocracy, and to facilitate private pa-
tronage. I mean the pensions of soldiers. Formerly
the soldier was only entitled to receive his pension at
the end of the year. By an arrangement effected by
Lord Chatham there was a deduction of 51. per cent. in
these pensions, but there is now a different arrange.
ment, and as a matter of fairness not of right, the whole
of that deduction has been taken off, amounting to no
less than 501. a year. But the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Manchester also wishes to know why
there is not a diminution made in the number of regi-
ments and officers? That, Sir, I think is a matter of
detail which my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of
War will explain; but in the course of the present year
the second battalion had been reduced, and, although
officers are retained at the present moment, it is not
intended to fill up the vacancies, and there will, conse-
quently, be a reduction in the number of officers. If
increase
in pass to the navy, we certainly see a great
in the expenditure on account of it. But that,
again, is a subject requiring very full consideration when
it comes before us. If, however, the Hon. Member for
the West Riding has any rational reduction to propose
in these estimates, let him propose them at the proper
fault, although the Rightl.
time.—(Bear, hear.)
t
y
for Manchester seemed to think that we should, with the
SHiro,nd.oGneonttlmemeaann
:hoe fimnedraabneyr
estimates of 1835. I voted for those estimates when out
of office. Some of them I concurred in moving when I
was in office, and I sea no reason to find fault with them
in the circumstances of that year. But this I know,
Sir, that after those estimates had been' reduced there
was a constant pressure out of doors and in this House
to increase them.—(Hear.) And I remember that when
my Right Hon. Friend the Chaneellor of the Exchequer,
then Secretary to the Admiralty, showed the increase
which was afterwards made, he was able to defend him-
self on
.the ground that the Government had not suffi-
ciently increased the navy or made sufficient provision
for that noble branch of the service for the defence of the
country. If that was the case, Sir, I do not think succes-
sive Governments have been so much to blame for in-
creasing the naval expenditure of the country. Again, what-
ever advantage this country may derive by means of
steam must be participated in by other countries; and
it is absolutely necessary that we should hale a steam
navy to cope with a force of the same kind which an
enemymight bring against 11F.—(Hear, hear.) I think
it impossible that the steam navy could be set on foot
without some errors in the commencement of so new an
enterprise. I do not think it a subject of regret that
we should have a steam navy so very efficient, and so
well calculated to form a defence for the country.—
(Hear, hear.) In the ordnance, again, no doubt we
haveuaadar.dea considerable increase; bat we stated at the
time the reasons of that increase; we stated that the
artillery
engineering forces required a longer ap-
prenticeship to science than the cavalry and infantry,
and that it was desirable that a force which could not be
so easily made perfect should not be allowed to fall too
low. I believe that principle is a sound one. It is one
which has been confirmed in this House, and I do not
think that any person whose opinion on the subject is
worth listening to would recommend a reduction in these
departments. With regard, however, to one part of our
naval expenditure, there has been a practice which pre-
vailed for many years, and upon which my late lamented
friend Lord Auckland began a reform which my Right
Hon. Friend last year carried into complete effect, by
not having a greater number of men borne than is voted
by the House of Commons. Now, before I turn to the
civil expenditure, I will jest look at the proposal of the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Cob-
den), as he stated it to the House. He proposed that
5,800,0001. should be reduced from the military esti-
mates, and 600,000/. from the civil estimates.—(Hear.)
That was the,result, no doubt, of very great deliberation
on his part, and he of course must have considered in
what manner these estimates were to be reduced, and
how the service of the country could be efficiently per-
formed. But there is one thing that he has entirely lost
sight of. He said, " I will give you ten millions for the
purposes of the military services, and no one can com-
plain that I grudge you the means of defence for the
country." But it so happens that these estimates are divided
into effective and non-effective services, and with regard
to a great portion of them, namely, almost the whole of
the non•effective, you are bound either by law or by
good faith not to diminish these sums. It is impossible
that Parliament, with any regard to honesty or its own
i credit, can touch the sums voted to these men. But
these heads amount in the present year to no less
than 3,784,000 L, and the sums voted for the effective
service amount to no more than 10,518,000 L; and on
that sum the Hon. Gentleman proposes to reduce no
less than s,Boo,oool.—(Hear, hear.) I ,should like to
know what the Hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr.
Spooner) means to do. Unless he is bound to nothing
more than a general resolution—unless he has a plan of
his own, he is bound to reduce to such an extent the
naval and military forces of the country, that I really do
not know how any one can possibly say that an effective
force for the defence of the country can be kept up. I
should like to hear his particulars. Does he mean to re-
duce 30,000 or 40,000 men in the army? Is it 10,000 or
20,000 men in the navy that he means t 6 propose to have
reduced?—because without some such reductions as

th, se it is quite impossible that 5,500,000/. cal be re
cluc.ed.—(ll.-sr, hear.) Ho'sover, other Honourable
G..ntletnin za sz:y ,ho' it is certainly not a re.,ticqien
of the naval and military means of the country that is
to be proposed, but that no doubt the civil services will
afford the :means of that reduction. But I must again
ask, whether or not it is advisable, without looking at
those several items, to say that you will go back t the
estimates of 1835? With regard to many of these sub-
jects public opinion has been such that the Government
going with that opinion have proposed a very large in-
crease of expense. There has been a very great in-
crease on the subject of education, I believe not less
than 180,0001. or 200,0001. Now do Honourable Gen-
tlemen who do not go to these extreme lengths about
reducing the military expenditure propose to cut off
that increase? There has been another very considerable
sum, amounting altogether to 570,000/, all of which has
been increased for the constabulary force in Ireland, and
other expenses of a similar nature. Why, that was pro-
posed —a great part of it—by the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), when he pro-
posed the repeal cif the corn-laws, and when he put that
which had hitherto been a local charge—a charge
mainly affecting the landed interest, upon the con-
solidated fund. Now, does the Honourable Gen-
tleman mean to transfer that back again from the
consolidated fund to the local rates ? Does he in-
tend to reverse the motion of the Hon. Member fur
Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), and instead of transferring a large
sum from the local rates to the consolidated fund, do
they mean again to transfer these large sums from the
consolidated fund back to the local rates? I should like
to know if any of those who voted for the motion of
the Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire are going
to vote for this motion, which is a direct contradiction
of the other.—(" Hear, hear," from an Honourable
Member, and laughter.) The Honourable Gentleman
cheers that sentiment. I certainly voted against the mo-
tion of the Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire,
for giving 2,000,0001. to the real property of the coun-
try by placing local charges on the consolidated fund;
but I certainly cannot agree to the repeal of that Act
of 1846, to which, I think, we are bound in honour to
adhere. Well, then, the sum of 6,000,0001. is indeed
very much reduced. With regard to upwards of two
millions of it, it consists of charges that were formerly
taken in diminution of votes, or that were on the public
revenue, or that were in some other way not an actual
increase of expenditure. That accounts for nearly
2,000,000/. There is another 'portion which has in-
creased in the civil expenses, which I know is a portion
that this House will hardly wish to diminish. But if
Hon. Gentlemen do wish to diminish them on the occa-
sion of the miscellaneous estimates being brought for-
ward, every one of these votes not on the consolidated
fund may come under the revision of this House; and at
that time Hen. Gentlemen may propose their motions
for reductions. There remains, therefore, but a small
part of the 6,000,0001. on which reduction can fairly be
made; and I put it to the House whether it will agree to
a general resolution that seems to pledge us to reduc-
tion or 6,000,000/., when perhaps by refusing to grant
money that would be requisite for the public service,
and not agreeing to votes which the Government should
think necessary, it might afterwards be found that two
millions was the utmost that could be reduced in the ex-
penditure.—(Hear, hear.) But then the Hon. Member
for the West Riding has a most convenient proviso with
respect to this motion. There seems to be on the face of
it somewhat of imprudence, in saying, that whatever
might be the state of the country—whatever the danger
that may arise in three months, or a year, or two years,
that you will fix beforehand what will be your exact ex-
penditure on the military forces of the country. But
then, the Honourable Gentleman says, "Oh, yes! but
in the case of any circumstances requiring extra military
preparations, of course this resolution will be neglected,
and a larger sum will be readily voted." But if this is
really to be the case, I cannot see the use of the resolu-
tion at all. If the ouse is to retain its discretion after
the resolution is passed, why should it not keep its dis-
cretion as it is now ? Why not retain the power to
say, " There is an increase of expenditure absolutely
necessary for the safety of the state ; we are not fet-
tered by any resolution, and therefore shall at once pro-
ceed to vote the amount?" Really, if it were not that the
Hon. Gentleman can't be accused of views of that kind,
one might suppose that the Hon. Gentleman was open
to the accusation sometimes made against Members
of this House, believed to be ambitious of office, namely,
that they wish to escape while in office from the votes
they have given before—(Laughter)—because with this
proviso, if the Hon. Gentleman were to become Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer the very next month, he might rise
and say, " that the circumstances of the country were
quite changed; there is no longer either a necessity or
justificaiion for the resolution I formerly proposed, and
I must ask the House for exactly the same votes as were
granted to previous Governments." But without accus-
ing the Honourable Gentleman of anything of that kind,
I think he has rather committed himself by some of the
speeches he has made in the country—(Cheers and
laughter from the Protectionist benches)—in which he
said the expenditure has increased ten millions since
1835; it is a most profligate expenditure, and it is kept
up for the promotion of the sons of the aristocracy—
(Renewed cheering from the same aide)—who ought to
be otherwise provided for, and we are bound to refuse it
any longer. The Honourable Gentleman has frightened
himself and the country very much with that declaration.
—(A laugh.) Re has not taken the pains to look into
these items; he had not found out that many of these
charges were charges that have been on the revenue—
that many of them were for the increase of education,
and other votes for science and art, which he, as well as
others, would have been ready to assent to. And hav-
ing so done, he finds himself committed to bring before
this House the consideration of this subject. I think it
would have been much better if he had made a more
practical proposition, after a careful examination of all
these different estimates, and had somewhat retracted
the accusation that 12,000,000/. were spent in this pro-
fligate way, and especially that the officers of the army
and navy wore guilty of the mean practices that he
charged them with.—(Protectionist cheers.) Well, Sir,
having said this, I however wish to say also what I think
is really due to the Hon. Member, that I believe hispalling
the attention of the country to the general expenditure
of the nation has been productive of very useful results,
by enabling the Government to make reductions which
otherwise it might have found itself unable to effect; and
I don't mean to deprive the Honourable Gentleman of
any credit that may be due to him in this respect. But,
Sir, when I say this, I must altogether protest against
the view of the Right Honourable Gentleman the
Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson). I will not
follow the Rights Honourable Gentleman through his
views with regard to Greece or China; but he laid down,
as it were, as an axiom, that if any injury were done to
a British subject in any part of the globe, the proper
course for a Minister to take is not to resent that in-
jury, but to disarm altogether, and propose some reduc-
tion in the tea duties, or some other tax—(Laughter)—
and to leave British subjects altogether without protec-
tion.—(Mr. M. Gibson here interposed a remark that
was inaudible in the gallery.) The Right Hon. Gentle-
man says that this does not imply his meaning; but he
must recollect the old saying, " Nec arms sine stipendiis,
net stipendia sine tributis." And bow, again, are British
subjects to obtain redress, unless we maintain a sufficient
force to sustain our claims, I really cannot imagine—l
doubt whether any Minister of this country, if he were
obliged to say, " We don't mean to resort to force in any
case, and we have not the means of resorting to force,"
would be likely to obtain that redress for injuries offered
to British subjects abroad, which I must tell the Right
Honourable Gentleman they demand, and demand, too,
in no very soft terms; because, in that very case of
China, when the British merchants were obliged to pay
two millions, and threatened with imprisonment and
durance, they were not slow in transmitting com-
plaints to this country, and the friends of the British
merchants at home were not slow in making
representations that some redress ought to be obtained.
But really we have been told to night that as we have
low prices we must have low establishments; and, in-
deed, it appears that some think we must have low views
as well—(Cheers and laughter)—that we are, in every
case where injury may be done to our commerce by any
interruption of our amicable relations with foreign
Powers—and such an interruption in any case I sin-
cerely regret, because I well kuow how mischievous it
is—but we are told that we must comply with every
demand that the Governments of those countries may
think it necessary to make, while redress has been asked
for and refused. Sir, we have had no Government in
this country that has adopted that principle, no states-
man who has ever swayed the destinies of this empire
ever since the Revolution—not even that most pacific of
Ministers, Sir R. Walpole, believed that when British
subjects were injured, and had a right to ask for redress,
that that redress should be enforced, if necessary, even
by recourse to arms. It would be quite a new policy in
this country for a Minister to pursue any other course.
—(Cheers.) Sir, with regard to this motion, I believe
the House will not interpose a resolution of this kind in
the way of going into Committee of Supply. The Hon.
Member for the West Riding, who brought forward
this motion, is fond, I believe, of political predictions—
predictions which are not always justified by the event
—(Loud laughter)—and some of those predictions he
lately made in a speech delivered in the country. I read
that speech with some attention, and I found that in one
part of it the Hon. Gentleman says, " Oh, the Govern-
ment will not adopt our proposals for reduction. They
will reject all real economy. Some apparent diminution
may be made, but anything of the sort will be followed
wspi elle seeeh
You
of
his
that Government in course of time will go back to the
tbhyeaHsounb.sedieuneanetmaineuretaosled." an
his aoutdihetorrpya—rt,,
estimates of 1835. They will reduce the estimates to
that scale, but they will not do so when we bring for-
ward our motion, because if so we should be Ministers
in their place."—(Laughter.) Well now, but these two
predictions seem so opposed—they are so contradictory
in themselves, that it would appear as if one of them
must come right.—(Hear, and laughter.) But I can
assure the House that we shall not, in the first place,
refuse to make reductions. We have been making re-
ductions since 1848. I stated that, in our military
estimates alone, in the course of two years, we
effected a reduction of 2,ooo,oool.—(Hear, hear.) As
to offices—in the course of last week alone, two offices
fell vacant which will not be filled up, and another
office I propose to reduce next week, in point
of salary. Whenever occasions happen—whenever we find
that an office can be reduced, or that the salary is ex-
cessive, we shall be ready to seize these opportunities of
retrenchment.— (Hear, hear.) As to the second predic-
tion of the Hon. Gentleman, that we mean, although we
will not profess it, to go back to the scale of 1835—why,
I must say—
Mr. COBDEN—WiII the Noble Lord tell me when I
made the speech to which he is referring?
Lord J. RUSSELL—The speech—l read it in a
newspaper—(Laughter)—but I will have the newspaper
looked for, and bring it down to the House and read it.
—(Laughter and cheers.) I assure the Hon. Gentleman
that I paid great attention to his speech.—(Hear and
laughter.) However, I was going on to say that, not
denying but that the estimate of 1835 might have been

upon the proper scale for that particular year, we do not
think, for various reasons, some of which I have stated,
that there has been any undue increase in the naval and
°Monnee estimates; and as for the general estimates, it
is evident, from the facts which I have stated, that
it is impossible, in respect to them, that we can go back
to the scale of 1835 without an undue re-
duction of our military and naval forces, and the
refusal of many votes for the promotion of education and
other useful purposes—a course which it would be moil
inexpedient to adopt.—(Hear, hear.) We, therefore, do
not propose to go back to the estimates of 1835. We
shall be ready, whenever opportunity serves, to make
reductions, but we will not for the sake of popularity,
or for any other purpose, pretend to make reductions
which we think would be most injurious to the interests
of the empire. The House of Commons, of course, has
its duty to perform, and that duty would not be per-
formed by affirming the resolution of to-night. When-
ever the Minister of the Crown brings forward estimates,
it ought to be the duty of the House to weigh and con-
sider these estimates, and to vote them, not according
to a previous and general resolution, but according to
the wants of the different services of the country, and
their general view of what the interests of the country
require.—(Hear, hear.) Such is the obligation which
rests on the House of Commons. There is also an obli-
gation resting on us, to bring forward no extravagant
and excessive estimates. Bat there is also an equal
obligation upon us, not to reduce the estimates below
the point which we think necessary for the mainte-
nance of the honour, the dignity, and the safety of
the empire.—(His Lordship resumed his seat amid pro-
longed cheering.)

Colonel SIICTHORP (who arose amid the cries of a
division) said that be should not support the party of
the Hon. Member for Manchester, or the party of the
Noble Lord, thinking that it was six of one and half-a-
dozen of the other—(Laughter)—and not having the
slightest confidence in either.—(Laughter.) He was
curious to know how far the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth would go in supporting the man
of "unadorned eloquence," but as he had no confidence
in either of the contending parties—as he believed that
they were all rogues and jobbers together—(Great
laughter)—he therefore thought the beat thing he could
do was to take up his hat and take his leave. [The
Gallant Colonel immediately suited the action to the
word, took up his hat, bowed ceremonieusly to the
Speaker, and then walked deliberately out amid per-
fect peals of laughter.]

The House then divided, when there appeared—.
For the amendment ... ... ... 89
Against it ... ... ... ... 272
Majority against the amendment ... --183
The House then went into Committee, Mr. BERNAL
in the Chair.

Mr. F. MAULE then said that at that late boar he
should merely propose the vote for the number of men
for the service of the year, without entering into any
lengthened details in justification of that vote. Last
year the number of men proposal had amounted to
103,000 ,• and his Hon. Friend the Member for Mon-
trose had then moved that the numbor should be reduced
t 0.100,000. Bat the present vote was merely for 99,128
men. He had further to observe that the vote did not
always show the actual amount of the force to be
maintained ; and the fact was, that the estimate of the
present year showed a reduction of 14,719 men, as com-
pared with the number in 1848-49. It was said, how-
ever, that while they reduced the number of men they
made no reduction in the number of officers. But in the
present estimates there was proposed a reduction of not
less than 128 officers, with a reduction of 4,000 men.
He had further to observe, that so far was it from being
true that the number of officers had been more than
proportionably increased as compared with the increase
in the number of men, that the fact was, that while in
1835 the proportion had been one officer to 17 men, the
proportion at present was one officer to 20 men; and
since 1835 there had been an increase made of only one
officer to 150 men. He was no advocate for keeping up an
undue number of officers; but he was still less an advocate
for reducing them to the number barely sufficient for
commanding the men in existence at the time; because
it should be apparent to every one that the most econo-
mical mode of maintaining the force at all times was to
keep it in such a position that if an exigency arose it
could be increased in the shortest possible time at the
least possible expense. The Committee would find that
the estimate under that head at present, as compared
with the estimate of last year, consisted of a reduction
of 4,126 men. In effecting that reduction they had
struck off the second battalions created in the year 18 i 5;
and they had adopted that course because they had
found that the second battalions did not completely an-
swer the objects for which they had been formed, and
that the men in those battalions lacked the comforts
which it was desirable that every member of the army
should possess. With these few brief explanations he
should move a vote of 99,128 men for the land service
during the year.
The vote having been put from the chair,
Mr. HUME said he thought that his Right Hon.
Friend had shown no reasoa why they should then vote
a number of men so mach larger than that voted in the
year 1835, and in the three or four subsequent years.
He felt, however, that the subject was one which they
could not fully discuss at that late hour, and he should
therefore move that the Chairman should report progress
and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. F. MAULE said that ho was prepared at any
moment to justify the vote.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he should he prepared to show
that a considerable reduction might be effected in the pro-
posed number of men. But he felt that they had arrived
at too late an hour to render it possible for them pro-
perly to discuss the question that evening, and he there-
fore supported the proposal of his Hon. Friend.
Lord J. RUSSELL intimated that he should not ob-
ject to the motion.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again.
The Turnpike Road and Bridge Trusts (Ireland) Bill
passed through Committee.

In reply to a question from Mr. GROGAN,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he should leave the Parlia-
mentary Electors (Ireland) Bill on the paper for Monday
evening; but he should not brillg it on at a late hour.
In reply to a question from Mr. GOULBURN,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he should bring on the Navy
Estimates after the two first votes on the Army Esti-
mates should have been disposed of.
The House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

COWES, ISLE OF WIGHT.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
COWES, MARCH 9.
ROYAL YACHT SQUADRON INTELLIGENCE.
RESIGNATION OF THE VICE-COMMODORE.--Sir
Bellingham Graham has resigned the office of Vice-
Commodore of the Royal Yacht Squadron, and notice
has been given to the members that another will be
elected at the May meeting. C. M. Talbot, Esq.,
the Marquis of Conyngham, and G. 11. Acker, Esq.,
are mentioned as likely parties to be elected ; each
have splendid yachts. That building for Lord
Conyngham is to be ready for sea early in May, and
is considered to be the finest sea boat White has
built ; she is 225 tons, and is to be schooner-rigged.
Be the gentleman selected to fill this high and
honourable office who he may, he cannot do more
than the late Vice-Commodore did to forward the
interest of the Squadron. The Flirt was the first afloat,
and the last to lay up ; her worthy owner was always
at the station ; there was hardly a day passed but he
was at the Squadron-house, and he always conducted
himself in so agreeable a manner to all that he was
a general favourite
THE EAST COWES PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.--..MT.
Ranger, the superintendent-inspector, opened his
court at the Medina Hotel, on Tuesday, and has
been since daily inspecting the state of the town,
and hearing evidence. lie seems the right sort of
gentleman for the office ; he will not quarrel with
anybody, nor allow any body to quarrel with him,
and thoroughly understands the business he is sent on.

REDUCTION; IN THE ARMY.—A number of men
are daily passing through this town, discharged from
the different regiments at Parkhurst Barracks. Men
of good character get 21. given m, and their
passages paid home.
The Hermann American steamier is just reported
in sight.