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

lion. Gentlemen opposite to bring ft rward motion',
but they knew, at the same time, that they were not
prothictive of real inconvenience to those who sat on the
Treasury henches.—(Laughter.) if lion. Gentlemen
opposite really -watited to er.ect:ielutitions in the public
burdens, they would endeavour to effect-their object by
to-inging furward spccifit:. and tangible uwtio,r. Ile WR:,

hiatilt7per pared to vote) for -eduction of taxation io
particular direetiOne, and he shoniti renew a motion upon
the ttabject larch ht., had ttnught ft.ir ward hrfore; hut it.
Would wit be a general or vague staentent like the one
now berore the •

Lord J. RUSSELL—The Right Lion. Gentleman who
spoke last but one' (Mr. M. Gibson) concluded his
speech with a pathetic 'appeal to theme connected
with the egricultural interest to vote in favour of this
motion; but I menet say that the 'Right Hon. Gentle-
roan •paid them a' very high compliment ; because he
urged that they were nut 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 tflo proposed reducaien 'of expenditure.—(Hear,
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 eo
much 'in the debate of last night.—(Hear, hear, aed
laughter.) With regard to the question before the
House, I must say that, agreeing with the Hon. Member
f.)r. Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and others who have
spoken in this debate, I think the Hon. Metnber for the
West Riding has rertele a most judicious speech in sup-
port of a very injudicious motion.—(Hoar, hoar.) Tt.e
motion begins by calling upon this House to affirm that
the increase of 6,000,0004 since 1835 has been caused
pt iacipally by successive outlays for- duf.nsive aralies.
It does net say in terms that that successive augmente-
tion has continued to the present day, but any one read-
ing the motion would conceive that if the House of Com-
T/10115 affiemed thti motion there had been that successive
augnientation. 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, end in tle proposed
estimates of this year there is a reduction of 700,0001.
making in the two years a reduction of 2,100,0001.—
(Hear, hear.) I say, therefore, it is not 'lair
to talk of successive augmentations, and not admit
that the Government has made reductions is these
establishments. But then the Right Honourable Gen-
demon the Member for Manchester says the Govern-
meet 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-
tubiishments, 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
for Post-office packet service, which is au 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 737,000/. used
formerly to be defrayed out of the revenue of the Post-
office; and it never came before the ear of the House of
Commons at all.—(Hear, hear.) That course was fre-
quently objected to by the Hon. 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 sem taken out of the
revenue, that sum should be placed in the eAimates and
visotaed fairin
et
Ihaei n
andus e. Sir, as amatter
different
Governmentsvoured to comply with the request. But what do we see
of
h a v have principle, e[idea-
thst
as the consequence? No sooner is it done than the
Right Hon. Geutlensanat: e Member for Manchester gets
up and says there is an enormous increase in our expen•
diture.—(ileac, 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.
jeot 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
altogeter 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
oernmerce and communication with other countries.
These various sums reduce the whole amount of increase
in our military establishments in 1619, 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 bee had in-
created 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 irt the field, or in ex-
hibiting temper and good ,conduct it home, they have
preferred ail that eneegy and good conduct which have
always distinguished Vattn.—(Cheers.) But the whole
amount of increase since 1835, on account of the rainy,
has Lean only 111,0001.; and that amount, considering, the
increase in, the empire, and the situations in which hints
b"en placed, is asz.uredly no extritrigant or extraordie
nary increase. With regard to anotheit Of the 'gums
with respect to which it is rt3tqd that an increase has
occurred, and which has taken place, it is contended, on
alcount of the aristocracy, and to ficilitate private pa-
teenage. 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 5/. per cent. in
these Tensions, 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 50/. a year. But the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Manchester also wishes to know why
there is not a diminntion 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
we pass to the navy, we certainly see agreat increase
in the expenditure on aceouut of it. But that,
again, is a subject requiring very full consideration when
it comes before us. lf, however, the Hon. Member for
the West Riding has any rational reduction to propose
in these estimates, let him Propose them at the proper
time.—(Hear, hear.) I, Sir, do not mean to find any
fault, although the Right Ilun. Gentleman the Member
fur Manchester seemed to think that we should, with the
estimates of 1835. I votel for those estimates when out
of office. Some of them I concurred in moving whoa I
was in office, and I sea no reason to fled fault with thetu
in the circumstances of that year. But this I know,
Sir, that after these 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 Chancellor of the Exchequer,
then Secretary to the Admiralty, showed the increase
self on the ground that the Government had not suffi-
cientlywhich was tfterwarde made,
increased the navy or made sufficient provision
he was able to defend }dea-
fer that noble branch of the service for the defence of the
country. If that was the case, Sir,
succes-
sive Governments have been so much to blame for in-
creasing the naval expenditure of the country. Again, what-
may ever advantage this country Ido not think y
derive by means of
steam must be participated in by other countries; and
it is absolutely necessary that WC should hale a steam
navy to cope with a force of the same kind which an
enemy might bring against us.---(Rear, bear.) I think
it impossible that the steam navy could be set on foot
without some errors in the commencement of so new an
enterprise. Ido 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.
have made a considerable increase; but we stated at the
time the reasons of that increase; we stated that the
artillery and engineering forces required
longer ap-
prenticeship to science than the cavalry and infantry,
and that it was desirable that a force which could not be
so easil v made perfect should not' be allowed to fall 'too
low. I believe that principle is a sound one. It is one
which has been confirrie I in this House, nod I do not
think that any person whose' opinion on the 'subject is'
worth listening to would recommend a reduction in these
friend Lion g a greateru ckland
numbergn a n a
which rd A
departments. With regard, however, to one part of our
naval expenditure, there has been a practice which pre-
veiled for many years, nd
Right
Ron. Friend last year carried into complete effect, by
hav
by the Rouse of Commons. Now, before I turn to the
civil expenditure, I will jest look
abe au p
oo fr m ssee' hfn borne than is voted
ai
rc my late lamented
y
at the proposal of the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Cub-
den), as he stated it to the House. He 'proposed that
5,800,000/. should be reduced from the military esti-
mates, and 600,0004 from the civil estimates.—(flear.)
That was the,result, no doubt, of very great deliberation
on his part, and he of course mast have considered in
what manner these estimates were to be reduced, and
how the service of the country could bo 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 grudge you the means of defence fur the
country." ltutit so happens that those estimates are divided
into effective and non-affective services, and with regard
to
"a great portion of them, namely, almost the whole of
the non effective, you ate 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,
credit, can touch the sums voted to these men. But
these heads amount in the present year to no less
than 3,784,000/., and' the sums voted for the effective
service amount to no more than 10,518;0001.; 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. ~iember for Warwickshire (Mr.
Spooner) means to do.' Unless ho is bound'. to nothing
more than a general resolution--unless he bai a plan of
his own, he is bound to reduce to such 'an t'xteut 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 to propose to have
reduced?—because without some such reductions as