Star.
London, England, 1830-02-23 00:00:00

;wive as much as the estimate before the commencement of the
French war.
Mr. MABERLY advised his hon. friend not to preas his amend.
:nent to a division, as his so doing would be, as his last division
too clearly showed, but a wasting of the time of the house.
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY saw no reason why the quarter-
master-general's department should be kept up at its present high
rate. What was the necessity of keeping a quartermaster.general
at Plymouth and another at Portsmouth ?
Sir H. HARDINGE begged leave to remind hon. members, that
the staff estimates had been reduced 27,0001. within the last two
years, though it might be inferred from the tendency of the hon.
member for Aberdeen's observations, that the contrary was the fact.
The hon. member was in error in stating that no reduction had
taken place in the staff department in Ireland, for the present esti.
mate contained provision for one adjutant-general, one assistant.
adjutant.general, and one brigade. major less than that of last year.
He was also in error as to the pay of the adjutant-general, which
was in fact more than 1,0004 per annum less than in 1815. The
hon. member for Staffordshire (Sir J. iVrottesley) was also in error
with respect to the quartermaster-general's department, for, with
the exception of one officer, it stood at present on the footing of the
establishment in 1792.
Colonel DAVIES wished to known what grounds it was pre-
tended to justify the payment of from six to ten Inspectors of mill.
tia in the lonian Isles, as has been the case for the last fifteen years,
though, as the right hen. gentleman very well knew, there was no
militia of any kind in the island.
Sir J. MURRAY said that these inspectors were not paid as in-
spectors, but as residents.
Colonel DAVIES replied that they were paid as residents as well
as inspectors. The expense of the military establishments called for
;t minute inquiry—the rather as those colonies did not belong to us,
and were a great burden annually to the country.
Sir G. MURRAY said that every reduction had been effected
which was compatible with our existing relations with those islands,
and with the Mediterranean generally. In fact, the estimate was
not less than 3,2651. less than that of last year for those islands
alone, and they contributed in some degree to the expense of their
own military establishments. slalta, in the same way, contributed
to the minim), chest not less than 10,0001. per annum. The hon.
member for Aberdeen was in error in supposing that no reduction
had been made in the staff of the colonies, fur that of Sierra Leone
had been lessened 2,9ool.—that of the Cape, 4,0001--Ceylon,
2,4ooL—Trinidad,SCl4L —Mauritius, SOUL—Newfoundland, 1,2001.
---and several others to the amount of 1.8221. The Canada estimate
was not reduced, It being found necessary to maintain a force to pro-
tect it against the consequences of domestic oppression.
Colonel DAV lES was of opinion that the Cape of Good Hope
had been always a source of too great an expense, since that colony
came into the possession of England.
/11JME could not admit, with the right hon. Secretary for
the Colonies, that reductions had been made in the military esta-
blishments of the colonies; for though an item here and there might
have been reduced, another was sure to be added, and the round sum
in the estimates was the same. He wished to know how the right
hon. gentleman could justify the enormous increase that had taken
place in the salary of the commander-in-chief within the last forty
years. In Lord Amherst's time, the salary was but 8001. per ann.
to the Duke of York's it had increased, by degrees, so as to amount
to its present charge of 15,0001. per annum.
Sir H. lIA RDINGE denied that the reductions had fallen ex-
clusivtly or peculiarly on the medical department, and said that the
pay of tha commander-in-chief of the forces was the same now as
it was in 1792.