moved the second reading of the Fishguard Harbour Bill. As it was quite a new proceeding for a person in his situation to bring in a private Bill at the expense of the Government, he would state the grounds on which he, acting on behalf of the trade of the country, and on behalf of the Government, had introduced this measure. With the circumstances relating to Fishguard Harbour the House was already acquainted. A Bill for the improvement of the harbour of Fishguard had passed the Legislature last Session. Late in the autumn his attention had been called to its provisions by the shipowners of the country, and certainly a more extraordinary Bill he had never read. There was a clause in the Bill by which the limits of the harbour were pointed out, and those limits were described to be certain points on the coast of Wales on the one hand, and the Irish coast, extending to the port of Wexford on the other. By one of the schedules annexed to the Act it was provided that every foreign vessel passing within those limits should pay a toll of 3d. per ton, and every British vessel 2d.; so that it was clear, that every vessel passing up the Irish Channel would be subject to this tax. There was another schedule to the Act, which subjected all goods, of whatever description, landed within the limits of the harbour, to the payment of a certain harbour duty; and he was informed that under the operation of this part of the Act all goods which were landed on any part of the Welsh coast, or on any part of the Irish coast within the limits assigned to the harbour by the Act, even within the port of Wexford itself, would have to pay a duty. He must remark, that no blame could attach to the Government for permitting such a Bill as this to pass, as Government had no opportunity of examining all the details of private Bills. In justice, however, to the promoters of that measure, he must repeat their statement, that early in the Session a copy of the Bill was forwarded to the Admiralty, another to the Custom-house, and another to the Trinity-house. They stated also that the Admiralty had made an amendment in one of the clauses, and the Trinity-house two amendments in the Bill. But he would observe that the Admiralty made amendments in bills solely with a reference to their own jurisdiction, the Trinity-house solely with reference to lights, and the Custom-house to the question of duties. No copy of the Bill had, however, been sent to the department over which he presided, although that department was most affected by its operation, and although, if the attention of that department had been particularly called to the Bill, it would at once have taken it into consideration. But even if a copy of the Bill had been sent to his department, it would not alter the case, and he was surprised that the parties, knowing as they must have known the objections entertained by the House against a passing-toll—knowing also that he had declared that the Government would never sanction such a charge—he was surprised, he repeated, that the Gentlemen who had the conduct of the Bill had not thought it right to call his attention or the attention of the Government to it. He considered their conduct the more strange, as two of the directors of the company were Members of Parliament. He owned, therefore, that he did not think that the case was one in which the House was called upon to exercise any peculiar forbearance, and he had, in consequence, brought in the present Bill to repeal the clause relating to these tolls simply and entirely. If the parties chose to prosecute their Bill, and make it appear to a Committee that they ought to have a right to levy some toll, let them do so, but he thought that in the meanwhile it was only right to save the trade of the country from the heaven burden to which it would be subjected if the clause to which he objected were allowed to remain law. One word as to the allegation that the company having incurred a great expenditure, ought to be protected. The Bill received the Royal assent on the 15th of July last, and on the 7th of September following an advertisement appeared, stating that the arrangements of the company under the Act of Parliament were now completed, and calling on the shareholders for the first instalment of 1l. per share. This warranted him in saying that the company could not have incurred any great expense. Upon the grounds he had stated, therefore, he now moved the second reading of the Fishguard Harbour Bill.

considered that it would not be fair to the parties who had embarked their capital in this undertaking to repeal this clause, and he therefore moved that the Bill be read that day six months.

, in seconding the amendment, observed, that it would be a most extraordinary course to pass an Act one Session and repeal it the next. A considerable sum of money, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman had said, had been invested by the Company on the faith of this Act of Parliament, and it would be most unjust to take away their property by means of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had now introduced. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that parties interested in private bills were bound to submit a copy to the consideration of his department. He, on the contrary, would say, that right hon. Gentlemen who held office, and as he presumed received compensation for their labours in the public service ought to look into those Bills themselves. In former times and under former Governments, a law officer of the Crown, who was called the Attorney-General's devil, inspected all Bills that passed through the House. [Mr. P. Thomson: All public Bills—not private Bills.] Well, but surely this had the effect of a public Bill, and therefore ought to have been examined by the Government. He would ask the House, admitting that a toll was levied, whether there were no advantages gained in return? Was not this a great harbour of refuge, and ought not the shipping of the country to pay for protection afforded to them at a great outlay? He need not press this point further, and he should only say, that he cordially supported the amendment.

said, that if the Bill which passed last Session were now under discussion, he should be as much opposed to a passing-toll as any Member in the House. He thought, however, that the course which had been taken was somewhat unprecedented. For the first time in his life he found himself opposed to a Cabinet Minister, backed by the whole weight and influence of the Government, fighting on a private Bill. The Bill which received the sanction of the Legislature last Session was one which passed through all the ordinary forms by which their proceedings were guarded, and yet, after creating a corporate body, and endowing them with all the rights and privileges of a corporation, the House was now called upon to rescind the contract to which they had set their seal, and to revoke the authority which had been delegated to them by Parliament. Every proper notice had been given by the parties to the public departments, and, independent of the alterations made by the Admiralty and the Trinity House, it was evident that the Treasury had made an admendment in the Bill, as there was a clause by which a power was given to the Commissioners of the Treasury to reduce the passing-toll with reference to foreign ships, and an agent of the Commissioners was authorised to see that the work was properly executed. He was informed also that the Bill was sent also to the Board of Trade, and that a copy of the Bill was now in that House, with annotations marked upon it which had been made by the Board of Trade. The Bill was sent up to the other House in the month of May; and having been carefully examined there, it received several amendments, which rendered it necessary that it should be brought down to the House of Commons again. It was accordingly brought down in July. The Bill, he would observe, had, during the course of last Session, received the sanction and support of the Irish Members of that House, Fishguard being only at a distance of forty-five miles from the Irish coast, and in the preamble of the Bill it was declared to be a "harbour of great importance, and well adapted for a harbour of refuge." The importance of the undertaking being thus established, he called on the House to consider the gross injustice of this procedure. The directors had a local interest in the progress of the work—an interest much greater than the amount of their instalments; and a majority of these directors were empowered by law to compel all the remaining subscribers to pay up the amount of their subscriptions, the generality of those subscribers being, he would observe, the great capitalists of London. And, although this compulsory power on the part of the directors remain untouched, the House was proceeding, by Act of Parliament, to withdraw from the subscribers all possible chance of remuneration. A more gross act of injustice he had never heard of. He was authorised to state, on the part of a number of subscribers, that if the Bill were withdrawn for the present, they were quite ready to enter into an amicable consideration of this question—to modify, if so required, to the utmost extent that was reasonable, the Bill of last Session, to retrench from it all that was extravagant in its provisions, and subject the whole matter to a sufficient control on the part of Government. The only thing which the subscribers desired was, that they might be secured a fair and moderate amount of remuneration for the amount of capital employed by them in this undertaking. For his part, he would say, that he had never heard of anything more unjust than the absolute and unconditional repeal of the passing-toll clause, by which the subscribers would be deprived of all chance of remuneration.

hoped the House would not adopt the recommendation of the right hon. Baronet. He had said that great injustice would be done to those capitalists who had embarked their money in this undertaking. In looking into the Bill he found that a second call could not be made in less than six months after the preceding one; consequently, had all the company obeyed the call, but 1l. per share could have been subscribed, and the probability was, after the notice given by the President of the Board of Trade, that the powers given to this corporation by the Act of last Session were inexpedient and unjust, that these parties would not have proceeded to expend the money already paid. The Bill had passed the House through inadvertence; because, after two Bills of a similar nature relating to Scarborough and Bridlington had been rejected, could it be supposed that if the attention of the House had been directed to this Bill it would have been passed? It had been stated by the hon. Member for Carnarvon that Fishguard was a harbour. That he denied, for it was only a roadstead; and if the House permitted this Bill to remain on the statute-book it would form a precedent for every insignificant fishing town in the principality of Wales establishing a harbour, and on this principle, that the parties should not be accountable as to the mode in which the monies collected should be expended. There was no provision for the reduction of tolls. The question for the consideration of the House was whether the parties had made out a case to justify the House in allowing them to tax every ship passing up St. George's Channel, and to declare that the port of Wexford formed part and parcel of Fishguard harbour He admitted that the precedent might be inconvenient, but it was quite impossible for them to allow such an Act to remain on the statute book. As an individual representing a large shipping community he felt himself much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for coming forward with the present measure.

observed, that the principle was against passing-tolls, and therefore, he would support the Bill. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman was fully justified in bringing it forward, as the Bill was not a private one, but one of a public nature, which materially affected the interests of a large class of her Majesty's subjects.

observed, that the only argument of the right hon. Baronet (the Member for Pembroke) against the Bill was, that it was unprecedented. Now he (Mr. Hinde) would instance the case of the Glasgow Lottery Bill, by which extravagant powers were conferred upon a company, and which was subsequently repealed. That would show, that the present course was not without precedent.

considered the Act that had passed during the last session so atrocious that the House ought not to hesitate a moment to pass the right hon. Gentleman's Bill for the repeal of the passing-toll clause.

could assure the right hon. Baronet opposite that he had been misled with respect to the statement made at a meeting of Irish Members relative to the Bill. There had been a meeting with respect to a railroad to join the harbour, at which there had been mention made of the harbour, but if they had known that tolls were to be inflicted upon ships they would have risen in a moment, and thrown overboard railroad, harbour, and all.

would give the Bill his warmest support. It was impossible that Parliament knowingly could give its sanction to a Bill imposing such a heavy tax upon the shipping interests without there being the slightest prospect of any benefit to be derived by that interest from the harbour in question. He thought, however, that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the amount of money which had been expended upon the faith of the clause in question, in order to that being repaid out of the public funds.

cordially supported the Bill. He considered the former Bill, which this was intended to repeal, as one of the most unjust and extravagant jobs which had ever come before the House, and he took blame to himself for not being aware of the unjust provisions of the Bill when it was before the House, and called hon. Members' attention to it.

wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman something more of the real merits of the case. He should like to know whether the Government would give its sanction to a case of compensation to those parties being brought before the House, because they had advanced sums of money on the faith of that Act of Parliament being passed? Upon the answer which he might receive would depend his vote, because he thought justice ought to be done to those parties.

did not think, that the parties to the Bill had done their duty when they neglected to send a copy of the Bill to the Board of Trade. He was willing, however, to admit, that there appeared to be some degree of hardship in the case, and if there was any question of compensation, that might be discussed in the Committee, but he thought it would be very difficult to make out a case which would warrant the House to grant money.

moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

, in bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice relative to the appointment of Mr. Primrose as an amendment to the motion of the noble Lord, said, it appeared that a portion of the revenues of the Post-Office were applied to the payment of its officers, and that the House knew nothing of the appointments and salaries of these persons. The House would be surprised to hear that there was deducted from the revenue not less than 7,000,000l. a-year, of which no account was rendered to the House, and which, in fact, never was paid into the Exchequer. He need scarcely observe, that as well with respect to the Post-Office as to other departments of the public service, it was most important that all persons engaged in them should entertain a well-founded expectation of rising according to merit and seniority—that all public officers should be secured the advantages naturally and regularly arising from promotion within that establishment, as an encouragement to attention, and a recompense for faithful services. From the returns that morning placed in the hands of Members, it appeared that the appointment of Mr. Primrose took place under the authority of the Postmaster-General. Now, he conceived, that this course was exceedingly objectionable, and a gross violation of the regulations instituted by the Postmaster-General for the management of that establishment. According to the return to which he had just been calling the attention of the House, it appeared that the first clerk in the Edinburgh Post-office had been twenty-six years in the public service, and the second clerk had been fifteen years and a half—the third clerk had a salary of only 70l. a-year. Mr. Primrose had been appointed to the office of cashier, with a salary of 400l. a-year, without his having ever served a year in the establishment. He found that his clerk, Mr. George Young, who had served seven years, had only 120l.per annum; and Mr. Mason, the accountant, after thirty years' service, had only 200l. per annum. Certain regulations had been adopted by the Government in 1831 for the improvement of this department, and the report on the subject was signed by his Grace the Duke of Richmond, then Postmaster-General. That report established what was thought to be a fixed scale of promotion as to the officers of the establishment. But it stated, that the principal feature in the new establishment was the appointment of an office for the receipt of the public money, which had become necessary in consequence of the abolition of the office of Deputy Postmaster-General, who was also cashier; the salary was to be 400l. a-year, and he was to be allowed an assistant, with a salary sufficient to secure the services of a respectable person. It was due to his Grace the Duke of Richmond to say, that he steadily adhered to the regulations which he had laid down. In another part of his evidence, taken on the first of March, the noble Duke stated, that he had made arrangements by which the office of deputy in the country, when it became vacant, should not be filled out of the office; but that those persons only should be appointed to it who had been a long time in the department, or who were entitled to compensation. The object of this arrangement was to insure, not only economy in the public expenditure, but increased efficiency in the department. The noble Duke stated in his evidence, and no doubt very truly, that he had frequently refused friends and relatives of his own, who made application to him for situations as they became vacant in the Post-office, always strictly adhering to the rule which he had laid down, that no one should be introduced to the service of the Post-Office, otherwise than in the junior departments. On these grounds, then, he did not scruple to arraign the conduct of the present Postmaster-General, in reference to the appointment of Mr. Primrose, as a gross violation of the rules laid down for his guidance by his predecessor. With respect to the office of accountant-general, it appeared that the person who held that office, Mr. Young, had been compelled to retire from ill health, and that his nephew, Mr. G. Young, had performed the entire duty of the office for three years. He contended, that to appoint a person like Mr. Primrose, who had never been in the Post-office, or in fact in any public office over the head of the individual who had acted as deputy for such a length of time was a violation of the regulations of the Post-office, and rendered the situation of clerk uncertain as to promotion, which according to the Duke of Richmond', regulations, would have gone according to seniority. He objected to the conduct of Lord Lichfield, because it was extremely improper in him to appoint so near a relative, and the second son of at Earl, to so paltry a situation, where he superseded so many clerks, who had for many years served their country with honour and fidelity. He objected likewise to the appointment, because in no previous instance had a stranger been appointed to the office of cashier. The Duke of Richmond, when he recommended, that the salary should be fixed at a high amount, did by no means intend that it should form a source of patronage for the benefit of the junior members of noble families, but that it should be looked up to by the humble officer, as a reward for long and laborious services. There were no less than seven or eight meritorious public servants in the department, any one of whom it would have been but justice to have appointed to this office, in preference to Mr. Primrose. Upon the grounds he had stated, on the evidence of the Duke of Richmond, and the circumstances connected with the Edinburgh Post-office, he called upon the House to affirm the resolution with which he should conclude—"That the appointment of the hon. Mr. Primrose to the office of Cashier and Receiver-General of the Post-Office Revenues in Scotland, being a person no previously employed in the Post-Office department, is contrary to the regulations of the Post-Office, as established by the Duke of Richmond, the Postmaster-General, in 1831, injurious to the public service, and prejudicial to the interests o the established clerks and officers in the Post-Office department."

rejoiced, that this matter had at length been brought forward, and in such a manner by the hon. Gentleman who had borne such favourable testimony to the admirable administration of the Post-Office under his noble Friend, the Duke of Richmond. The hon. Gentleman was entirely under misconception with respect to the main facts on which he rested his argument. It was admitted the office to which Mr. Primrose had been appointed was no sinecure. Security was required to the extent of 5,000l., and the cashier was obliged to be ill attendance from ten o'clock until three or four. The office was created under a letter written by the Duke of Richmond to the Treasury in 1831, on the abolition of another office—the Deputy Postmaster-General of Scotland—almost a sinecure of 800l. a-year. The office of cashier could not be dispensed with; it was then made efficient for the public service. There was the authority of the Duke of Richmond, therefore, both for the creation of the office itself and for the amount of salary paid. The hon. Gentleman had raised no objection to the appointment of Mr. Primrose on the score of propriety or competency, but rested his case solely on the Duke of Richmond's regulation, which had been violated, and on the prejudice which he thought would result to the interests of the established clerks and officers in the Post-office. But no direct regulation had ever been entered into by the Duke of Richmond on this subject his intentions, however, were to be collected from the evidence which the hon. Gentleman had read, and more especially from the acts of the noble Duke himself. But the evidence cited by the hon. Member was wholly inapplicable to the present case; indeed, the conduct of the noble Duke in an analogous appointment distinctly showed, that evidence would not bear out the argument of his hon. Friend. While the Duke of Richmond was at the Post-office there were several vacancies in the offices to which the evidence referred, and to which deserving clerks were to be appointed. The offices of Bath, Bristol, Norwich, Warrington, and Nottingham, were filled up in that way. Even in the town of Brighton, when a vacancy had occurred, and when it might have been expected he would have followed another line, so far from making an appointment in favour of his own friends, the noble Duke appointed on the principle laid down in his evidence. No man ever showed more self-denial in the exercise of his patronage than the Duke of Richmond; his sole object, in all cases, was to select individuals from the department who were most deserving of reward and best calculated for the duty. But that rule did not apply to this appointment; and he would show by the Duke of Richmond's own conduct in an analogous case that the rule was not intended to apply. There were three situations in the United Kingdom—in England the Receiver-General; in Ireland the Receiver-General; and in Scotland the Cashier; the holders of which were to act as a check on the department. In 1831 a vacancy occurred in the office of Receiver-General in Ireland, and if the principle contained in the evidence of the noble Duke had applied to such a case, it must have been filled up by the clerk next in seniority. But it was not filled up from the department, because it was necessary to have a check officer; and upon the suggestion of Lord Althorp, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at the recommendation of the Irish Government of Lord Anglesey, Mr. Worthington, a complete stranger to the office, was appointed. Such was the construction which the noble Duke himself had put upon his evidence—strictly adhering to his regulation in all cases to which it was applicable, but departing from it where check officers were to be appointed. In like manner, when the office of Receiver-General in England had become vacant, it was not filled up by promotion from the Post-office, but by the appointment of a Mr. Young, wholly unconnected with the Post-office. In the present instance Lord Lichfield, finding the office had been declined by Mr. Mason, the next in succession, had appointed Mr. Primrose. Of the other officers in the establishment one had been so long in the public office that he was applying for a superannuation, and another received 500l. a-year, to whom, therefore, it would have been preposterous to have offered such an appointment. It was not in all cases that the Government attended to the principle of promotion; sometimes it was obliged to adopt the principle of selection. He showed that this had been the case by the selection of Colonel Stuart in the War-office, of Mr. Backhouse in the Foreign-office, of Mr. Stephen in the Colonial-offices, and of other gentlemen in the Treasury and in the Excise. In all these departments, the officers, who had to exercise a check over the accounts, were not taken from the ordinary clerks belonging to the offices, but were selected from persons unconnected with them, distinguished for their talent, integrity, and high character. The present arrangement was not only economical, but also the most convenient for the public service, and that it was therefore impossible he thought for the House to take the step recommended by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He likewise hoped that he had satisfied the hon. Member that his noble Friend, Lord Lichfield, had not grasped, as he was pleased to call it, at this piece of patronage. With respect to different systems of conveying remittances, all he could say was, that the subject had undergone inquiry, and the result was, that Lord Lichfield found any alteration would cost more than the present system, and, besides that, no other plan would be so convenient or practicable. On the whole, he trusted that the House would go with him in thinking that there were some offices of which the possession should not be obtained by seniority; for if all offices were to be so obtained, the Crown would be deprived of the opportunity of disposing of its patronage for the public advantage.

dissented from almost all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and could not assent to much of what his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had stated. He must say, he thought the office in question had not been properly bestowed. At the time the Duke of Richmond gave the evidence alluded to, he had but recently entered office, and, therefore, could not have a sufficient knowledge of the business of the department over which he presided. He, therefore, laid very little stress on the testimony which the noble Duke gave. It could not he denied that the office of Postmaster General was a job, and for his own part he did not hesitate to say, that this appointment of cashier was a still greater job. If such an office ought to exist, were there not plenty of men in the department not only fully equal to the performance of the duty, but as well deserving of the situation as Mr. Primrose. It was, he thought, clear, that the Duke of Richmond meant to act on the principle of promoting well deserving officers to the vacancies as they occurred in the department, and any one who read his evidence attentively could arrive at no other conclusion. There was at present an accountant in the Post-office in Scotland. That was a check officer, and therefore if the appointment were to be made at all he was the party to whom it should have been given. He asserted that if the Postmaster-General had discharged his duty properly he would have looked through the department generally, whether in England, Ireland, or Scotland, to see if he could not find some fit and proper person for the office, rather than nominate a stranger to it. With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the economy of remitting money under the present system, what was it that the right hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe? Why, neither more nor less than that it was cheaper to forward remittances by a circuitous than a direct route. Both the Excise and the Customs forwarded their remittances direct to London, and for his part he could see no good reason why their example should not be followed in the Post-office. When the office of cashier was first created, the Duke of Richmond had but just been inducted into office. It had been said, that these appointments were never made without consultation with the Treasury; but if that were so, how did it happen that neither the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor any other Minister connected with the Treasury was acquainted with this appointment? Mr. Young had filled the office at a salary of 400l. and the party who had done the duty since his illness received only 120l.; and yet, when the country were crying aloud for a reduced rate of postage, an increase in the expenditure of 400l. was made. Now was this commonly fair? This was an appointment which was to continue for life, and the gentleman who had been appointed was at present only twenty-four years of age. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case in the course of a few years this office should be found to be of no use, the individual holding it would on the office being abolished have a compensation allowance? He had been informed that this office had been filled by deputy for a considerable time, with a view to keep the appointment open for this individual, and, notwithstanding all the reliance that had been placed on the authority of the Duke of Richmond, even when that noble Duke was in office he appointed his own brother (Lord Sussex Lennox) to be Postmaster-general of Jamaica. He would support the motion.

said, in reply to the question of the hon. Mem- ber for Greenock, that if the office was abolished, this gentleman would not be entitled to compensation. He would not be entitled to a retiring allowance until he had been for at least ten years in the service.

said, that if the hon. Member for Kilkenny divided the House, he should feel bound to support his motion. The hon. Member had said, that he would prefer having the management of the Post-office placed in Commission, but to that he (Colonel Sibthorp) was opposed, because he agreed in the opinion that a Commission would only open the door to an increase of jobbing. The right hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House on the part of the Government had given no satisfactory explanation. Their whole system was one of jobbing, and they applied the patronage of the Crown with a view to the increase of their own power. The clerkship of the Ordnance had been kept open, waiting for the highest bidder; waiting for whoever would give the most service in return. The whole system was one which any man ought to be ashamed to defend. He hoped the hon. Member would take the sense of the House upon the present motion.

was afraid that those who brought forward this motion were as much influenced by personal as by political feelings. The hon. Member for Kilkenny was guilty of many mistakes with respect to this appointment. He was quite mistaken in stating the place to be a sinecure; but though the hon. Member in one part of his speech did state it to be a sinecure, in another, he gave a description of the duties to be performed. The hon. Member for Greenock had made a statement, to which he was surprised how he could have given credit, namely, that this situation had been filled by a deputy to keep it open for its present occupant. This was a statement too ridiculous to merit reflection and he was surprised how any one could be imposed on by it. However, he could say, that it was totally unfounded. Though this situation was described as of no importance, such was by no means the fact, and he would direct the attention of the House upon that point to what was stated in the report of the Commissioners of revenue inquiry, and which had already been referred to. The Duke of Richmond thought the situation so important that in 1834 he separated the duties, and made this a distinct office. He did not deny but that a junior officer in a public department might naturally look forward to promotion to higher offices, but it could not be disputed but that circumstances might often arise which would make it more beneficial to the service that this rule should not be adhered to. He claimed for the head of every department the right of appointing those individuals whom he thought to be most fit and best able to perform its duties. There were receivers-general appointed in England and in Ireland, and if either of those offices became vacant, the Postmaster-General would not be consulted as to the filling them up; for these offices would be filled up by the Government without the interference of the Postmaster-General. He thought that Lord Lichfield was perfectly justified in the appointment he had made. He had hitherto spoken of the principle of the appointment; he would have spoken of the individual appointed. But, with respect to this appointment, before it was made, Lord Lichfield offered the situation to Mr. Mole and to Mr. Mason, of the General Post-office. Mr. Mole would not accept it because he was in the receipt of 500l. salary, and because it was necessary that he should give security, to the amount of 5,000l. Mr. Mason refused it because he enjoyed a salary of 300l., and he did not think it worth while to go to the trouble of getting security to the amount required. There were only two others who had applied for the situation—one a postmaster, who certainly possessed considerable claims, and the other a junior clerk, who had been only appointed a year before, and whose ambition suggested to him that if he could get the appointment he might ultimately become one of the Commissioners for the management of the Post-office itself. Undoubtedly he thought that this was a situation which should be filled by a person for whose integrity the public had sufficient guarantee, and who was of some rank in life, and on whom dependence could be placed. He was surprised at the personal objection made to Mr. Primrose. He was a young man who had been bred up to the law, and who was likely to have a sufficient knowledge of business to enable him to fill the situation with advantage. In his mind, if anything could be said with respect to the payment of the situation, it was rather underpaid than overpaid. But if a different course had been pursued, and Mr. Mole or Mr. Mason appointed, there would still have been objections: they would hear it said that appointing this individual was keeping up the old official system, and that instead of promoting these old officials fresh matter ought to be infused. He thought neither with respect to the principle nor the individual was the appointment objectionable.

had come down to the House with no determination to take part in the discussion; but he could not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down in his censure of the hon. Member for Kilkenny for having brought forward his motion. The hon. Member for Stafford had said, that personal feeling was mixed up with this question. If it was his misfortune to be opposed to this appointment he supposed he should be accused of personal malignity. The noble Lord, the Postmaster-General, was an old friend of his, with whom be was intimately acquainted, and the noble Lord the father of the gentleman appointed to the situation in question was also a friend of his; but, notwithstanding, if a sense of duty obliged him to condemn the appointment, he would not shrink from doing so. He had come down to the House doubtful as to the question, thinking that there was something that required to be cleared up, and having listened to the discussion he found it his duty not to concur in the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, for he could not honestly affirm its statements. The resolution stated that the appointment had been made contrary to the regulations of the public service. Now he knew no such regulations which could have effect unless they received the sanction of the Crown. New appointments had been alluded to as having been made by his noble Friend, the Duke of Richmond. The first appointment was that of Receiver-general in Ireland, and the next that of Postmaster-general in Jamaica. Now, with respect to the first appointment, when a vacancy occurred the right to fill the vacancy was generally exercised by the Irish Government. With respect to the Post-office of Jamaica, the situation of Postmaster-General having become vacant, it was offered by the Duke of Richmond to four or five individuals, but those individuals not being able to procure the necessary security of 10,000l., the situation was given, with the consent of the Treasury, to the brother of the noble Duke, Lord Sussex Lennox, on his finding the necessary security. He was not about to pronounce any encomium on the Duke of Richmond, but he believed it would be admitted on all hands that his noble Friend had discharged the duties of his high office with fidelity, zeal, and honour, and with the utmost regard to the interests of the public service. With respect to the appointment in question he did not think it came within the rule laid down by the Duke of Richmond. Lord Althorp had said, that the first measure of the Duke of Richmond's was, when country post offices of sufficient value became vacant they should be given to retired officers of the Post-office, in lieu of superannuation allowances. However, that limitation was confined to country post offices. Motions, like the present, calculated to wound personal feeling, were not the best means of bringing under the notice of the house of Commons any violation of the proper dispensation of the patronage of the Crown. He felt, that the natural tendency of growing power was to augment itself wherever an opportunity offered. Let the question be brought forward in a general manner. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted somewhat boldly in referring to cases of a similar nature. If he mistook not, he believed it to be a fact that Mr. Hay had been compelled to retire from the Colonial-office upon a compensation allowance, in order to make way for Mr. Stephen, and that a vacancy was created at the Board of Trade to which Mr. Le Marchant was appointed. He thought the hon. Member for Kilkenny was usefully employed in applying his attention to subjects of this nature. And if, instead of attempting high flights upon questions of colonial policy, he would be content to skim along the mud of official proceedings he would, in calling the attention to such subjects, be usefully employed. Let the hon. Member for Kilkenny give the House an opportunity to ascertain how far her Majesty's Government had carried into effect the promise of Lord Althorp that the reign of patronage was at an end. If the hon. Member afforded that opportunity he trusted he would be able to show that there never was a Government in England which exercised the patronage of the Crown with a more direct and exclusive view to the augmentation of their own political power than the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

The right hon. Baronet had dealt so fairly with the general question that it was not his intention to trouble the House, but the right hon. Baronet could not sit down without an attack on those valued friends of his of whom he had spoken so kindly. To the attack which the right hon. Baronet had threatened he could only say, that whenever he brought the question before the House he would be ready to meet him, and to rest the defence of the Government either on their own conduct or on a comparison with the conduct of other Governments, whichever way the right hon. Baronet chose to take it. He hoped, however, the right hon. Baronet would be more accurate in his facts than he was with respect to the cases the right hon. Baronet had alluded to. With respect to Mr. Hay, that case had already been discussed in the House, and the right hon. Baronet appeared to forget that the superannuation granted was in the nature of a pension, granted by the Government which had preceded the Ministers in office. He thought the right hon. Baronet had been long enough in office to know, that a gentleman of the name of Lack had, at the termination of fifty years' service, applied for the retired allowance, and that Mr. Le Marchant had been appointed to succeed him.

said, that as he was responsible for the appointment alluded to, he begged leave to explain how it was that Mr. Le Marchant came to the Board of Trade. Mr. Stephens had received a salary of 500l. a year as counsel to the Board; and when Mr. Lack, after fifty years' service, applied for superannuation, it occurred to him (Mr. Thomson) that the salary received by Mr. Stephens might be saved by appointing a member of the legal profession Under-Secretary to the Board. It was for this reason that Mr. Le Marchant was appointed.

, in reply, begged to disclaim any motives of a personal nature, but he should certainly divide the House on his motion.

rose to move as an amendment for the reduction of the duty on Policies of Assurance. He hoped that he would not be opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the miserable pretext that the finances of the country would not bear any diminution of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman should have been the person to make this motion, but he (Colonel Sibthorp) was sorry to say, that Government had, on all occasions, shown a disposition to resist it. He was happy to say, that this was so little of a party question that he could confidently look for the support of Gentlemen opposite, as even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and the right hon. the Secretary for the Board of Trade, had presented petitions for the remission of the tax. Government had remitted a great many taxes not near so oppressive as the one now under discussion. On looking over the paper he found that the duty on rhubarb, on human hair, on anchovies, and French wines, on balsam of copaiba, and jalap had been reduced, although these were all articles of luxury, and deserved to be taxed. He also found a reduction in the duty on playing cards. To be sure these might be an article of necessity to many hon. Members, but while these taxes on mere luxuries were remitted by wholesale the tax on Policies of Assurance, one which affected a very large portion of the community, remained as high as at any period during the war. He thought it absurd that, while the premium on fire assurance was only 1s. 6d. per cent. the duty should be 3s.—a duty which deterred many, in spite of the frequent lamentable accidents, from insuring. The effect of the present high rate of duty was to transfer a great deal of the business to foreign offices—indeed he had heard a report, for the accuracy of which be could not vouch, that previous to the late fire in the Temple, the law gentlemen residing there had met for the purpose of considering whether it would be advisable to insure that building in a French-office. [The Attorney-General: No, no.] The report might be incorrect, but a great many buildings were insured in foreign offices; this would be prevented by a reduction of the duty, which reduction would not ultimately prove any loss to the revenue. There was a strong feeling amongst the public on the subject, and it was high time that the matter should be taken into consideration. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving as a resolution, that it is the opinion of the House that the duty now chargeable on all insurances against fire at the rate of 3s. per cent. on each policy, shall cease, and shall henceforth be at the rate of 1s. 6d. in lieu thereof on all such policies, being a reduction of one half of the former amount.

could not complain of the hon. and gallant Colonel's motion, nor of the manner in which it had been brought forward, but the hon. and gallant Colonel had himself anticipated the answer which he felt bound to give to the motion. He could not be expected to defend this tax or any other tax as being other than evils, although necessary evils. Undoubtedly with respect to the charge upon insurances, whether marine, fire, or life insurances, it was one which pressed heavily upon persons in all stations of life, but he was not quite sure that he entirely concurred with the hon. and gallant Colonel in thinking that the charge upon fire insurances was entitled to the very first consideration. He would state one single fact, which he hoped would be sufficient to induce the House to suspend its decision on this subject. The financial year was not yet at an end, and he had had no opportunity of laying before the House the condition of the finances of the country. In January last, however, a statement was published in the Gazette of the condition the finances were in at the last period of striking a balance. According to the balance-sheet published in January it appeared that, so far from having a surplus to dispose of, the country was in a state of deficiency. There was a deficiency of 655,000l. on the balance of the year. He could assure the gallant Colonel that if he chose to raise the question on a fitting occasion, he would show to the gallant Colonel and the country, speaking of mercantile men and men conversant with the working of the crisis like that from which we had just escaped, that no man would be bold enough to say, that any financial measure that had been done, or that had been omitted to be done, would have prevented that commercial crisis which, taking its rise in America, and acting on this country, had reacted on the general trade, and consequently on the revenues of this country. The hon. and gallant Colonel had asked him to try the proposed reduction as an experiment. He did not think, that he would be justified in trying an experiment, the result of which was very doubtful, at a time, when in point of fact, there was no surplus revenue to give away. If he had a surplus revenue he should be prepared to meet the hon. and gallant Colonel on this subject, but he must decline doing so unless the gallant Colonel accompanied his proposition with the information that he was prepared to substitute some other tax for the one he proposed to repeal. He did not think that the House or the country would say, that they were acting as reasonable or honest men if they parted with a considerable amount of revenue when there was a deficiency of income. He must also remind the House that this was an increasing and not a diminishing tax. For the three years preceding the present, the amount had been for the first 809,000l., for the second 844,000l. and for the year before the present 872,000l. It had, therefore, in a period of three years, increased by 63,000l. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would not entertain the proposition of the hon. and gallant Colonel, and would not take this opportunity of diminishing a tax which stood pledged for the maintenance of the public credit, and which was necessary in order to enable the Ministers to carry on the Government of the country.

entreated his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his motion, and not take the sense of the House; because, if he did so, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should feel himself under the disagreeable necessity of voting against the motion.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked him how he would supply the supposed deficiency that would arise if this reduction were effected. In answer to the challenge, he begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that he hoped shortly to submit to the House his motion for the reduction of official salaries; and he hoped further, that the saving thus effected, would supply the deficiency that would be caused if the present proposition were agreed to. He had discharged his duty, and he was determined to take the sense of the House.

was one of those who thought very highly of the merits of the motion of the hon. and gallant Colonel; but he hoped that the hon. and gallant Colonel would not press it to a division, the only effect of which, in the present state of the House, would be to damage the question in the eyes of the country. While he was on his legs, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, when he intended to bring forward his financial statement? He was desirous of having a distinct answer, because in the last Session the right hon. Gentleman had been repeatedly pressed on this subject, and was very unwilling to give any answer. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that when the proper time came he would give ample and satisfactory reasons for the delay that had occurred. He (Sir E. Knatchbull) was present when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, but he had vainly sought for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman promised to give for the delay that had taken place.

would confine himself to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, and would give it a distinct reply. The financial year would conclude on the 5th of April, and as soon as the year's accounts were made up, and put into the hands of Ministers, so as to make his statement intelligible, and this in all probability would be in the course of the month of April, he hoped to be prepared to make his financial statement.

said, that it was impossible to inquire into the subject before the House without being satisfied that many properties were uninsured in consequence of the high rate of duty. He was satisfied that if a reduction were made the revenue would not suffer, and millions would be covered with insurances which were now lost. Feeling this, he was anxious that this question should be fairly discussed, and not brought forward incidentally. Examples of former reductions might be brought forward to show that taxation had been reduced with great benefit to the people at large, and without injury to the revenue. He hoped the hon. and gallant Colonel would not press the matter to a division now, but when the proper time came to discuss this question, he would vote with the hon. and gallant Colonel, and support him by all the means in his power.

said, that under different circumstances, and at another period, he would have been happy to vote for the motion of the hon. and gallant Colonel, but if now pressed to a division he must vote against it.

said, that in rising to bring forward the army estimates for the current year, he thought he should best consult the convenience of the Committee by adverting as briefly as the case would admit of, to those points in which they differed from those of last year. He would first call the attention of the Committee to the vote respecting the number of men which it was proposed to grant. The Committee would perceive in this vote an apparent increase of 8,000 men, but he need not inform those Gentlemen who had paid attention to this subject that this increase was only apparent and not real, the actual increase being much less than the figures implied. It had been the practice for some years past to keep up all the regiments in the estimates to the full extent of their establishments, though in actual practice they kept a certain number of men short. For the last two or three years this actual reduction had been made to the extent of eight men in each company of infantry, and five men in each troop of cavalry. It was not proposed that the whole of these reductions should for the present be supplied; all that had hitherto been directed was, that the number of the cavalry should be completed, which would cause an actual increase of 580 men as compared with the estimates of last year; and that all the infantry regiments likewise which furnished the military force in the North American provinces, or which were ordered out on that station, should be recruited up to the full complement of their respective establishments. In other words they had deducted a smaller number of non-effective men this year than on previous occasions; so that whereas the deductions last year were equivalent to a diminution of expenditure to the extent of 181,000l., at the present year they were only to the extent of 110,000l., thereby giving an actual increase of 71,000l. There was also an increase of rather more than 9,000l. on account of officers who had been sent out to Canada on the first breaking out of the revolt, in order to assist the volunteer corps of those provinces. These additions had in part been met in the present estimates by a saving in respect to 2,500l. on account of the staff corps, which had been transferred from the army to the ordnance estimates, in accordance with an Act of Parliament passed last year. The result of this deduction was, that the net regimental charges of the present year showed an increased expenditure of 77,322l. over that of last year. Of this sum 48,000l. was on account of provisions, forage, &c. This was only the third year in which this charge had been included in the army estimates; they were formerly voted in what was termed the army extra-ordinaries, but in 1835 an arrangement was made by which these charges should be included in the regular estimates of the army. The expenses of the staff would likewise incur an increase, notwithstanding the apparent diminution by reason of the transfer of 2,500l. from the army to the ordnance estimates. This increase in the expenditure of the staff was caused in a great measure by the increased demands of our colonial service, particularly Canada, where two new major-generals had been added, and in New South Wales, where a major-general had been appointed, in order to relieve the governor from his military duties, which, in connexion with his civil functions, were found to be too onerous a charge in that important and extensive colony. On the other hand, there was a diminution in the yeomanry corps to the extent of 25,127l. The civil department and the military asylum were subject to no change. The total increase in the estimates for the effective service, after deducting an increased charge of 5,500l. defrayed by the East India Company, was 144,996l., which sum, however, was further reduced by an increase of 31,364l. of appropriations in aid—being an actual increase to be voted of 113,632l. There would be, however, a reduction in the estimates for the non-effective service, of 10,000l. of the army, pay of general officers, 20,000l. of half-pay and military allowance, 15,000l. on account of pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham, and other items, amounting in the whole to 65,599l, which would leave a total increase of amount to be provided on account of these estimates, as compared with those of last year, of 48,833l. There was also the supplemental estimate voted for some years for auxiliary forces at the Cape of Good Hope for the repression of the Caffres, which was this year reduced by 30,000l., being only 10,000l.; and he had every reason to hope that by next year this estimate might altogether be included in the regular amount. This reduction of 30,000l. however, again re- duced the increase on these estimates to 18,000l. only. At the same time, however, whilst he stated these facts, he felt it to be his duty to caution the House that although it had been found possible by the present arrangement to send a very considerable force to North America without interfering with the regulations relative to the reliefs of forces on foreign stations, yet, if this increased force had to be kept up for any lengthened period, this could not be accomplished without a very much larger increase in the military establishments of the country. As the case stood at present, he believed, that the existing force was perfectly adequate to the necessities of the public service; and he hoped before long to be able again to bring clown the number of troops in the Canadas. If, however, he should be disappointed in this expectation, there would he no course left to him but to appeal to the liberality of the House for an increased vote in order to afford those reliefs to the troops on foreign stations which they were so fairly entitled to expect. It was proper that he should state, also, that in these estimates no allowance had been made for the (he feared it would be found) large increase which had been incurred in the expenses of the service in Canada in putting down the revolt in that province. Although the Government had as yet received no data as to these expenses, or any calculations of what the circumstances required, he had no doubt that, from the number of volunteers who were taken into pay on that occasion, a very considerable further demand would be required. Whenever the necessary information on this subject was received from the colonial authorities, he should be prepared to lay a supplemental vote before the House, as had been the case in respect to auxiliary troops at the Cape of Good Hope. Having stated the e few particulars, the noble Lord concluded by stating that he should not trouble the House with further observations, but move the first resolution for raising 89,305 men for the services of her Majesty's land forces.

had expected, after what had been stated on a former occasion by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, that these estimates would have exhibited a very considerable reduction from those of last year. The noble Lord last year stated that the state of Ireland was such that he expected that two or three regiments might be recalled without any inconvenience or danger to the public. If such had been the case, what had been done with these regiments? where were they gone? It was quite evident that there was no other part of the world to which they could have gone but to Canada; and yet the noble Lord, the Secretary at War had stated the particulars of the number of troops which he proposed sending thither. This increase of troops was made by the Government with the greatest alacrity, although they proclaimed that the insurrection of the Canadas was of such a very trifling nature that, at the time they were sending over resolutions enough to drive the people to madness, there was no occasion to accompany them with a single additional troop. If that was the case at the outbreak of the revolt, what was the case now? The provinces were reported to be perfectly quiet. Then where was now the occasion for a reinforcement of troops? The present vote was very similar to that of last year, but the House would recollect, that, at the time, he warned the noble Lord that the amount was much heavier than was necessary; and he still thought that the noble Lord had not made out his case for the amount of the estimate of last year, much less for the increase which he now proposed. He lamented to see that the Government were every year increasing the army of the country. We had 20,000 men more than when the Duke of Wellington was in power. He attempted last year to obtain a reduction of 3,000 men, but the House, which always liked to encourage Ministers in any proposition of extravagance, was against him; and he really believed that if the Government were to propose an increase of 150,000 men, it would be granted them. On the present occasion, however, he should certainly propose a reduction of 10,000 men, which if the Government were consistent and correct in all they had said about the peaceful situation of Ireland, could easily be taken from that country. He admitted, that if, by any cause, a great number of workmen were thrown out of employment in this country, there might be some danger of disturbance; but if the noble Lord were to look at the causes which were stated year after year as the grounds for demanding former estimates, he would find, that not one of them existed at the present moment. Our navy was the largest ever maintained, and our military forces were also increased. When there was nothing of disturbance or confusion either at home or abroad, upon what ground was this increase asked? He would recommend the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, to consult the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who, in his evidence before the Finance Committee in 1817, recommended, that large corps should be appointed, consisting of 900 men. By such a change the noble Lord urged, that there would be a large saving as to the staff, and that the same force could be sustained fo 200,000l. which it formerly took 300,000l. to maintain. Why, then, did not the noble Lord, the Secretary of War, now propose the reduction of twelve regiments, keeping up, if he thought fit, the same number of men, but effecting a reduction in the staff? No man could say that there was not a larger proportion of officers to men in our service than in any other. He trusted, that the Commission which had been appointed would prove, that it was impossible to do justice without reviewing the whole establishment, and apply to every regiment an uniform rule. If it were not for the expense of the Guards, he should have no objection to allow the aristocracy to use this corps as a means of obtaining a station, the chief use of which appeared to be for the purposes of ornament and amusement; but it was, in his opinion, extremely hard that a body unaccustomed to the toils of war should be favoured to an extent far beyond those regiments which served in all our colonies. If they looked to Austria, they would find, that the Guards there took their turn on active service. Being persuaded that the army expenses could only be reduced by cutting down the number of men, and reducing the officers and staff, it only remained for him to inquire upon what pretence such a large military force was kept up in England and Ireland? He left the colonies out of the question, though he did not believe that in those where any thing like good government prevailed, there was any necessity for keeping up the large force which was asked. If they meant to keep the colonies as conquered provinces, let them say so; but if they intended to secure the allegiance of the people by their affections, then he was convinced that a very small force would be sufficient to prevent hostile aggressions on their territory, because the people of those colonies were willing and able to keep the peace, provided they were (as they had a right to be) treated in the same manner as the inhabitants of this country. Troops should be no longer placed in these colonies to overawe the people, and to prevent those reforms and improvements which they demanded. When the people were pressed down by heavy taxes of the most galling character, it was incumbent on those who wished to lighten their burden to effect a reduction in the outlay of our present establishments, particularly when they recollected that, in addition to our large military force, there were 34,000 men required for the navy, and between 8,000 and 9,000 more for the artillery. Then again there was a force which partook of a military character in Ireland, where 16,000 policemen, rank and file, were stationed. Could they, then, tell him that the country was at peace, or that the people were satisfied, when such a formidable military array was deemed essential to the preservation of tranquillity? Up to the French war in 1792 there were never more than 8,000 or 9,000 men required in Ireland. It appeared to him that their present establishment argued a distrust of the people of Ireland, or a disbelief that peace and contentment existed in that country. He should propose that 10,000 men should be taken from the number which was proposed. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that 79,305 men be the number for the ensuing year.

maintained that the Sovereign must be surrounded by some troops; and it was far better to have a corps of guards, than to make a selection from regiments, which must lead to favouritism. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had asked, where were troops necessary? He should answer by telling him that if 2,000 men had been stationed in Canada at the proper time, we should not now be under the necessity of sending out 10,000 men.

said, that with regard to the re-inforcement which it was proposed to send to Canada, he did not wish to revive the debates which had already taken place in connection with that subject. He did not hear in the course of those debates any objection strongly urged to the proposition for sending out a considerable force to Canada. Indeed, that re olution stood on such obvious grounds of policy, that he did not think it necessary to refer to it at any greater length. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had said, that he (Lord John Russell) had last year stated, that two regiments of infantry and one of cavalry might be safely removed from Ireland. The hon. Member's allegation was quite correct, and he believed, that the removal of troops from Ireland would be found to be far greater than he had anticipated. He thought if he were to say, that there were 5,000 men less in Ireland than were hitherto stationed there he should be understating the reality. He would only say on this point, that if there had unfortunately prevailed in that country such disaffection as to call for an increase rather than a diminution of men, the vote which his noble Friend would have had to propose would be much larger than that now submitted. The hon. Gentleman had asked where were troops required? Why there were frequently demands for troops in various parts of the country; and when, last year, troops were required in Scotland, he did not think it proper to take troops from the north of England for the purpose of putting down the disturbance in the former country, but considered it right to supply them from other stations. The hon. Gentleman had asserted that they had gone on increasing the army from year to year, and that the present establishment was larger by 20,000 men than when the Duke of Wellington was in office. This was a representation at which he should not have been much surprised if it had been made on some vague rumours out of doors, but coming from an hon. Gentleman who continually attended to the estimates, and made them his peculiar study, it did seem to him to be a singular assertion. The fact was, that the year the Duke of Wellington quitted office, a considerable reduction was made in the army to the amount of 7,684 men. This was replaced by Lord Grey in 1831, but in 1834 a reduction was made exactly to the same amount as in the former year, although now an increase was made not to the standard of 1831, because it fell under 7,000 men, and of course considerably below the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman proposed various modes of reduction, one of which was to abolish ten or twelve regiments. He did not think such a change wise, or justified by the exigencies of the present time. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the number of cavalry regiments. He could inform him that in consequence of the necessity of sending troops to Canada, it was necessary to make a large increase to our military force, and by enlarging the number of men to each regiment, this was done in a much less expensive manner than by adding five regiments of cavalry. The hon. Member had complained that the Guards were kept in personal service on the Sovereign, and had undue favour shown them. He did not think, that the history of the Guards and the services which they had rendered warranted this reproach. And if ever there was a time when it was most inopportune it was now, when a portion of this corps was about to sail for Canada, and were ready to be employed in the service of their country like any other regiment of the line. With regard to the proposal by the Government for the expenses of the army, he should not now enter into that subject, but he certainly did not think the vote proposed at all extravagant.

observed, that he was in Lanarkshire when the disturbance referred to by the noble Lord had taken place. It was caused by a strike of the colliers, and one regiment of infantry was sufficient to put it down. When a party vote such as that for the reprimand of the hon. and learned Member was to be decided, the benches were crowded, and some came down to that House who seemed scarcely able to crawl; but when six millions of the people's money were voted, the House was comparatively thin.

contended, that the absence of Members might be easily accounted for, on the ground that this subject had been debated over and over again, and from the general impression that if they wished to retain their colonial possessions it was necessary to keep up a large military force no diminution could be expected. The service of no other army was so severe as that of the British. At all events he thought it would be good policy to send a large force to Canada during the period of the suspension of the constitution.

felt called upon to trouble the Committee with one or two observations in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The hon. Member had asked why they should not reduce the number of regiments, and had then gone on to assert that a large number of those regiments was kept up for the mere purpose of patronage and promotion, and further, that there was a larger proportion of officers in the British service than in any other. He had not before him any returns showing what the proportion in other services might be, but he firmly believed, that the hon. Member was mistaken in the fact. But compared to the year 1792—that year which the hon. Member so continually referred to, as the fitting standard in all matters of army financial policy—compared to 1792, how stood the case? He had before him a table showing the proportion of officers to men in the army in the year 1792, and he found that that proportion was as one to twelve, while in the present year it was rather more than as one to eighteen and a half. With respect to the proposition of the hon. Member, he should only say, that he thought the House would act most unwisely in sanctioning it. Before the Committee of 1833, the hon. Member had made the same proposition, and it had then been clearly demonstrated, indeed, as well as he recollected, the hon. Member himself had expressed himself satisfied with the statement, that reduction, if made in the manner he proposed, would lead to a very great increase of expenditure. The present system had the especial recommendation that, with very little trouble and at very little expense, it could be reduced or increased as the urgency of the case required. The experience of 1821–22, when a reduction of 21,000 men was suddenly made, ought to render the House cautious how it assented to the proposition of the hon. Member.

meant to vote in support of the motion of the noble Viscount. He rose solely in consequence of a remark of the noble Viscount to the effect that it might be necessary to submit to Parliament a supplementary vote with reference to the recent events in Canada. He (Sir E. Knatchbull) should much regret the realization of such a necessity. Should such a vote be proposed, Parliament would find itself placed in a somewhat novel situation—that of being called upon to pass a vote for services rendered, and respecting which they could exercise no sort of control whatever. This was a line of proceeding which he thought could not be too strongly condemned; nor was this to be the only instance of such a practice. In the early part of the evening the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Horne Department, had informed the House that no estimate of the expense of Lord Durham's mission to Canada was to be made before his departure from this country, and in fact that that personage was to be unlimited in regard to expense. Here, again, the House would be called on to vote for services previously rendered, and for expenses over which they would have no control. He thought her Majesty's Government would act most unwisely were they to give Lord Durham a carte blanche in regard to his expenditure, and that before he left the country some kind of restraint should be laid on him.

did not anticipate that the mission of Lord Durham would prove more expensive, if so much so, than any other mission of a similar nature in past times. Lord Durham was going out as a special envoy, and the sums now paid to the governors of the two provinces of Canada would go a great way towards the expense of his mission. The Government in deciding, that no estimate of the expense should be made out, and that Lord Durham should proceed to fulfil the duties of his important office unlimited on this head, had but followed the precedents of Lord Cowley's special mission to Spain during the war, and Lord Stuart de Rothesay's to Lisbon about the same period.

thought, that all who had supported her Majesty's Government during the progress of the Canada bill, were bound to vote in favour of the present proposition.

, in allusion to the statement just made by the noble Viscount (Lord Howick) as to the proportion of officers to men in the army in 1792, begged to observe that if a comparison were made of the army expenditure in the year 1792 and 1833, that of the latter year would be found the greater.

begged to trouble the Committee with one word before they proceeded to a division. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had stated, that in his (Lord Palmerston's) examination before the Committee in 1828, he had endeavoured to show, that it would be a more economical arrangement to convert the then and now existing battalions of 740 to battalions of 1,000 strong. Not wishing to trust to his memory, he had referred to the minutes of his evidence upon the occasion alluded to. He found there, as indeed he had, from the moment he heard the hon. Member's assertion, anticipated he would find, that so far from having made the statement attributed to him, his evidence was, that to convert eighty-three battalions of 740 men to sixty-one battalions of 1,000 men, instead of being a saving, would add 8,720l. a-year to the army expenditure, and cost the country, during the first year, an additional sum of 81,000l. So much for the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement.