stated, that, during the greater part of the Session 1848, a Select Committee sat upon the subject of Ministers' Money in Ireland. They examined several dignitaries of the Protestant Church, who were favourable to the abolition of that impost, on a substitute being provided; and it was understood Government intended to introduce a Bill for providing that substitute. In pursuance of notice, he would ask, at what time did the Government intend to introduce any measure with a view to the abolition of Ministers' Money? That money amounted to 16,000l. a year, out of which his constituents paid 2,000l. a year; and, therefore, he thought a sufficient case was made out for the alteration of its assessment.

Sir, if it be now convenient to the House, instead of answering the question of the hon. Member, I will state the course I propose to take for the conduct of Public Business; and, in doing so, I shall afford an answer to the question. It is absolutely necessary that we should proceed to-day to the consideration of the Army Estimates; and that the House should receive the report of the Committee of Supply to-morrow. I propose to go into Committee of Supply, on Monday, on the Army and Ordnance estimates. On Friday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will state the alterations he proposes to make in the financial arrangements; and on the same day he will move, in Committee of Ways and Means, a Resolution in respect to the continuance of the Income Tax. We can then go into debate on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, unless the right hon. Gentleman should think it inconvenient to do so, at a late hour in the evening, when we can take on Monday evening the debate on that Motion. The only days when the Orders of the Day take precedence, at the disposal of the Government, before Easter, will be applied to the financial arrangements and the remaining estimates. I very much regret that, in consequence of this necessity, I am unable to proceed, as I should wish to do, immediately after the second reading, with the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. I cannot proceed with it before Easter; and I stated the other night, that I should not take it the first Order day after the Recess. The first Order day will be on Monday, the 28th of April. I do not wish to press the matter upon that day; but I think it will be perfectly fair to take it the next Order day. I propose, therefore, to take the Committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Billon Friday, the 2nd of May. With regard to some measures of which I have given notice, one of the most important which I stated I should bring forward in the course of the present Session, is the Bill for the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It appears that, upon the proposal for the abolition of that office, which was made last year, strong feelings have been excited, and the general feeling in Ireland now is favourable to its continuance. My opinions of the advantages to be obtained by the empire, and more especially by Ireland, by the discontinuance of the office, remain unaltered. Seeing the important business to come on, it will make it late in the Session before the Bill can be introduced; and, seeing the opinion now prevailing, I do not intend to propose that measure this Session. With regard to the question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin has asked, as to the Bill for the abolition of Ministers' Money, it was my intention, as I stated at the beginning of the Session, to bring in a Bill for the purpose; and if I find that there is time to introduce that measure, I shall introduce it. But I am not prepared to fix the time, or to say absolutely that it will be in my power to introduce that measure this Session. This is my statement with respect to the course of public business. I should, however, say, that, when the House resolves itself into a Committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and has again that matter under consideration, it will be desirable to proceed with the remaining stages of that Bill, and finish a matter of such importance as soon as possible after going through Committee.

said, that, as the point of law involved in the case of Aylesbury, and that involved in the petition in reference to St. Albans, which he (Mr. Aglionby) had presented yesterday, were nearly the same, he would be content that the decision of the House in the one case should rule the other. He did not know how many Committees had been named under similar circumstances; but he knew that the matter involved the seats of at least two Members who sat on his side of the House. The House, however, in considering the question, would discard from their minds all considerations as to who would be affected by the decision. In referring to these petitions, he would only trouble the House with a statement regarding that which he had had the honour of presenting yesterday—the St. Albans. The petition stated that "an informality had been committed; that the petition against the return of the Member for St. Albans had not been addressed to your Honourable House, nor to any court or tribunal whatever; and the conclusion, that it was intended for your Honourable House, can only be drawn from the reading of the entire petition, and is merely an inference, not a positive averment." If it had been a petition on an ordinary question, it would have been at once thrown aside. By the Act, it was required that intimation of an intention to nominate the Committee should be published with the Votes "not less than fourteen days" before such nomination. The question, then, was simply as to whether "not less than fourteen days" meant fourteen clear days, or not. The practice, he was informed, was to construe the "fourteen days" to mean one day exclusive, and the other inclusive. Assuming this to have been the practice, it would not influence the House if that practice were wrong. The question had never, however, been before the House; and the House had never, of course, expressed a decision on the point. No lawyer would tell him that the Courts of law considered "not less than fourteen days" to mean anything else than fourteen clear days. He held in his hand two pages of cases which bore out his view on the subject. To two of these only would he refer—that of "Chambers v. Smith," and that of "Young v. Higgen." He selected these two from a list of nineteen or twenty cases, in which the decision on this point of law had been uniform. In the first case, "at least one calendar month" had been held to mean not less than one clear calendar month; and, in the second, "not less than fifteen days" had been held to mean not less than fifteen clear days. He submitted, that if the proceedings were void ab initio, the Committee was at an end, and need not be sworn.

said, the Committee on this question had not acted without having precedents for the course they had taken. In 1845, a petition for trying the election for Dartmouth had been presented, and a Committee had been appointed exactly under the same circumstances as the present one, and no objections had been made. In 1846, the Committee for trying the election for Wigan had been appointed under the same circumstances, and it was remarkable that in that case, as in the present one of St. Albans, Mr. Coppock had been the agent for the defence, and he had then taken no objection. In 1848, the Committee for trying the election for Horsham had been appointed in the same way: there had been the same agent for the defence, and no objection had been taken, nor had any complaint been made. The objection made in the present case was, that fourteen clear days had not elapsed between the intimation and the nomination of the Committee. Notwithstanding all he had heard, he was still of the opinion that the Committee had discharged their duty correctly and properly; and, moreover, he hoped he would not be out of place in saying that he considered this to be a question which should be decided rather by the good sense of the House itself than by legal opinion. On the 10th of March, previous to four o'clock, the day had been fixed and settled that the General Committee should meet on the 25th of March to name the Select Committee in the cases of St. Albans and Aylesbury. The matter had been duly intimated at the Journal Office on the 10th, and it had been intimated in the House the same evening. The Act of Parliament required that notice should he given in "the Votes" fourteen days before the nomination. Now, in the Votes delivered on the 11th of March, the precise date of the 10th of March had been placed, and he contended that the notice had been quite in accordance with the Act of Parliament. The transmission of the notice to the Journal Office within the proper time was, he held, quite sufficient. He was quite confident that the notices and the cases before the House had been properly made, and that the Committee was quite legally chosen. He would meet the Motion of the hon. and learned Member with a direct negative.

thought that hon. Gentlemen who were not lawyers could not have the slightest difficulty in forming as good an opinion on this subject as lawyers could. The fifty-first section stated, that notice of the time that the Committee would be sworn, should be published in the Votes not less than fourteen days before the day on which such Committee was appointed to be sworn. They were appointed to be sworn on the 25th of March; but the notice was not published till the morning of the 11th of March. It appeared by the Votes that the House did not rise till three in the morning on the 11th of March, and the Votes, therefore, of the 10th could not be in a state to be published till the morning of the 11th, and therefore fourteen days' notice was not given. He thought the matter might be referred to a Committee to consider what was the best course to adopt.

said, he presented a petition from Aylesbury in which the same point arose. The expression in the Act was, not less than fourteen days, and authorities had been cited that that was fourteen clear days. Notice had been given on the 11th, and therefore fourteen clear days' notice had not been given.

said, that a wrong act done in former years could not justify a similar act at the present time, and they must be entirely guided by the construction of the Act of Parliament. He would limit himself to the question whether the requirement of the Act, as to publication, had or had not been fulfilled. Now could there be a publication more complete than the statement made in the House by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that he and his colleagues had fixed the Committee? If that was done, and an entry was made in the Journal Office, the letter as well as the spirit of the Act had been complied with, and fourteen complete days, from four o'clock on the 10th March, had expired before the meeting of the Committee on the 25th. He certainly felt inclined to support the view taken by the Committee.

said, that the Act required publication, and publication did not consist in the mere printing. What the Act required was publication with the Votes, and it recognised our existing method of printing with the Votes; and the real question was, whether or no the practice of the Courts of Common Law and Equity was identical with the practice of that House in regard to Election Committees; for if that were so, he had no hesitation in saying that the statute was exhausted in the present instance, and they had no power to proceed, not having reserved to themselves by Act of Parliament for the trial of election petitions, any of those powers once inherent in this House.

believed it was the rule of the House of Commons that technical objections, through slip or mistake, should not interfere with justice. The parties in this case were the sitting Member and the petitioner; the judges were the House of Commons; and if the General Committee appointed to select a Committee to try the petition had made a slip or mistake, which was not absolutely fatal according to the Act of Parliament, it became the House to rectify the slip or mistake, so that no injustice should be done to either of the parties. The Act required the notice to be "not less than fourteen days" before the time when the Committee was selected. His opinion was, according to the decision of the Courts of Law, that fourteen days meant fourteen clear days. If" the Act was exhausted in consequence of the fourteen clear days' notice not having been given, no further proceedings could be taken; but he was of opinion that the Act was not exhausted. The clause respecting the notice was merely directory. The appointment of the Committee was not made to depend on the validity or invalidity of the notice. The notice was required to be given to the sitting Member, in order that no injustice might be done him; and that being so, on the day appointed for the selection of the Committee he or his agents ought to have objected to the appointment of the Committee; but having neglected to do so, the objection was waived. If that view was correct, the next question was, what ought now to be done, and whether the Members selected to serve on the Committee ought not to be sworn? By the 68th section it was provided that upon the Members being brought to the table to be sworn, and then having been sworn, it should be taken to be a Select Committee legally appointed, and the legality of such appointment should not be called in question on any ground whatever. If, therefore, the sitting Member could not allege any substantial objection to the Members being now sworn, his (Mr. Walpole's) opinion was that they could not do justice to the petitioner as well as to the sitting Member, without allowing the Members to be sworn. If an objection could be taken in consequence of irregularity of notice, objection ought to be taken to their being sworn; and, under the 73rd section, the Committee should be discharged, and another Committee appointed.

quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, that when the Committee was sworn, their appointment must remain unquestioned; but there was a difficulty. These five Gentlemen should have been sworn yesterday. [No, no!"] Well, then, to-day; and they could not be sworn after four o'clock. The Act provided that they should be sworn on the first business day after their appointment, and yesterday was the first day the House had met after their appointment on the 25th. However, the point was, were they in the habit of subscribing to the doctrine of the Court of Queen's Bench or Common Pleas in its construction of legal technicalities? He remembered a case—the name of which he could not at that moment call to mind—in which the House had held that in calculating the days one day should be inclusive and the other exclusive, and it was curious that with respect to private Bills the order said seven clear days.

said, he regretted this case had been brought before the House, because he did not think that House was the best tribunal for settling a nice point of law. This question of reckoning fourteen days' notice had come before the Courts of Law, and he believed there had been conflicting decisions upon it. At the same time they were bound to decide the question that had come before them. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (the Member for Midhurst) that the party petitioning the House and asking the House to interpose to prevent the swearing of the Committee had really suffered no wrong; he had substantially all that the Bill gave him. The question, therefore, was, were there distinct grounds for interference, and were they justified in interfering? In his mind there was some doubt of that, and he should, therefore, not vote for the resolution.

, who rose amid cries of "Withdraw," said he should not withdraw the Motion, as he thought it well to take the decision of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee had quoted three precedents; but the House would be surprised to learn that out of 36 nominations by the General Committee, 27 were free from this objection. He apprehended that in common law and common sense the House were bound to vote for this Motion.

wished to warn the House that whatever decision they might come to might be overruled by the Courts of Law, and this circumstance conferred great importance upon the decision at which they might arrive. He should suggest, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend should withdraw his Motion, and consent to refer the matter to a Select Committee. He had no political bias on this matter, but he would not consent to sacrifice their rights. Ever since Sir Robert Peel's Act, controverted elections had been determined with an impartiality that had never been known before, and he had no other object in view but that they should avoid the difficulty which he foresaw of coming possibly into collision with the Courts of Law.

advised the House to be afraid of nothing that might befall them from the Courts of Law. He had not a doubt that the legality of the appointment of a Committee when once sworn could not be called in question upon any ground whatever. But he was not of the same opinion with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, or with the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst; for, having looked into the Act of Parliament, he considered that the words to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred were not in that enactment by way of directory language, but that they were imperative upon that House, and described a rule which was as clear as the words of an Act of Parliament could make it. The hon. and learned Member had avoided all allusion to the publication "in the Votes," and this was where he erred. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that fourteen days were, in his opinion, fourteen clear days, and in that opinion he (Sir D. Dundas) concurred, but it should be from the publication in the Votes. No one could doubt that the word "clear" was co-equivalent, and of the same quality, as "not less than so many days." There were no decisions in the Courts of Law as to the construction to be put upon the words "not less," but there was a decision as to the value of the words "at least," and he had no doubt, if the words had been "at least" instead of "not less," they could not have given a decision other than that fourteen clear and absolute days were intended. They were acting judicially upon this question, and though he always regretted to vote in opposition to his hon. and right hon. Friends, it was his clear conviction that, upon the point of law, he must do so in this case.

said, he understood that the Budget was not to come on on Monday evening, and that he considered was a breach of the understanding made with the House, and therefore a breach of good faith. When his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth submitted his Motion, he seconded it for the purpose of asking him to withdraw it, in order to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his statement. But if now the Budget was postponed, what security would they have? They would have the Navy, the Army, and the Ordnance Estimates, which were the principal votes of Supply, passed, and then the Budget was to come on. He did not think that this was treating the House fairly. He considered, therefore, that the House should not proceed with the Votes until they had the Budget before them. If the thing had been unexpected, it would have been a different matter; but the Government had had two or three weeks to consider the matter, and consequently they had no excuse. In fact, it looked as if they were taking advantage of the disposition of the House to forward their objects; and they (the Members) would be liable, if they acquiesced in it, to the suspicion of neglecting their own duties. He begged, therefore, to propose—

"That this House is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government ought, agreeably with their promise, to bring forward their Budget before proceeding further with the Supplies."

He was not aware that there was any obstacle to their bringing forward their Budget at once, and therefore he would submit the Motion he had just read to the House.

said, that the Resolution was not in order, because the Motion of the hon. Member for Portarlington was now before the House.

said, he did not recollect having given any understanding, or made any promise, that the Government should bring forward the Budget before they had got the supplies. He certainly thought that, according to the theory of the lion. Member for Montrose, the Government, having a surplus in hand, would be perfectly justified in proceeding with the Estimates before the Supplies.

could not avoid expressing his surprise that the Budget had not been considered before they had been called on to vote any further portion of the Supplies. He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer should for one moment have delayed to bring forward his financial statement. The right hon. Gentleman stated on a recent occasion that he intended to reduce the duty on Timber and Coffee, and also to take the duties entirely off seeds. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, at all events, this was about seed-time; and that in consequence of his statement that important trade was paralysed. He (Mr. Williams) believed it had always been the custom in such cases to take off the duty provisionally, and give a guarantee. However, the result had been very much to inconvenience the trades to which he had referred; and he considered that the delay was totally unnecessary, for the Government had had plenty of time to consider what course they would take. With regard to the feeling out of doors on the subject of the Budget, the Government must be aware that several Members in the House had been called upon to oppose every vote of supply unless that most odious and obnoxious tax, the Window Duty, should be repealed. If the hon. Member for Montrose should take an opportunity of moving his Resolution, he should certainly support it, for he considered its principle most salutary.

said, he would never pledge himself to stop the supplies, whatever constituency he might represent. At the same time, however, he must say that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had hardly acted quite fairly by his supporters in that House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would just get up in his place and state whether he meant to repeal the Window Tax or not. He could answer for it, that such a step would calm the apprehensions of many hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House; and he hoped he was not asking too much of the right hon. Gentleman, for he must have made up his mind one way or the other. Those two important trades—the timber and the seed trades—were suffering greatly from the suspense; and he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would at least make a short statement on the subject, even if he could not bring forward his whole Budget.

did not think the request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman by any means a reasonable one, and he considered that it would not be for the advantage of the public service that he should now state what was the course he meant to propose. The hon. Member for Montrose must he aware that, according to the system recently introduced, of paying over into the Exchequer all balances on the 5th of April, the close of the financial year, it would be utterly impossible that any payments could be made for the great public services after that date, unless the money was voted by the House. Besides, it must be remembered that the Mutiny Bill must be passed before Easter, and the number of men also voted before the 5th of April. He did not mean to say that he could not make the financial, statement as well on Monday as on Friday, but it was indispensable to proceed at once with the Estimates, unless a stop was to be put to the public service on the 5th of April.

understood the noble Lord, after the division the other night, that he would take the Army Estimates, and that he would then state when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make his financial statement. In the earlier period of the Session, however, he had distinctly understood the noble Lord to say that he would take the Navy Estimates, and that he would then lay before the House his financial views. Now they ought to have that statement before they proceeded to grant any of the Estimates. They were fast approaching Easter, and as a night would be taken up by the important subject on which the noble Lord had given notice that he would move a Committee on the Kaffir war, they would be thrown another night forward, and would have that less time to consider the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He considered, therefore, that the arrangement which had been made with the House ought to have been carried into effect. But to show the necessity for this financial statement, he would remark that in consequence of the general condemnation of the Budget, they had reason to believe that a new proposition was likely to he made; and he thought that they ought to he in possession of that statement before they proceeded any further. He hoped, therefore, that they might carry out the understanding which they certainly had in the first instance, and that they should have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement before they went any further.

said, that the hon. Baronet was not accurate in supposing that there had been the understanding which he stated.

thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make his financial statement on Monday. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had given notice of a most important Motion for that night; but there was a subject of far more importance and of much deeper interest than the Kaffir war to the inhabitants of the metropolis and of the I large towns, namely, the Window Tax. The proposition of the right hon. Baronet on that subject had given universal dissatisfaction; and he believed that that proposition would be altered. If, however, he was mistaken, he should be glad to be informed that such was the case. He must concur, however, to some extent, with the right hon. Baronet with respect to what he said as to stopping the public service; and he believed that the number of men to be proposed was not an extra or improper number.

said, that the original foundation of the establishment at Kilmainham, under Charter granted by Charles II., and the buildings now called the Royal Hospital, had actually been erected by deductions of sixpence in the pound from the pay of soldiers in Ireland. That deduction was made under an order of the Duke of Ormonde; and it only ceased when the institution was handed over to the Government. He contended, it was therefore unjust to deny admission to the asylum when they were worn out or maimed in the service of their country. In 1834 the question of abolishing the Hospital was previously agitated, and on that occasion the opinions of the General commanding in Ireland and of the Lord Lieutenant were strongly opposed to any sueh measure. The Marquess of Anglesey and Sir Hussey Vivian officially declared that the breaking up of the establishment would have a very prejudicial effect with respect to the Army, the Irish portion of the soldiers being deeply attached to an institution totally created by themselves, and animated by a natural desire to spend the remainder of their days, after being worn out in the service, in an asylum belonging to their native country; and these high authorities considered that any saving to be effected by removing the establishment to England would be so trifling as to be unworthy of consideration in opposition to the other reasons for keeping up the asylum at Kilmainham. Lord Stanley was also another high authority on the question, and his Lordship had put on record an emphatic declaration not only with regard to the insult and injustice threatened towards Ireland by the removal of this Hospital, but also with regard to the impolitic principle of centralisation involved in the measure. His Lordship said that it could not be denied that the consolidation of the establishments of the country, however it might be called for by general principles of economy, had a very injurious effect locally on an old country in which such institutions had grown up and continued; and Lord Stanley also considered that the only excuse that could be offered for such a measure would be a large saving of expense. Now he (Colonel Dunne) could show that the saving of expense by the removal could only be very trifling. In the first place, if the pensioners were transferred to England a large additional expense must be incurred for the establishment at Chelsea. In 1834 it was estimated that the whole expense of the Kilmainham establishment to the country was 8,417l. a year; while the sum that would be required by the removal to England, and the expense for additional pay to the out-pensioners, and for the transfer of the pensioners from the one country to the other, was estimated altogether at 6,174l.; so that, allowing for the reduction in the expenses of the establishment since 1834, the removal at present would effect a saving to the country of little more than 2,000l. The number of pensioners in Kilmainham Hopital was 205, and the cost per head for food was 5l. cheaper at Kilmainham than at Chelsea. So that, if it were only a question of economy, it would be greater economy to remove the Chelsea establishment to Kilmainham, instead of removing that at Kilmainham to Chelsea. But Kilmainham Hospital was possessed of funds of its own. In the Army Estimates a sum of between 400l. and 500l. a year was credited to the establishment as dividends on stock and rents of lands; and adding to this the rents received by the master of the Hospital for certain other acres of land, which also went to the credit of the Hospital, this made a total of nearly 700l. a year as the revenue of the Hospital and the property of the Irish soldiers. If the Governors of the Hospital were allowed to conduct the repairs, he believed there would be no necessity for a vote from Parliament for that purpose; but the repairs were taken out of their hands by the Board of Works, and 2,000l. odd was the sum annually charged by the Board of Works for the repairs; but looking at the state of the establishment he could not understand how so much money could be laid out on the building, when there was so little to show for it. But he thought the Hospital had a credit against the nation on another ground, because as many of the apartments of the establishment were taken up for the offices of the Adjutant-general, and other offices for the staff of the Army, as were used for the purpose of the Hospital itself. If credit was allowed for the rent of these offices for the Army, he believed that the Hospital must be found as nearly as possible self-supporting. Then with regard to the Charter of the Hospital, it had a clause to prevent the alienation of the property, and the Governor had taken the opinion of Mr. Blackburne and Mr. Crampton (now eminent Judges in Ireland), who both declared that it was illegal to transfer the establishment, and that it could not be lawfully abolished without an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Secretary at War had a sentimental feeling in favour of Chelsea Hospital; and when examined before the Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman said, he should not like to see the asylum which had been so long established at Chelsea abolished, even although it should lead to some saving of expense. Now he (Colonel Dunne) asked the right hon. Gentleman to evince the same feeling in favour of a useful national and popular asylum in Ireland; and he called upon the House to resist the unjust and unwise policy of centralisation, from which the suggestion to abolish it had emanated.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he considered the right hon. Secretary of War, in proposing the abolition of Kilmainham Hospital, was acting most illegally. This was not only a violation of the law, but the most presumptuous interference of the Government he had ever heard of, in issuing an order against the admission of further pensioners to Kilmainham Hospital. If the officers of the establishment wore well advised, they would just take the order of the Government, and tear it in pieces before the men. Judges Blackburne and Crampton had declared that the lands were held under Charter. The Government might as well seize the estate of a private gentleman, as abrogate a Royal Charter. The right was not only founded on the Charter, but on the fact of deductions having been made from the soldiers' pay in support of the Hospital. In 1835, an attempt had been made to induce the pensioners to go out, but very few would consent to the proposal.

said, it was unworthy of Her Majesty's Government to make this attempt in the present state of Ireland. A proposition to somewhat the same effect was made in 1833; and Lord Stanley, then the Irish Secretary, very truly said it deserved to be well considered whether the pecuniary advantages attending the proposed change wore not counterbalanced by the injurious impression which it would produce in Ireland. Those arguments were to this day unanswered. Was the city of Dublin or was Ireland in a better position now than in 1833, so as to justify them now in prosecuting a measure which they then abandoned? He hoped, however, that it had been taken up hastily, and would not be persevered in; at all events it ought not to be carried by a side wind. The building and ground could not be appropriated to any other purposes than those prescribed by the Charter. In 1822 an Act of Parliament was passed to transfer the documents belonging to Kilmainham to this country; and the trustees thought it their duty to take a legal opinion on the subject, which was sent to the Lord Lieutenant. What was the result? [Mr. FOX MAULE: The thing was done.] Yes, but how? By passing an Act of Parliament enabling them to do so; and he wanted to know on what principle they thought themselves at liberty to dispense with an Act of Parliament in the present instance? Before taking such proceedings the law officers of the Crown should be called on to give their opinion.

said, he really hardly knew how to deal with the question before the House. Hon. Gentlemen talked as if he had proposed to expunge from the Estimates the Vote for Kilmainham Hospital altogether; but if they would turn to the Army Estimates, they would find that the Vote to be taken was exactly the same for this year as for the preceding. But he must say, as the question had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend, that he was one of those who had formed a very deliberate opinion that the system of in-pensioning was one that was not popular with the soldiers of the British Army; and that being so, he should like to know why it was that the British Parliament should be called upon to vote money for the purpose? It was quite true that when Kilmainham and Chelsea Hospitals were instituted, they were the only refuge, with the exception of certain invalid companies, for those soldiers who were disabled in action. With standing armies, it was necessary to provide refuges for those who were disabled in action; certain buildings were therefore allotted as residences for disabled soldiers; invalid companies were instituted into which they were drafted, and the Hospitals of Chelsea and Kilmainham were established. It had been said that those establishments were paid for by the soldiers themselves. That was an assertion which had been made both with respect to Kilmainham and Chelsea, but which had been contradicted over and over again; and he fearlessly asserted, that no soldier, prior to the year 1795, ever contributed a single shilling of the pay due to him for the erection and maintenance of those establishments. A few words would suffice to show this. Formerly the pay of the soldier was distributed into two parts—the one was called subsistence, the other was given in the name of off-reckoning, for the clothing and other necessaries. The only portion of the pay which came to the soldier was that part which came under the name of subsistence; that amount was paid to, and was considered the property of the soldier, and from that subsistence no deduction was ever made. With respect to the portion called off-reckoning, that was paid to the colonel of the regiment. From that the soldier was provided with his clothing and other articles; but that amount was paid only through the colonel of the regiment. For many years these two payments were, he was sorry to say, very generally in arrear. They were paid in monthly musters, and they were from time to time about four months in arrear. But in 1762 the Paymaster General undertook, upon a contract, to pay these more regularly. The bargain which he made was, that in return for the more regular payment, there was to be a deduction in the shape of poundage. That deduction amounted to a shilling in the pound, and it was deducted not from the subsistence portion of the pay—sixpence a day—but from the portion paid to the colonel of the regiment. When Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals were erected, this deduction of poundage was appropriated in England and Ireland to the purpose of the institutions; but he had shown that this was not paid in any way by the soldier, since it came from that portion of his pay which did not pass through his hands. But even suppose it had been so paid, this could only apply to soldiers enlisted not later than 1771, because after 1793 or 1794 all those poundages were entirely given up, and the payment was thrown on the public. But with respect to this question of Kilmainham Hospital, when it was first instituted, it was contemplated that there were to be private funds available for its maintenance, and he believed the Charter was drawn up in the belief that funds would be subscribed by individuals, and placed at the disposal of the Governor. The sum calculated upon was 6,000l. a year, and the Charter was so worded as to give the Governor the administration of the whole of those funds. There was also granted to the institution a space of land extending over sixty-four or sixty-five acres. He admitted fairly to his Hon. and gallant Friend that this portion of ground, together with the buildings erected thereon, was inalienable, except by Act of Parliament; but it was very different when the question related to the continuance of expenses incurred by the public for the maintenance of those establishments. Any Government which was of opinion that establishments for the maintenance of indoor pensioners should be discontinued, had nothing more to do than to omit from the Estimate any Vote for the purpose; and if that Vote had been omitted in the Estimates of the present year, it would have been quite incompetent for any Gentleman to propose to vote a sum of money for the maintenance of those institutions, and they would die a natural death. For his part, however, he was impressed with the belief that the British soldier infinitely preferred spending his pension in the bosom of his family or friends, in the locality to which he belonged, to being placed at Kilmainham and Chelsea, in a situation where he was bound down by rules and regulations as stringent nearly as those of active service. It was said that the abolition of the Hospital would be an injury done to the city in which it stood. It was natural that those who had long been familiar with such institutions should see them pass away with regret; but it was a hopeless case to endeavour to maintain institutions, however advantageous they might be to the localities in which they stood, after their usefulness had passed away. If the soldiers were themselves desirous of maintaining Kilmainham Hospital, he should be the first to advocate its continuance; but they were aware that it was kept up more for show than for any other purpose. It was occupied at this moment, for the greater part, by officers high in rank, entirely unconnected with the institution; and instead of advancing the professed objects of its existence, he thought the public would be justified in calling for its abolition. It was, however, not proposed to remove from that establishment a single individual fairly entitled to its benefits; all he had done was, to intimate to the Governor and Commissioners, that in future no admission should take place into the Hospital without his (Mr. Fox Maule's) knowledge, he being the person entrusted with the expenditure of the funds voted by Parliament. It was his conviction, that he was not proposing anything unpopular with the Army, in proposing to restrict the further admission of pensioners to Kilmainham Hospital.

said, the two grounds which the right hon. Gentleman put forward for the proposed change were, those of economy, and of its not being popular with the Army. The principal cost incurred in both establishments was from retirements to officers of high rank, granted on account of their services during the last war, and totally unconnected with the maintenance of the private soldiers. Deduct those allowances, and it would be found that both establishments were extremely economical, especially the Irish one. He denied that these establishments were kept up merely for show. Who that had visited Paris doubted the policy of keeping up the Hotel des Invalides? And yet that institution did not provide for the whole of the pensioners of the French army no more than did Kilmainham and Chelsea for the whole of ours. No establishment would accommodate the 80,000 pensioners of our Army, and it was right that arrangements should be made for allowing those who desired it to reside in the country; but there were, nevertheless, associations connected with these institutions which should not be broken in upon. He admitted that the great majority of pensioners preferred to be out-pensioners; but still he thought that the 500 or 600 men in Chelsea, and the 200 or 300 in Kilmainham, who, aged and infirm, but covered with honourable wounds, preferred to reside in these establishments, should not be deprived of these refuges of their old age, because a saving of 2,000l. or 3,000l. a year could be effected by giving up these establishments. The right hon. Secretary at War was inconsistent with himself, for while his arguments applied equally to Chelsea Hospital as to Kilmainham Hospital, he had stated in his evidence before the Committee that he had no intention to abolish Chelsea Hospital.

said, that there was more to be considered in this case than economy. His right hon. Friend the Secretary at War had talked of the superior comfort which the out-pensioner met with at home, but he thought that was partly attributable to the bad management of these institutions. These institutions were established by the Monarch as a sort of monument of the glorious deeds of the Army; and as it would be a very unpopu- lar proposition in England to abolish Chelsea Hospital on the score of economy, so there was a very strong public opinion in Ireland against this proposal to abandon Kilmainham Hospital. What would be the feeling of the people of England if it was proposed to abolish Greenwich Hospital? He had supported the Government as an independent Member; but confidence must have its limits, and if Government, on a mere abstract principle of saving a few thousands a year, persisted in carrying forward a measure in defiance of public opinion in Ireland, they could not expect that their Irish friends could any longer support them.

said, that as the answer of the right hon. Secretary at War was based on the principle that he was about to do away with in-pensioners, he begged to ask him if he had issued a similar order with respect to Chelsea to that which had gone to Kilmainham? If this order of the Government was based on the principle of doing away with the system of in-pensioners altogether, he thought that that should be done contemporaneously in Ireland and England, and that no preference should be shown to Chelsea over Kilmainham. Notwithstanding it had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Army did not pay to the maintenance of the Kilmainham Hospital, it would be found on reference to the Charter, a copy of which was to be found in the Parliamentary paper he held in his hand, that at the time the Charter was granted to Kilmainham Hospital, a poundage of 6d. in the pound was levied upon the pay of the Irish Army for its support. It was so supported up to 1794, when the Government decided that this poundage should be levied no longer. This was nothing more nor less than another attempt at centralisation—that baneful system from which Ireland had on many occasions so deeply suffered. The feeling in Ireland was as strong now against the abolition of this Hospital as it was when a similar measure was proposed in 1833. This was the only opportunity they should have of protesting against this flagrant act of injustice; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would pause before it negatived the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Portarlington.

said, that the authority on which he stated that the Irish soldiery were not called upon to pay anything to the maintenance of the establish- ment at Kilmainham was a speech of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1796, when he was bringing forward the vote for this Hospital. He then said

—"that this would not be an increase in the expenditure, because it was in lieu of the sum heretofore paid by the soldiers to the support of that hospital, but repaid to them in another way; the military then received their full pay by another arrangement, and while it was the same thing to the expenses of the country, it was more satisfactory to the soldiers, who imagined that because their daily advance was less than their nominal pay they were unfairly dealt with."

said, he wished to know by what authority the right hon. Secretary at War forbade the further admission of inmates into Kilmainham Hospital? He believed that he had no authority in law, as he certainly had none by the Charter. The Hospital at Kilmainham was very popular with the Irish soldiers, who were at least one half of the British Army. He had heard the number of Irish soldiers in the British Army estimated at 40,000 or 50,000 some years since. He thought that some consideration should, therefore, be shown the feelings of the Irish soldiers. Were they not, after fighting for their country, and losing their legs, arms, or health in her cause, to have no sanctuary in their old age? It was not economy, but centralisation—a desire to deprive Ireland of every vestige of her ancient honour and nationality—which was at the bottom of this measure. The right hon. Secretary at War would not venture to transfer the English warrior to Kilmainham; and why, therefore, did he propose to transfer the Irish warrior to Chelsea, when he had enlisted in the Army almost on the understanding that he would have this sanctuary in his old age? He appealed to the generosity of the Irish and Scotch Members not to permit this aggression on Ireland.

said, that the assertion that this measure was an insult to Ireland on the part of the Government was quite unfounded, because it was clear that the arguments of the right hon. Secretary at War applied to Chelsea as much as to Kilmainham. He, however, believed that this measure was much disliked both by the soldiers and the people of Ireland. He believed that the hon. Member who spoke last was near the truth when he said that nearly half the soldiers in the Army were Irishmen. A friend of his made a bet with the late Duke of Gordon when Marquess of Huntly, that half the men in the 42nd Highlanders were Irish, and he won it; and this was a regiment which was supposed to be the most exclusively Scotch in the service. He knew that Chelsea Hospital is now, or at least was twenty years ago, one of the most popular institutions connected with the Army. He thought that when his right hon. Friend proposed to reduce these establishments, he should consider the feelings of the Irish soldiers; the more so as they were taken from a superior class to the English soldiers.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had been unfairly dealt with on the present occasion. He did not see why they should go to the expense of keeping up those Hospitals, when they could not get individuals to fill them. There was a strong disinclination on the part of retired soldiers to go into Chelsea Hospital. That was the case with respect to Chelsea, and if a proposition was made to do away with Chelsea Hospital, he would vote for it. He believed that the comforts of the soldier could be better provided for elsewhere. He did not think that this proposition and the proposition for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy were at all analogous. He denied that there was any insult offered to Ireland in abolishing the Hospital at Kilmainham. He believed that his countrymen did their duty in the Army—and yet Scotland did not feel that she was insulted because she had not a military hospital. The Government were acting wisely in reducing the military expenditure, and applying it to other purposes. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not allow themselves to be led away by their feelings, and that they would see the folly of keeping up military hospitals which they found it difficult to fill.

said, that there were only 175 men in Kilmainham Hospital, and there were forty-six officers over them, including seven nurses and four assistants. The whole cost was 8,600l. a year, and out of this the officers cost 2,892l.

said, that before the House divided he wished them to consider the result of the Vote to which it was proposed that they should come. The House was pleased two years ago to refer the question of the Naval and Military Expenditure to a Committee of the House. The Committee had sat for two years, and it was again reappointed in the present year. That Committee had not yet made their Report on this subject, and therefore he did not think it would be advisable for the House to come now to a decision respecting the abolition of Kilmainham Hospital, more particularly as they had referred the question to a Committee. The hon. Member for the city of Dublin had made a statement which was very little to the purpose, when he said that the Irish army were very much interested in this question, because there was now no separate Irish army, and an Englishman or a Scotchman, if he served in Ireland, might be placed in Kilmainham Hospital, and the Irish soldier might be placed in Chelsea Hospital. The hon. Member was, no doubt, actuated by a desire to serve the city he represented; but much as they had hoard about Irish distress, he did not believe that the loss of an annual expenditure of some 7,000l. or 8,000l. would be a matter of very great importance to Dublin. The Army Estimates were not to be formed with reference to local expenses or local possessions. If a garrison were required for the national purposes of the United Kingdom at Plymouth, Portsmouth, or Cork, it would be established at one or other of those places; but if the necessity for it had passed away, it would be absurd to argue that it ought to be continued as a charge upon the country, simply because it might be conducive to the wishes or interests of the people of Plymouth, Portsmouth, or of Cork, that the garrison should not be abolished. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose that the time for these institutions had gone by. Formerly they were looked upon as comfortable retreats, but since the system of out-pensions had been established, they were much less sought after. With regard to this particular question, it was to be recollected that only a small portion of the pensioners were received in the Hospitals of Chelsea and Kilmainham; by far the greater number preferring to go as out-pensioners amongst their friends and relations. It was quite right that they should keep up Hospitals for those persons who had not friends or relations to take care of them, and who were not able to do anything for themselves elsewhere to increase their comforts. But that was only a small portion of the Army. Now, as regarded the comforts of the pensioners, both English and Irish, who served in the Army, it should be recollected also that a few years ago the Government proposed to give the benefit of certain deductions to the pensioners, by which they got an addition of 50,000l. a year, which was charged to the Country in the Army Estimates. That was an addition concerning the comforts of those who served in the Army. But with regard to the question, it concerned but a small number of soldiers. There were but from one hundred to two hundred pensioners to receive the benefit of the Hospital at Kilmainham, and the question was, whether they were to provide for the in pensioners one or two establishments—the great expense of these establishments arising from the officers and governor, and not from the number of men in them. These were questions which would be fairly considered by the Committee. But, at all events, he thought that the House ought not to prejudge the question—and he did not think the House would be wise in saying that they ought to adopt economy, and when they attempted economy, not to approve of it.

said, that the noble Lord had put this question on the ground that a Committee was sitting upstairs, and that it would not be wise in the House to come to any decision in this matter till that Committee had reported. But the right hon. Secretary at War had already decided. That Committee also was appointed at the instance of the Government, and not at the instance of the House, as stated by the noble Lord. He looked upon this as a question of the same nature as the question for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, though it was of smaller proportions. The question seemed to him to be whether they were to have a great system of centralised government, or whether they would retain their local institutions.

said, that what he had written to Dublin was, that no vacancies in Kilmainham Hospital should be filled up without a communication being had with him. He had since received communications with respect to two vacancies which he deemed it essential should be filled up, and they had been filled up.

thought the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington premature. The Estimates had been before the Committee of the House for the last three years. He had asked the Government the other night whether it was their intention to call together the Committee for the purpose of their making a Report, and the answer he received was in the affirmative. It was therefore, he thought, premature to discuss this question until that Report was received. He would not say one word respecting Kil- mainham Hospital except this: he believed that if the soldiers were given their option of remaining at Kilmainham or coming over to Chelsea, very few would be desirous of remaining at Kilmainham. It became then a question for our consideration whether it would not be necessary on the score of economy to make this change. He could not press this question of economy too much on the House at the present time. Chelsea Hospital had full accommodation for the reception of all those who wished to come there.

said, he must press upon the Government the propriety of making the financial statement before any more of the supplies were granted. He knew the whole country was anxious for it. There was not a town throughout the United Kingdom that did not expect it; and when such anxiety existed on the subject, he asked the House to agree with him in declaring that they would not vote any more supplies until the financial statement was brought forward. The statement must have been prepared; it could not possibly be that the Government had not made up their minds what they would do; and if so, why delay one hour in bringing it forward? Whether there was a pledge or no pledge, the understanding certainly was, that before the Government asked the supplies, the financial statement should be made. The Government had had two or three weeks for consideration, and there was no reason why it should not be made before they got any more money. He might be told that the 15th of April was approaching, and that the Mutiny Bill must be passed; but there would be no difficulty in passing the Mutiny Bill when the financial statement was made. He would therefore propose that the House should not proceed to Committee of Supply until the financial statement had been made.

said, the hon. Member could not make that Motion, as the House had decided that the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," stand part of the Question.

was very sorry that there had been any misunderstanding with the hon. Member for Montrose on this subject; but he had always considered it to be understood that the Estimates were to be taken immediately after the conclusion of the late Debate. If the Budget were introduced then, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to enter into a considerable amount of explanation, a Debate would arise, and the Government would be precluded from proceeding with what was most important, the Army Estimates.

said, if the Government would bring forward the statement on Monday, he would withdraw his opposition.

declined to pledge himself to any arrangement of that nature.

then rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice—

"To call the attention of the House to the Treasury Minute authorising an additional grant of 500l. per annum to the present salary of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue."

He said that there were two kinds of economy—real and false. The gentleman to whom this additional 500l. a year was granted, was, no doubt, a very able and efficient officer. We have had a Treasury Minute—what was that? It was nothing more nor less than a dirty, secret mode of appropriating money taken out of the pockets of the people. The Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was undoubtedly a most excellent officer, but he thought he was very well paid for his services by a salary of 2,000l. a year. He had no feeling of private animosity against the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. On the contrary, he believed him to be a most estimable public officer, but he protested against this mode of appropriating the public money. The salary which that individual received was, no doubt, adequate to his services, and the addition which it was now proposed to give him was another of his (Colonel Sib-thorp's) right hon. relation's jobs. He had no language in which he could, with propriety, describe his contempt for the right hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Treasury bench. The people of England were oppressed by such Treasury Minutes as these. He hoped the day was not far distant when such a Government, who were neither influenced by a principle of public economy nor regard for the people, would be forced to resign their places in favour of a wiser and abler body of men. The present members of the Government had only one wish, and that was to keep their places as long as they could. They were at present supported by a most miscellaneous body of Members upon their side of the House, but their reign was nearly at an end.

said, he felt very much obliged to his hon. and gallant Relative. He must in the first place thank him for the expressions which he had used in reference to himself, and still more must he thank him for the testimony he had borne to the merits of an individual whose conduct was known to the House. Whatever might be his hon. and gallant Friend's opinion of the Government, he was glad that he bore witness to the merits of Mr. John Wood, for a more deserving officer did not live. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was glad an opportunity had been given him to state what the whole arrangement entered into was, of which this only formed a part. It was not quite fair to single out one particular measure without taking into consideration the whole arrangement. Without the able assistance of this gentleman, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not have effected so large a reduction in the public expenditure as the Board of Inland Revenue had enabled him to do. Many years ago the Boards of Stamps and Taxes wore consolidated, by which a great saving in the public expenditure was effected. About four years ago he had carried into execution a further consolidation of the Board of Stamps and Taxes with the Excise, forming a Board of Inland Revenue, by which a still further saving of a large amount was effected. He said most distinctly that if it were not for the great exertions of Mr. John Wood he dared not have undertaken that great consolidation. It was doubted much whether such an arrangement could be carried into effect. It was, however, owing to the zeal and exertions of Mr. John Wood that it was ultimately effected. The effect of the whole consolidation of these boards was to cause a saving to the public of about 250,000l., and the reduction of about 2,000 officers. Surely 500l. a year was not too much to grant as a reward to the gentleman who was mainly instrumental in effecting this desirable result. If the House of Commons was not prepared to reward persons for such valuable services, they could not expect that those reductions could be carried into execution. There were twenty-nine officers reduced; the lowest salary enjoyed by any of them was 300l. a year, and the highest 2,000l. The reduction thus effected was 22,900l. a year, It would not, of course, be fair to take this additional duty without additional remuneration. Surely that was not a very unreasonable principle to lay down. He was prepared at the time to give an additional allowance to Mr. John Wood for this additional labour; but that gentleman objected to take it until it was proved that he was the means of effecting these arrangements, and that the Government were fully satisfied with what he had done. A period of about three years had gone by, and the benefits of the exertions of that gentleman had been fully demonstrated. He, therefore, felt it a duty he owed to the public to reward Mr. John Wood for the essential services which he had thus rendered to the public.

thought that there was no stronger feature in real economy than a well-timed liberality. He had known Mr. John Wood for about twenty-five years, and he bore testimony to all the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said respecting him, having watched his conduct closely during all that time. He believed him to be a very valuable public servant.

said, that when it was announced that the Government intended to bring forward their Budget very early in the Session, the greatest satisfaction was experienced. The right hon. Gentleman did bring forward his Budget, and, unhappily, it gave satisfaction to only a few. Some time had now elapsed since it was announced that some now financial arrangement would be proposed. He concurred in the views expressed by the hon. Member for Montrose. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would appoint Monday next for that statement.

also expressed a hope that the Government would give a promise to bring on the financial statement on Monday.

having put the question for going into Committee, a division was called for by Mr. HUME, but no division took place.

could only say that he, and a great many near him, were of the opinion he had expressed; but if such was not the general understanding, he would not press the question to a division.

said, he had now, for the fifth time, to ask the House to vote the necessary sums to provide for the expenditure of the Army during the ensuing year. In former times considerable constitutional jealousy existed on the part of the House with reference to the standing army proposed to be maintained, but that feeling had been superseded by a very just feeling of national pride regarding the services, the conduct, and the discipline of the Army of this great country. He had no wish to disparage the troops of other countries, or exalt unnecessarily those of our own; but he would make bold to say that there was no army in the world more remarkable for its discipline, more patient under privation, more gallant in the assault, or more steady under fire, than the British Army. It was for the Government to state what, in their opinion, the number of men should be; but whatever opinions might be held upon this point, there was no economist near him who could bring forward or substantiate one single charge of bad discipline against the Army, or of failing to do their duty to the country when called upon. With respect to the strength of the Army, it was always the duty of the Government to keep the amount of force at what they considered the lowest possible point consistent with the exigencies and honour of the country; and it did not appear to his colleagues or himself that during the ensuing year they could propose, with any due regard to the public interest, that a smaller number of men should be maintained during the year ensuing than during that just past. He, therefore, should propose that the Committee should vote for the present year 98,714 men, being within 414 of the number voted last year. A reduction to a certain extent took place last year, but he was told on that occasion that it was partial, and confined to men in the ranks, and that the Government had not made a proportionate reduction in the number of officers. This year the decrease of 414 consisted of 101 officers, 25 non-commissioned officers, and 288 rank and file. Among that number would be found the office of Colonel-in-Chief of the 60th Regiment, which was filled by the late Duke of Cambridge, but which appointment, upon the recommendation of the Committee upstairs, had been abolished. The force of 98,714 men was distributed into two parts—the regiments who were serving at home, and those abroad. The force serving within these islands amounted to 59,598, while 39,116 were in the Colonies. One of the great arguments for keeping up an effective force at home was in order that a well-regulated system for relief to the soldiers serving abroad might be maintained. This principle was laid down several years ago by his predecessor (Mr. Sydney Herbert), and by the head of the last Government, and this improved system of relief, which had greatly reconciled the Army to serving abroad, he had endeavoured to maintain during his administration. By this means the term of service abroad had been reduced to ten years abroad, followed by five years at home, for the "inner service," as it was called; and to fifteen years abroad, and seven years and a half at home, for regiments serving in India and the more distant Colonies. The number of Her Majesty's troops in India was 30,497, and, although they were not included in the vote for 93,714 men, and although the House and the country did not pay for them, yet these regiments drew upon the system of relief. He maintained beyond this that it was reasonable the Government should have at their disposal for exigencies and for emergencies a certain amount of force, because, without running a race of military numbers with foreign Powers, it did not become this country, with such vast wealth to protect, and with such enormous interests at stake, to be altogether denuded of military force, and to be unprepared for any turn that affairs might take in foreign countries, and for the altered circumstances in which we were placed since the introduction of steam. The first vote being for the number of men, the second was for the maintenance of the Army, and this led him to state the amount of reductions made in the charge for the Army in consequence of the evidence taken before the Committee on the Army Estimates. In the first place, he proposed last year that the double battalion system should be done away with. To a great extent that reduction had been adopted, and a saving had accordingly boon effected in the reduction of the depôt battalions of 2,298l. The next saving was one in prospectu, being an allowance of 500l. a year, drawn by the late Adjutant General, the payment of which to the present Adjutant General would be discontinued whenever it should please his Grace the Commander-in-Chief to bestow the colonelcy of a regiment on that officer. Since the last estimates a change had been made in the department of the Quartermaster General, and a saving of 789l, per annum had been made in the new arrangements. In the Army Medical Department the service had lost by the retirement, not, he was happy to say, by the death, of Sir James M'Grigor, an officer to whom the public were much indebted. In consequence of his retirement at the age of eighty-one, reductions had been effected in that department amounting to 1,085l. a year. In the Medical Staff of the Army the reductions made amounted to 1,414l. a year. The Committee upstairs went very largely into the question of the Staff in Canada, and the Government had been able to reduce five officers and some other expenditure, amounting altogether to 1,540l. a year. Then the office of Deputy Judge Advocate for Ireland had been discontinued, the saving thereby being 398l. a year. The whole saving that would be effected in consequence of the labours of the Committee on Army Estimates was 8,024l. The sum asked for on account of Vote No. 2 of these Estimates was last year 3,562,430l. This year (1851–52) the charge for the land forces was 3,521,069l., making a decrease of 41,361l. This decrease was spread over such a vast variety of small items that he would not detain the Committee by recapitulating them. But he would take this opportunity of noticing some of the special sums voted for certain Estimates in which the House of Commons took a very deep interest. The first was good-conduct pay, a system which was commenced under the warrant of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sydney Herbert), and in which in the present Estimates there was an increase of 4,599l. It must always be satisfactory to every one who had the interest of the Army at heart to see this increase going on, for rely upon it that it would be far better economy to have an increase in this Vote for rewarding the good soldier, than be at the expense of finding means for punishing the bad. The next increase was in the lodging-money for married soldiers, in order to put an end to the practice of making the married and unmarried soldiers sleep in the same room in the barracks. Last year he proposed that each soldier who availed himself of the permission granted by his commanding officer should receive 1d. per day. Now, be was quite aware that this allowance was inadequate, and this year it had been doubled. Although 2d. a day seemed a small sum to provide a married soldier with a lodging out of the barracks, he felt quite sure it would be found adequate for the purpose. And it would be found much more adequate if a hint thrown out recently by a military paper were adopted, and if philanthropic officers or gentlemen connected with the Army would enter into some arrangement, either by public company or otherwise, to construct model lodging-houses for the married soldiers. That would be one of the greatest boons that the soldiers could receive, and he believed that it would be a most excellent investment. The charge for lodging-money in the present estimates was 8,000l., being an increase of 4,000l. over last year. He now came to the subject of schools. He was happy to say that the schools for the Army were flourishing beyond his most sanguine expections. They were established in 1846 by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sydney Herbert) under the Royal warrant, and they had gone on increasing in prosperity during the last five years. Students were first admitted to the normal school in 1847. The period of training was about two years. The first appointment was made in 1849, and since that period four garrison and 30 regimental schoolmasters had been appointed, with 13 assistant schoolmasters. At present there were 34 trained masters and 11 assistant masters in the regimental schools of the Army. And, although this was at first looked upon as an innovation, they could not now keep pace with the demand which was made upon them for schoolmasters for regiments; and he was happy to say that the thirst among the men for education was commensurate with the desire of the officers to provide it. The House was aware that steps had been taken by his Grace the Commander-in-Chief to ascertain the quantity of knowledge possessed by those who gained a commission in the Army, and that it had also been determined that an examination should take place until the officers took the rank of captain. But, at the same time, he must tell the House that he believed they would be called upon ere long to provide some means by which the officers of the Army would be enabled to obtain the quantity of knowledge which was required from them before they were allowed to hold the rank of captain. That examination was a severe one, although he did not think it was too severe; but it would be too severe if the House did not supply the officers of the Army with the means of obtaining the knowledge that was necessary. He saw no other way of accom- plishing the object except by attaching to each regiment a captain without a company, who should be called the Captain of Instruction. If this was done, he believed that it would be the means of inducing the officers to devote a great deal more of their time to study than they did at present, and lead every officer to do his best to qualify himself for examination. The next item to which he had to call the attention of the House was also connected with the diffusion of knowledge in the Army—he meant the libraries. He was happy to state that an increase in the number of subscribers to the libraries had gradually been going on since the commencement of the scheme in 1840. There were now upwards of 100,000 volumes in the regimental libraries, and about 16,000 subscribers. The accounts of the regimental savings banks also, he was happy to say, tended to show the increased prosperity of the Army. In 1844 the number of depositors was 1,890, and the funds amounted to 14,849l. In 1850 the number of depositors was 7,859, and the funds amounted to 94,961l. These facts afforded a gratifying proof that the liberality of the House in promoting the interests of the Army was not thrown away; and he was quite sure that, however much the House was disposed to study economy in all the proper branches, they would never think of grudging what was necessary in this department. He now came to the third Vote, which was a Vote on account of the staff. He was happy to be able to state, that the reduction in this Vote came to within a few pounds of 5,000l. The decrease in the home staff amounted to 1,245l., the decrease on the staff abroad was 3,739l.—making together 4,984l. He now passed to the public departments, and here there was a slight increase of 63l. There was a total increase on the civil department of 1,911l., but that was balanced by a decrease in the military department of 1,848l., leaving, as he had said, a slight decrease of 63l. The Vote for the Royal Military College was much the same as last year, the increase being only 6l. The next Vote to which he would draw the attention of the House was that for the Royal Military Asylum and Hibernian School. In this there was also a small decrease of 641l., arising, not from any decrease in the efficiency of those institutions, but from the cheapness of provisions and other sources. The next Vote was for the yeomanry or volunteer corps. Upon this there was a decrease of 16,000l. He was quite aware that some of his hon. and gallant Friends, eminent Members of this useful establishment, were rather angry with him because this Vote had been reduced so much; but he begged to tell them that they ought to "lay this flattering unction to their souls," that it was the greatest compliment that he could pay to that force, because the reduction arose solely and entirely from the circumstance that the force had been found in so perfect a state of order and discipline as to enable the authorities to dispense with their inspection oftener than once in two years. Those seven Votes were for the effective services of the Army. The whole expense of the effective services, in 1850–51, amounted to 3,936,582l. The estimated expense for the year 1851–52 was 3,873,666l., being a decrease of 62,916l. With the exception of the slight increase of 63l. for the Public Departments, and of 6l. for the Royal Military College, there was a decrease upon every other item. The next class of Votes was called Votes for the non-effective services. The first of these was the Vote for rewards to Officers for long services. In 1850–51 this Vote amounted to 15,112l. This year it amounted to 14,606l., showing a decrease of 506l. These rewards arose, as the House were aware, from the proceeds accruing from the vacancies in the old garrison appointments, two-fifths of which were apportioned as rewards for distinguished military services, and the other three-fifths went to the public Exchequer. The vacancies which had occurred during the year were rather considerable. They were Carisbrooke Castle, 173l.; Governor of Scarborough, 15l.; Governor of Berwick, 568l.; Garrison Quartermaster of Malta, 136l.; and a Lieutenant-Governor of Edinburgh Castle. The next Vote was that for the army pay of general officers. For 1850–1 there was required for this purpose the sum of 58,000l. This year there was required the sum of 52,000l., making a saving of 6,000l. Eighteen had been removed from the list; eight of these had died, and ten had got regiments. Two had made good claims to be placed upon the list; and, when speaking upon this Vote, he must be allowed to say, that the number of general officers receiving army pay had never been so low as at this moment. The Vote for the full pay of retired officers in 1850–51 was 54,500l. The sum asked this year was 52,500l., showing a reduction of 2,000l. He now came to the half-pay. The Vote required for this purpose last year was 386,000l. This year it was 377,000l., being a reduction of 9,000l. He had stated to the Committee upstairs, and he would now repeat, that there was no branch of the public expenditure which the Secretary at War watched with greater vigilance than he did the half-pay list. He would show the Committee, when they came to discuss the individual Votes, the extent to which it had been reduced. He would content himself, however, with stating at present that during the past year 237 officers had died or been removed, and that 126 had been put on, making a reduction on the whole of 111 officers. Of course, after a certain period of active service, officers were entitled to a retirement, and it would be ungenerous to refuse them that boon; but, at the same time, he felt that for a considerable time to come this ought to be a decreasing Vote, and that the number of Officers on half-pay ought to bear a due and fair proportion to those who were maintained on full-pay. The next Vote was for foreign half-pay—a vote which of course would be eventually extinguished. For 1850–51 this vote was 42,200l., this year it was 38,993l., showing a decrease of 3,207l. During the year there had died 26 half-pay officers, 5 who had pensions for wounds, 3 widows, and 3 children, making in all 37 persons. Of course there would be no addition to the foreign half-pay. The Vote for Widows' pensions in 1850–51 was 126,536l. This year it was 122,717l., making a reduction of 3,819l. During the year 85 widows had been removed from the list, and 13 placed on; making a decrease of 72. The Vote for compassionate allowances in 1850–51, was 91,000l. This year it was 88,500l., making a decrease of 2,500l. The number of cases had decreased to the extent of 59. The next Vote had reference to the subject which they had been discussing that evening; he meant the Vote for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals. The Vote for 1850–51 was 35,756l.; for this year it was 35,413l., being a reduction of 343l. The decrease on Chelsea was 480l., and the increase on Kilmainham 137l. The decrease here also arose from the difference in the price of provisions. He now came to what was always a large Vote—viz., the Vote for out-pensions. In 1850–51 the Vote amounted to 1,233,711l.; this year the sum required was 1,233,050l., stowing a decrease, he was sorry to say, of only 661l. The number of out-pensioners who had died during the year was 677; the decrease on the charge was 6,242l., the increase 5,581l.,—difference, 661l. The increase arose as follows:—5,000l. less deducted for casualties, 70l. for staff officers in Australia; 500l. for organisation of pensioners in Canada; and 11l. for superintendent of black pensioners, making altogether 5,581l. The last Vote was superannuated allowances. In 1850–51 this Vote was 40,000l., this year it was 37,500l., making a decrease of 2,500l. On the non-effective services there was a decrease in every item; and the total decrease was 30,536l. The increase and decrease on the whole Estimates, as between this year and last, were as follows:—In 1850–51 the charge for the effective services was 3,936,582l.; in 1851–52 it was proposed to be 3,873,666l.; decrease, 62,916l. In 1850–51, the charge for the non-effective services was 2,082,815l. This year it was proposed to be 2,052,279l.; decrease, 30,536l. The total charge for both effective and non-effective services in 1850–51 was 6,019,397l.; for this year it was proposed to be 5,925,945l.; making a decrease of 93,452l. Next year, being Leap-year, the one day's extra pay would occasion an increase of 12,454l., otherwise the decrease would have amounted to 105,906l. Such was the general state of the Votes which he had to propose to the House. But he could not quit the comparison without noticing the comparison of the present year with that which his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose considered as the beau ideal of low Estimates—he meant the year 1835. He was happy to be able to state to his hon. Friend, that with a very much increased force, and taking into consideration the whole military expenditure, both for the Army and the Militia, the result was that there was a much smaller charge this year for the Army and Militia of the United Kingdom than there was in 1835.

was gratified not less than the right hon. Gentleman at the economy which had taken place in the Army of late years. The economy had been of the most practical character, for they found that while the charges had decreased, the available force at the disposal of the country had been greatly increased. He had gone carefully over the returns of all the departments, and he was glad to perceive that in the system of accounts, as to correctness and character, the Army was far before the Ordnance or Navy—any comparison with the Navy being, in fact, quite out of the question. They had no doubt made considerable progress; but he was still not satisfied, and he only accepted what had been done as a proof of how much more could be accomplished. He saw no reason whatever why the civil organisation of the Army should not be still further improved. He saw no reason whatever why the Ordnance should not be placed, as in all other armies, under the Commander-in-Chief, in order that they might thus get rid of the expense of that costly and most useless establishment in Pall-mall, and save a clear million at least. He would not place reliance on the evidence, for it was interested, the witnesses being military men, who saw the advantage of the country in the increase of their establishments. The Governments successively had always urged that relief was wanted in the colonies, as the excuse for keeping up the numbers of the Army; and it seemed as if the same or an increased number was always to be required in the colonies. But changes had taken place of late in our colonial policy which should induce the House of Commons to change the system also; and the Government had admitted that the colonies should pay some part of the expenditure for military supplies. Formerly, in colonies with a mixed population, as in the West India islands, residence was not safe without a stationary military force, if only as police protection; but within the last few years Her Majesty's Government had determined, that whenever our colonists adopted the institutions of this country, and had the management of their own affairs, they were to be made responsible for the expense of maintaining their military defence; and Earl Grey had said that they must be prepared to do so. If that were so, why delay placing them in the situation that would relieve this country of a large portion of its expenditure? Besides the 39,000 men specially demanded for the colonies, there were further some 40,000 artillery, engineer, ordnance, and sapper and miner troops employed in the East Indies and elsewhere: and, to a very large proportion of this number the principle intimated by Earl Grey in reference to the Australian troops might be gradually applied. The question was, had the country arrived at a point when they might demand a reduction in this large establishment, and whether the principle laid down by Earl Grey was to be acted upon? If 39,000 men were now required, it was a greater number than used to be wanted, and more than were required, although necessary when troops were wanted to coerce or keep down our colonies, or to keep out foreign aggression. At this time, when the reduction of the national expenditure was looked forward to, the colonies were among the sources which should be considered as aids to such reduction. The Australian Colonies had some 5,000 troops, and Earl Grey had given notice he should withdraw them. If that were so, why not a reduction in the estimate of the total number out there? Then there were the Canadas and North America. The Government had given responsibile government to Canada, and what was the use of keeping 8,000 or 9,000 troops there, or even 1,000 men? Why, if they were withdrawn directly, the inhabitants would probably not raise 1,000 men. He put it to the House whether, in such colonies as these, we ought to pay for troops only to act as police. If they wanted police, we ought not to be at the expense of maintaining the force we now do, and which is no longer wanted. He asked why Earl Grey and the Government, after the declarations he had mentioned, did not put them in force as regarded Canada and Nova Scotia, withdraw the troops, and leave them to find for themselves whatever was requisite? He should be glad to hear any plausible reason to the contrary. Without going back to 1835 as a precedent, but taking the average of three years, 1834, 1835, and 1836, and by comparing them with the present esti- mates, the result would be that we voted 151,000 in place of 121,000 in round numbers. He should now appeal to the House to show their desire for practical reduction, and conclude by moving the reduction of the vote for 98,714 men by 5,000 men, who should be immediately withdrawn from the Colonies.

, in seconding the Amendment, must condemn the financial conduct of the Government as having been more extravagant in every branch of the public service than any of their predecessors. Unless the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War could show that there was something in the state of the country which required such a large force, he (Mr. Williams) did not think the House would be justified in voting the number of men which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed. The average of the eleven years from 1829 to 1839, had been much below what was proposed for this year. The average of these eleven years had been—of cavalry and infantry, 85,140 men; of artillery, 8,550, making together 93,690 men. There were proposed for this year, cavalry and infantry, 98,714; artillery, 14,570, together 113,284 men; being rather more than 20,000 men required this year above what had been the average required by the three Governments who had preceded the present Administration. Besides this, too, there had been an increase in the Irish police and the coast guard, amounting to 36,000 men, which, with the increase of 20,000 in the artillery, infantry, and cavalry, made the force asked by the Government for this year more than 56,000 above what had been required by the Governments of the Duke of Wellington, Earl Grey, and Lord Melbourne. He (Mr. Williams) must give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the clear and intelligible manner in which his Estimates were usually drawn up; but he should like very much that the right hon. Gentleman would point out what necessity existed for this increase of force. He (Mr. Williams) begged the House to observe that in the year 1839 this country was in a position of considerable difficulty. Things were not at all tranquil at home, the rebellion in Canada was scarcely repressed, the difficulties existing with the United States in regard to the boundary question were not obviated, and our relations with France were not on the most satisfactory footing. Taking all these circumstances together, that period had been one of considerable difficulty; and if in such a period Government could do with the force he had mentioned, he did not see how the Secretary at War was justified in asking for such a large number of men for the present period. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had, in former days, entertained a very different notion as to the military force required in this country. He (Mr. Williams) would read a few lines which occurred in the noble Lord's Essay on the Constitution. The words were these:—

"When it is urged that it is necessary to assimilate our peace establishment to that of Continental Powers, and that a large Army is rendered necessary by the increase of the population, then it is time for the people to arouse themselves and shake off, before it be too late, the burden of a military government."

These words had been written by the noble Lord in the year 1823. Now, what had been the military force at that time? The Army had then numbered 74,000 men, so that the number asked this year exceeded by 40,000 that of the year 1823, when the noble Lord had put these opinions on paper. He (Mr. Williams) wished the noble Lord would carry out these principles, and take an example from the three Governments which had preceded the present Administration. All the circumstances of the country favoured the reduction of our military force. The railroads which now existed enabled the authorities to concentrate with ease the military at any given point, and of course did away with the supposed necessity which existed formerly to maintain such a large military force over the country. He was sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had not proposed a much larger reduction than 5,000 men. For his own part, he saw no necessity for such an increase of men over what had been required by former Governments. Perhaps the Government could show some necessity for it. It had not, however, been done by the right hon. the Secretary at War. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the year 1839; but he (Mr. Williams) could tell him that the cost of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, or, as they were generally termed, cavalry, infantry, and artillery, marines and sailors alone, had been 3,076,000l. more than the estimates of this year. ["Oh, oh!" and "Divide, divide!"] He thought that, on a subject of such importance, hon. Members should be allowed to express their opinions without interruption.

said, he would confine himself to the proposal by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) to reduce the military force of the colonies by 5,000 men. In the year 1835 a Committee of the House had been appointed to inquire into the colonial military expenditure of the country. That Committee was composed of Earl Fortescue, Sir Henry Hardinge, Sir Henry Barlow, and the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, and they recommended that there should he the strictest economy observed in our colonial military expenditure. At that period the number of troops in the American colonies amounted to 5,399 men, including artillery and infantry, maintained at a cost of 337,000l. Since that period there had been an increase in the military force of our North American colonics, and also an increase in the expenditure. In 1846–7 the number of military in these colonics had been 9,743, and the expenditure had amounted to 645,000l. Last year the number of men and the expenditure had been nearly the same as in 1840–7. Since the year 1835, the increase of men in our North American colonics had been 4,374, and of expenditure 300,000l. If they came to the standard of 1835, they would consequently make a reduction of the men in the North American colonies to the extent of about 4,500, and a reduction in the expenditure of 300,000l. This increase in the military expenditure of the Canadas had been occasioned by the rebellion, which had cost this country 2,000,000l. [Mr. HUME: 5,000,000l.] His hon. Friend said 5,000,000l. They ought to recollect that the Canadas were now in a different position from what they had been when the increase had taken place. They had now obtained the uncontrolled management of their own affairs, and he must say that the policy latterly pursued towards these colonies had been most wise and judicious. He much approved of the surrendering to these colonies the management of the clergy reserves. He maintained, however, that this country should not maintain troops in Canada for merely local purposes, especially as they had now the management of their own affairs. If some 4,000 troops were sufficient for the North American colonies in 1836, when they had not the management of their local affairs, he thought the number of troops now maintained in those colonies ought to be at once reduced. No doubt it was necessary for imperial purposes to have troops in particular stations—at Halifax and Quebec, for instance; but in 1835 the garrison of Quebec consisted of 1,100 men, and the garrison of Halifax of 1,500 men, and his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) proposed to allow 4,000 men for these purposes. If we were to have a repeal of obnoxious taxes, there should be every possible reduction in our military expenditure; and any considerable reduction of our expenditure could only be made in our military establishments, and especially those connected with the colonies.

In reference to what has been said by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), I may state that the actual number of men in our North American colonies, including Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, is 8,079. The hon. Baronet proposes to reduce the number by 5,000, which would leave a totally inadequate force.

said, he had included artillery and engineers.

said, he believed that we could not suddenly withdraw from the colonies 5,000 men, though at the same time he believed that the chief reduction in the Army must be from the forces in the colonies. He contended that, in the North American colonies, all that we required to maintain was merely a few companies at Quebec, Montreal, Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, to serve, in case of need, as the framework to form regiments in those provinces. He did not think that they could, during this year, withdraw 5,000 men from the North American colonies, for the withdrawal of them would occupy a great portion of the year; and they could not withdraw them all at once, without throwing the men into a state of destitution. He would prefer leaving the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the first instance, and afterwards the Secretary at War, to make those reductions. He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement with great satisfaction, and he believed that the accounts were kept in his office with very great correctness. But there was another field for economy in the Army. The great military establishments they kept up in Ireland were a satire upon the people of that country. He had much difficulty with regard to this Vote, and that was owing to our being called on to grant large sums of-money, while we had no Budget of ways and means. Government, by withholding a Budget, were keeping the country in suspense; trade was paralysed, and especially the shipping trade. He thought it would be wise in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce on Monday what he intended to do. The longer the right hon. Gentleman kept off making his statement, the greater injury he would do the country, and the more would he weaken the Government. He (Mr. Macgregor) thought that the best thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do, in the present state of the House of Commons, and in the condition of the Ministry, would be to attempt nothing more in his financial changes than to repeal the Window Tax entirely, and to renew the Income Tax for one year, having in view at the same time the greatest possible economy in the expenditure.

said, in order to remove the difficulty which his hon. Friend felt with regard to the reduction, he would state that the recruiting was to the amount of 12,000 men a year, and if they stopped that they would accomplish the object. The House did not seem to be aware that this Vote involved a large expenditure for the Ordnance. Taking the five years from 1834 to 1838, inclusive, he found that the expense amounted to 61,274,159l. for Ordnance, Army, and Navy; while for the five years from 1846 to 1850, the amount was 84,524,659l., showing an excess of 23,250,500l. in the last five years, and an excess of 4,030,098l. in the expenditure of 1850 over the expenditure of 1835.

protested against proceeding further that night, it being now a quarter past twelve o'clock. He should move that the Chairman report progress.

said, the 5th of April was fast approaching, and although they might have money in hand for the present year, that money, very properly, could not be applied to the expenditure of the ensuing year. He hoped his hon. Friend would now allow the Votes to be taken.

said, he wished to show the injustice of several of the items, and especially with regard to the differences of rank. He wished to go into detail. ["Oh, oh!"] He had a duty to perform, and he should not be prevented from performing it by clamour.

said, he had an additional reason why the question should not be further debated that evening. It appeared evident that the House was not disposed to enter upon such a discussion as many Members might desire. For instance, he had the presumption to think that he could himself show that a reduction of more than 5,000 men in the Army, so far from impairing its efficacy, would render good service to the colonies, for the sake of which it was pretended that our military establishment was kept up on its present footing. ["Divide, divide!"] As the House was not prepared to listen to any man, he should support the Motion for reporting progress.

said, that if the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) would take the trouble to read the evidence given before the Committee last year, he would find every explanation that he could require, not only given in a far better manner than he could do, but illustrated by documents from the War Office. He hoped the House would consent to the Vote.

protested against the voting of 3,500,000l. after midnight.

said, that the lion. Member being so inflexible in his determination, he (Lord J. Russell) had nothing for it but to acquiesce. He would, therefore, offer no further opposition to the adjournment; but he should feel it his duty to propose, that on Monday evening Supply should have precedence of all other Orders. This would necessarily interfere with the arrangements he had previously made, and he should be compelled, in consequence, to postpone the Motion of which he had given notice, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the relations of this country with the Kaffir and other tribes on our South African frontier. He must, however, be permitted to say that he thought the conduct of the hon. Member for Montrose very unreasonable.

wished the noble Lord to understand that it was his intention to move, on Monday evening, that unless Government brought forward their financial statement, the House should not even go into Committee of Supply. There was a business-like mode in which to do things, and it ought to be observed. The House ought not to be trifled with. Nobody had of late years heard of such a thing as voting large sums of money after midnight; and he, for one, must protest against it. A minority had rights as well as a majority; and it was not to be endured that they should be forced into compliance by what some would designate (though he did not so designate it) as "a tyrannical majority."

said, the question for which he had given notice for a Select Committee to inquire into, was most essential to the interests of the empire. It need not be a long question, or require a long debate. He should have brought it on to-day, but the noble Lord at the head of the Government asked him to give way, assuring him that he should bring it on the first thing on Monday; and he acceded to the request out of deference to the noble Lord. The discussion on the Budget would be coming on, and he should like to know whether he would be allowed to refer the subject to a Committee before going through the Supplies.

said, it was quite right that the hon. Gentleman should receive an explanation. According to the Orders of the House, after an amendment had been put and divided upon, no other resolution could be proposed; the only Motion that could be put was, that the Speaker should leave the chair. The Speaker himself had decided so that night, in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp), which stood before that of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley). Therefore it was impossible that his Motion could come on. He certainly intended to have proceeded on Monday, before any other business, with the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman would see the position in which the House stood. On the 5th of April any monies that might remain, not having been paid in the expenses of the year, would be returned to the Exchequer. Therefore, unless the House now consented to vote certain sums, there would not be, on the 5th April, any money for the emergencies of the service. As the hon. Member for Montrose knew that, he hoped he would not persevere in his opposition.

said, that to show what he intended to do, he would state that he meant to put on the books a notice, before going into Committee of Supply, that the House would not grant any further supplies until the financial statement was made.

said, he was not at all certain that the opinion of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Montrose, being very unreasonable, would be participated in out of doors. Generally speaking, the public impression was, that if any part of the business of that House was done in a slovenly, unsatisfactory manner, it was the voting of large sums of money. It might be all very well that this money should be voted in the sums now proposed; but it certainly did not appear right to those paying the taxes that those sums should be voted without consideration and inquiry. The noble Lord at the head of the Government ought not to lay all the blame on the hon. Member for Montrose of the interruption to public business. He had kept the House himself, ever since the 4th of February, running after a hare which they would never catch, and trying to do that which was wholly impossible. And if the public were favourable to the noble Lord's project, they must be ready to submit to some little inconvenience with regard to the rest of the busines. If there was any occasion on which it was necessary to make some stand, and demand some inquiry and discussion, it was in voting these large sums of money; for it was only in these large Votes for Naval and Military expenditure that it was possible to secure for the country any reduction of expenditure.

said, he would not press his Motion.