The Principality

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY, "ANArcii 15. The House sat for a few minutes, in the course of which some petitions were presented, and some returns relative to Irish taxa- tion were ordered en the motion of the Earl of WICKLOW.

MR. liume,s MOTIONS. Lord DRUMLANUICJ then moved for a return of the expense the country has incurred from printing and publishing and collecting letups moved for by the hon. member for Montrose, from Feb., 18 IS, to Feb., 1849. Mr. HUME had no objection to the motion, provided the words, a id also by every other member," were added to it. He moved an amendment to that effect. Sir G. GREY thought that the selection of Mr. Hume in this manner was virtually a reflection upon the conduct of that hon. member which was most unmerited. It was the House that was responsible for the expense of these returns. Mr. HictiatEs, after paying a high compliment to Mr. Hume, advised Lord Drumlanrig to withdraw his motion. The motion was withdrawn.

MR. DISRAELI'S MOTION. The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. M. GIBSON, who said he regarded the two proposal. before the House as founded upon entirely different principles. Mr. Disraeli's proposition in- volved simply a transter of taxation, whilst that of Mr. Hume con- templated a reduction of expenditure, with a view to the relief of all classes from the oppressive burden of taxation. Mr. SEYMER opp IS d the amendment and supported the resolu- tions, whilst Lord NoREUfiYS would vote both against the resolu- tions and the amendment. Mr. C. LEWIS shuwed that, from the earliest times, local taxa- tion was exclusively imposed upon real property, personal pro- perty having been exempted, from the impossibility of adequately rating it. Mr. W. MILES contended that the local rates were unequally an.1 unjustly distributed, and that justice and sound policy, espe- cially in the present state of the agricultural interest, demanded a more equitable apportionment of local taxation. As to the malt- tax, the time for its repeal had not, in his opinion, yet arrived. All classes had not yet felt the pinch of free trade (hear). The time would come when they would do so, and then it would be for the H JUse to consider the propriety of reimposing some of the import duties which had been abandoned (laughter and cheers). When the duties were reimposed it would be time to consider the propriety of repeiding the milt-tax. Mr. BRIGHT observ d that the ground upon which the hon. gen- tleman had placed his resolutions was the supposed prevalence of agricultural distress. But he thought that the hon. gentleman's own speech had ^disproved the existence of general agricultural distress, such distress not prevailing in the north. This plea, therefore, was taken from under the hon. gentleman's feet, and the pretence on which they had been brought forward had failed. There was no reason why they should adopt so sweeping a change in the system of local taxation, which could not be justified on general grounds. By throwing the local rates, either in whole or in part, upon the Consolidated Fund, they would, if they left the rates to local distribution, greatly increase their amount. To throw local administration into the hands of the Government, would be a most objectionable course. The effect of the proposal before the House would be to raise the value of the landed pro- perty of the country to the extent of from sixty to one hundred millions. And this would be effected at the cost of the traders and small farmers of the country. There was not a more merito- rious class than the tenant-farmers in the country. To bring them relief he was anxious to repeal the malt and hop duties, and he was astonished to find that when such a proposition was before the House the" farmers' friends" should turn the cold shoulder upon the farmers (heir, hear). Now they were tilent- Their lips were now forbid to speak Tliat once familiar word." (Laughter.) There was but one mode of bringing relief to the farmers. They must reduce expenditure, and then diminish tax- ation. Such was the object of the amendment, and it would, therefore, have his support. Mr. NHWDHGATE supported the resolutions as being founded in justice, and comprehensive as regarded the relief which they pro- posed to afford. Mr. S. HERBERT denied that agricultural distress was to be at- tributed, as had been alleged by some hon. gentlemen, to the price of wheat. If they transferred one-half of the local taxation to the Exchequer, they would introduce an extravagance into its admi- nistration which would end in anything but relief to the agricul- tural interest. The tendency of the scheme was towards centra- lisation, and he would greatly regret anything which would mate- rially trench upon that local administration which had been at- tended with such advantages to the country. Mr. CAYLEY and the Marquis of GIANBY supported the motion. Mr. GOULBURN would not consent to go into committee to ar- range a change of taxation, unless he had a tolerably good idea of what that change was to he. No such idea of what was contem- plated was conveyed by any of the speeches made in favour of the resolutions. against which he should vote. Lord J. RUSSKLI. observed that if he could prevail upon him- self to vote for going into committee, it would be from a motive of curiosity to ascertain what was the plan of Mr. Disraeli, of which no distinct outline had been given. When that plan was proposed, every one believed that an increase of the income tax wis contemplated (hear). The hon. member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Christopher) had proposed a moderate duty on corn. Six millions from a moderate duty on corti Then came his hon. friend (Mr. Cayley) with a most astounding proposition. What, he would ask again, was the great secret? He (Lord John) had formerly given advice to the agricultural interest, which it had disregarded, as bethought, unfortunately for itself. He now ven- tured once more to counsel it, not to close with the proposition submitted by Mr. Disraeli, not alone from considerations con- nected with the welfare of that interest itself, but also with that of the entire eou ltry. As to the amendment, he regarded it as ill-timed, and would vote against it, so that the' main proposition might be submitted to the House, against which he would also vote, as a measure which, if carried, would only lead to a war of classes, and to other evils of which no one could contemplate the blre possibility with indifference (cheers). Mr. COBDKN would not weary the House by any reference to the speech of the hon. member for Buckinghamshire, because, after the speech of the Chancellor of the Excnequer, that would only be "toslaythesiain" (hear, hear). The question proposed by the hon. gentleman had been resolved by the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer into this, that it was a proposal to lay on be'ween £41)0,000 and £;'¡On,ooo upon the tenant-farmers on the plea of being a benefit to them. That proceeded, too, upon the assump- tion that it was proved to demonstration, and beyond cavil or con- tradiction, that the local burdens laid upon property were borne by real property, and not by the floating capital of the country. If the House agreed to that proposition, they might feel inclined to reduce the burdens upon real property but was there one human being who would deny this proposition, that. if they reduced the burden upon real property, the relief would go into the pockets of the owners of that. property (cheers and dissent from the Protec- tionist benches) ? But there would be farmers who would read what he was saying, and farm labourers too, and he would put the case of two farms to be let of precisely equal intrinsic value as re- garded the quality of the soil and the situation, but upon one of them the poor-rates should be 2s. in the pound, and on the other 8s. in the pound. Now, would any hon. member tell him that he would let the two farms for the same rent ? He asked for even a nod of assent from hon. gentlemen opposite. Why there was not a farm agent or valuer in the kingdom who would not scout the proposition that those two farms would be let at the same Tent. Those persons would tell them that, after deducting the rates from the value of the land, the difference was always taken as the amount of the rent. Did not such a proposition, therefore, as that of the hon. gentleman come before them under false pre- tences, or even very much like a hoax ? The House were called upon to believe that the agricultural labourer was suffering from the low price of provisions. The noble lord the member for West Sussex (the Earlof March) spoke of seven years of those halcyon days of protection, and declared how well the agric ultural labourer was off in those years. Now. he (Mr. Cobden) had taken some pains to inform himself upon this part of the question, and he de- nied that the labourer was better off in dear years than when corn was cheap. Take the year 1817, adverted to by the noble earl, and let them compare the situation of an agricultural labourer hav- ing a famdy of five persons in that year and the present. If he consumed as much bread as the union allowed him he would eat ten 41b. loaves per week. which in the year 1847 cost him 9d. per loaf, or 7s. 6d. in all. The price of these loaves is 6d. at present, so that the same quantity of bread now would cost him 5s., or less by 2s. 6d. than in 1847. The reduction of wages might be Is. per week, or, taking the reduction at the noble earl's own showing, at 2s. per week, it left the labourer benefited to the amount of Gd. per week in bread, in addition to the reduction in the price of sugar and other articles. But take the ca.se of the manufacturing and other labourers in the north of England and m London, and com- pare their situation at present with what it was in the bygone and cherished years of protection-years which had gone by for ever. The mechanics, porters, and labourers in the north of England were saving from 2s. to 3s. per week in the diminished price of bread and other articles, tantamount t) an advance of 15 per cent in their weekly income. The period of 1793 was one in which the farmers felt themselves perfectly safe and at ease, and how was it that they found themselves in that condition when the prices of their produce were as nearly as possible the same then as now —what was it ttiat occasioned the difference ? The price of wheat in 1790, was not much different from its present price. But how was it then with the articles which the farmers consumed ? Iron and all the implements made of iron were then double their pre- sent prices. Clothing-all clothing was at least double its present price, and cotton clothing was four or five times the price that it bore at present. Salt was double its present price, having then been about 4s. 6d. a bushel, and now not exceeding 2s. 3d. Tea, sugar, coffee, soap, fuel, candles, and spices were all vastly dearer than at present. But on the other hand, butchers' meat, bacon, butter, cheese, poultry, eggs, were all of them cheaper than in these days --all those articles were dearer now than then. Wherein, he w: u d ask, lay the se tret of the farmer's prosper y? He put thac question to the landlords, and if they spoke their mind, freeiy and candidly, they would say that the difference lay in the rent. The rent of land at present was double, and in many cases treble, what it had been in 1790. He had no fear of being contradicted when he said, that the rent of land now was double its rent in 1790. And now he would tell the landlords that if they meant or intended to keep up the old rents, they must have farmers of more capital and intelligence ttian those to whom they had previ- ously been in the habit of letting their lands. In future the lands lords must proceed upon mercantile principles. If re.,i,,s wel-e to be maintained the land must be made more productive than ever, and that was only to be done by farmers of greater capital, skill, and energy than the present race of tenants. But then thj la d- lords must also be willing to accept as tenants, farmers who would not be afraid to vote according to their own judgment of puolic men, and landlords must give up battue sh otiiig. By an e,treme preservation of game landlords would drive men of capital off their estates. If landlords desired to imitate the example of a certain noble lord and his friends, who in the course of a single day shot 530 head of game, they could not hope to keep up their rents, or command the votes of their farmers. They ought to be content with money, and not demand both game and votes, in add t on to high rents. His advice to the landlords was, not to delude the farmers into the belief that a return to protection was possible. A return to a duty on corn was as impossible as the repeal of Magna Charta nor need they dream of high prices again. Such prices were incompatible with the welfare and prosperity of the country. They could not better benefit the farmer than by voting for a re- duction of expenditure—a course which would ultimately leal to higher rents, for where taxes were low the rent of land was high (cheers). Mr. DISRAELI replied. He would tell them that the only con- sequence of the rejection of that resolution would be a proposition conceived in a severer spirit of justice (cheers). Let not the Government suppose that the suffering landed interest which they had for years been conspiring to injure—(cheers)—that the various classes of that interest would renounce for a moment every chance they had to find a remedy from the Legislature (cheers). They would have in the end to do that suffering landed interest justice, and he warned them that before the session ended they would for the third time be appealed to (cheers). Like the unknown strangers in the Roman legend they would come; on the third time only one book would then remain, but they would take it up, and on it would be inscribed Protected and regenerated Eng- land" (great cheering). The House then divided on Mr. Disraeli's resolution- For Mr. Hume's amendment 70 Against it 394 Majority_ 324 189 Against them 28'J Majority 19] The following members voted against Mr. IIume's amend- ment:—Viscount Adare, W. Bagof, D. A. Davies, Bowel Gwyn, Sir F. Lewis, O. Morgan, E. Mostyn, Lord G. Paget, Col. Powell Pryse Pryse, David Pugh, R. Richards, G. R. Trevor, Col' Tyute, J. H. Vivian, Sir J. Walsh, Col. Watkins, F. R. West, Sir W. Wynn, C. W. Wynn. F>r:—'It. J. Blewitt, John Williams. The house rose at a quarter to three.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY, MARCH 16. THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT. In reply to Sir J. PAKINGTON, Mr. BAr", ES said he did not think it probable that any measure upon the general question of the law of settlement could be inrro- duced during the present session, nor with regard to the law of rating.

VOTE BY BALLOT. In reply to Mr. OSBORN E, Mr. H. BERKELEY said he had prepared a bill to establish vote by ballot, which he would introduce after Easter.

SUPPLY.- NAVY ESTIMATES. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply. Nl r. WARD; in moving tie vo e for the excess of naval expen- diture, entered into a lengthened statement of the causes which had produced the large excess of £ 323,737, and which arose chiefly, from the number of ships and men employed on the Irish coast during th' period of the famine, the increase in the amount of wages of men, victualling, naval and medical stores, and extra expenditure for the dockyard battalions. He admitted that these excess votes were object ionable and ought to be avoided, but in the present instance they arose from circumstances entirely bryony their control. The lion, gentleman proceeded to enumerate the various reductions that had been effected in the several depart- ments of the navy, amounting in the whole to between ESOO,000 and 1:900,000 and concluded by moving that 26,000 men, 12,000 marines, and 2,000 boys be voted for the service of the year. Mr. HUME complained that the reductions had not been carried to the extent that the country had a right to expect. He expa- tiated upon the abuses in ship-building and the dockyards, and insisted that our naval force on foreign stations was much larger than necessary, especially upon the coast of Africa, whence our blockading squadron should be withdrawn, pledging himself to show that a large reduction might be made in the cost of the navy He believed the time was coming when common sense and com- mon decency would force these matters on the public mind, and that, although the country gentlemen had that night voted against him, a majority would soon be found whose constituents would demand economy and retrenchment in all the public establish- ments. He considered he was making a very moderate proposi- tion in asking, upon this first vote, a reduction of 5,000 men and he accordingly begged to move as an amendment, that instead of 40.000 men being voted the number should be 35,000. Sir F. BARING opposed Mr. Hume's amendment. Sir W. M JLESWORTH said that the country ought to be very grateful to his hon. friends the members for Montrose and for the West Riding of Yorkshire for the opposition which they offered to the [navy estimates of last year; for in consequence of it the esti- mates were diminished last year by E208,000, and this year there was a further reduction of £ 707,000. He thought the Govern- ment deserved credit for their efforts to reduce the expenditure, but that there was room for further reductions in this department, and he pointed out various sources of the increased expense, with relation to the steam navy, the dockyard establishments, and the dead weight. He concluded by proposing various reductions of the force on foreign stations. After a few words from Captain BERKELEY, Mr. S. HERBERT replied to Sir W. Molesworth's strictures upon the steam navy, respecting which, he observed, there had been much misrepresentation and with regard to our ships generally, the disparaging remarks that had been male in that House were not borne out by the opinions of impartial judges in this and other countries. Mr. COBDEN said, Mr. War I had admitted that there had been shameful mismanagement in our dockyard establishments, and so long as the present syst m was maintained, there must be this waste. The system must be changed we must have a smaller establishment, not a less efficient one,—that was a convenient con- fusion of terms. He would pay our officers and men better; and he would have no more ships at sea than could be kept constantly at wor;c He repudiated the doctrine of Sir F. Baring, that this was a vote ot confide fce-the House was to judge of the necessity of the vote and he'showed he absence of ail ground of alarm .11 the establishments of other nival Powers, and of any necessity for keeping up our present force on foreign stations. It was with the view of getting back to the despised estimates of 1835 that he sup- ported the motion of Mr. Hume it was a step, and further steps must be taken before long. Captain HA RRIS pressed a consideration of an improved system of manning the navy; and after some brief observa ions on colla- teral topics from Co'onel SIBTHORP, Colonel THOMPSON*, Captain BOLOEUO, and Adm ral DCNDAS, The committee d v'.cled, when the motion of Mr. Hume was ne- gaiived by 141 to 59, and the vote was agreed to. For Mr. Hume's amendment, R. J. Blewitt, David Morris, John WilliamAgainst, Howel Gwyn, Lord G. Paget, Col. Watkins. Some other votes were passed without opposition, and certain sums were voted on account for the Ordnance Estimates. Th resolutions were reported, and the House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY, MARCH 19. Lord STANLEY asked Earl Grey whether any despatches had been received from the Cape complaining of the dissatisfaction of the inhabitants, and whether the Coionial-office would have any objection to lay on the table of the House the correspondence which had taken place respecting it between the Governor of the Cape and the authorities at home. He also wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay on the table the me- morial which had been presented to his lordship a few days ago from the inhabitants of that colony. Earl GRIn observed that a despatch had been received from the Governor of the Cape, transmitting a copy of the memorial to which allusion had been made, and in which strong objections were urged against the reception of any convicts into that colony; He had no objection to produce both the correspondence and the memorial in question.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY, MARCH 19. CHICORY AND COFFEE. Mr. ANSTEY called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the grounds upon which aTretsury minute had been issued, suspending the law which prohibited the adulteration of British colonial coffee by chicory, whilst no relaxation was made in the law which prohibited the adulteration of Chinese tea by any Bri- tish leaf? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained, that the Trea- sury thought proper to permit the admixture uf chicory with coffee in 1833-4, when a duty was imposed upon the root equiva- lent to the then existing duty on coffee. Adulterated tea was notoriously a deleterious article, but coffee was greatly improved by being adulterated with chicory ("Oh, oh! and l,tUol1rer). Gentlemen might laugh, but he was stating what was true. He had been informed by one of the rno.it respectable houses at the west end of London, with which, probably, many members were in the habit of dealing, that some of their customers who had been used to receive their coffee adulterated wiih 20 per cent, of chicory, insisted upon being supplied with the coffee berry, in or- der that by roasting and grinding it at home, they might obtain the pure beverage but that experience satisfied them it the pure coffee was not half so palatable as that which was adulterated (" Hear," from Mr. Alderman Sidney, and laughter from the House generally).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY, MARCH 15. PUBLIC LIBRARIES. Mr. E'S'AUT moved for a select committee on existing public li- braries in Great Britain and Ireland, and on the best means of ex- tending the establishment of libraries freely open to the public, especially in large towns. Sit-G, G REY wo eld have no objection to the motion, if the words on existing public libraries in Great Britain and Ireland were omitted, Mr, EAART coi-i-,onted, and the motion, as thus amended, was agreed to.

ARBITRATION. Mr. COBDEN gave notice that he would, on that day fortnight, m.)ve"Tbat an humble address be presented to the Queen, pray- ing that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct her prin- cipal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communica- tion with foreign powers, inviting them to concur in treaties bind- ing the respective parties, in case of future misunderstanding "which, cannot be arranged by amicable negotiation, to refer the platter in dispute to the decision of arbitrators.

MR. HUME'S AMENDMENT. On the motion that the House resolve itself uuo a committee of supply, Mr. HUME moved a resolution that, in the present state of the finances, the Government, before any vote for the public service, should submit a general financial statement of the expected re- venues and the intended expenditure. He thought, considering the feeling of the country, on the subject of taxation, the Govern- ment, without any stimulus, ought to have taken this course and he could only conclude, that they had either not made up their minds, as prudent men should do, as to the meditated scale of the future expenditure, or that they were afraid to state it. Our tin lllcial history since 1830 furnished Mr. flume with proofs of the infidelity of the Whigs, whose vows of economy, he ad- mitted, had deluded him, and he would trust them no more. He cited^ tne words of Lord Aithorp in 1830, and of Sir Robert Peel in 1815, and called upon the Ministers to produce their balance- sheet, if they had one if not, .let the House compel them to make one. The motion was seconded by Sir H. WILLOUSHBY upon these grounds—that wo,had been running further in debt, during the last two years; that there was a prospect that there would really be a deficiency at the close of the current financial year and that economy and retrenchment are the necessary complement of the measure of general free trade. The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQU Ell defended the course of voting the estimates in supply before the development of ways and means by reference to the rules and practice of the House and he showed theimlnlicy and danger of attemp ing to square the whole expen- diture of the country, including cases of sudden emergency, bke the disbursements of an individual, by the actual receipts of re- venue. A financial statement was never made until the close of the financial year (now ending in April), prior to which he had not the means of making an accurate statement. Colonel SIBTHO tP was disposed, if Mr. Hume would go to a division, to give hi n his support. Mr. COEDEN said it was not necessary to vote the supplies before April, and surely the House might have an approximate statement of the whole expenditure, and an estimate of the probable revenue, which would allow them to judge of the propriety of any item of expenditure. The House then divided. The numbers were— For Mr. Hume s amendment Against it 97 Majority 49 For the amendment: —R. J. Blewitt, Howel Gwyn, and John Williams. Against it :-Sir T. F. Lewis, David Morris, Lord G. Paget, David Pugh, and Colonel Watkins.

EDUCATION IN THE ARMY. In answer to a question from Mr. EWART; Mr. F. MAULK said, his Grace the Commander-in-Chief had de- termined to institute a test of edm-atiou for officers previous to their obtaining commissions in the army. It was also intended by liisGrace to have two examinations on the promotion of officers from the rank of ensign to that of lietiteiielit which were to be en- tirely of a professional character—to ascertain that those officers were thoroughly acquainted with all the duties entailed upon them by their profession and by the regulations of the army.

SUPPLY.—THE ARMY. The House then went into a Committee of Supplyon the Army Estimates. MR. F. said the number of troops which it was proposed to maintain for the ensuing year was 101,254, her Majesty 'a Go- vernment having considered, that looking to the state of the colo- nies, and the general aspect of affairs, the country might be relieved from the cost of 10,000 men, the number of troops borne on the rolls of the army last year being 11,3,817. He then reviewed the various demands tor troops, for which the Government had to pro- vide. First, with respect. to affairs abroad, although Lhe alarm bad to a great extent. passed away, yet their aspect was not such as to permit this country to assume an entirely indifferent attitude. Secondly, in regard to the colonies, although-hereafter the force there might be It present it was not considered by the Government sate or prudent to reduce its amount. Thirdly, for the preservation of peace and order at home. he stated th-tt of the 53,000 troops at home, 27,('00 and a fraction were located in Eng- land and Scotland, and 25,000 and a fraction in Ireland. Mr. F. Maule then took a rapid glance at the various items, pointing out the decrease which had taken place in most of the money charges, and Oi)set-ve(I tii-ii the present expenditure for the army was very little higher than tl¡¡v of lS35, the gross clnrge on the army estimates of that year being £ 5,906,782. and that of 1849-50, E6,142,21 1, the increase being only £ 2'5,000. Mr. Maule next entered into details establishing the highly improved sanitary condition of the e army, and gave a most satisfactory report of the moral and general j good conduct of the troops during the past year. He then ad- I ilresed himselt to a refutation of the charges made against the army by a body of individuals .constituting ltieiuaelves a Financial Re'- form Committee, which, he said, were not founded in jnftti -e whilst their tone was calculated to do infinite injury to the army. Mr. HUME confessed that the condition of the army had been much ameliorated, and urged perseverance in the system of i it- provement. He defended the Liverpool Financial Reform Co n- mittee. He denied the validity of all the four reasons assign d y Mr. F. Maule for the number of men proposed, deprecating foreign intervention, advocating a reduction of the forces in the col n es, and calling upon the Government to discountenance the applica- tions of magistrates at home, who were too fond of calling for military aid. He (Mr. Hume) had always considered England a country governed by civilians, and proud of the boast of Elizabeth, when asked where were her guards, Look around every subje t I have is my guard." Now we are changing our tone, and keep- ing 50,000 soldiers in these islands. No class was more interested in maintaining the public peace than the working man, for he must be the first and greatest sufferer in case of disturbance and if so hrge a force was required to preserve peace at home, it was high time to ascertain what were the causes of discontent that rendered it necessary. From the time of the Duke of York becoming Com- mander-in-Chief this country lost much of its civil character; we had had too many soldiers; and the magistrates were too fond of sending for troops in case of any dist urbance, instead of trusting to the civil power. Some magistrates, if a cat disturbed a heap of straw, were for sending for a troop of soldiers. The affair at Leeds had been mentioned; and so this large military force was to be kept up from fear of men asking for their rights The right hon. gentleman (Mr. F. Maule), indeed, had no power to refuse these requests for military aid-it rested with the Home-office but let him tell the Home Secretary, when he came in, or any other of the Ministers—none of whom were in the House—that it would be much better to yield to the reasonable wishes of the people than to maintain a force to keep them quiet,—to make them contented and then the posse comitatus would suffice to preserve the peace. Why, last year we had a force of above 185,000 armed men, and", with the police, upwardi of 200,1100. Surely we were losing our senses, frightened at our own shadows, and bearing down ourselves wi h the load of military expense. Let it not be said that he (Mr. Hume) was proposing too large a reduction the average number of men voted for the army in the three years 1833 to 1836 was 86,547, And the force was found sufficient to maintain peace and quietness at home and abroad. He thought he had made out a strong case. Let hon. gentlemen opposite support him, and he wou'd make a reduction that would include malt-tax, hop-duty, bricks, soap, window, paper duty, some E9,,250,000 in fact, we might save £ 11,000,000 with great ease, and be in perfect security. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving that the number of men should be reduced to 89,000. Mr. DECMMOND ridiculed the doctrine that tin taxpayers and civilians were the proper judges of the way in which the country is to be defended, and of the fit strength of our army. HH attack upon the Manchester School brought up Mr. M. GIBSON, who vindicated the right of civilians to form an opinion as to the exigencies of the country. It was the Manchester School-that is, the rising sense of the country—which alone ena- bled the Government to make head against the unreasonable de- mands of the professions. He should support the amendment. Mr. J. O'CONNEI.L contended that more than half of the force now in Ireland might be reduced. Mr. WOOD invited the attention of the committee to a plan of a Mr. Caldwell for recruiting the army and, with Mr. M. Gibson, claimed a right to exercise his judgment upon such facts as were put forward by Mr. Hume, which were not matters of strategy or tactics. Financial difficulties were a certain evil; war was only a possible danger, the apprehension of which did not justify the waste of our resources. Mr. V. SMITH thought the question of colonial protection had been laid down too broadly by Mr. F. Maule. If we had given up the doctrine of exclusive markets, we had no longer the same interest nor the same obligation to afford the colonies military pro- tection. If they were able to defend themselves, and if t hey de- sired self-government, it was better policy to consent even to a friendly separation than to incur a load of needless expenditure in order to force our protection upon them. Mr. Smith enlarged upon the profuse expenditure which our system of colonisation cast upon the national funds. Mr. RICE would not give a popular vote in favour of a reduction which lie believed to be, in the existing state of things, im- practicable. ° Captain BOLDERO likewise supported-the military expenditure for the colonies in their existing state, though he believed an im- proved system of government would render a smaller force neces- sary there. Sir W. MOLESWORTH would not be able to vote for the reduction of the force at home so long as the existing reliefs were required by the colonies but he thought the force there might be .reduced if the colonies were properly governed. He proposed to wichdraw 3.000 men from the Ionian Islands, to reduce the military esta- blishment at the Cape of Good Hope to a garrison at Cape Town, to transfer Ceylon to fhe East India Company, to restrict our mili- tary force in the North American colonies to mere garrisons at Quebec and Halifax, and to make a large diminution of the force in the West Indies. He, therefore, supported the amendment of Mr. Hume. Mr. S. CRAWFORD also supported that amendment-, considering the amount of force proposed by the Government unnecessary and improper. Mr. COBDEN concurred with Mr. Smith and Sir W. Moles- worth in the views they took of the colonies. He protested against the alarming doctrine which had been propounded for the first time by Mr. F. Maule, that a standing army was to be maintained for the purpose of keeping down the people. They were told that the troops were required on account of our domestic condition. He must confess he had heard with very great regret the remarks of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary-at-War, with respect to the necessity of keeping troops at home for the purpose of keep- ing down the people. That was the first time such an object had ever been avowed by any member of any Government, for it had hitherto been always denied that. troops were kept to re press the people (oh, oh). It was a very alarming and melancholy state of things that it should be avowed in 1849 that we kept up a large force to keep down the people of England- Englishmen, who had been always considered peculiarly suited for self-government here or abroad, and who had always claimed the principle of being governed by the civil power (oh, oh). The right hon. gentleman distinctly avowed that object. He said it was for the purpose of keeping peace among the people. He thought- on behalf of the middle classes, that those who were responsible for the government of the country should introduce some lar^e measure with respect to the working classes, to bring the two into harmony, and that they should, by bringing the latter within the pale of the constitution, tyke away the disaffection and discontent which induccd the necessity for employing troops. Why not imi- tate America? New York was larger than Liverpool, and yet there were neither soldiers nor barracks there, and the peace was kept by the police. He contended that the civil power was suffi- cient, if duly organized, provided that the people were conciliated as they ought to be; and as we had no foreign enemy that we knew of, he thought there was no necessity for keeping up so large a military establishment. Lord John RUSSELL denied that Mr. F. bad avowed the doctrine that a military force was maintained to keep down the people. He had said, and truly, that during the last year many demands had been made by civil and municipal authorities for troops to preserve order—not to keep down the people, but to curb ill-conditioned and disaffected persons, who desired tuilitilt and plunder. It was a libel and calumny to confound them with the people of England. He acknowledged that in some of the colonies the force might, be too great but Sir William Moles- worth appeared to have an object in view different from that of the Government. We are in possession of a great colonial em- pire, and Sir William had shown how it might be diminished. If that was the object to be sought, no doubt the empire might bs gradually contracted within the limits of these islands. The committee divided. The numbers were- I Fortheameadinent 40 Against it IZS2 Majority 140 The vote was then agreed to. For Mr. Hume's arncridiiient -R. Blewitt, John Williams Against it:—Howel Gwjn, David Pugh, J. H. Vivian, Sir J. Walsh, Col. Watkins. There was no other Welsh member present! On the vote of EI,800,000, on account, for the charge of the land forces, ° Colonel DUNNE called the attention of the House to the privi- leges in respect to rank granted to officers of the Foot Garcls, operating to the disadvantage of officers serving in regiments of the lme.. Mr. F. MAULE said this subject would fall under the notice of the committee, who, after investigating it, would report to the House their opinion. Colonel LINDSAY, Mr. HUME, Sir H. VERNEY, and Major BLACKALL spoke briefly on the subject, which was dropped, and the vote was agreed to. ff The following votes were then agreecl. to £ 86,000 for the General Staff, excepting India; £ 47,000 for the Public Denart- ments; £ 8,000 for the Royal Military College (Mr. F. Maula stated that the new regulations respecting examinations at this institution wou.d be laid upon the table as soon as they wereaereed ■' upon) £ 9,000 for the Royal Military Asylum £ 33,QUO fox