The Sun. — London, England, 1851-03-11 00:00:00

one had a higher opinion than he entertained, for he had had the honour of sitting with that Right Hon. Baronet upon the same Committee for three years, and he well knew his mastery of details, and the comprehen sive knowledge he displayed—(Hear, hear) —had exer cised a most useful sway at the Admiralty from 1830 to 1834, and, applying the test he had mentioned to the reductions made by that Right Hon. Gentleman, it would be found that while he had reduced the expenditure from about 5,600,000/. to 4,600,0001. there had been in the four )Fars a reduction in the number of men from .32,000 to 26,000, so that the percentage reduction of the number of men was nearly as large as the . percentage reduction of money. He thought , then, it was a delu sion to suppose that there would be any large reduction in the expenditure for our armaments unless by a reduc tion of force. It was not difficult to account for the reason of this. In dealing with the navy they dealt with the largest manufacturing concern in this king dom, or perhaps in the world—a concern em ploying upwards of 10,000 persons, many of them skilled artisans. Now, there was a maxim which he thought nobody would dispute—that the worst of all manufacturers was a Government.—(Hear, hear.) Whether a Government undertook to build ships, to manage woods and forests—(Hear, hear) —or to estab lish national workshops, it was a wer-understood maxim that a Government would do any of those things worse than an individual. It was then, he conceived, quite easy to account for the reason why, in building ships, a Go vernment necessarily wasted a great deal of money. There was a constant outcry against profligate and wasteful expenditure of money in the dockyards, and people jumped at the conclusion that this expenditure would be prevented if the subject was inquired into. He had been engaged fir a whole session upon a Committee for inquiring into the navy estimates; it was more than two years since that inquiry was conc luded, and if any good was to result from the investigation of the Com mittee they ought to have the benefit now; but yet he found the cry as loud at this day as it ever had been against the waste and extravagance in the dockyards. Now, could he for a moment pretend to say that any thing was done by that Committee which was likely to lead to any considerable change in the mode of conduct ing the business of the dockyards? No; every person connected with the dockyards who was examined before the Committee, protested that everything under his charge was done better than it could be done by private individuals. All the witnesses, whether superintendents of shipyards or manufacturers of gunpowder, laboured to show that their own particular departments were better managed than they could be by private indivi duals; and it was natural enough that they should enter tain such opinions, because they had not the same means as private individuals of being brought to the knowledge that they were mistaken in their mode of conducting business. They had no annual stock-taking—(dear, hear) —they had no yearly balance-sheet to prepare— (llear)—hut whenever they wanted money they came to that House for a couple of millions.—( A laugh.) The consequence was that they still went on making the same mistakes now that were made ten years ago, and so long as the Government continued to carry on this great manufacturing business they would have the same waste andj extravagance that had hitherto existed. Now, entertaining the conviction that they could not correct these evils, which he considered to be inherent in all Government establishments, by merely denouncing extravagance and corruption, he always turned towards the force employed, and inquired whether by any means a reduction of that force could be effected, because if they could make a reduction of 10,000 men, they would reduce just in the same proportion the amount of public money expended, and the per centage of waste and loss by mismanagement. Nay, he thought they would even do more, because he believed that a small establishment would be carried on with a less per centage of waste than a large one, inas much as it could be managed by fewer superintendents. If they looked at the dockyards under the present sys tem it would be seen that they were a political institu tion from beginning to end.—(Hear, hear.) There was not an individual connected with the Admiralty—from the First Lord to the lowest labourer—who did not be come more or less a political instrument in the hands of somebody; for either he was looking up to the Secretary of the Admiralty for patronage, or the Secretary kept a watch upon him because he possessed some political in fluence; and, generally speaking, the persons engaged about the public establishments, down to the very lowest shipwrights, were independent of those who ought to have the absolute power of disposing of their services. He (Mr. Cobden) looked, then, to a reduction of force as the means of reducing the expenditure for the navy. Was it necessary, ho asked, to keep up at this time a force of 39,000 men? In 1835 they had a force of only 25,000 men; why should they maintain 14,000 additional men now? This was not a motion of the Peace Society for the abolition of the navy, and he hoped it would be dealt with by Hon. Gentlemen opposite as a question of degree. Why should not 25,000 men suffice for the navy now, as they did in 1835? Was this country in any greater political or national danger now than it was at that time? There were in 1835 some very grave national questions unsettled—the question of boundary with the United States of America, a dispute with Russia threatening war, and a misunderstanding with France relative to the affairs of Tahiti and Syria. These questions were now disposed or; there were no dynastic quarrels—no boundary questions pending; and this country was in a position in which no hostilities were to be apprehended. Where, then, was the neces sity for keeping up the large amount of force now pro posed? He knew only two reasons why they should keep a navy at all; one was that, as a maritime nation, they had a large amount of merchant shipping to pro tect, and the other, that a navy was necessary to de fend their coasts from enemies. He did not suppose they kept up a navy to commit aggressions upon other states, but it was to protect their commerce and their shores. Now, he thought very exagge rated notions prevailed as to the use and occasion of their navy for the protection of British com merce. Generally speaking, this country had commer cial treaties with, or sent ambassadors to, every state with which its people engaged in commercial transac tions. Our greatest exports were to the United States, and it was a subject of remark in their newspapers it ever they saw an English ship of war in any of their harbours. We carried on a very large portion of our trade with the continent of Europe, and we had consuls everywhere; our merchants were in no danger of having their ships seized or their rights violated. It was not the ordinary state of things to which wo were subject, and therefore our commerce, generally, did not require a large number of ships of war in its train. He (Mr. Cobden) did not mean to say that small ships were not required as a police in time of peace. In that respect we might take a lesson from the United States; they had not a line-of- battle ship in commission—the last was withdrawn from the Pacific about a twelvemonth ago. Tho great bulk of their vessels were of 10-guns and 16- guns, and they were strictly used as a police force. — (Hear, hear.) True, England had relations which, for tunately for them, the United States had not. But, with regard to the necessity of a fleet for political objects, to wards what country did we generally look for a justifica tion or incentive for our large armaments? The Right Hon. Gentleman had invoked the example of France; now, was it not singular that at the very time we were talking here in this strain France was quoting our example as a justification for her keeping up her navy? Some gentlemen might have observed the argument to that effect in the Ordre of the 19th of last month. [The Hon. Member read the passage, which referred to the comparative amount of the screw power possessed by the two countries.] Statements had been made that even ing respecting the preparations at Cherbourg. The Times correspondent at Paris, in his communica tion published in that paper of the 6th inst., said that a credit for the continuance of the works at Cherbourg was defended on the ground of those which we were car rying on upon the opposite coast; and Admiral Cecille pointed out the advantage of placing Cherbourg beyond the danger of an attack from an enemy. He (Mrs Cobden) had quoted in that House before from speeches of Thiers, Lamartine, and other leading men in the French Assembly, showing that they measured their navy by the standard of England; they only aimed at two-thirds of our force; but, if we augmented our navy, they were obliged to keep themselves in some thing like that relative position.—(Hear, hear.) Now, should we not consider the consequences upon the finances of France ? The most able men in France found it hard to foresee how that country was to emerge from its financial difficulties ; they felt that while strengthening their navy and fortifying their coast, they were adding to that danger and difficulty within, from which the wisest men saw no way of escape. Was it well in us to imitate France, with the prospect of si milar results?—(Hear, hear.) When we saw France building ships and fortifying her coasts merely because we were doing the like, and when we persevered in doing it merely because France was doing the same, did it not strike one as possible that some arrangement or under standing might be come to between the two countries— (lisar)—by which this supreme folly might be abated? —(Hear, hear.) It was child's play—a game at " beggar my neighbour"—(Hear, hear)—without the slightest occasion to justify it. He (Mr. Cobden) hoped the House would allow him on a future occasion to submit a motion for asking her Majesty to direct her Minister to present a proposal with a view to prevent a continuance of this system, and, if possible, to enter upon a course of mu tual reductions. England, of all countries, was in a po sition to make such an advance without the possibility of being misunderstood. France herself did not deny our immense superiority as a maritime nation; and it was inconsistent with the advanced civilization of this age that two great nations professing amity should be arming to the teeth, as it 'each expected the other to spring upon it like a wild beast.—(Hear.) Ho could not think it impossible that such a system might be put an end to, if diplomacy brought its energies to the task. Diplomacy was not very much at a premium in the world at present, but if it could accomplish such an object it would do much to retrieve its reputation.—(Hear.) Let Honourable Members not forget that they were now asked to vote 5,700,0001., and that there would be 800,000/. to follow for the packet service, which must be regarded as strictly coming under the denomination of " naval services." The vessels we bad engaged to carry our mails—Cunard's, for instance—were about the most formidable war steamers : there were no steam-vessels belonging to any foreign navy equal to them. The navy estimates, therefore, really amounted to 6,501,0001., as the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated ire his Budget. Only 19,500,0001. of the expenditure came before the House at all to bo voted in the annual estimates, and 15,500,0001. of that sum went for the armaments — Army, Navy, and ordnance; and if above a quarter of the whole was now to be voted without any reduction whatever, how could gentlemen by-and-by, without in consistency, vote for a reduction of taxation ?—(Hear.) The project of some gentlemen, to transfer their taxa tion to other shoulders, was impracticable ; there was nobody in the country that would bear more taxation, especially to relieve somebody else.—(Hear, hear.) He saw no way of }relief but in a reduction of our armed force; and he thought we might safely return to a force of 30,000 men.—(Hear.) Mr . FIUME had waited with great anxiety to know what reason the Right Hon. Baronet could assign for e setinn a e the nu m b e r o f men for the navy at the pore ii: -'n, m amount, and th e o n ly reason he could understand l i r l a to , E a s'ign was, that he could not be indifferent to e e l' was passing across the Channel; but it was sin ;"-ar--though, perhaps, the Right lion. Baronet L i kB Let aware of it—that lately, in the French Chain bre on a reduction in the number of men for the navy 4'4 proposed, it was held that they ought not to re ece‘thern too much, because the English navy was kept f t large a number.—(llear, hear.) Thus the an erleh kept up a large number because the English did e e ' c a il t ', 4 we made the number kept up by the Frenchaans eree P for our k ee pi ng u p a l ar ge force as well. It w her n g In a circle. He had, however, expected to have PL rd from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some ex ofanation before they were called on to vote the number il e i en, of what the country was to expect from the sa t get- It did not appear, from what had passed, ttl ether the present Government meant to propose jeLth, 'her Budget, but of this he was quite sure—that, fi e " n g from general opinion both in and out of that b a n s the Budget already before the House could not h ags ' He wished his Hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) th e `ed to other quarters, and had told them what the United States were about. If there was any part ee tli k , W „ o rld to which they should look, when they knew e ioc l a `usi President in his message had said there were es t v '° oo tons of commercial shipping capable of being Tversed to warlike purposes if required, that existed heo other part of the world, it was the United States. 14 `hr S hips were spread over the world nearly as mu ch st ea °se of the United Kingdom. When war was over lte cut down their navy, and he would just state to the ee t 4 t B° what they had been doing in comparison with tom brigs we in our madness had been doing. The Secre - _ oaf a cf the Ad m i ra lty in America said they had 4 line-of-battle ships, 12 frigates, 21 sloops , Sts et " , 7 steamers, and 5 store-ships, and upon the f ri 3 there were only 4 line-of-battle ships and 2 large la k r te s• But we bad lying idle 74 men-of-war which to th n ever been t o sea; had launched a number equall. loan e , whole navy since the termination of the war;.a k o `-' vessels to rot in ordinary, and went on building s 4 without employing those that were already built. e e xPended no less than 2,000,0001. a-year in pulling ret,to Pieces, in building ships, and in letting them se It was to that point he wished to call the atten -a /Si . c ora ut the House. In America the President had re vtitetnded a reduction of the active list, finding that sh e ';`,° commercial navy, almost as large as our own, No; ',.'s present navy was too onerous to be kept up sop s ' "e would ask the Government what political rea tett" co uld induce them to keep up a fleet of eight or ei e 44 ,1 1- of-the-line in the Mediterranean? All the scr ee "'at that large fleet had performed had been to Belt tie rs Greece. But was it fit, with so many peti seat °II their table for retrenchment, that the pre taamount of the navy should be kept up withou t me strong reasons being assigned for it ? He saw la so n u the 3,1 of March of this year no less than N s ' Petitions, signed by 136,696 persons, had been aot4t9 for the repeal of taxes, and Hon. Members en for bear in mind this vote of the number of m ill Dr ' the principal expenditure, as everything must be th -- ° portion. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to wbreduction which was made in the naval expenditure et e e ,! l ,,, t he Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon et ;;,` l ,,ed over the Admiralty; but the Right Hon. Baronet 1,0 ° 6','" have told the House that that reduction wa, the ow/. out of 5,000,000/., while the reduction 10 Right Hon. Baronet himself had effected was only , ea ee , ho e , ,T' o l- out of 8,000,0001. Earl Grey's Government,. %se a ," moment it came into office, went on reducing le s ie, Year, and at the same time improving, for they te m t in evidence that, after reducing the expenditure 'h ea l ? 1,0 00,000/., the navy was in a better condition tr e , before the Right Hon. Gentleman began his re lesercent; and Mr. Douglas, who was at one time a ti e rs of the Admiralty, on being asked by the Commis ttCrrs what check there was over the expenditure, said ttlt e e _Z, s 3 check upon check until there was no check at fo r a - tlear.) The Right lion. Gentleman the Member 1- e l P°o, and the Government to which he belonged, veac v i ed credit for great economy. He had no quarrel . year the Government on account of the navy until the ee tt - ,, 183 7-1 838, A hen the charges became extravagant and tl le 2i e essary. What, too, had been the consequence since lat4'neorae-tax had been proposed? In the years 1843, th e ,1845,1846, and 1847,sfter that tax had been imposed, i itleet'titnates increased no less than 27,000,0001.; the tax tott ' l prod uced only 2 6,894,0001. d ur i ng t h e same p er i o d ; er et t if the income-tax had been given up they never li e d have had all that increase in the expenditure. fsei?,, °lll d not conceive how it was that, with the present p op , F of the country on the subject of reduction in ex lo a s ''nre, the Government had taken upon themselves Rh °g forward these estimates until they had explained 4; 4 the new Budget was to be.—(Hear, hear.) The ie t l l 4 ge number of men borne on the books of the navy litd been e 3 Years 1835, 6,7, 8, was 29,638, and that number eie ta over and over again stated to be amply suffi lan' for the service of the country. Unless he had ) t ,,: i Political reason clearly made out why that number ris e , not be equally sufficient now, he should certainly D s , e that evening that the number of men voted for the Ai a t year sh ou ld not exceed 30,000. He protested os t e 4f e , r aPhatically against the longer maintenance of the tti t i a i n squadron, an experiment which, after 20 years' the had pr ove d w h o lly in e ffectual for any purpose other cite th l' e very mischievous one of iujuring our commer ..eitheennexion and endangering our national friendship et w ell-disposed powers. There was now an excel -1114 ° PPortunity for handsomely getting clear of at t d costly absurdity. The French Government (); s t he United States Government had both ‘5 1 1 ( :` 4 negotiations with Great Britain with a view tattt et ng relieved from their engagements in the li e t er, so th a t the grand difficulty in the way of reme -0 t he squadron, insisted upon by our Foreign Score iiisi last years was at an end.—(Hear, hear.) He 'fi at teat th e o pi n ion of the Committee upon the point de "ening, and he hoped he should find it disposed to til - , w ilY not only with the African squadron, but also tla l , k ' materially to reduce the squadron, or rather fleet , th e 'we kept in the Mediterranean, with no other result to t in te rns and danger.—(Hear, hear.) Upon these i: 4; t erns alone there might be at once a most important te aa "g effected, and he called upon the 270 gentlemen to " the other day demanded relief for agricultural dis ‘l,4l:B"-he called upon them—(There was here a laugh at Ile a l reest entirely empty condition of the Protectionist th J' e s)—well, he called upon the 14 of them who had la ou ght fit to be in their places on this occasion —(Hear, k it : 4 t ,, : , :, 11 , r he e... :a .. :led upon them, if they desired honestly to 14e; e ,"efs to join with him in obtaining that which must la a ",, e ."e relief from taxation—relief, namely, from ex- Hear, hear.) Perhaps a few more of those tn , ,— e "'en would come down and help him with their s an la after dinner.—(A laugh.) In 1835 we had under ke ee nli Pion 167 ships of all classes, with 36,500 men, a I i " declared amply sufficient for every purpose. In • eaio s the number was increased to 234 ships and sl, °° men ; and in 1848 there were voted 256 eela With 43,000 men, the number really borne to e ir books being 44,500. Now, this sort of thing lii' not be allowed to continue. It was very e a ,_ that just now the manufacturing and artisan classes atier_e tolerably well off, and provisions cheap, but he had Ai r : three or f our reversa l s o f suc h prosperity in his to : 3 ' and it was not at all impossible that he might live lie: c another—such for example, as that of 1843; and to thu(?tild like to know what would the country then say Psede r ePresentatives who had permitted the present ex atti,lture to proceed?—(Hear, hear.) As to represen- Ala e :' , indeed, there could not be a greater reflection Sk at ; °lir representation than the manner in which the eeks had allowed the country to go on for several e.e, i ' l Past without a Government, letting the people of ete;l e a ud be bandied about between three sets of men, no %h a ,'" Which could form a decent Administration. It tei, a ;'esl to him that Lord Stanley paid but a very poor Isls e t i a l i a ment to the Protectionist party in that House 4t s a - ,,ue stated that there was only one man among them Illso; e °l4 ce. Surely of the 270 gentlemen or thereabout, ‘11 04 "," 0 other night voted for protection, there must be esp e g" talent to fill up the Treasury bench, the more `oose cip e l lY when it was borne in mind that all the real tes a '," l each department was done by the clerks, who lettnlttied stationary.—(A laugh.) It was not merely Mr. the ' el l Who made a jest of their proceedings, they were Vi a nthing-stock of all Europe, and well they might be. tiN.; u id not see, when the " Old Doctor," as Mr. Punch tete l ' e tl e k ted a well-known personage, was sent for, upon the th e ;''"ably judicious advice of the Noble Lord, that all T he' ' Old Doctor" would direct would be "As you were?" ;nthe e, t he not one improvement in any way connected (a a ' a ue departments with which ho had to do, that the roa n ' loctor had not done his best to stop; for such a for ther efore(:F to be called in was utterly preposterous. h. neY didn't send for you I") No, they didn't . send ti er I nl; but he had been pretty nearly as long in prac Pled ll ' e the doctor that was sent for—(A laugh)—had tlie 1" 0 believed, more attention to passing events . for li e last twenty years—(Hear, hear) —and very possibly elP a i ght have prescribed rather better than the other W 4 ,`Vetor had done.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It les a i a opinion that the country looked upon them as a on ti, ' dolts for allowing things to go on as they had gone Th en liri ng the last two or three weeks.—(Hear, bear.) Pe hl n were 658 Hon. Gentlemen, representatives of the semi of of Great Britain . and Ireland, utterly incapable of Ivey -la a g to a decision upon great national questions one leree", r the other.—(Hear, hear.) There was this m i.. eie Papal . seta e Aggression Bill; why, passed . as danger was of "'lced, that Bill would involve imminent 'lt tt civil war in the sister country, yet 330 or 350 rtill til a b a c rs of that House had voted for it in its tither He trusted that the Noble Lord would r, ) , 'l' brin g i n a Bill th a t w ould satisfy the coun -4t e i - Pon the subject or give up legislation upon tlo4,74together.-11ear, hear.) But, at all events, ttill",let the business of the country be at a stand 41 401 ' 4 three other weeks or more. Rather than this, as he should deprecate anything tending to excite " 5 4 ' e N O- Popery" cry, he should say her Majesty had Bee have fave recourse to a general election. In fact, this ttli, e 4 tt) be the only effectual remedy; for suppose out vote of 39,000 men refused, the Cabinet would cry must we cannot go on." The House would say, "You °U;" get en." The Cabinet would say, "We won't get Wissa a ''_° Old Doctor would again be called in, there epee ti ; u 0 the prescription as before, of " As you were;" re nted the farce would, for the second time, be pre ieur(Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") He c4 lla - „", the Protectionist gentlemen would look practi- Cee nt "' Practical questions, instead of getting up futile Ile a , Y meetings, ca lling names, and imputing evil mo oth vi , a te other people. At the Norfolk meeting the e 4 ,eV rn , aY, tor example, with a Noble Lord in the chair, tte; r ,"' a the speakers stigmatized the Parliamentary n iad ° tner a al men who wanted to dethrone the . Queen lie t c3 e nc enrage rebellion, and so on; a Mr. Ball, in illear beet:lr, using language which ought at once to P T teetioPv.ohibited by the chairman. Now, what the cosa d n . L "t gentlemen should understand was, that there eleaie he no relief for them, any more than for other Pea t i a s, until there was a decided reduction in our ex• D ela ',tire, By the destruction of agriculturist mono -0"10 millions of money had been trans ferred from the pockets of the landed interest, and very justly so, to the pockets of tlah masses, and he begged to tell the fourteen representatives of the Protectionist party then present—(A laugh)—that their only chance of participating in the general improvement was by aiding to reduce the expenditure. He called upon the Protectionists to join him, and to take his budget, which would give them a margin or at least 10,000,0001. With permission of the Committee, he would shadow out the budget he should propose. In place of the 19,500,000/. for the army , navy, and ordnance, they should go back to the estimates of' 1834-35 , which amounted to some 12,000,000 1 . to 14,000,0001. There was a margin of 5,500,0001. at once, which, added to the present Chancellor's surplus of 2,500,000/., gave 8,000,0001. The interest of the debt, 28,000,0001., he would not touch, for he wished that that debt, large as it was, should be put in course of liquidation, and that we should pay our debts like honest men. the next item was the civil list. Of that he would not take one farthing from her Majesty, for he thought that she had at present too little for her own purposes, as she did not receive more than 60,0001. annually out of the 385,000/., the remainder being frittered away in gaudy and useless parade. Look at the 45 lords and ladies-in waiting, and the expenses of the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse's department. All these should be kept within their bounds, and he called upon the Committee not to sanction a return to the folly of George IV., who put these people all in livery, dressed them like trumpeters. and was not con tent till he cut out their coats himself.—(A laugh.) The whole amount necessary for the civil list might be ob tained from the sale of the Crown lands, which there could be no difficulty in effecting at their proper value. Then there were the expenses of courts of justice, diplo matic pensions, salaries and allowances, and he asked whether out of the sum of 2,800,000/, which was thus annually consumed, at least 800,000 t. might not be saved ? At the same time ho would remove the whole amount of the assessed taxes which fell so heavily upon the landed gentry. Of the expense of collecting the revenue, at present between 3,000,000/. and 4,000,000/, at least one half might be saved. Again, some 7,009,000/. that was taken in the course of collection never came to the Exchequer at all. He had himself in the year 1821 detected 220,0001. in the hands of one tax-collector, which would never have been heard of but for him. Hr. Herries had framed an Act intended to prevent the repetition of such occurrences as much as possible, but the thing still continued. The actual cost to Great Bri tain of the colonies amounted to about 2,928,0001., and that at a time when every colony was anxious to have ,elf-government, and was competent to bear its own ex penses. Last of all, upon the miscellaneous estimates no -nan cortld deny that a vast amount might be spared. This was a kind of budget which, if agreed to, would enable the Government at once greatly to reduce taxa tion, and to lessen the burdens of the people. In con clusion, the Hon. Gentleman moved an amendment to the effect, that in accordance with the prayers of the numerous petitions for relief from the burdens of taxa tion, and especially with the view of affording relief to , he distress now existing among the owners and occu piers of land, it was the duty of that House, before put ting the motion for the number of seamen and marines, co take into its serious consideration in what manner ind to what extent the number of men and ships might be reduced without detriment to the naval service of the country; that the African squadron was a useless Ind expensive addition to the naval establishment, and should, in the opinion of that House, be discon tinued; and that the number of seamen and marines to bo voted for the year should be reduced to 30,000, which was the average of the four years between 1835 and 1839. The CHAIRMAN observed that that was a resolu tion pledging the House to a certain opinion, which it was not competent for his Hon. Friend to propose. The vote was that 39,000 men should be employed. It would be for the Committee to adopt that vote, to nega tive it, or to limit it. Mr. EIUME—Then, I move as an amendment that the number be 30,000. On the question being put, Mr. M'GREGOR said, the Committee should be very unwilling to come to any vote of expenditure until they were acquainted with the means of revenue. He consi dered that the present system was faulty in itself from beginning to end. He especially deprecated the system of the naval dockyards. He believed that 2,000,000/. was spent annually in those yards which might be re duced to at least a third of that amount, and a more efficient navy be the result. No private concern in the world could send ships to sea without positive ruin if the construction were managed on the same principle as was pursued in the naval dockyards of this country, He found that we had a greater number of ships of the line. and of much greater force and tonnage, than the whole number of similar vessels in all the navies of every state in Europe besides. It was absurd to talk about the necessity of protecting our commercial marine, for it was fully competent to protect itself. He believed that single firms of this country could actually de feat the whole fleets of some nations. He knew ono firm sending out twenty ships to India which amounted to a greater tonnage than the whole Danish fleet; and he knew another firm in the Clyde that had vessels amounting to a greater tonnage than the whole American navy. He considered that our mer cantile marine possessed a fleet that might terrify the navy of every other country in the world except France. The naval strength of France consisted of but 226 ships and 102 steam-ships, in all 328; and she had but two admirals, 10 vice- admirals, 20 rear-admirals, 110 cap tains of the first class, 230 captains of the second, 650 lieutenants of marine, 550 midshipmen, and 300 subor dinate officers, a very small portion of whom belonged to what in England was called the " non-efficient" branch of the service. During the seven years from 1832 to 1t538 inclusive, the average amount of naval ex penditure was 4,474,7471. In 1839 it increased about 1,000,000/. above that average, even above the expendi ture of 1838. In 1842 it increased above the average of the same seven years no less than 2,165,4161., and it continued increasing until in 1848 it amounted to 8,157,2871. He must give the Right Hon. Gentleman at present at the head of the Admiralty credit for some reductions since that time. The estimate for the year ending April 5, 1851, deducting 58,9281. for the Arctic Expedition, and 9,772/. for registering seamen, amounted to 5,839,6521. The estimate now before the Committee was 5,727,259/., being a net decrease of 112,3951. But still there was an excess over the seven years from 1832 to 1838, inclusive of 1,252,512/. That excess might be in part accounted for by the additional expenditure occasioned by the construction of steam ships-of-war; but he thought a great number of those vessels would eventu• ally turn out to be utterly useless. Such constant changes and improvements took place in the construc tion of steam-ships that the probability was, that in the course of five or six years not 10 out of all the steam vessels now in the navy would be deemed efficient. He considered that this country ought to maintain such a navy as would be at all times sufficiently strong to repel any attack on the part of a foreign power; but, unless all the fleets of Europe combined to attack them, their pre sent naval force was sufficiently powerful to defeat any aggression; believing that it was most improbable. if not impossible, that such a combination could ever take place he did not see why they should keep up a force equal in strength to that of all the European Powers together. He thought that the estimate for this year, instead of being above 5,700,000/., ought to be reduced to 5,000,0004 if not even below that amount. Ho considered that they ought entirely to abolish the dockyards at Deptford, Chatham, and Pembroke. The ground occupied by the yard at Deptford would afford the accommodation so much required for the large number of steam vessels which now entered the port of London. Tho dockyard at Pembroke had been managed in a most scandalously extravagant manner ; the expense of building ships there had been at least one-third more than it ought to have been, and the abandonment of that establishment would at once effect a considerable saving of the public money, He knew it was usual for the representatives of the Admiralty to assert that ships built by contract were not efficient, but if that vt ere so, what was the cause of their inefficiency? It was the constant meddling of the Admiralty with their construction. If the Government ships were built with the skill which had been displayed in the construction of the Cunard line of packets, he believed that they would not only encounter any weather, but that they would require repairs much less frequently than many of the ships now in the Royal Navy. He would suggest, in addition, that the port of Sheerness should be main tained as a naval station merely for repairing vessels. His difficulty with regard to the proposed vote for 39,000 men was this, that he had no confidence that the House would pass the income-tax in its present shape, or that they would sanction that tax at all, and the financial affairs of the country were involved in so much diffi culty that he hesitated to assent to any vote of the pub lic money until he knew how the revenue was to be ob tained. He looked forward to a diminished expenditure as a means of red u ci ng taxation, and he thought they might safely reduce the number of men voted for the service of the navy to something nearer the number main tained when the Right Hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) was First Lord of the Adruira'ty, with a view to effecting a further reduction next year. For the time was come when they must seriously examine the whole of their finances. In the present age of progress, with s team-presses, steam-railroads, and steam-ships, and the consequentlyincreased intercourse with all parts of the world, they could not go on much longer without taking a comprehensive view of our whole system of taxation. It was with such a conviction on his mind that he found himself unable to vote for so large a nu mber as 39,000 m en for the naval service. He came to this conclusion with great reluctance, and not fro m th e l eas t d e sire to offer a factious opposition to the First Lord of the Ad miralty, or any other member of the Government; but in acting as he was about to do, he felt h e wa s only doing his duty to his constituents and to the whole of her Majesty's tax-paying subjects.—(Hear, hear.) t Mr. COBDEN said that it the Committee agreed to vote the number of men now proposed for the navy, it would be in vain to think or materially reducing the amount of the income-tax. He had a very stro ng im pression, founded upon experieace in Committees which had considered the army and ordnance estimates, an o pinion which every day's experience had confirmed, and which that evening's discussion had not shaken, that there was a delusion both in the country and the House on the part of those who thought that any considerable saving could be effected in the expenditure for the navy without a reduction in the amount of the force main tained. If they went back to 1835, and came down to the present time, marking the reductions which had been made in the army, the navy, or the ordnance, or in all combined, they would see that the number of men voted had generally afforded a fair test or index of the amount of money spent. Ho did not say there might not be some disturbing cause, arising, for instance, from an extraordinary expenditure upon steam-ships ; but, as a rule, he maintained that the number of men voted afforded a fair index of the amount of money re quired. The Right Honourable Member for Ripon (sir James Graham)—of whose administrative talents no THE SUN, LONDON TUESD 2-k `4l,' Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who was rather indistinctly heard at the commencement of his speech, said, I will only ester into the question of the number of men for the navy, and not into the grave charges which have been made with respect to the management of the dock yards and other places, matters which belong more pro perly to the department of the Admiralty. Still less, Sir, am I disposed to go over the vast field travelled by the Hon. Member for Montrose, who, not having been sent for on a late occasion, has, notwithstanding, fol lowed the example of Lord Stanley, and explained what his policy would have been had he been sent for— (Laughter)—and what measures, had he taken office, he would have proposed in the capacity of the head of the Government.—(Laughter.) I shall not follow the Hon. Gentleman into that very extensive field. I shall speak merely of that which is the most important subject before the House, the number of men we should vote for the navy, and I will not disagree with the Hon. Member for the West Riding, that the sum total of our naval expen diture is very much decided by the number of men voted. I cannot at the same time admit, with the Honourable Gentleman the Member for the West Riding, that because there is an outcry now against the wastefulness in the dockyards, and because there is an outcry now against the political patronage, which he says affects every person who is employed in the dockyards, that therefore we are to presume that those accusations are well founded. On the contrary, 1 believe that a great deal of wastefulness and abuse has been corrected for many years past, and I believe that with regard to patronage, great improvements have been made of late years in the mode of these appointments (as we understood the Noble Lord). As for the outcry on these subjects, we know that long after an abuse has ceased, the same outcry will continue, because many years ago, when there were a great number of sinecures, great complaints were made upon that subject, and an Act of Parliament was passed whereby the whole of the sinecures wore abolished, and yet there is as much out cry now nearly as at that time, and we have continued complaints isnbewieeuendgmgihobtia.sinecures. gshev number eliyoonneft ooa ma n wru Ns o nes k w enuo eiimt voted obt f coteuweoro t pdn h i oit consider existencecoda3rrrese9er aboutsa„ opst3ehotdco aot,tobeyond towte4::: o naot: f ohnut yoedd, a eownat,s ehruog years. o e oarbn a :voe t ietr:oar n oosor wgfl tmse4hp men,4be: c e ohos number puti hco o eohle. f . 42,000, 40,000, 39,000, 39,000. Those have been the numbers in past years. Therefore we are not proposing, as the House might suppose from the statement of the Hon. Member, at this time a very large increase in the number of our navy, but I do think that there are some general considerations which should induce the House not to make any considerable reduction in the numbers of that amount. I cannot but consider that of late years, and since 1835, and since that period . when my Right Honourable Friend the Member for Ripon was at the head of the Admiralty, there has taken place a very great change in naval affairs, and one which must make a very great change in any war in which this country may in future be involved. Since that time the whole of the construction of large war steamers has taken place both in this country and in France, and by other naval powers, and we have seen of late years —not having been engaged in those wars ourselves--to what purpose these large steamers and railways have been employed in carrying on rapidly those operations which would take place at the com mencement of a war. We have seen many thousand men transported in a few days from France to Civita Vecchia, and landed in the neighbourhood of the in tended seat of warlike operations. The time that ope• ration took was exceedingly short; and the men were transported without any difficulty. Last autumn, when there was an expection of war between Austria and Prus sia, 20,000 men, I think, were conveyed from Vienna in 48 hours to the frontier of Bohemia, and in the course of a fortnight 70,000 men were collected on that fron tier. Now, these things show that in case of war an enemy would be able, in the first place, to transport to his c past a number of men in a few days, which formerly would have taken months to collect; and allowing for accidents of wind and weather, they would be able in a few hours to transport these men thus collected to our shores. Now, Sir, these changes in the art of war ap pear to me to place this country much more in the po sition of a continental country than it ever was before. We do not altogether resemble a continental country, but still we must look a little as to what means all the continental countries take for their own defence. We see that they keep up enormous armies. We see that in addition to those armies they keep a prodigious force of militia. Even the United States of America, whose ex ample the Hon. Member for Montrose has quoted so much, I believe they have now a million of men enrolled as militia in the United States— Mr. HUM.E here made a remark which did not reach the gallery. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I ant now talking of the military means of defence. Now we have not adopted the means which have been taken by continental powers, or even by the United States in this respect. We have not got a large army; substracting from our whole army the troops in India and in the colonies, and our army, as compared with that on service in France, or even of any of the second-rate powers on the continent, is a very small army. Nor have we thought proper to adopt the plan of having a large militia force. There is very great difficulty in adopting a plan far a militia force in this country; difficulties and objections which, I think, would make the adoption of any plan founded on the former plan for the militia exceedingly objectionable if it was brought before this House. But admitting that you might have a militia force you have not ono at present, and therefore you are in this country obviously, and in the knowledge of all the world, without a great army and without a militia force, and therefore I say if that is the case, take care at all events that you have an effiient naval force. Do not part with that great arm of defence that you have, and do not expose yourselves to this, that for the first six months of war you might be utterly un able to send out a sufficient force to meet the hostile ope rations of your enemies. The Hon. Gentleman mentioned France; and certainly the more powerful naval arma ments of France and the many wars that we had had with France, induces one naturally to turn one's eye rather to that power than to others. But there are other powers. We might be at war with Russia and Austria, and at the same time engaged in a friendly alliance with France. In that case, also, we ought to be able to have a sufficient naval force to meet any aggres sions which might take place. I cannot—though I cer tainly do not give way to the apprehensions that have been expressed, and the estimates that have been made of the means by which, if France were at war with us, they might immediately land 50,000 or 100,000 men on our shores; but still I do not think it is at all out of the question that in case of any war arising with France, there might be an attempt made by a very considerable armament to land troops in this country; and I should he very sorry that, in that case, we had no means to prevent them, a naval force, if possible, from effecting any successes. But, Sir, there is another way in which we might be met, and a way that was pointed out by a very intelligent naval officer, Prince do Joinville, in a pamphlet, which you may remember he published many years ago, and that was by having small detachments and continual small expeditions to vex our coasts and in terrupt our trade. Now, I beg the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding to observe, that injurious as those operations mightbe—hurtful as they might be to our e n a g l e th t , ha a t nd we ou h r av r e e m so a u d r e ce t s n i r n esp former trade, the times—the corn-laws andlaotue m rc a h k wa es such operations far more injurious than they would otherwise be. For the last two or three years we have had eight or nine million quarters of grain imported into this country.—(lronical cheers from the Protectionists.) No, think what a loss it would be to this country, being in the practice of having a part of our food, to the amount of eight or nine million quar ters coming from fore i gn countries, if, in the event of a war, we had no naval force, and were unable to obtain that food.—(Renewed cheers fro m th e Protectionists.) I a m, therefore, of opinion that necessary as it was to have a naval force to protect our trad e i n a ll former wars, that a wgrh n ai a tee nation atia o m n d wyhwicchohine,thi is now like ours, allows a free importation of in the habit (and it is a practice of importing eight or nine million quarters of grain annually, is still mere under the neces sity of having a naval force than a nation which does not derive so large a quantity of food from foreign coun tries. It is obvious that the more our trade is extended the more we require the naval force in case of war to be extended also. The Hon. Gentleman alludes to the ar maments made by France, and says that it is not neces sary for us to ke e p up a largerfor w ce ith emthtahnFrabnycew, which that we might hav e an agreement this force might be mutually r e d uce d. But we have besides the necessity of defending our own coasts. We have the necessity of defending our trade, not with nations in the state of the United States of Ame rica, with which our commerce may be carried on with out with civilised,m an y s m a a n ll d States, ethers in of which are very little the habit of keeping good som riskf which faith with regard to the property , of our merchants that some fin te r are interruption, or very , imperfectly but reside in their territory. I herefore France is not at all under the nece ssit y of keeping up her naval force to the amount that we are obliged to k e ep ours up. I think that we are o bli g ed to kee p u p a n a val force for that purpose, besi des the purposes of defence which we are obliged to look t o. I own, theref ore , that I cannot think that the proposal to . keep up 39 , 000 men i n th e present year is at a ll excessive. And with regard to the general defence, let me observe that in the year 1845, when, to all appearance, we were on the most friendly terms with France, there arose a cause of difference, upon which the sense of honour and the susceptibly , of the two nations were very much excited, and it re quired the moderation shown in the greatest degree by both the Governments of France and England to prevent hostilities breaking out on that occasion. But the result was that the Governm ent of this country, on considering our means of defence, though . t we . were very ill prepared for those hostilities , and immediately a very large in crease was made in the naval expenditure of this country, and the e xpenditure, which had been 6,466 000/. with tho packet service, was raised immediately to 7,344,000 1 . Next year, in 1846-47, it was 7,920,000/. The expense of last year was very much below that—it was 6,362,0001., being rather more than a million less than the expense in 1845. Now if that was the case— if the Government of 1845 thought we were in consider able danger at that ti me, and thus increased the expen diture, and we have now reduced the expenditure by the amount of a million — I think it is some symptom that it is not a very extravagant expenditure which we now propose. The Hon. Member for Montrose has intro duced the question of the African squadron. I shall not go into a general discussion of that su bj ec t ; but this I must say, that I think this House has reason to be proud of the vote to which they came last year, that that squadron should not be abandoned. It was then represented to them that our efforts were entirely useless, that the slave trade was increasing, that it was quite impossible that we should be able effectually to prevent it, and many other things; that vessels were built that would carry on the slave trade so successfully that I the efforts of our cruisers would be defeated. Well, the House approved of the continuance of that squadron, nod among other consequences 01 while the number of men was about the same. This re- Sennersealsouse Ly the surveyors of the Admiralty would that vote, the Brazilian Government, seeing that the qaired explanations. I soon be required by the Board of Excise, anti, if his Parliament and the Government of this coun t ry were in Sir F. BARING repeated the statement he made in I Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exal t ( quer) earnest, have passed laws to prevent the slave - trade, and hie oponing speech, that a considerable additional ex- I were prepared to give the Admiralty a house nearer the immediate consequence was that the steamers held 'sense had arisen from the gradual increase of the sa- Whitehall, he should be quite ready to tran,fer the Ad by slave-dealers in Brazil were immediately sold, lam laries from long service. Last year, however, tacre was a miralty surveyors to it without any loss of time. glad to say at a very great loss, and many of the slave- diminution of 1 , 1001 . a year from the abolition cf an The Committee then divided, when there appeared-- dealers wore ruined. The captures became more nume- office. Part of the increase since 1844-45 was owing For the vote ... ... 193 roue, and in an account which arrived within these two to the additional officers required for the steam depart- For Colonel .. Sibthorp's amendment .... 34 159 days from the Brazilian Consul at Rio Janeiro , there is went—(Bear, hear.) Majority this passage—" I have also enclosed a return showing Mr. FITZROY was sorry the Hon. and Gallant The original motion was then agreed to. the number of slaves landed on a certain portion of this Member (Colonel Sibthorp) had proposed so largo a re- On our re-admission, coast during the six months ending December 31, 1850, duction in the vote, because if he persevered in the amend- Colonel SIBTHORP was addressing the Committee. showing that in the latter half of the year 1850 the total went, it would place him in this unpleasant position, He said, that in proposing the amendment just negatived number of slaves landed on this extent of coast was that thinking the reduction beyond what the effieiency of he had performed his duty, a ddi ng , " I have lost all con -5.108; while the number during the latter six months of the service would admit of, he could not conscientiously fidence in them;"—referring, as we understood, to the the three years 1847, 1848, and 1849 averages upwards support it; while being of opinion , on the other hand, gentlemen who usually sit on the benches below him.— of 24,000." So that the last year was very little more that a certain reduction was practicable, he could not (Cheers and laughter on the Ministerial side.) Colonel than one• fifth of the average of those landed in the cor- support the proposition of the Government. He hoped, Sibtborp then left the House amid loud and continued responding period of the three preceding years. Now, therefore, the Hon. and Gallant Member would modify cheering from the Ministerial party. I say this circumstance is encouraging to the Govern- his amendment., and ena bl e him to vote with him.— On the question, that a sum of 48.6351. be granted for ment of this country to proceed in this great work. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Fitzroy) had stated to the Com- the expenses of the scientific branch of the naval service, It is one in which we have been many years engaged, mittoe last year, and ho still retained the opinion, that Mr. HUME complained of the high price at e hich and every one, I think, must admit that it would cover there might be a reduction in this vote; and he held this the Nautical Almanack was sold. In his opinion a pub us with shame and humiliation if we had left that opinion with the greater confidence after reading the liestian se important to the safety of life and property great work unfinished, and allowed the slave trade evidence given by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Bar- ought to be within the reach of every class. IS the price to begin again and to be carried on to the extent which ing) himself before the Committee on Official Salaries, were lowered more money would be made of the work it was before. Great exaggerations are made with and also the evidence of the Right Hon. Gentleman the —the more they reduced the price the more copies they respect to the cost of this slave squadron. I think Member for Ripon. [Here the Hon. Gentleman quoted would sell. that it cannot be denied that even if you abandoned an extract from the evidence of Sir F. Baring with re- arote agreed to. the attempt to put down the slave trade, you must keep gard to the duties actually performed by the different The next vote was 134,6991. for the expenses of the a squadron on the coast of Africa at those parts where Lords of the Admiralty.] He (Mr. Fitzroy) would establishments at home. the slave trade does not exist; you cannot allow your maintain, without fear of contradiction, that if they coal- Mr. HUME objected to the expenses of Pembroke legitimate trade to be destroyed by pirates, and I doubt bined, the departments of the civil lords with the medi- dockyard. much whether you would find that you had saved more cal and vistaalling department, one man could perform Sir F. T. BARING contended for the great importance than 200,0001. or 250,0001. per annum, making the most the business of the two departments quite satisfactorily, of that establishmt nt. retrenchment which you could, and allowing the slave at the sacrifice of one or two hours every day.. Mr. HUME considered it to be inordinately ex trade to go on. Now, if that is the case, as I believe it Mr. HENLEY said, that the Hon. Gentleman who pensive. is, seeing that we nave made in the last year more pro- had just spoken had let out some secrets respecting the Vote agreed to. gress than we had done for many years before—seeing Admiralty. If they went on the Committee might get Tee next was 23,654/. for the naval establishments that there is a prospect on the coast of Brazil of putting some more information.—(A laugh.) Without pretend abroad.—Agreed to. an end to that trade, and if it is put an end to on the ing to the accuracy of knowledge of the Hon. Gentle- On the vote of 676,4161. for wages to artificers, &c., coast of Brazil, there will then be only Cuba left—seeing men (Mr. Fitzroy), he thought it quite clear that for the employed in the establishment at home, this prospect before us, I trust that whatever other re- last ten years the vote of the Admiralty establishment Mr. HUME said that the American Government had trenchment this House may make, they will not make a had been gradually increasing. In 1841.42 it was five vessels on the stocks, and they had stopped their retrenchment of that part of our naval force whi c h is 121,844/. It was now 1 38 , 6251 . He did not think the progress. It app e ar e d t o hi m that in our naval arehi required for the suppression, and, I hope, the final ex- Right. Hon. Gentleman had given a satisfactory expla- tecture we were certainly building to waste. England tinctiou of the slave trade.—(Hear, hear.) That, I nation why it had crept up—the number of men being now had a great many vessels that never yet had Leen think, would be a glory to this country, that having, by quite as great, if not greater, in 1842 than now.—(Hear, at sea, and he contended that with such a store of ships its own efforts, put an end to the slave trade and slavery hear.) The increase was not confined to the Admiralty the Government ought to cease building. With 67 yes in our dominions, and having by its example and effects establishment. It was the same in the dockyards, the sels in course of building it did appear no him that on all nations, put an end to the slave trade of many vote for which, in 1842, was 122,0001. It was now we might now very well stop. He regretted to ob other countries, that we should finally put an end to the nearly 136,000/. There seemed a tendency to get back serve that a great number of vessels belonging to the slave trade in Brazil and Cuba, and thereby have the to that state of things that the Right Hon. Gentleman navy had recently been broken up. Since the month that E land had been the cause of the Member for Ripon set right in 1835-36. He (Mr. of March, 1828, we had built not fewer than 264 satisfaction of saying that _ nglat the slave trade being abolished all over the world. Mr. M. GIBSON dissented from the argument used by the Noble Lord to the effect that circumstances arising out of the policy of free trade rendered it ne cessary to keep a large naval force for the protection of commerce. The Noble Lord represented that we were dependent on foreign countries fur supplies of grain; and therefore it was unnecessary to pause before the pro posal of a reduction in the naval force was entertained. — (Hear, hear.) On that question he was entirely at issue with the Noble Lord. He was of opinion, in the first place, that the free-trade policy having increased our commercial intercourse with other nations had increased our shipping and the number of our sailors, and had made the facilities for manning our fleet greater in a case of sudden emergency. The free-trade policy further in troduced a tie of mutual interest among nations, which was the strongest gharantee for the maintenance of peace. Instead of making defences more necessary, it rendered them less so. The Noble Lord represented the Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and others had done the same elsewhere, as ono who proposed to do away with the navy. The question was one of degree. What force was it necessary to maintain at present, having regard to the welfare and safety of the country? It was not fair to represent these who thought a less amount than the Government proposed as indifferent to the existence of any naval force. The Noble Lord spoke of steamers; but it was always understood that it required fewer men to man steamers than sailing ships. One of the Lords of the Admiralty, as he was informed, had stated that in two months ho could fit out 100 steamers for war purposes. If so, the argument founded on the alleged necessity of keeping employed the large number of men proposed in the vote was considerably weakened. (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had referred to the steps taken by the Brazilian Government for the sup pression of the slave trade. There was an anti-slave trade party in Brazil; and the effect of British inter ference, menace, and vexatious irritation had been to postpone till the present time the successful operations of that anti-slave party; the sense of national inde pendence being touched by the attempt to force, as it were, at the cannon's mouth, the Brazilian Govern ment to abolish the slave trade. Mr. CARDWELL observed, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had raised a point which had often been raised in that House, but on which his argument would appear on reflection to be more plausible than sound. The Right Hon. Gentleman attributed the new exertions made by the Brazilian Government to a change in the disposition of the Brazilian people, consequent on the removal of the irritation which ho described as being oc casioned by the policy of this country. What were the facts of the case?—(Hear, hear.) In former times we had been feeble in our efforts, and the Brazilians feeble and inactive. Last session a motion, based on the report of a Committee, was brought forward in that House, and a strenuous effort made to induce it to reverse its policy. The House took a far wiser and more enlightened view. —(Hear, hear.) It solemnly affirmed that policy. And what occurred in Brazil? A degree of vigour and ac tivity was imparted to the operations of the British consul at the Court of Brazil such as had not occurred before. What took place ? A vessel of her Majesty, actieg not without an understanding with the Brazilian Government, took possession of Brazilian vessels en gaged in the slave trade on the coast of Brazil. The guns of a Brazilian fort were brought to bear on the British vessel. The fort was bombarded, and the guns silenced. What next occurred ? The Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs being questioned in the Chamber of Deputies, used these words—he quoted from memory, but there were Hon. Members present who could correct him if necessary— " With respect to the insult offered to our country, we will endeavour to give the best account. But let me tell you this, if you believe you can succeed in maintaining the slave trade, when a country like Great Britain has solemnly recorded her determination to prevent it, you are greatly mistaken."—(Hear, hear.) He had read in the Times newspaper that the declaration of the Foreign Minister of Brazil was received with applause. As the Noble Lord the First Minister had stated, the measures for the suppression of the slave trade had been so suc cessful on the coast of Brazil that, although slaves had been imported, their number for the last six months of 1850 was not a fifth of the average for the corresponding months of the three years preceding. He (Mr. Cardwell) entirely concurred in the generous sentiments expressed by the Noble Lord—(Hear, hear)—and, having en gaged in the cause, he most earnestly hoped, when there was so great a prospect of success, that this country would not cease from using its best efforts to suppress the slave trade.—(Hear, hear.) Admiral BERKELEY stated that the Right Hon. Member for Manchester, in quoting an observation at tributed to him (Admiral Berkeley)„ supplied a text in favour of the argument for the continuance of the larger body of men. In his evidence he had said that he thought 100 steamers, fitted as auxiliaries in time of war might be taken from the merchant service; but he had not said he could find men to send those vessels to sea with. But the present number of men in the navy would form the nucleus of a larger force, consisting of men ac customed to guns; it was necessary they should be so in the state of gunnery in every nation. Formerly a ship might be manned with the best seamen going; but a ship could no longer be manned with those men unless they had been trained to the perfect knowledge of gun nery which was taught now. A body of seamen gunners would beat double their number of seamen unacquainted with gunnery as practised in modern times. Mr. PLUMPTRE thought that, if he followed the example of the Hon, Member for Montrose, he should only be illustrating the proverb, " Penny wise and pound foolish." Under the circumstances of the times he should support the vote. Mr. S. CRAWFORD intimated that he should sup• port the amendment of the Hon. Member for Montrose, having been sent to that House to promote the princi ples which used to be those of the Whig party, namely, "Peace, retrenchment, and reform." Colonel THOMPSON was obliged, on the ground just stated, to give his vote with the Hon. Member for Montrose, but protested against being seduced by any of the reasons that Hon. Gentleman had offered in sup port of the amendment.—(Hear, and a laugh.) With regard to the income-tax, !which had been referred to, an opinion was becoming prevalent that it was a very good tax, and that it should be rendered eternal. Mr. HUME thought that the Hon. and Gallant Colo nel must have been asleep while he (Mr. Hume) was speaking—(A laugh)—for he had not mentioned the in come-tax once during that evening. Colonel THOMPSON—Oh, yes, you did. Mr. HUME—No, I did not. The Hon. and Gallant Colonel has said that he is not induced to vote for my motion by the arguments I advanced in support of it; but ho has forgotten to tell us what are his own reasons for voting for it. ---(Laughter.) The Committee divided, and the numbers were— 'For Mr. flume's amendment ... 61 A g ainst it ... ..• ... 169 Majority ... •.. --108 The original motion was then agreed to, as were the following votes:- 1,435,733/e for the wages of seamen and marines. 500,6321., for victuals for seamen and marines. It was then proposed that 138,6251. should be granted to defray the expense of the Admiralty.: Colonel SIBTHORP said, that although the Whigs always recommended economy when out of office, they never practised it when in. The Lords of the Admiralty were generally of little use. For his part he believed that some of the present Lords did not know a 74 from a barge, and when his Right Honourable and respected relative (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was Secretary to the Admiralty he was sick in a punt in the Thames. He proposed to reduce the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty from 4,5001. to 3,5001., in conse quence of the reduction which had taken place in fish, meat, and all the other free-trade advantages which he possessed.—(Laughter.) He proposed to strike off the salaries of the two lay Lords altogether, thus saving other 2,0001. The salary of he. First Secre tary he would reduce from 2,000/. to 1,5001, that of the Second Secretary from 1,5001. to 1,0001., and that t solicitor from 1,600/. to 1,0001.; making altogethelrvaas reduction of 4,6001. His amendment, therefoire, that the vote be reduced from 138,625/. to .34,0251. He would divide the House upon it if he found a ee condor. Mr. WILLIAMS said he founedsthonathg y e present f se o nt= , was 11,8001. more tha n the oorr pdtu ships. Within a comparatively short period we had expended for purposes of this kind as much as 5,190,0001., and on dockyards 805,0001., all this involv ing a great waste of timber and wages, and a pulling of ships to pieces for no useful purpose; they surely ought not to sanction such wasteful proceedings—such waste as the breaking up of 297 ships in the course of the last 20 years. On these grounds he proposed to reduce the amount of the vote from 676,4161. to 400,000/. Admiral BERKELEY observed, that though the statement respecting those ships made a great display on paper, the ships would not make a very good show at sea, and no nation had vessels of so small a size as Eng land. If we brought 50 sail of the line into a general action he feared that we should very soon have to re place them. In consequence of our having been at peace so long there were no doubt many ships that had never been at sea, but that was no reason why they should be relied upon, especially if they were not in a fit state. It should be remembered that if they were building ships they were not launching them; they kept them on the slips, and it was hardly necessary for him to point out the disadvantage of too much haste in building. If a ship was run up in a hurry, or upon an emergency, she very soon rotted, and was found little worth at sea. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume) seemed to think that a good deal would be saved by giving op building for themselves, and getting ships built in mer chants' yards. In order to show the fallacy of this, he would refer to two 72-ships of the first-class, both still extant. One of these, the Blenheim, built in a Government yard in 1813, cost 59,2491.; and the other, the Benbow, built in a merchants' yard, cost 68 070/. The Benbow was rotten and condemned, while the Blenheim had had a screw put into her, and was still a good and efficient ship.—(Hear, hear.) A reference to other ships would show the same result. As to the num ber of artificers employed, the returns before the House would show that much more work had been done by fewer hands during the last two years than was done be fore that time. He should be sorry to see building in our own yards given up. One result of such a step would be that it would become absolutely necessary to hire men when ships came in for repair, and that at an increase of expense. Sir G. PECHELL said there were great complaints as to the unnecessary work carried on in the building yards, and he was anxious to see a remedy for that evil. As a specimen of the mode of doing business in the docks he might refer to the case of the Tremendous. Some four or five years ago she was condemned as rotten, and was about to be broken up. Having been brought into Chatham she was, somehow or other, saved from destruc tion; she was then razed and sent out, and came back under a new name—the Eagle, he believed—being then considered a very fine vessel.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. PLUMPTRE asked if there had been any re duction of the wages of artificers? The agriculturists had reduced the wages of their labourers at least one sixth. Admiral BERKELEY could only say in reply that the wages of artificers were regulated by those given in merchant builders' yards. It was indeed found that shipwrights and artisans generally were not to be had at wages so low as formerly.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. M'GREGOR did not see what necessity there could be for such an amount of naval force as was con tended for. Almost every nation on the continent, ex cept Prussia ' Naples, Denmark, and Belgium, was in a state bordering on bankruptcy; and what was the naval strength of Russia? It was not more than equal to the ships of two of our most eminent shipping firms. Instead of expending such large sums on our naval establishments, ho would rather see them reduced, and relief given to the public, the agricultural interest included, by a reduction of taxation. Mr. HUME cited the report of the Committee up stairs, to show that the cost of building ships in the dockyards was 221. per ton, without including one shil ling for the dockyards themselves ; while, for vessels built in private yards, the cost was 16/. 14s. 2d. per ton. Mr. COBDEN remembered that when Sir 11. Ward Was excusing the high rate of the estimates in his scheme, he had told them they would not have so much expense for sailing ships in future; and really with seventy sailing ships of the line, and such a fleet of steamers as we possessed, to go on building more vessels was mon strous. He had heard it said that in the next war the contest would be wholly carried on by steamers. It so, why go on building more sailing ships ? From the evi dente taken before the Committee it appeared that while there were fewer ships of war in the world now than in the year 1792, we had double the naval force which we possessed at that period. Admiral BERKELEY observed, that when they knew that other countries were building lice-of-battle ships, not as formerly, but furnished with screw-propellers, they ought not to be unprepared. Mr. S. HERBERT said, that so far from our having more line-of•battle ships now than in the year 1792, the facts were the other way; while, with respect to the cost, they would find, if they divided the whole amount by the number of men, the result would give for the year 1792 about 3501. per man, while for the present year it would give about 3601. per man. As to the cost of ships building, the question was not whether you would get a vessel built cheaper in the merchant's yard, but whether the s essel so built would be more durable than a vessel built in the dockyard. Experience showed that it would; for they had not the same chuck relative to the materials in a p t h r e i r a t t e i m y b a e r r d y a t g h f e e y r hulltrdeeinyeaarsd.ockinacrodm, wh par e i r n e g they had the cost of ships, it should be remembered that the vessels built in dockyards were large men-of-war, whilst these built in private yards were merchant ships, which, being smaller, were not of course so costly. With reference to the opinion that in future wars the contest would be tarred on solely by steamers—while,that was the belief of some, it was on the other hand, held by equally competent judges that the steamers, from the delicacy of their machinery, and the facility of damaging their hulls, would be so complete's , ,hors de combat by the injuries sustained in action that they would never be able to re-engage. He did not, how ever, mean to say that it was necessary to increase the number of our ships; but he thought it a wise policy to introduce the use of the screw• propellers in line-of-battle ships generally. Mr. COBDEN—As the screw.propellers were to supersede the other class of ships, be tbuildi n hought i line t . a con clusive argument against their going on g con clusive battle ships. lated their expenses—what as • it nothing House, asked question,• d d he frequentlyand in their ,everything of in ap• rivate or tnaaufac p.wpaPbrriEiitycshCoetnahllonEELL asked when the public would be an account built perfectly ytuhilet fallacious. "' o ought h v t p e .snisTeeavl vessels n t o a h n e b u e e f a q x c u pe rime different sailing qualities gratifiedexhibitedtt hhseSet T. BARING said when the t c u o r m i u p g e t y i t a i or yard re ceivedir F. he had no objection to lay it before experimental squadron? Mr. HUME asked if there was any in the process of preserving timber? rtephpreooorHetoswsuasmes.adeSir F. T. BARING replied that the progress was naturally rE a N t E w y o e. d for me t h , e but W e h s e t I s I h i o d ui not doubt that the Hon. Member b ( eMr• glad Cobden) to ha Mr. IM RE Gen tleman.—(Laughter.) ve w i a- t s f r r i o g m h taiunthhis state meat, Mr. HENLEY had great respect both for the Hon. Member for the West Riding and the Hon. Member for Montrose, but he should like to have an answer from the Right ion. Gentleman opposite. Sir F. T. BARING had not the return with him; but he apprehended the Hon. Gentlemen behind him W ere right. w hen there a ea The Committee then divid ed w pp red _ For the amendment ••• 68 •-• 127 Against it ..• Majority •• • ... The vote was agreed to. 35,5561. for wages to artificers abroad was also agreed to. Tho SPEAKER then resumed the chair, and the CHAIR meN reported progress and obtained leave to sit again. VALUATION (IRELAND). The Valuation (Ireland) Bill was read a second time pro forma, and ordered to be referred to a Select Com mittee, after a few words from Mr. CLEMENT. Henley) was surprised to find a person like the Hon Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) state that it was impossible to make any reduction of the expense in the details of management without reducing the number of men, and that, too, in the face of, and immediately following, the statement of the First Lord of the Ad miralty that there had been a reduction in two years of 1,500,000/. in the general expenses.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Henley) confesed that when he found the Hon. Member for Montrose proposing to strike off nearly a fourth part of the whole efficient force, and when he did not succeed, throwing the cards up, he was induced to suspect he was not sincere in proposing it with any hope of carrying it.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him very like throwing out a 11114 to the whale, and saying, " See what great reductions we propose."—(Hear, hear.) Mr. COBDEN thought it would be in tho recollection of the Committee, that what he had said was not that it was impossible. to make any reductions, but that it was impossible to make any material reduction of ex pense without reduction of the forces.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had said that there had been a re duction of upwards of a million without a reduction of the force; but the fact was that in 1848 there was a re duction of from 4,000 to 5,000 men. He (Mr. Cobden) stated that there might be occasionally disturbing causes, such as building steam-boats or the like; but if the Hon. Gentleman wousid go through the Navy, Ordnance, and Army estimates, for a series of 20 years, he would find his statement correct, that, taking a series of years, the number of mon was an accurate test of the amount of money expended. Ho thought, too, that upon reflection the Honourable Gentleman would recall the imputation of insincerity which ho had ventured, in a moment of forgetfulness, to make against the Hon. Member for Montrose.—(Hear, hear.) That Hon. Gentleman had, to his knowleo.ge, often proposed similar motions during the last ten years; and, although he might not have sue ceeded in carrying them at the time, it had generally happened that in the course of a few years what he pro posed was carried into effect.—(Hear, hear.) And he (Mr. Cobden) would venture to predict that the reduc tion his Hon. Friend had proposed would be carried out before long, and probably with the aid of the Hon. Mem ber for Oxfordshire.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME rebutted the charge of insincerity, and said that the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire and his friends,: who were constantly crying out for a reduction of taxation, and yet when they had an opportunity of lessening the expenditure did not embrace it, gave a pretty strong proof that they were not sincere. —(Hear, hear.) And, he would tell the Honourable Gentlemen, moreover, that these who voted for large establishments and yet d e manded a reduction of the taxation by which those establishments were supported—in other words, those who refused to diminish the expenditure before reducing the taxation—did not, in his opinion, adopt a very honest course.—(Cheers, and hear, hear.) He begged to tell those Hon. Gentlemen, also, that when they considered the situation in which they were placed in consequence of the reduction which had taken place in the price of tile produce of the soil, they would pro bably find it their' interest before long to join him in re ducing the expenditure of the country. Mr. S. CRAWIORD said, that if the Honourable and Gallant Officer went to a division he would sup port him. Mr. HENLEY explained that his observations with regard to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for the West Riding had reference to what that Hon. Gen tleman stated two years ago, and not to what was the number of men in the navy in the year 1848. With respect to the Hon. Member for Montrose, he (Mr. Henley) bogged to say, that he bad no intention of accusing the Hon. Gentleman of a want of sincerity. What he intended to say was, that the Hon. Gentle man could have no expectation of carrying his motion. Mr. HUME—lndeed I had.—(Cheers and laughter.) If Hon. Gentlemen had fulfilled their pledges I have no doubt I should have succeeded. Colonel SIBTHORP observed that the Hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy), having himself been a Lord of the Admiralty, had admitted that a reduction of one lord was necessary; but he (Colonel Sibthorp) went further, and considered that in these days of economy and dis tress they might with strict propriety be reduced two. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said the motion of the Gallant Officer applied only to one service, whereas it ought to be applied to all the different branches of the service, Navy, Army, and Ordnance. The Hon. Member for the West Riding had referred them back to the year 1838 as a standard, but the propriety of the force to be maintained was not a question of chronology but of ex pediency. There was no abstract amount of force that could be determined upon. The amount to be kept up depended upon what were the probabilities of a hostile force coming against us. Did any gentlemen in sober sadness believe that there was the same chance of a greater force coming against us now than in the years 1835 and 1838? There were certain portions of the estimates which seemed to him to be very slightly passed over, but which in his opinion ought to be explained. lie referred to certain details such as oc curred in page 12. After putting the two assistant-sur veyors at 8001. per annum each, there came these items: —Four draughtsmen to the surveyor; one first-class, from 3501. to 5001.; one second class, from 2801. to 3501.; and two third-class, from 1501 to 250/. Then, and soon after, there came, first draughtsman 250/.; second ditto, 1501.; then, first writer and calculator, 150/.; second ditto, 801.; then, assistant-engineer, 5001.; after that, di rector of engineering and architectural works, 1,0001.; then, chief atsistant to the director of works, draughts man to the director of works, and clerk and draughtsman to the director of works. Now the whole of these offices sounded very queer, and concerning which the House ought to receive some explanation. Then, there was another item, not only applicable to the service of the Admiralty, bat applicable to all the public departments, and that was " Public Buildings and Repairs." He be lieved the largest and most extravagant expenditure on account of these items came under the direction of the Woods and Forests. These charges also required ex planation. Sir F. BARING said, that with regard to the details which had been referred to, those of them which had been introduced since 1845 or 1846, he ought not to be called upon to explain, except as now holding the office of First Lord of the Admiralty. The principal part of tbo increased expense of the establishment had, as he had already explained, arisen from the creation of the steam navy. With reference to the particular items mentioned by the lion. Member for Surrey in regard to engineering architectural works, and other works, he had no doubt that the persons appointed to those various departments were required to superintend and check the great expense of the works going on in the public buildings and the dockyards. For such purposes there must be some establishment. There was one officer ap pointed as assistant to each establishment, and, although they were called hard names, yet they were in effect clerks; and he did not think that the sums set against their names were very large. The Hon. and Gallant Officer (Colonel Sibthorp) had proposed the redaction of his (Sir F. Baring's) own salary. lie was a f t a th d e he must leave that entirely to t he decision of the , House. The question had been already "ese da that relieved him from any difficulty might, other wise feel on the subject. He should, from any further observations upon it. Admiralty, the Hon. the number of the Lords of the th%velfittohrer,egabersdtatine he Inc ue te trs there were two lay lords, unlessnior lay lord on the board. and Gallant Gentleman was mistaken .inlsudpdposbingrthatt Lord. There was only .i d The ene e g Hon. iv e n Me b m y athskeendu w m h b e e r b.beirmfelselLe.rnewFue.s Bh:r d in r gs fe b r e r f e o d re t t o h t e h c e evi dence he thought a reduction ve ee a t s ild tr b u e e m h a e d w e a i s n board, and his answer was that he mittee on this subject. constitut! t ng thewould be very unwise to make any reduction. h a owing to his previous experience much in other offices, that he interfered more in the bu tihtohuagphpteined,per ap siness of civil lords than was usually done by the person holding the office of First Lord; but, as a general prin ciple, he did not think it advisable to cut down the number of junior lords; but that the House would act unwisely if they were to adopt the course intimated by the lion. Gentleman the Member for Lewes. tiv . v vea e dlet? t cy h ae a ul ; lips t itself edofur businessront rooms d o eet n m ros s o st oo f amot t mds h e i e tneghmoh A anctty d r beie m tnee twii more b a on 0 1 uot t rul y peds ce D avocee e neri p vtynb a e e r sne oa t ri m roe tnnlenvunbtytheb Whitehall reht trans acted? Mr. HUME asked whether it was intended to re move where ma o c e i abso lutely necessary to make the removal. Sir. F. BARING said the rooms now occupied at -_--- EVENIN G, A Cf 3 I t