The Express.
London, England, 1862-07-08 00:00:00

the coustry higher than he did. (Hear. hear.) There was
not • men who valued more than he did the honour, the
gaiety, and the just interests of the country. (Cheers.)
They might take different views, as every one was entitled
to do, as to the beat mode of fortifying the country. Sterne '
people might think it was unwise to expend this NM
whilst we were struggling under a weight of taxation.
Others, like Sir R. Feel, might hold that you
could not fortify every point of your coast,
and your colonies ; and that in attempting to do so, you ran
a greater risk than by husbanding your resources and hold-
ing them ready in owe of emergency. But let a real danger
he shown ; let it be shown that our navy was not equal to
our defence ; let it be shown that a neighbouring power was
insidiously attempting to alter the proportion which the
navy of • maritime country like this, to which the only
acorns was by sea, should bear to its commerce, and he
would willingly vote 100,000,0001. to protect the country
naiad attack. (Cheers.) But he claimed no merit on
that ground ; there was not a man who would
not sacrifice his fortune rather than see our shores
defiled by the footsteps of an invader. (Cheers.)
The right hon. member for Stroud (Mr. Borman) was the
authority for this expenditure. (Hear, hear.) It woe com-
menced under his sober and sagacious leadership. and he
believed the hon. member for Bridgwater (Hr. Bingham)
was a great supporter of the noble viscount in this matter.
He (Mr. Cobden) did not profess to follow these gentlemen.
The right hon. member for Stroud seemed to think that as
our wealth increased so must our armed forces increase.
It might be so if we WOOI a nation owning • slave population,
or pothering rich gold regions, which kept us in luxury.
His view was that in every step which we took in the pro-
gress of wealth and in the extent of our power by means
of free commerce, we were raising up that kind of
population which must furnish us with the means
of defence. Our workers in metals were the foundation
of our greatness. There was not a man of that ChM whose
hard hands and skilled brain, would nos in the course of •
few weeks be able to furnish us with the supplies of gum,
shot, and shell, and every weapon of defence. Then where
was the necessity of increasing the number of our armed
forces? Whence sprang our Armstrong., our Whitwortha,
and our PM:bairns ? From the industry of this country,
in which they were mainly employed. It was the constant
reproach of tome that he and others wished to leave the
country defenceless. But if, as it had been stated, it were
possible for this country to make three times more
steamengines than any other nation in the world,
to whom was that owing but to three who had trained the
skilled artisans of the country? Let them look at Ports-
mouth or at Woolwich, whose names appeared on the
greatest engines in those arsenals? Why the names of men
in Manchester, in Birmingham, and Liverpool, who had
been created during the last thirty or forty years, by the in-
crease of our commerce. In oonclusioo, be deprecated the
attempt of any body to show that he, or any of those who
acted with him, had been indifferent to that in which con-
sisted the true power and greatness of this country.

Mr. KINGLAKE rose, bat. way to
Sir J. PAKLNGTON, who said that as the hoe. members
for Rochdale and Sunderland had appealed to him on the
subject of exaggerated statemente alleged to have been
made in the house with regard to the navy of France, he
moat say he believed the noble viscount had made no
statement—and he (Sir J. Pakington) believed he had heard
every statement which had been made by the noble lord—
with regard to the relative strength of France and England,
which was not free from both vagueness and auggera-
tion—(hear, hear) ; and which was not founded
on the most accurate statistics. (Cheers.) Thus much
he was bound to say, but be was ready to go farther.
But he would say more. The speech of the hon. member
for Rochdale had no more to do with the question at nine
than the relative strength of the English and Spanish
navies at the time of the Spanish Armada. A great part
of the speech of the boo. member was taken up with a
comparison of the navy of Fiance during the time
of Louis Philippe and the reign of the present
Emperor. Nothing could be more deceptive. The
rate of wages and the price of material were so different.
Throughout the speech of the bon. member he bad not
heard a word with regard to what had paned in England
and France since 1859, and it was in 1859 that the construc-
tion of iron-plated ships commenced. The hon. member for
Rochdale bad stated to-eight that he for one desired to see
the navy of England superior to that of Freers, and that he
would incur soy expense necenary for that object. Then,
on that principle the hon. member was not justified in find-
ing fault with the late Admiralty or with the present
Admiralty, and it was essential that the present Admiralty
should go on with their expenditure in order to make the
navy of &gland superior to that of France. The hoe.
member for Sunderland had failed to impugn his (Sir J.
Pakington's) statement on a former °crayon, founded on
the authority of Admiral Elliott. His statement was that
the French bad 15 frigates and 9 line-of-battle
ships of different descriptions. All these were ar-
alour•platad ships. There were afloat, 6 ; and
building, 10—making 16. Now, referring to the
ships of different descriptions, Admiral Elliot said there
was • total of 32 instead of 24, which he (Sir J. Pakington)
said there were last year. Admiral Elliot, therefore, was
borne out in the statement he had made. He did not know—
perhaps the hon. member for Sunderland could tell him,
whether the Solferino and the Magenta were included in
that number of sixteen. The delay in the building of these
frigates had been referred to. Captain Howe, who had
visited the dockyards, accounted for it by an alteration of
the span from 20 to 16 tons.
Lord PALMERSTON said be should like to ask the
house whether they were discussing the David estimates of
the year or the question of permanent fortification of their
dockyards. The speeches of the hon. member for Sunder-
dand and the hon. member for Rochdale had no bearing on
the question now ander the consideration of the house, but
turned on the simple question of a comparison between the
existing navy of France and the navy of England.
The bon. member for Rochdale seemed to be ex-
cessively angry with him. (Laughter.) He accused him of
indiscretion and levity, and of every possible breach of every
duty which it was possible to accuse him of. He received
these accusations from the bon. member with the utmost
possible quietness. They differed so entirely in their views
that it was quite natural that he should be attacked by the
boo. member. The hon. member said that he (Lord
Palmerton) was actuated by one idea. He was actuated
by one idea. Hie idea was one which seemed never to have
entered the fertile brain of the boo. member. His idea was
that England ought to be defended. His idea was that our
navy could not exist without the necessary dockyard, and
thattecee dockyards ought to be placed in • position to be
enure from any sudden attack. Now that was so idea that ' ,
never entered the mind of the hoe. member. The hon.
member said lie would spend 100 millions to maintain a good
navy. He did not ask him for any such thing. He asked
for a much more moderate amount—namely, the amount
recommended by the defence commissioners for
giving our navy a secure foundation. He said
that the hon. member was in a state of blindness and
delusion, which made him utterly unfit to be listened to by
the country as an adviser in matters of this sort. (Mur-
mur+ and cheers). When the hon. member dealt with
matters which be understood, when be descanted on free-trade
in corn, or on free trade in general, they listened to him
with the utmost deference and respect. The bon. mem-
ber understood the subject, he was imbued with sound prin-
ciples, and the conclusions he arrived at were those which
commanded assent ; but when he went beyond " crepidam"
and descanted upon naval and military defences, the hen.
member mast permit him to say he went entirely beyond
the scope of his knowledge—beyond the reach to which his
understanding had extended. ("Oh," and cheers.) Yes,
and he would be a most dangerous adviser of this house or of
the country. He said it was so, because the honour-
able member, while he declared it was presump-
tion in any man to say be was not as anxious
for the honour, dignity, and defence of the country as
soy man living, yet the defence he proposed was to reduce
their army and navy, and to leave their dockyards ardor-
tilled, but having workmen in Birmingham, Manchester and
Sheffield and other hives of iudustry, amid the mercantile
capital increased—why the richer they are, if they were
not able to defend their wealth, the more they invited
attack. The very accumulation of wealth in a country was •
reason for partof the wealth being devoted tonational defence
As to the fact of there being good artisans and plenty of
steam engiaes working in the manufacturing districts, so
far from being a means of defence against a sudden attack
coming upon us, it was palpable that there would not be
time to bring these labouring men from the centre of Eng-
land and °nowise them as a military or naval body, and
set them to work to make fortification. It was
childish to imagine that the possession of these
resources, if they did not avail themselves of them
beforehand would be of any avail to them when the time
came. It was an infatuation of the hon. gentleman which
I be was astonished that my man should not be conscious
of who had thought at all upon these public matter'. The
hon. member accused him of having been guilty of great ex-
aggeration with regard to the Enrich army. He utterly denied
it. He stated that on the Ist of January the French army
consisted of 446 000 men sod 170,030 in reserve, making an
aggregate of 616.000. lie was reported to have said
816.000, but that was a mere error of a
figure, which was very natural. The Moniteur corrected
him, and said the aggregate was only 612.000, but the
correction substantially confirmed hie statement. With
regard to the French navy, the hon. member for Sunderland
said the number of French iron-plated vessels built and
building was 37, and 27 English. He (Lord Palmerston)
had stated that the numbers were 36 and 25. The
hon. member therefore admitted that be (Lord Pal-
mentoo) had sot made an exaggerated statement.
Well, then, the hoe. member for Rochdale bad repeated
that evening the statements which be put into his pam-
phlet ; and he bad erideavouredto show what was the com-
parative amount of labour employed in the dockyards in
England sod in France at certain periods ; and also what
yea the amount of naval charges in the two countries.
The right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich bad said,
and rightly, that the statement was fallacious, and upon
this ground. First, as regarded the mosey expended on the
workmen. In the French dockyards the amount paid to
workmen was 2s. lid. aday, while in Eagland it was nibs rate
of 4a. 6d. That was about the proportion, aod, copse-
gently, in England the sum upended was far higher than
in France. With regard to the ships sod general expenses
of the navy and wages of • 90 gun two-decker in the two
services, they were in the proportion of 19,0001. foe • French,
sod 29,0001. for en English, ship—that was to say, a 90-gun
English ship in wage al me cost 10.0001. more than a French
one; the force being equal, the actual expellees of the guns
must be greater in England than in France ; and, there-
fore, it was perfectly fallacious as • measure of
relative strength to toll the house what was
being spent in on or the other, unless the house
wore told the wad el the labour in the two oesuatries.