The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-20 00:00:00

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.

Mr. MAGUIRE gave notice that on Friday week he
would draw the attention of the house to the distress pre-
vailing in the south and west of Ireland, and to ask the
Government questions in reference to the same.
CUSTOMS INLAND REVENUE BILL.

On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. DISRAELI rose to draw the attention of the house
to the existing state of the finances of the country. He
contended that the defence of the country and the mainte-
nance of our empire were matters of paramount importance,
and he was not one of those whe would imperil them
merely with a view to financial retrenchment. (Hear, hear.)
At the same time he thought that, in the present state of
the finances of this country, it was necessary that there
should be the greatest economy in the public expenditure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement the other
evening, made an admission that the finances of the country
were not in a healthy condition, and vet there was no pro-
position on the part of the Government to restore it to a
sanitary state. He contrasted the expenditure in
regard to military and naval matters between 1859
and the present year, and contended that the present
expenditure for this department of the public ser-
vice was uncalled for. In the former year there were
exceptional demands on the next year, and no doubt
last year there were also exceptional demands, but there
was nothing to justify the increase of £5,000,000 in the
military and naval expenditure. The right hon. gentleman
having indulged in some caustic criticism as to the style of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing his finan-
cial statement, contended that there was nothing really in
the state of Europe, where the greatest powers were ex-
hibiting symptoms of tranquillity, that called for a huge
military expenditure. The noble lord at the head of her
Majesty's Government had candidly stated the reason that
influenced Government in its military expenditure, viz.,
that France wanted to rival the maritime power of this
country. (" Hear, hear," from the Conservative benches.)
That was a most important matter to be understood. If
such were the desire of the Emperor of the French, then
he stated emphatically that it was not policy of this coun-
try to be in alliance with France. He contended that the
fleet of Etigland should stand in the position of the army
of France, and he objected to the fact of the number of iron
ships in the French navy being taken :as a test of the
relative strength of the navies of the two
countries. He appealed to the House to approach this
subject in a practical spirit. They must consider that
France was either a friend or a foe. If the latter, then he
contended that all the discoveries of science should be libe-
rally applied to enable us to compete with so extraordinary
a rival ; but if, as he believed was the case, that France
had no desire to supersede the maritime supremacy of this
country, then the present war expenditure was altogether
uncalled for, and was most reprehensible. (Hear, from the
Opposition.) The right hon. gentleman then assailed the
fOreign policy of the Premier, which he said was unaltered
from that pursued in 1857, and which was founded on the
principle of maintaining a war armament in time of peace.
(Hear, hear.) It might be said that he was inconsistent
in not having opposed the financial statement of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was delivered. In
1858 the army and navy expenditure was £22,297,000, in
1859 it was £26,308,000—an increase of £4,000,000. In
1860 it rose to £29,218,000, and in 1861 to £29,443,000. In
1862 the expenditure, after making every deduction,
amounted to £5,000,000 more than in 1858, and £1,674,000
beyond that of 1859. This was a subject for grave conside-
ration, and the house should inquire what was the cause of
this large increase. They had been told by Lord Palmer-
ston that the cause of this great expenditure was that
France had long been endeavouring to equal the naval
power of England, and in the same breath that there was
no ground for objecting to France pursuing this policy.
He, however, joined issue with the First Miuleter upon
this point. If France was really pursuing this policy, a
a policy calculated to create distrust and inquietude
in this country, and causing great expense, he (Mr. Disraeli)
was against an alliance with France. If France was actit, g
thus, she was not only giving cause for distrust and jealousy,
but would even justify England in going to war with her.
If France was not pursuing this policy, where was the ne-
cessity of our extraordinary armaments ? Now, was she
pursuing this policy ? So far as he could form an opinion
she had not yet reached the programme put before the Go-
vernment in 1858, and he insisted that there was nothing tot
justify extraordinary armaments on our part at presen
more than in 1858.
Lord P A.LMERSTON, after replying to the remarks of
Mr. DianAmr, upon the subjects referred to.inonthbeelahttaedr
part of his speech, observed that the compans
increase of only
£1,600,000, between 1858 and 1862 showed an,
£1,600,000, and there were circumstancefs such as the Chivy,
war, New Zealand, and the despatch o troops te Canada,
which had involved an extraordinary outlay. The Govern-
ment had reduced our army and navy expenditure, and
would continue to do so whenever opportunities offered,
The amount of our military force was justified by the testi-
mony of General Peel, who had actually objected to the
insufficiency of the money vote; and as to the navy, Sir J.
Pakington had urged its increase by representing the naval
preparations of the French. Mr. Disraeli had misappre..
hended what he said with reference to those preparations.
He (Lord Palmerston) had said that we had no right to
make an international objection to the amount of naval force
which France might think proper to maintain ; but it did
not follow, because we were upon good terms with France,
that we were to allow her to acquire a stronger naval force
than ourselvez. It was a miter of necessity, looking to
the extent of our commerce and of our possessions abroad,
that our navy should not only be equal, but superior to that
of France. We did not expect France to be our enemy ;
at the same time, the French were but men, and it was not
in human nature to forbear taking advantage of superior
force. It was because he wished to remain at peace with
France that he did not desire to tempt her by allowing her
to acquire a superiority by sea to become our enemy. Con-
sidering the immense military foroe of France, it was aboo-

lutoly necessary for the interests and safety of this country
that we should have a strong naval force, equal, or superior,
to that of France ; and this could not be done without con-
siderable expense. The French Government had now 11
iron-clad vessel, more than ourselves, and, according to
Mr. Disraeli, they had not yet carried out their programme
of 1858.

Mr. LINDSAY disputed the correctness of the estimate
of the iron-clad navy of France, the Government of which,
he believed, continued to desire the maintenance of friendly
relations with this country.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked whether there would be
any Supplementary Estimates, and whether a vote of credit
would be required for the China war. He objected to the
bill before the house, that it mixed up various taxes so as to
render a discussion of the bill difficult.
After some remarks by Mr. HUNT and Mr. B. CARTE;
on the subject of the collection of the income-tax,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave a
qualified negative reply to the questions put by Sir H.
Willoughby.
Mr•. J. WRITE and-Mr. NEWDEGATE having made a
Few observations, the bill was read a third time and pissed.