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

HOUSE OF COIINIONS-YESTERDAY.

In reply to Mr, DISRAELI,
Lord PALMERSTON, after replying to the remarks of
Mr. DISRAELI, upon the subjects referred to in the latter
part of his speech, observed that the comparison he had
made between 1858 and 1862 showed an increase of only
£1,600,000, and there were circumstances, such as the China
war, New Zealand, and the despatch of troops to 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 hail 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 ourselves. It was a ma ter 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 1p 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 force of France, it was abso-
lutely 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 Ft ench Government had now 11
iron-clad vessels 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
reh.tions with this country.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked whether there would be
any Supplementary Eati►nates, and whether a vote of credit
would be required for the China war. Ho 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. CARTER,
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. WHITE and Mr. NEWDEGATE having made a
few observations, the bill was read a third time and pissed.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM BILL

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in mcving
the second reading of this bill, stated the object of the
measure, and explained the views of the Government in
relation to the proposed alterations in the Museum and the
removal of a part of the collection, giving a conjectural
estimate of the ixpense.