The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-27 00:00:00

military expenditure; he proposed (for everybody
seemed to have an inclination to go back to some stan-
dard) that the stores should be compared with what
there was in 1804, adding--" I have taken 1804 as the
standard, as that was the year in which the invasion was
threatened; it was previous to the employment of the
armies in the Peninsula and North America; in short,
as nearly as possible similar to the political circum-
stances in which we stand at this moment; excepting
that we arc now at peace with France, we were then at
war."—(A laugh.) In 1845 the Noble Lord at the head
of the Foreign-office complained that no country in
Europe was in such a defenceless state as England; the
Right ion. Gentleman then at the head of the Govern-
ment thought otherwise. These things almost made one
suspect that this was a party question, and thought a
good card for gentlemen in opposition to play.—(" Hear,
hear," and a laugh.) But it was perplexing to any one
who, having no professional skid, really desired a guide.
But with regard to the armaments of 1835, if they Wf"T 0
so inadequate, and the stores reduced so low as was al-
leged, how was it that Sir Thomas Hardy, one of the .
most distinguished men ever connected with the British
navy, put his hand as Lord of the Admiralty to all those
stimates, and was a consenting party to placing the
dockyard- in what was now describ4d by the Secretary
to the Admiralty as a state of destitution? When the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) left the Admi-
ralty in 1834, he left (as it was stated in the evidence
before last year's Committee) a memorandum as to the
amount of force he considered necessary for the safety
of the country; and it seemed that he judged half the
present naval force sufficient.—(Hear, hear.) If the
stores were so unduly reduced, how was it that the first
estimate of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and
the Duke of Wellington in 1835 proposed 1,000 men
less for the navy than were left by Sir James Graham,
and a less vote for stores by nearly 100,0001.?—(Hear.)
A Gallant Admiral (Bowles) stated in his evidence that
even our present naval force was not adequate, and that
every man whose opinion was worth anything knew it
was nothing like what it ought to be. The Right Hon.
Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty asked him
—and there was a great deal sometimes in a question—
" Did you ever know a time when the profession was
satisfied with the existing force?"—(Laughter.) He
should like to ask what, supposing their force was doubled,
they should do with it? 'What did they do with the
large force they now had? He found, from a return laid
betore the Committee, that last year there were 31 ships,
with 8,337 men, in the Mediterranean Sea; and he
wanted to know what object connected with our interests
was effected by that armament?—(Hear, hear.) Did
the knowledge that we had so many line-of-battle ships
in the Mediterranean enable our merchant ships to enter
any foreign port in better condition than the ships of
other countries?—(Hear, hesr.) Did they enter any
port of Italy or France in better condition than the ships
of Hamburgh, or Sweden, or Bremen, or the United
States of America?—(Hear, hear.) Did this parade of
armaments in the Mediterranean Sea protect our ships
from piracy? Were there, in point of tact, any pirates
there? He believed not—(Hear, hear)—but, supposing
there were, our great line-of-battle ships were wholly
incapable of going into all the creeks and crannies to
which pirates had resort, and would not be of the
slightest advantage to the small class of shipping ex-
posed to the attacks of pirates.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
was it true, or not, that the existence of this large
fleet in the Mediterranean Sea was the cause of the in-
crease in the French navy, and did goad on the French
to increased exertion to put their naval force on a
more effective footing?—(Hear, hear.) In the Pacific,
and on the south-east coast of America, which, though
formerly divided, now formed one station, there were
26 ships, and upwards of 4,200 men; but what were they
kept there for? The late First Lord of the Admiralty
stated in his evidence before the Committee that if the
Mexican war was over, end if this question and that
other question were settled, he did not see why the force
in the Pacific could not be reduced to what it was in
1835.—(Hear.) That was just the proposition, to a cer-
tain extent, of the Hon. Member for the West Riding.
The late First Lord of the Admiralty said that when the
circumstances which caused the increase had passed
away, the armaments should be reduced. So said the
Hon. Member for the West Riding; and, so far as he
could judge, so said common sense.—(Hear, hear.)
What circumstances, he asked, were likely to occur to
endanger British trade and British interests in that
part of the world? Was Chili or Peru going to make
war upon them?—(Hear, hear.) He did not know of any
country in the world that had a force equal to that
possessed by this country in those seas.—[Admiral Dun-
das here made an observation that was inaudible in the
gallery.] He knew nothing about the French force
now, but he knew that last year there was no foreign
force adequate to our own in those seas. Even, how-
ever, had it been otherwise, he would not be of opinion
that this country ought to keep up a costly armament
because France or some other nation had done so.—
(Hear.) When they found their trade interfered with,
or threatened, it was time enough to send a squadron in
its defence; but do not die from fear of death—(hear,
hear)—do not in a time of peace keep up an expendi-
ture as disastrous as if war itself were experienced.--
(Hear, hear.) They had heard a great deal about regu-
lating their force by foreign nations, and that they
should keep up as large an amount of men and ships as
France and other countries did. There were some specu-
lative apprehensions lest foreign armaments should be
used for the purpose of some sudden attacks, and it was
said we ought to be prepared to meet them. Now, just
compare the number of our officers with those of Franca
and America, the two countries they were so often called
upon to copy. He found from the French navy list that
they had one:full adaairal,while in England there were 31;
in France there were 10 vice-admirals, in England 45;
in France 26 rear-admirals, in England 72; in France
160 captains, in England 554; in France 200 com-
manders, in England 87G; in France 600 lieutenants, in
England 2,353: so that there were 031 officers to take
care of the navy, while in England they had 8,931.
Then, as regarded the United States, he found that they
did not keep a single admiral—(Hear, hear)—while
England had 1.50, besides those on the retired list; and
there were in America only 67 captains, 47 commanders,
and 327 lieutenants.—(Hear, hoar.) He must say
he was perfectly at a loss to understand why the Govern-
ment, when they were making reductions, should confine
themselves exclusively to the reduction of men.—(Hear,
hear.) Ile did not see why they should not keep what
forces they had in good plight, and why regiments and
ships that were retained should not be perfect of their
kind.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see the necessity for
having the same number of ships in commission, or the
same number of regiments that they now had. He
thought that, by getting quit of some of these, they
might greatly reduce their expenditure ; but this could
not be effected to anything like the same extent by
merely reducing the number of men.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had
taunted his side of the House with backward-
llf!Si in supporting the proposal of his Bon.
Friend the Member for the West Riding ; but
he felt bound to tell him that he supported his Hon.
Friend's motion most cordially, and that he did not re-
gard it as wild and visionary. He did not expect to
carry his olject to-day, or this year.—(A laugh.) His
Hon. Friend had not asked them to do so.—("Oh, oh!"
But ho had asked them to declare that their present
expenditure was excessive, that the amount of taxation
impeded the operations of agriculture and commerce,
and that they ought to reduce the annual expenditure
as soon as practicable.—(A laugh.) He believed that
the present financial condition of the country, in refer-
ence to its safety from foreign dangers, was one that re-
quired the deepest consideration, and he asked, if at any
former period, when they were called upon to make a
great national effort, they could have done so with an
annual expenditure of 60,000,0001. ?—(Hear.) In 1793,
when it was found necessary, the country did make an
effort; but were they sure, now that the Reform Bill was
passed, that the people of this country would provide them
with an addition to the great amount of' taxation they now
paid, in order to make one of those great national
efforts ?—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the commer-
cial strength of the country was more important to its
safety than the mere strength of its armaments.—
(Hear, hear.) He believed that the knowledge on the
part of foreign countries that our finances were in a
prosperous condition, and that our taxation was not
wound up to the highest pitch, would do more to prevent
them from invading our territories or interfering with
our colonies and trade than any mere demonstration of'
the number of ships in cemmission or of the number of
regiments on service.—(Hear, hear.) When foreigners
saw so many ships and regiments, they were apt to say,:
Never mind; they are taxed so heavily that theyga
boar no more; they can't fight, it's all a mere sham.
our post
(Hear, hear, and " Oh, oh !") That was, in tact, the feeling
tion.—(Oh, oh !) Ile believed such
Ntoo,
8,000,004
throughout Europe at this moment‘..--a
Would Hon. Gentlemen say thr!t,,a.nby
any lion. Gentleman
was nothing?—(Hear.) weu 15,3 en
oand cheers.)
Protectionist Members
that last year an addition or
universally refused—,
say, with the recollectionn4ax
2aye, per
and cent. b
yt o th the in
Conservativeeoh
people of this country Would
too—that he
expected tion?—(llear, hear.) Th
submit to increased taxation?—(
as in former times;_etihrepockets of the hey were
people to
'e andwal
and, it
bowed them them to husband resources in time of peace
to man future navies
fructify
n
there, and by so doing produce more merchant
ootvtoi
Inc
atvhee
money
Position o
sailors
moresame
(flear, hear)—to leave money in People's pockets that
ships and more merchant
would give more manufactures and more steana-engines
to the country.—(ilear, hear.) If they exhausted the
means and energies of the people in time of peace they
prevented them in time of war from being able to give
that assistance which otherwise they would be so well
able to confer. Much was said of dockyards, and what)
they could do fur ui; but they never heard of what conld
be done by private manufacturers towards making a.
great national effort.—(Hear, hear.) He so much relied
upon what could be dove by means of private munufac.
turers, that if he wanted a i.team-frigate for speedy ser-
vice he would rather have it built in a private manufae-
t)ry than in any of the dockyards.—(llear, hear.) In-
stead, however, of depending upon estivate enterprize,
they had gone.. on building war-steamers far beyond what
existed in any foreign country, and at this moment they
had is greater number, large and small, than was pos-
sessed by any other country in the world. Not only so,
but they had at the same time kept up the number of
their sailing ships. Ile called upon the Hou7o then, before
they treated lightly the proposition of his Hon. Friends
to recollect that all measures taken up on a large and
comprehensive scale were generally met its the first in-
stance as visionary. He hoped, connected as he Mrs
with the agricultural party—(A laugh)—that t!iley
would not turn their backs on the proposal. brat that
they would regard it as one which would ttP.imately
lead to the common welfare of all chases cf the coins
triunity,—(Cheers.)

Mr. G. BERKELEY said Sir T. Hal* was not in
the Admiralty in 1835, as bad been stated by the Ron.
Gentleman.
s
Mr. GIBSON had stated= that -Sir T. Randy urs in
the Admiralty when Sir J. Graham was th ere; i net he
left it in 1834, and was privy to all 404 p
.uc i d t.
" -- ons
'
•