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 concluded, 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
esetinn
ae the number of men for the navy at the pore-
ii:-'n, m
amount, and the only reason he could understand
lirla to
,E as'ign was, that he could not be indifferent to
eel' was passing across the Channel; but it was sin-
;"-ar--though, perhaps, the Right lion. Baronet
LikB 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
ftlarge a number.—(llear, hear.) Thus the
anerleh kept up a large number because the English did
ee'cailt',4 we made the number kept up by the Frenchaans
ereeP for our keeping up a large force as well. It w
herng 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
ileien, of what the country was to expect from the
sat 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,
fie"ng from general opinion both in and out of that
bans the Budget already before the House could not
hags' He wished his Hon. Friend (Mr. Williams)
the `ed to other quarters, and had told them what
the United States were about. If there was any part ee
tlik,W„orld to which they should look, when they knew
eiocla`usi President in his message had said there were
est 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 Ships were spread over the world nearly as much
stea °se of the United Kingdom. When war was over
lte cut down their navy, and he would just state to the
eet4tB° what they had been doing in comparison with
tom
brigs
we in our madness had been doing. The Secre-_
oaf acf the Admiralty in America said they had
4 line-of-battle ships, 12 frigates, 21 sloops,
Stset", 7 steamers, and 5 store-ships, and upon the
fri 3 there were only 4 line-of-battle ships and 2 large
lakrtes• But we bad lying idle 74 men-of-war which
to th never been to sea; had launched a number equall.
loan e , whole navy since the termination of the war;.a
ko `-' vessels to rot in ordinary, and went on building
s 4 without employing those that were already built.
eexPended 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.
cora ut the House. In America the President had re-
vtitetnded a reduction of the active list, finding that
she ';`,° commercial navy, almost as large as our own,
No; ',.'s present navy was too onerous to be kept up
sops' "e would ask the Government what political rea-
tett" could induce them to keep up a fleet of eight or
eie44,11-of-the-line in the Mediterranean? All the scr-
ee "'at that large fleet had performed had been to
Belt tiers 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 without
me strong reasons being assigned for it ? He saw
lasonu the 3,1 of March of this year no less than
Ns' Petitions, signed by 136,696 persons, had been
aot4t9 for the repeal of taxes, and Hon. Membersen
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
etee,!l,,,the 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 ,
hoe, ,T'ol- out of 8,000,0001. Earl Grey's Government,.
%sea," moment it came into office, went on reducing
lesie, Year, and at the same time improving, for they
temt in evidence that, after reducing the expenditure
'heal? 1,000,000/., the navy was in a better condition
tre, before the Right Hon. Gentleman began his re-
lesercent; and Mr. Douglas, who was at one time a
tiers of the Admiralty, on being asked by the Commis-
ttCrrs what check there was over the expenditure, said
ttltee_Z,s3 check upon check until there was no check at
fora-tlear.) The Right lion. Gentleman the Member
1-elP°o, and the Government to which he belonged,
veacvied credit for great economy. He had no quarrel.
year the Government on account of the navy until the
eett-,,1837-1 838, A hen the charges became extravagant and
tlle2ieessary. What, too, had been the consequence since
lat4'neorae-tax had been proposed? In the years 1843,
the ,1845,1846, and 1847,sfter that tax had been imposed,
i
itleet'titnates increased no less than 27,000,0001.; the tax
tott'l produced only 26,894,0001. during the same period;
erett if the income-tax had been given up they never
lied have had all that increase in the expenditure.
fsei?,,°llld not conceive how it was that, with the present
pop
,F of the country on the subject of reduction in ex-
lo as''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
ietll4ge 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
eieta 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
rise, not be equally sufficient now, he should certainly
Ds, e that evening that the number of men voted for the
Ai at year should not exceed 30,000. He protested
ost e
4fe, raPhatically against the longer maintenance of the
ttitiain squadron, an experiment which, after 20 years'
the had proved wholly ineffectual for any purpose other
cite th
l' e very mischievous one of iujuring our commer-
..eitheennexion and endangering our national friendship
et well-disposed powers. There was now an excel-
-1114 °PPortunity for handsomely getting clear of
at td costly absurdity. The French Government
(); s the United States Government had both
‘5 11(:`4 negotiations with Great Britain with a view
tatttetng relieved from their engagements in the
lie ter, so that the grand difficulty in the way of reme-
-0 the squadron, insisted upon by our Foreign Score-
iiisi last years was at an end.—(Hear, hear.) He
'fiat teat the opinion of the Committee upon the point
de "ening, and he hoped he should find it disposed to
til -,wilY not only with the African squadron, but also
tlal,k' materially to reduce the squadron, or rather fleet,
the 'we kept in the Mediterranean, with no other result
to
tin terns
and danger.—(Hear, hear.) Upon these
i: 4;terns alone there might be at once a most important
teaa"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 alreest entirely empty condition of the Protectionist
th J'es)—well, he called upon the 14 of them who had
la ought fit to be in their places on this occasion—(Hear,
kit:4t,,:,:,11,
rhee...:a..:led upon them, if they desired honestly to
14e;e,"efs to join with him in obtaining that which must
laa",,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
sanla after dinner.—(A laugh.) In 1835 we had under
keeenliPion 167 ships of all classes, with 36,500 men, a
Ii" declared amply sufficient for every purpose. In
• eaios 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
toeir books being 44,500. Now, this sort of thing
lii' not be allowed to continue. It was very
ea,_ that just now the manufacturing and artisan classes
atier_e tolerably well off, and provisions cheap, but he had
Air: three or four reversals of such 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 rePresentatives who had permitted the present ex-
atti,lture to proceed?—(Hear, hear.) As to represen-
Alae:', indeed, there could not be a greater reflection
Skat; °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;leaud be bandied about between three sets of men, no
%ha,'" Which could form a decent Administration. It
tei,a;'esl to him that Lord Stanley paid but a very poor
Islsetialiament to the Protectionist party in that House
4t sa-,,ue stated that there was only one man among them
Illso;e°l4ce. Surely of the 270 gentlemen or thereabout,
‘1104","0 other night voted for protection, there must be
espe g" talent to fill up the Treasury bench, the more
`oosecipellY when it was borne in mind that all the real
tesa',"l each department was done by the clerks, who
lettnlttied stationary.—(A laugh.) It was not merely Mr.
the 'ell Who made a jest of their proceedings, they were
Vianthing-stock of all Europe, and well they might be.
tiN.; uid not see, when the " Old Doctor," as Mr. Punch
tetel'etlekted a well-known personage, was sent for, upon the
the ;''"ably judicious advice of the Noble Lord, that all
The'' Old Doctor" would direct would be "As you were?"
;nthe e,
the
not one improvement in any way connected
(aa'aue departments with which ho had to do, that the
roan' loctor had not done his best to stop; for such a
fortherefore(:F to be called in was utterly preposterous.
h. neY didn't send for you I") No, they didn't. send
tier Inl; but he had been pretty nearly as long in prac
Pledll'ethe doctor that was sent for—(A laugh)—had
tlie 1"0 believed, more attention to passing events. for
lie last twenty years—(Hear, hear)—and very possibly
elPaight have prescribed rather better than the other
W4,`Vetor had done.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It
les aia opinion that the country looked upon them as a
on ti,' dolts for allowing things to go on as they had gone
Thenliring the last two or three weeks.—(Hear, bear.)
Pehln were 658 Hon. Gentlemen, representatives of the
semi of of Great Britain. and Ireland, utterly incapable of
Ivey-laag to a decision upon great national questions one
leree",r the other.—(Hear, hear.) There was this m-
i.. eie Papal .
setae Aggression Bill; why, passed. as
danger
was
of "'lced, that Bill would involve imminent
'lttt civil war in the sister country, yet 330 or 350
rtilltilabacrs of that House had voted for it in its
tither
He trusted that the Noble Lord would
r,), 'l' bring in a Bill that would satisfy the coun-
-4t ei-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
41401'4 three other weeks or more. Rather than this,
as he should deprecate anything tending to excite
"54'e NO-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
Wissaa''_° Old Doctor would again be called in, there
epee ti; u 0 the prescription as before, of " As you were;"
rented the farce would, for the second time, be pre-
ieur(Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") He
c4lla-„", the Protectionist gentlemen would look practi-
Ceent"' Practical questions, instead of getting up futile
Ilea, Y meetings, calling names, and imputing evil mo
othvi, ate 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
niad° tnera al men who wanted to dethrone the. Queen
lietc3encenrage rebellion, and so on; a Mr. Ball, in
illear-
beet:lr, using language which ought at once to
PT
teetioPv.ohibited by the chairman. Now, what the
cosadn.L"t gentlemen should understand was, that there
eleaie he no relief for them, any more than for other
Peatias, until there was a decided reduction in our ex•
Dela ',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 12,000,0001. 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 reducing 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
steam-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 number as 39,000
men for the naval service. He came to this conclusion
with great reluctance, and not from the least desire 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 he was 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 strong im-
pression, founded upon experieace in Committees which
had considered the army and ordnance estimates, an
opinion 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
complaintsisnbewieeuendgmgihobtia.sinecures.
gshev number
eliyoonneft ooa
manwru
Nsones
kwenuo
eiimt
voted
obtf
coteuweorot
pdnhi
oit
consider
existencecoda3rrrese9er
aboutsa„
opst3ehotdcoaot,tobeyond
towte4:::onaot:fohnut
yoedd, aeownat,s
ehruog
years.
oeoarbna:voetietr:oarnoosor
wgfl
tmse4hp men,4be:
ceohos number
puti
hcooeohle.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
enagletht,haatndweouhravreemsoaudrecetsn irnespformer
trade,
the times—thecorn-lawsandlaotuemrcahkwaes 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 foreign countries, if, in the event of a
war, we had no naval force, and were unable to obtain
that food.—(Renewed cheers from the Protectionists.) I
am, therefore, of opinion that necessary as it was to have
a naval force to protect our trade in all former wars, that
awgrhnaiatee nation
atiaomnd 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 keep up a largerforwceith emthtahnFrabnycew,
which
that we might have an agreement
this force might be mutually reduced. 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 maanlld 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 necessity of keeping up her naval force to
the amount that we are obliged to keep ours up. I
think that we are obliged to keep up a naval force for
that purpose, besides the purposes of defence which we
are obliged to look to. I own, therefore, that I cannot
think that the proposal to
.keep up 39,000 men in the
present year is at all 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 Government 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 expenditure, which had been 6,466 000/.
with tho packet service, was raised immediately to
7,344,0001. 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 time, 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 subject; 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 country were in Sir F. BARING repeated the statement he made in
I Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exalt( 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, adding, " 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 enable 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 which is 121,844/. It was now 138,6251. He did not think the progress. It appeared to him 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
Against 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
fseont=,
was 11,8001. more than 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
pt
hr
ei
ra ttei
mybaerrd
ya tghfeeyr hulltrdeeinyeaarsd.ockinacrodm, whpareirnegthey 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 tbuildinhought 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
anaccount
built
perfectly
ytuhilet
fallacious.
"'o
ought hvtpe .snisTeeavl
vessels
n toahnebueef aqxcupe
rime
different sailing qualities
gratifiedexhibitedtt hhseSet T. BARING said when the
tcuormi
upge tyi tai 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
rEaNtEwyo e.
d
forme
th, e
but W ehs
et Is Ihi
od
ui not doubt that the Hon. Member
b(
eMr•glad Cobden)to ha
Mr. IM RE
Gen-
tleman.—(Laughter.)
vewia-tsfrriogmh 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 Were
right. when there a ea
The Committee then divided 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 demanded 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
aft athde
he must leave that entirely to the decision of the ,
House. The question had been already "esedathat 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
dTheene
e gHon.iv e
nMebmy
athskeendu wm hb ee
r-
b.beirmfelselLe.rnewFue.s
Bh:rdinrgsfebrerfeodrettohtehce evi-
dence
he thought a reduction
veeeatsildtrbuee
mhaedweaisn
board, and his answer was that he
mittee on this subject.
constitut!tng
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
.vveaedlet?tcyhae aul ;lips t
itself
edofur
businessront
rooms
doeetnm ros
sost
oofamot tmdshe
ietneghmohAancttydr
beiemtnee
twii
more
baon
01
uot trulypeds
ceDavoceeeneri pvtynbae
ersne
oat
ri mroe
tnnlenvunbtytheb
Whitehall
reht
trans-
acted? Mr. HUME asked whether it was intended to re-
move
where
ma ocei
abso-
lutely necessary to make the removal.
Sir. F. BARING said the rooms now occupied at