The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-18 00:00:00

THE SUN,

Mr. BASS replied. He bell ved that a relertion of the
melt-tax to one-halt of its present amount would not be
attended with a less of one-halt of the present revenue, be-
cause, the effect of such reductions has always been to in-
crease consumption, and to render a larger quantity of pro-
duce liable to the duty.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion 31
Against it „, „, 76
Majority against the motion ••• —45
REDUCTION OF NATIONAL ARMAMENTS.
Mr. COBDEN rose to move " an humble address to her
Majesty, praying that she will direct the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with the
Government af France, and endeavour to prevent in future
that rivalry of warlike preparations in time of peace which
has hitherto been the policy of the two Governments; and
to promote, if possible, a mutual reduction of armaments!'
The Hon. Member said it bad been remarked in the course of
the discussion which had just terminated, that we were ap-
proaching times when it would be impossible for certain
interests to support their present amount of taxation ; and
he confessed that one of his motives for bringing forward
that motion was, that he believed it would be so far suitable
to present circumstances, that it would teed to produce a
diminution of our national burdens. Before he entered upon
the subject he wished it should be distinctly understood what
was the scope and purport of his motion. He did not want
that motion to be taken for more than it meant. He did not
propose that they should enter in any way into a consider-
ation of the amount of the armies maintained in continental
nations. In alluding .to the warlike preparations btween
France and England, be wished to refer solely to their naval
preparations and fortifications. It was very well known
that our armies bore no reference to the armies of the conti-
nent, and it was equally well known that the armies of the
Continent were never formed with any reference to the
armies of England. For his part, he could not help think-
ing that the immense standing armies of the Continent were
the curse of the present generation. Those armies were
Maintained, nut for the purpose of meeting foreign enemies,
but for the purpose of repressing domestic foes.—(Hear,
hear.) But he wished it to be understood that his object
was that we should enter into negotiations with
France for the reduction of the navies and of the fortifica-
tions of the two countries, while he hoped that that example
if successful, would ultimately be imitated by other nations
with respect to their armaments generally. He hoped Hon.
Members would agree with him that the maintenance in
time of peace of any amount of naval force beyond that which
was required for the protection of our commerce against pi-
rates, and the attacks of barbarous nations, was in itself an
evil. They might, however, tell him it was a necessary evil ;
but why was it necessary? It was only necessary because
other countries we're armed as well as ourselves, and because
it was necessary that we should be prepared to defend our-
selves against them. Now in that ease he contended that
the force maintained on both sides was a pure waste of
money, and more than a pure waste of the money spent,
because it alio prevented the employment of the armed
troops in profitable and productive employinent." It was
clear that if the object of two countries in maintaining a
force was to be prepared for mutual hostilities, that object
could be attained by the employment of one man or
one vessel on each side as well as by the
employment of twenty men or twenty vessels. But
he might be asked, why he assumed that England
armed against France, and Franca against England? He
wee prepared, however, to substautiate that point by evi-
dence which could not be disputed. He was not often in the
habit of reading quotations to the House ; but he should
read a few upon that occasion. In the course of a debate in
the French Chamber of Deputies in the year 1846, when it
had been proposed that a sem of 100,000,000 of francs should
be voted for the purpose of effecting a vast augmentation in
the navy, in consequence, almost exclusively, of an augmen-
tation which had taken place in our navy during the two
preceding years—in the course of that debate M. Tillers bad
said :—" There is nothing offensive to England in citing her
example, when our navy is under consideration, any more
than there would be in speaking of Prussia, Austria, or Rus-
sia, if we were deliberating on the strength of our army.
We pay England the complimeht of thinking only of her
when determining what shall be our naval force. We never
count the ships which leave Trieste or Venice; we care for
those only which leave Portsmouth or Falmouth." These
were the words of M. Thiers. And language of an equivalent
character had been held by the Noble Lord the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs in this country in the course of the debate
upon the financial statement of the Prime Minister in the
year 1848. The Noble Lord had then said that—" So far
from its affording any cease of offence to France that we
should measure our navy by such a standard, he was sure
that any one who had followed the debates in the French
Chambers when their nava' estimates had come under dis-
cussion, must know that they had followed the same course,
and had adopted the natural standard in such cases—namely,
the amount of the naval force maintained at the same time by
other nations." The Noble Lord at the heed of the Govern-
ment had stated upon the same occasion that—" although it
had never been our custom to allude to the military force in
other countries, he thought that such a great increase as
that which had taken place in the naval estimates of France
required the attention, and ought, at all events, to come
under the knowledge of that House " These were the highest
authorities, and he apprehended it would be considered,
after hearing them, that he had indulged in no baseless as-
sumption in stating that the two countries were guided in
their policy by each other's expenditure. What was the
consequence? He had two objections to urge against that
policy ; first, that it was an irritating policy, and one con-
stantly tending to increase the evil which it engendered;
and secondly, that it induced the two countries to proceed on
exaggerated accounts of each other's armaments.—(Hear,
hear.) He would give an instance. He had mentioned
on the discussion of the naval estimates that there had
been a great increase in the year 1845-1846. The French
were alarmed. A Ccmmittee was appointed by the
French Chamber to inquire into the state of the French
navy. A report was made, which stated that the English
Government, with its usual foresight, under the modest pre-
tence of providing eight guard ships, had fitted out an
armament of floating batteries, of the destructive powers of
which some idea might be formed by comparing their broad-
sides with the most formidable batteries on land for the
destruction of fortified places, and that it was absolutely
necessary for France to prepare an armament of similar
character and equal force, so as to have nothing to dread in
future in case of a possible misunderstanding with England.
Here was it stated broadly that the eight steam guard-ships
were preparing against France. But what was the fact?
When he sat on the Committee in 1848 it appeared, on
examining the authorities at the Admiralty, that only four
of these guard-ships had ever been completed, and instead
of being, as was stated in the French report, capable of
remaining at sea for fourteen days, it would have been im-
possible for them to remain more than three or four days
from their want of capacity to carry sufficient coal. He
would now show how the two nations had been playing see-
saw with each other. in 1545-1846 we increased our navy
a million sterling. In 1846 France voted a proportionate
100,000,000 francs. The next year, Mr. Ward, the
Secretary of the Admiralty, in again proposing an
increase, cited the example of France. After giving a de-
tailed account of the augmentation of the French estimates
in the previous year, he added that he found no fault with
France, who had only done what she thought right and ne-
cessary for the maintenance o. her position, and that she had
set us in many respects a noble example; that these facts
ought to be a lesson to us, and imposed a very heavy respon•
sibility on those u ho were in power in this country. Ot
course it could not stop there. It ran our estimates up to
42,000 men, and he believed that 41,000 or 45,000 men were
borne. This could not fail to produce its effect in France.
He held in his hand an extract from a report to the present
National Assembly of France on the navy, in 1841. "Let
us see," said the report, " whether foreign powers set us the
example of reducing their naval armaments. This very
spring England has voted 40,000 men for the sea service.
(Hear, hear.) - Wetontinue to maintain'our 24 vessels of the;
line afloat, and 16 on the stocks, whilst England has her 70'.
ships afloat, besides those in the course of building." But the;
thing could not be complete, the farce could not come to its
climax, without another quotation. In 1851 Sir F. Baring'
—and he would mention• it incidentally had induced'
him to give notice of this motion—Sir F. Baring, in
moving the navy estimates, said " it was impossible to
fix upon what would be necessary for our, own establishments,
without looking to those of foreign countries. He might,
however, observe, that they had had sufficient proofs in the
course of last ye,-,r that a gallant, active, and intelligent
people, not far off, had not by any means neglected their
naval establishments or their naval Power."—( Hear. ) The
Right. Hon. Gentleman then went on to describe the evolu-
tions at Cherbourg. He held in his hand a report of the
Commission appointed by the National Assembly, to consider
a vote of 6,800,000 f. for the works at Cherbourg, dated
April 11,1851, " What," asked the report, " were the defen.
sive works at Cherbourg ? If they wanted any reasons for
no longer allowing their coasts to remain in a defenceless
state, they had only to listen to the opinion expressed by
one of England's most renowned sailors, Admiral Napier, in
his letters to the Times, and look at the map and observe the
vast works which the British Admiralty were executing at
Jersey and Alderney.—( Hear.) This was the more necessary,
inasmuch as the railroads and steam-boats of England were
every day increasing, which gave the means to the power
which possessed them of concentrating at any given point a
sudden expedition." One of the best things which the
House had done since he (Mr. Cobden) had entered it was to
suspend these works at Alderney. the continuance of which
was an affront to France. Cherbourg, as every one knew,
was a most valuable and indispensable harbour of refuge foe'
merchant ships, and its breakwater might well have been
made by contributions raised from the maritime states of all
Europe ; while Alderney was nothing but -a great fortifica-
tion, so close to our neighbour that we might be said to be
holding our fist in her face. The history, if you got at all
the secret movements of the panic, would be a most amusing
and instructive history. The country in 1845 was persuaded
we were going to be invaded. Engineers had a roving com-
mission given them to see where money could be spent to
fortify England, and afterwards Guernsey and Jersey. One
of the officers so employed said at Plymouth he met with a
person who believed his throat was about to be cut by fo-
reign invaders, and the officer added, he shared in the panic.
It was under this panic that 3,000,000/, or 4,000,000/. were
spent, and the works of Keyham and other expensive pro-
jects were commenced. England had not the monopoly of this
fear, for France shared it with her. In a pamphlet written
by Mr. Chevallier, to prevent the consequences of the panic in
France, it was there stated that France had gone to an addi-
tional expense of 10,000,0001. or 11,000,0001. The writer
showed that in a limited period England and France had
expended about 13,000,000/. each on naval purposes. As-
suming that no one would attempt to contradict the asser-
tion that there was a spirit of rivalry, the question arose, was
there a remedy for it ? Could human reason be brought to
bear against this mass of folly ? lle would not go back to
treaties for disarming or demolishing certain fortresses, or en
armed neutrality, and such things, in olden times, but there
appeared a case in modern times which bore completely on
this matter, and he would refer to it. We had a treaty
with America for the purpose of limiting the amount of naval
force on the lakes dividing Canada from the United States.
He would read the treaty. The Hon.
tthe
treaty, the substance of which was that there should be on
of vessels of war. It must be borne inininl‘adinedmhebageturtahrliesatdre
all the lakes no more than a limited and
was made at the conclusion of a very
Duke of Wellington had written a letter
sanguinary
tn wthaer. . e
frTe et
that naval superiority was necessary for Englande
on the lakes, and was essential in case of anotherruto-
ture. But the country had the good sense to limit
force to be kept on those lakes. What had been the result
of this friendly conven,ion? It had not only limited the
force, but had abolished the armed force altogether. He
had sat on a Committee on the navy estimates at that time,
and could find no vessel on the lakes of the nature of an
armed force. This was the effect of the friendly convention
_neither country at last cared to keed up any manifesta-
tion of force at all. He would ask, could it n( t be Feasible
to devise some plan, if not a convention—was it not practi-
cable to make a communication to France, saying, " We are
willing to reduce our navy, having now so many line-of-
battle ships in commission and building, our relative force
being three to two ; and if you go on the same way the same
proportion will a, ntinue to exist. Will you do the same?
Can we not put an end to our rivalry and fears, and reduce
the number of our naval force ?" He contended that it was
perfectly practicable—our naval stations permitted such a
plan. The Pacific station might be relieved of the armed
force we kept up there. Lord Auckland, in 1848, stated that

having the force on the Pacific station at that time we
hL I reference to the force kept by France. So if we kept
forces in the Pacific or the Mediterranean, could we not, by
mutual agreement with France, lessen that force? He might
be told there were other nations to be considered; but
neither Spaiu nor Holland were naval nations. The other
naval nations of the world were France, Russia, and America,
and it was with these nations only we need enter into
treaties. America had a commerce extending as wide as
our own, and if she went on extending her commerce at the
same rate she bad done for the last few, years, she must be-
come eventually the greatest mercantile and maritime power
in the world. If America could carry on her commerce
without the aid of one line-of-battle ship, there could hardly
be any fear from that quarter. Then as to Rus-ia, he did
not share the fears of some Hon. Members as to Russia ever
becoming a great naval power. Russia had, no doubt, a
number of large ships; but if she had a large naval force
she kept it at home, and for good reasons, for if she exhibited
her maritime power to the inspection of maritime countries
like America it was possible she would not inspire any very
great admiration or respect. With the large number of sailors
we had in our mercantile marine, he did not think we need
fear anything from those countries which did not possess a
marine. Well, then, America offered no obstacle to the plan
he suggested, but rather invited co-operation; and France
certainly would see it was her interest to come into the
proposition under these encouraging circumstances. Were
we then to go on for eves in the' same course? He
thought not. He might be told this was not the proper
moment for such a proposition. He believed that was a
mistake; no better time than the time present could be se-
lected. He would quote a short extract from the Times to
prove the state of public opinion on this question. (The
Hon. Member read an extract, which was to the effect that
the people were not disposed to war either here or on the
continent.) If this were so, where was the use of France
keeping up her present enormous naval force? No one
could suppose that France would not willingly save the ex-
pense. .He had conversed with French politicians, who told
him France kept up hernavy because England kept up her
navy, and that France would be glad to be released from
that burthen. There would be no sacrifice of dignity on the
part of England to make overtures to France—for prance
never pretehded to rival England as far as her navy was
concerned. ' France always conceded the superiority to Eng-
land, and, therefore, overtures on the part of England could
not be placed to the account of fear. He was sure that the
present rivalry mutt cease,.because the force kept up on both
aides was so equal that neither could expect to gain an ad-
vantage. ,If one country was weak and the other strong
there might be a motive for going to war, but in the case
of France and England every step taken towards aug-
menting their naval strength was taken out of respect
and fear of each other. At present if England aug-
mented her navy, France did the same. We were acting
not for the purpose of gaining, an advantage over
France, but for self-defence. No one could doubt that a war
between France and Edgland would be mutually disadvan-
tageous, and therefore the strongest motives existed for
putting an end to the present state of things. He wished to
hear the Noble Lord's opinion of his proposition, and whether
he was disposed to entertain and support the principle in-
volved in it. What he asked was, that at least an endea-
vour should be made to diminish the existing forces, and to
put an end to rivalry. He should be content if he only saw
an attempt made to prevent waste and expenditure for the
future. if something of the sort was done, it would be per-
fectly consonant with the altered temper of the times.
(Hear, hear.) Private enterprise was doing much to bring
the two nations together. A few years ago 34 hours were
required for a post to Paris; now the journey was performed
in 11 hours. Formerly a person talking a foreign tongue in
this country would have been called a Frenchman and in-
sulted; now we saw all kinds of foreigners in the streets of
London—a grand meeting of nations who could assemble in
one common temple for harmonious and peaceful purposes.
He asked Government to go with the spirit of the age, and
to adopt the principle of the plan which he ventured to sub-
mit to the House. He should be glad to hail that Minister
who, casting aside the old and stale maxims of foreign di-
plomacy, and adopting new and more suitable principles,
earned for himself endlesa renown. He begged to move his
resolutions.

Mr. UR4UHART rose to move, by way of amendment,
" That it is inexpedient, by res lutions of this House, to move
the Crown to originate negotiations on abstract questions."
Previous to the last war, England maintained but a single
frigate in the Mediterranean. This was by compact with
other nations, for it was generally understood if a naval force
was sent abroad it was sent for aggressive purposes. A. na-
tion's naval force was usually kept at home. lie tendered to
the Hon. Member his thanks f)r bringing forward this sub-
ject, but the lion. Member had left out some material cir-
cumstances in his otherwise lucid and valuable statement. It
was not correct to attribute the increase made by France in
her navy to the previous increase made by England ; that
increase had its origin in the growing jealousy in France to-
wards England, ' and the hostile feeling attempted to be
created in the minds of Frenchmen. The man who had bad
the greatest action on French affairs was M. Thierr,
whose policy was to increase the naval strength of France,
more especially on account of the repulsive attitude assumed
by the Noble Lord at the head of foreign affairs. The late
Sir Robert Peel was of opinion there was no reason for
the Syrian treaty, which (we understood) had then taken
place, because i.s effect was to sow estrangement rather
than to prove the friendly feelings, between the two coun-
tries. The Nobls Lord had not carried out a conciliatory
coarse of feeling towards France, and this was the real origin
of the increased armaments which had taken place. He
agreed with the Hon. Member fur the West Riding that
there was little cause for difference between this country and
France. The misunderstandings of late years had arisen
solely from the iriteiference of the Government in affairs in
which they had no concern. As the resolution at present
stood he could not give it his unqualified support.
Mr. MACKINNON, after complimenting Mr. Cobden on
the speech he had just made, said he differed from the Hon.
Member who had last spoken as to the effect of our inter-
vention in other countries, which he contended had been
productive not of war but peace. With respect to war
itself, they were all aware that it had been too common even
from the earliest ages. He did not think there were likely
in future to be wars of a similar nature. He had no desire
to deprecate the advantages of peace or to deny the evils of
war. One writer had remarked that man had destroyed a
greater, number of his kind in one year of war than savage
animals had destroyed of their species since the creation.
With respect to a relative reduction of force he did not see
if we were to reduce our fleet to two men-of-war on condi-

tion that France reduced her fleet to one ship, how we could
protect our colonies and transport troops to and from our
various possessions. He thought the Hon. Member for the
West Riding ought to be satisfied with having made his
statement, and leave to the Noble Lord the Foreign Secre-
tary to take what steps he might think fit in the matter.
Lord PALMERSTON said that in offering his opposition
to the motion he hoped the House would not suppose that he
wished'to express, or that he
_was actuated by, any feelings
or by any principle at' variance with the fundamental prin-
ciple on which the proposition before them was founded.
However he might differ from his Hon. Friend—if the Hon.
Member for the West Riding would permit him to call him
so—with regard to the many practical opinions which he
from time to time expressed in that House, and however
little he might think of the methods by which he endea-
voured to give practical effect to the general principles
which he thought best calculated to, obtain his ends • yet
with regard to the international principles and feelings li
which influenced him as an advocate of peace he was ready
to do most ample justice, and to subscribe implicitly to the
general tendency of the views which he had from time to
time expressed upon that point. He .trusted that the part
which it had been his lot to take in the administration of
one department, of the Government of this country had not
shown that there was anything inconsistent with the opi-
nions he was now expressing.—(Hear, hear.) However
easy it might be for some Honourable Members—
in that easy, colloquial, happy style—(A laugh) which
belonged to the Hon. Member opposite—to talk of him
as an intermeddler, yet he could appeal to facts that during
,the considerable period for which he was responsible for
•the foreign relations of this country— a period during which
there had happened in Europe events of a most remarkable
kind, attended with great commotions of public feeling
during which great agitation bad existed in the social and
political systems of Europe—during which events had hap-
pened which had brought the interests of Europe, he would
not say into conflict, though it might be in opposition to the
interests of other great and powerful nations—peace had
been preserved between this country and other nations; and
not only that, but there had been no international wars of
magnitude between any or the other great powers of Europe.
—(hear.) If, therefore, he was taunted on the one hand
with perpetual interference and intermeddling in the affairs
of other countries, credit ought to be given him that that
intervention and that interference had been accompanied by
the continuance of peace. He ought not to be accused of
constant interference, and yet he refused the credit of the
results of that interference. With respect to the question
more immediately before them, he might remark that in
seeking to attain any great object they might not fix their
eyes exclusively on the object itself, but ought to cast a
glance at the rcad by which it was proposed to reach it; for
many people were so devoted to the end that they never
looped to the means, and did not choose the most judicious
mode of accomplishing their purpose.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
if all nations were composed of philanthropic and philo-
sophic men—exempt from the influence of the passions—
with enlarged minds and comprehensive views, then it
might:be proposed—and he thought justly proposed—that
the best mode of obtaining peace would be to proclaim that
we were totally unarmed—to throw ourselves on the good
feelings of other countries, and to assure them that we had
none but friendly feelings towards them. But man was not
of such a nature. The world had not arrived at that pitch
of civilization when one country could rest for its safety on
the forbearance of its neighbours.—(Hear, hear.) The
world had not arrived at that pitch of civilization at which a
country, possessed of a number of things which its neigh-
bours might desire to acquire—a country the commerce of
which attracted the jealousy of rival merchants— a country
possessed of colonies and possessions which might be the ob-
jects of covetousness to other maritime nations—he said the
world had not arrived at that pitch of civilizatiOn when such
a country, so rich, and possessing'so many objects of desire,
could rest its security simply on the rgood intentions of its
neighbours and its own perfect incapacity to defend itself.—
(Hear, hear.) The objection which he took to the means by
which the Hon. Member for the West Riding from time
to time endeavoured to force on the country his laudable and
pacific views was, that the Hon. Gentleman aimed too much
at divesting this country of its means of defence before
other nations had put themselves in a position similar to
that in which he wished this country to stand.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman began his speech by stating
that he put the comparisbn of military means out of the
question, and that he confined the question to the compara-
tive naval strength of different countries. To a certain de-
gree he would accept the standard of comparison proposed—
viz., the relative power of England and France ; but he must
observe that it was impossible, in taking that comparison as
a standard, to throw out of the question - as the Hon. Gen-
tleman had done—the military force of France; because, if
unfortunately any event was to arise which should lead to
hostilities between two countries so near to each other, and
brought still nearer than formerly by modern improvements
in navigation, it was impossible not to see that the country
which possessed an army of 350,000 men, with a national
guard of about 1,000,000, as compared with another which
had net a standing military force within the realm of more
than 40,003 men, with neither militia nor national guard—it
was impossible, he said, not to see that in comparing the
means of offence and defence in these countries, they could
not confine themselves to the number of line-of-battle ships,
but must take into account the military strength which each
possessed for attack or defence.—( Hear, hear.) The Ho-
nourable Member for the West Riding had been in the habit
of underrating the works at Cherbourg, and tp speak of that
harbour as if it were simply a port of refuge; but when
the Honourable Member talked of the works in Alder.
ney being aggressive, against Cherbourg he might
as well have said that a sentry-box was an aggression
against a foitified town.—(A laugh.) Cherbourg was, in
fact, a great naval arsenal, the works of which—according
to the very report referred to by the Hon. Gentleman—had
been in progress for nearly 50 years, at an expense of be-
tween 7,00.9,000/. and 8,000,0001. sterling, and the value of
which to fiance was represented to be as an advanced port
within 01 miles of the English coast, and, as incapable of
being blockaded, a most important port.of attack or aggres-
eiowagainst England,—(gear, hear.) lie did not wish to