The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-11 00:00:00

f'rred from the pockets of the landed intersstt
and very justly so, to the pockets of the 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
19,500,0001. for the army. navy, and ordnance, they
should go back to the estimates of 1834-35 , which
amounted to some 12,000,0001. t > 14,000,000/. There
was a margin of 5,500,000/. at once, which, added to the
present Chancellor's surplus of 2 500.0001., gave
8,000,000/. 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. '1 he next
item was the civil list, Of that he would not take ono
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
385,0001., the remainder being materiel away in gaudy
mei useless parade. Look at the 45 lords and ladies-iu-
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
celled upon the Committee not to sanction a return to
the folly of George IV., who put these people all in
livery, dressed them like trumpet ,rs, and was not c on-
tent till he cut out, their coats himself —(A laugh.) The
whole amount necessary for the civil list might be ohs
wined from the sale of the Crown lands, which there
could be no difficulty in effecting at their proper value.
['hen there were the expenses of cow is of justice, diplo-
matic pensions, salaries and allowances, and he asked
whether out of the sum of 2.800,0001. which was thus
annually consumed, at least 800,000 e might not be saved?
kt the same time he would remove the whole amount of
ihe assessed taxes which fell so heavily upon the lauded
.;entry. Of the expense of collecting the revenue, at
present between 3,000,0001. and 4,000,0001., at least one-
half might be saved. Again, some 7,000,0001. 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.
Slr. Herries had framed an Act intended to prevent the
-epetition of such occurrences as much as possible, but
he thing still continued. The actual cost to Great Bri-
tain of the colonies amounted to about 2,928,0001 e and
that at a time when every colony was anxious to have
self-government, and was competent to bear its own ex-
ttenses. Last of all, upon the miscellaneous estimates no
nan could 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-
olusion, the Hon. Gentleman moved an amendment to
;he effect, that in accordance with the prayers of the
eumerous petitions fur 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-
uiers of land, it was the duty of that House, before put-
ting the motion for the number of seamen and marines,
to take into its serious consideration in what manner
and to what extent the number of men and ships might
be reduced without detriment to the naval service of
the country; that the Aftican squadron was a useless
and expensive addition to the naval establishment,
and should, in the opinion of that House, be di'con-
tinued; and that the number of seamen and marines
to be 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. HUME—Then, I move as an amendment that the
number be 30,000.
On the question being put,
Mr. APGREGOR said, the Committee should be very
unwilling to come to any vote of expenditure until they
were acquainted with the means of revenue. lie consi-
lered that the present system was faulty in itself trom
eeginning 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-
faced to at least a third of that amount, and a more
fficient navy be the result. No private concern iu the
world could send ships to sea without positive ruin if
the construction were managed on the same principle
os was pursued in the naval dockyards of this country.
lie 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
he necessity of protecting our commercial marine, for it
was fully competent to protect itselt. He believed
that single firms of this country could actually de-
feat the whole fleets of some nations. He
knew one firm sending out twenty ships to India
which amounten to a greater tonnage than the whole
Danish fleet; and he knew another firm in the Clyde
• hat had vessels amounting to a greater tonnage than
the whole American navy. Ile considered that our mer-
,antile marine possessed a fleet that might terrify the
navy of every other country in the world except France.
l'he naval strength of France consisted of but 226 ships
end 102 steam•ships, in all 326; and she had but two
admiral', 10 vice admirals, 20 rear-admirals, 110 cap-
[sins 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 " nun-efficient"
branch of the service. During the seven years from
1832 to 1838 inclusive, the average amount of ',awn ex-
penditure was 4,474.747!. In 1939 it increased about
1,000,0001 above that average, even above the expendi-
ture of 1838. In 1842 it increased shove the average of
the same seven years no less than 2,165 4161., and it
continued increasing until in 1848 it amounted to
8,157,287/. He must give the Right lion. 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 5,339,652/. The estimate now before the Committee
was 5,727,2591., 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 stearn-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 5,700,0001., ought to be reduced to 5,000,0004
if not even below that amount. He 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.
The dockyard at Pembroke had been managed
in a most scandalously extravagant manner ; the
expense of building ships there had been at least
one-Ceird 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 fur the represereatives of the Admiralty to
assert that ships built by contract were not efficient, but
if that were 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 heednstruction
of the Cunard line of packets, he bel that they
would not only encounter any weather, but that they
would require repairs much less frequently than many of
the ships now iu 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 iu 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 Admiralty, 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
consequently increased 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. Ho came to this conclusion
with groat 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 11 's tax-paying subjects.—(Hear, hear.) s
mrl.
DEN said that it the Committee agreed to
eos t3y
vote the number of men now proposed for the navy, it
would be in vain to think of materially reducing the
amount of the income-tax. die had a very strong im-
pression, founded upon experience Committeesin which
Lad considered the army and ordnance estimates, au
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 cause down to
the present time, marking the redactions 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. He did- not say there might not be
some disturbing cause, arising, for instance, from an
extraordinary expenditure upon steamships ; 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 Ripou
(sir James Graham)--of whose administrative tact§ 11

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who was rather indistinctly
heard at the commencement of his speech, said, I wilt
only eater into the question of the number of men fur
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 seat for—
(Laughter)—and what measures, bad he taken office, he
would have proposed in the capacity of the head of the
Government.—(Laughter.) I shall not follow the H)n.
Gentlemen into that very extensive field. I shall speak
merely of that which is the mist important subject before
the House, the number of men we should vote for th,
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 Wear
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 effects every person who is employed
in the dockyards, that therefore we are to presume that
those accusations are well founded. Oa the contrary, I
believe that a great deal of wastefulness and abuse ha,
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 oe
these subjects, we know that long after an abuse has
ceased, the same outcry will continue, because mara
years ago, when there were a great number of sinecures,
great complaints were made upon that subject, and sic
Act of Parliament was passed whereby the whole of the
sinecures were abolished, and yet there is as much out-
cry now nearly as at that time, and we have continued
complaints now of the existence of a great number of
sinecures. Now, with respect to the number of men, I
beg the House to consider that what we are now propo-
sing is not a number increased beyond the average which
we have now kept up for about ten years. Ia 1841 the
number of men voted was 43,000; and so on for the sue-
ceding years, 43,000, 39,000, 46,000, 40,000, 41,000,
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 tbis 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 coast 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 llontrose has quoted so
much, I believe they have now a million of men enrolled
as militia in the United States—
Mr. HUME here made a remark which did not reach
the gallery.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I am 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, us
compared with that on service in France, or even ot 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 for 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 one at present,
and therefore you are in this country obviously, and in
the knowledge of all the worl,i, 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 effisient
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 Rol. 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 natutally 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 seine 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. slut, Sir, there is another way in which
Prince de Joinville, iu a
we might be met, and a way that wc.s pointed out by a
very intelligent naval officer,
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. Nuw, Ibe the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for the West Riding to observe, that injurious as
those operations might be—hurtful as they might be to our
trade, and our wealth, and our resources in former
times—the late change that we have made in respect to
the corn-laws makes 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 —(lronical cheers from the
~
what a loss it would be to
this y
practice of having a part of
Protectionists.)
otcountry,
co tui
no
et intor s
t: b)
e thisin Now, g country.—(lronical
in u n
think
the t y
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.—(Renesvcd 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
a nation which, like ours, allows a free importation of
grain, and which is now in the habit (and it is a practice
which may continue) 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 larger force than France, and
that we might have an agreement with them by which
wctiltyh
this force might be mutually re.duccd. 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 ot Ame-
rica, with which our commerce may be carried on with-
outeirs.ny small States,
somand others
of which are eery little in the habit of keeping good
faith with regard to the property of our merchants that
some
risk
of
whichof interruption,
areve r
very
imperfectly
fe
reside in their territory. 1 herefore France is not at
all under the necessity of keeping up her naval force to
the amount that we aro 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 wish regard to the
general defence, let me observe that it the year 1845,
when, to all appearance, we were on ths most friendly
terms with France, there arose a cause of difference,
upon which the sense of honour and ;he susceptibly
of the two nations were very much ;
exeoste, and it re-
quired the moderation shown in the greatest degree by
both the Governments of France and Eng and to prevent
hostilities breaking out on that occasion. But the result
was that the Government of this country, all considering
our means of defence, thought we were ve-y ill prepared
for those hostilities, and immediately a very large in-
crease was made in the naval expentiture of this
country, and the expenditure, which bad been 6,466,000/.
with the packet service, was raised immediately to
7,344,0001. Next year, in 1846-47, it vas 7,920,0001.
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 it that 'V the case—
if the Government of 1845 thought we we-sin consider-
able idanger at that time, and thus ncreased the expen-
diture, and we have now reduced the expeeditare by the
amount of a million—l think it is some symptom that it
is not a very extravagant expenditure Vuich 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 ehould be able effectually to prevent
it, and many other things; that vessels we:e built that
would carry ou the slave trade so successfully that
the efforts of our cruisers would bo defeated.
Well, the HOUR opproyed of the continuance of

oue had a higher opinion than he entertained, for he
hed had the honour of sitting with that Right Hen.
Baronet upon the same Comanttre for three years, and
he well knew his mastery of details, awl the comprehen-
sive knowledge he displayed—(Hear, hear)—had exer-
cised a most ust fat sway at the Admiralty from le3o to
1534, and, applying the test he had mentioned to the
ductions made by that Bight Hon. Gentleman, it would
be found that while he had reduced the t xpenditure
from about 5,600,000/. to 4,600,0001. there had been in
the four years a reduction in the number of men fro n
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 expeediture for our armaments unless by a reduc•
Lion 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 persona, many of
them skilled artis me. 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—(flean., hear)—or este b-
lish national workshops, it was a wel—undi rstcol maxim
that a Government would do any of those things worse
then an individual. It was then, he conceived, quite easy
to account for the reason why, in building ships, a Go-
vernment necessarily waste} a great deal of money.
There was a constant outcry against profligate and
wasteful expenditure t f money in the dockyards., and
people jumped at the conclusion that this expenditure
would be prevented if the subject was inquieed into. He
had been engaged f,r a whole session upon a Committee
for inquiring into the navy estimate-; 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 be
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 made 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-
duels ; 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 iu their mode of conducting
business. They had no annual stock -taking—( dear,
hear) —they had no yearly balance-sheet to prepare—
(Hear)—but 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 bad 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.
Ile (Mr. Cobden) looked, then, to a reduction of force as
the means of reducing the expenditure fur the navy.
Was it necessary, he 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 o''; 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 upuu
other states, but it was to protect their commerce
and their shores. Now, he thought vary 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 Eaglish 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 we 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-ob battle ship in commission—the last was
withdrawn from the Pacific about a twelvemonth ago.
The great bulk of their vessels were of 10-guns and 16-
guns, and they were strictly used as a police force.—
(Hear, hear.) True, Englan-d 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, wee 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.
Tne Times correspondent at Paris, in his communica-
tion published iu 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 att e3k from an enemy. He (Mr.
Cobden) had quoted in that House before from speeches
of Thiess, Latnartine, 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
wdeitir shipsodng
si-
milar results?—(Hear, hear.) When we saw France
building
theand like,
n w when
w e coasts
persevered merely
doingc a se
we
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—
(H !ar)—by which this supreme lolly 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 if reach expected the other to
spring upon it like a wild beast.—(Hoar.) He could not
think it impossible that such a system might lee put an
cud 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 5,700,000/., 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 had 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 6,500.000/., as
the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget.
Only 19,500,0001, of the expenditure came before the
House at all to be 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,
especi.lly to relieve somebody else.—(Hear, hear.) Ile
saw no way of relief but in a reduction of our armed
force; and ho thought we might safely return to a force
cf 50,000 mow—(lleor.)

THE SUN, LONDON/ TUESDAY EVENING, AIARCII it, 1851.

that squadron, and among other consequences of
that vote, the Brazilian Government, seeing that the
Parliament and the Government of this country were in
earnest, have passed laws to prevent the slave-trade, and
the immediate consequence was that the steamers held
by slave-dealers in Brazil were immediately sold, lam
glad to say at a very great loss, and many of the slave-
feelers were ruined. The captures became more nume-
rous, and in an acconnt which arrived within these two
lays from the Brazilian Consul at Rio Janeiro, there is
this passage—" I have also enclosed a return showing
ihe number of slaves landed on a certain portion of this
coast during the six months ending December 31, 1850,
showing that in the latter half of the year 1850 the total
number of slaves landed on this extent of coast was
5,108; while the number during the latter six months of
he three years 1847, 1848, and 1849 averages upwards
of 24,000." So that the last year was very little more
than one- fifth of the average of those landed in the cor-
responding period of the three preceding years. Now,
say this circumstance is encouraging to the Govern-
ment of this country to proceed in this great work.
It is one in which we have been many years engaged,
and every one, I think, must admit that it would cover
us with shame and humiliation if we had left that
{rent work unfinished, and allowed the slave trade
co begin again and to be carried on to the extent which
it was before. Great exaggerations are made with
respect to the coat of this slave squadron. I think
that it cannot bo denied that even if you abandoned
the attempt to put down the slave trade, you must keep
4 squadron on the coast of Africa at those parts where
the slave trade does not exist; you cannot allow your
legitimate trade to be destroyed by pirates, and I doubt
much whether you would find that yeu had saved more
than 200,0001. or 250,000/. per annum, making the most
retrenchment which you could, and allowing the slave
trade to go on. Now, if that is the case, as I believe it
is, seeing that we nave made in the last year more pro-
gress than we had done for many years before—seeing
chat there is a prospect on the coast of Brazil of putting
an end to that trade, and if it is put an end to on the
coast of Brazil, there will then be only Cuba left—seeing
this prospect before us, I trust that whatever other re-
trenchment this House may make, they will not make a
retrenchment of that part of our naval force which is
required for the suppression, and, I hope, the final ex-
tinction of the slave trade.—(Hear, hear.) That, I
chink, would be a glory to this country, that having, by
its own efforts, put an end to the slave trade and slavery
in our dominions, and having by its example and effects
on all nations, put an end to the slave trade of many
other countries, that we should finally put an end to the
lave trade in Brazil and Cuba, and thereby have the
satisfaction of saying that England had been the cause of
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 for 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 ho was entirely at issue
with the Noble Lord. Ho 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 guarantee 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 one 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
those who thought a less amount than then 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 he 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 woo an anti-slave
trade party in Brazil; and the effect olßritish 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 he 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.
—([lear, 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 sil-nccd. 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 lion.
Members present who could correct him if necessary—
" With respect to the insult offered to our country, we
will endeavour to give the hest 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 ou the coaet of Brazil that, although slaves had
been imported, their number for the last SIX months of
1850 was not a fifth of the average fur the corresponding
mouths of the three years preceding. He (Mr. Card well)
entirely concurred in the geaerous 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 vas 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 wae taught now. A body of seamen gunners
would boat double their number of seamen unacquainted
with gunnery as practised in modern times.
Mr. PLUMPTRE thought that, if he followed the
example of the lion, 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
,Niontrose, 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,
au 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 THOMeSON—Oh, yes, you did.
Mr. HUME—No, I did not. The Hon. and Gallant
Colonel has said that be is not induced to vote for my
motion by the arguments I advanced in support of it;
but he 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:-
1,435,7331., 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 braid, 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 me. 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 Exchequ, r) was
Secretary to the Admiralty he NS as sick in a punt in the
Thames. He proposed to reduce the salary of the First
Lora of the Admiralty from 4 500/. to 3,500/., in conse-
quence of the reduction which had taken place in
fish, meat, and ull the other free-trade advantages
which he possessed.—(Laughter.) Ile proposed to
strike off the salaries of the two lay Lords altogether,
thus saving other 2,0004 The salary of the First Secre-
tary he would reduce from 2.000/ to 1,5001., of the
Second Secretary from 1,500/. to I,OOOL, and that of the
solicitor from 1,600/. to 1,0001.; waking altogether a
reduction of 4,600/. Hie or:trenc:stela, therefore, was
o,d
-
that
wtohuel dv ti
ve i dbee thr II" coeuds ef from
opme
Mr. WILLIAMS acid be found that the present vote
138,6251• e
ft
uo u
se-
conder.nll34,llo2s
WWI 11,8004 more than the corresponding vote of 1845,

r while the number of men was about the same. This re- Somerset-house by the surveyors of the Admiralty woule
quired explanation. I soon be required by the Board of Excise, anu, if his
Sir F. BARING repeated the statement he made in i Right Hon. Friend (the Cuancellor of the Exchequer)
his opening speech, that a considerable additional ex- were prepared to give the Admiralty a house nearer
pense had arisen from the gradual increase of the sa- Whitebait, he should be quite ready to transfer the Ad-
laries from long service. Last year, however, there was a miralty surveyors to it without any loss of time.
diminution of 1,100/. a year from the abolition of an The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
' office. Part of the increase since 1844-45 was owing For the vote ... .., .., ... 193
to the additional officers required for the steam depart- For Colonel Sibthorp'a amendment ... 34
men t.—( Hear, bear.) Majority ... ,„ ... —159
Mr. El fZROY was sorry the Hon. and Gallant The original motion was then agreed to.
Member (Colonel Sibthorp) had proposed so large a re- On our re-admission,
duction in the vote, because if he persevered in the amend- Colonel SIBTHORP was addressing the Committee.
ment, it would place him in this unpleasant position, He said, that in proposing the amendment just negatived
that thinking the reduction beyond what the effieiency of he had performed his duty, adding, " I have lost all con-
the service would admit of, he could not conscientiously fidence in them ;"—referring, as we understood, to the
support it; while being of opinion, on the other hand, gentlemen who usually sit on the benches below him.—
that a certain reduction was practicable, he could not (Cheers and laughter on the Ministerial side.) Colonel
support the proposition of the Government. He hoped, Sibthorp then lett the House amid loud and continued
therefore, the Hon. and Gallant Member would modify cheering from the Ministerial party.
his amendment, and enable him to vote with him.— On the question, that a sum of 48,6351. be granted for
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Fitzroy) had stated to the Com- the expenses of the scientific branch of the naval service,
mittee last year, and he still retained the opinion, that Mr. HUME complained of the high price at w hich
there might be a reduction in this vote; and he held this the Nautical Almanack was sold. In his opinion a pub-
opinion with the greater confidence after reading the lication sa important to the safety of life and property
evidence given by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Bat- ought to be witbin the reach of every class. If the price
ing) himself before the Committee on Official Salaries, were lowered more money would be made of the work
and also the evidence of the Right Hon. Gentleman the —the more they reduced the price the more copies they
Member for Ripen. [Here the Hon. Gentleman quoted would sell.
an extract from the evidence of Sir F. Baring with re- Tote agreed to.
gard to the duties actually performed by the different The next vote was 134,6991. for the expenses of the
Lords of the Admiralty.] He (Mr. Fitzroy) would establishments at home.
maintain, without fear of contradiction, that if they corn- Mr. HUME objected to the expenses of Pembroke
bined. the departments of the civil lords with the medi- dockyard.
cal and vistualliug department, one man could perform Sir F. T. BARING contended for the great importance
the business of the two departments quite satisfactorily, of that establishment.
at the sacrifice of one or two hours every day. Mr. HUME considered it to he inordinately ex-
Mr. HENLEY said, that the Hon. Gentleman who pensive.
had just spoken had let out some secrets respecting the . Vote agreed to.
Admiralty. If they went on the Committee might get The next was 23,6541. for the naval establishments
some more information.—(A laugh.) Without pretend abroad.—Agreed to.
ing to the accuracy of knowledge of the lion. Gentle- Oa the vote of 676,4161. for wages to artificers, &c.,
men (Mr. Fitzroy), he thought it quite clear that for the employed in the establishment at home,
last ten years the vote of the Admiralty establishment Mr. HUME said that the American Government hid
had been gradually increasing. In 1841.42 it was five vessels on the stocks, and they had stopped their
121,8441. It was now 138,6251. He did not think the progress. It appeared to him that in our naval archi-
Right. Hon. Gentleman had given a satisfactory expla- tecture we were certainly building to waste. England
nation why it had crept up—the number of men being now had a great many vessels that never yet had been
quite as great, if not greater, in 1842 than now.—(Hear, at sea, and he contended that with such a store of ships
hear.) The increase was not confined to the Admiralty the overnment ought to cease building. With 07 verse
establishment. It was the same in the dockyards, the gels in course of building it did appear to him that
vote for which, in 1842, was 122,0001. It was now we might now very well stop. He regretted to oh-
nearly 135,000/. There seemed a tendency to get back serve that a great number of vessels belonging to the
to that state of things that the Right Hon. Gentleman navy had recently been broken up. Since the month
the Member for Ripon set right in 1835-36. He (Mr. of March, 1828, we had built not fewer than 264
Henley) was surprised to find a person like the Hon ships. Within a comparatively short period we had
Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) state that it expended for purposes of this kind as much as
was impossible to make any reduction of the expense in 5,190,0001., and on dockyards 805,0001., all this involv-
the details of management without reducing the number ing a great waste of timber and wages, and a pulling of
of men, and that, too, in the face of, and immediately ships to pieces for no useful 'purpose; they surely ought
following, the statement of the First Lord of the Ad- not to sanction such wasteful proceedings—such waste
miralty that there had been a reduction in two years as the breaking up of 297 ships in the course of the last
of 1,500,0001. in the general expenses.—(Hear, hear.) 20 years. On these grounds he proposed to reduce the
He (Mr. Henley) confesed that when he found e Hon. amount of the vote from 676,416/. to 400,000/.
Member for Montrose proposing to strike off nearly a Admiral BERKELEY observed, that though the
fourth part of the whole efficient force, and when he did statement respecting those ships made a great display
not succeed, throwing the cards up, he was induced to on paper, the ships would not make a very good show at
suspect he was not sincere in proposing it with any hope sea, and no nation had vessels of so small a size as Eng-
of carrying it.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him very land. If we brought 50 sail of the line into a general
like throwing out a tub to the whale, and saying, " See action he feared that we should very soon have to re-
what great reductions we propose."—(Hear, hear.) place them. In consequence of our having been at peace
Mr. COBDEN thought it would be in the recollection so long there were no doubt many ships that had never
of the Committee, that what he had said was not that it been at sea, but that was no reason why they should be
wssimposaible to make any reductions, but that it was relied upon. especially if they wore not in a fit state. It
impossible to make any material reduction of ex- should be remembered that if they were building ships
pense without a reduction of the forges.—(Hear, hear.) they were not launching them; they kept them on the
The Hon. Gentleman had said that there had been a re- slips, and it was hardly necessary for him to point out
duction of upwards of a million without a reduction of the disadvantage of too much haste in building. If a
the force; but the fact was that in 1848 there was a re- ship was run up in a hurry, or upon an emergency, she
duction of from 4,000 to 5,000 men. He (Mr. Cobden) very soon rotted, and was found little worth at sea.
stated that there might be occasionally disturbing causes, The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume) seemed to
such as building steam-boats or the like; but if the Hon. think that a good deal would be saved by giving up
Gentleman would go through the Navy, Ordnance, and building for themselves, and getting ships built in mer-
Army estimates, for a series of 20 years, he would find chants' yards. In order to show the fallacy of this,
his statement correct, that, taking a series of years, the he would refer to two 72-ships of the first-class,
number of men was an accurate test of the amount of both still extant. One of these, the Blenheim, built
money expended. He thought, too, that upon reflection in a Government yard in 1813, cost 59,2491.; and the
the Honourable Gentleman would recall the imputation other, the Benbow, built in a merchants' yard, cost
of insincerity which he• had ventured, in a moment 68,070/. The Benbo er was rottenand condemned, while the
of forgetfulness, to make against the Hon. Member for Blenheim had bad a screw put into her, and was still a
Montrose.—(Hear, hear.) That Hon. Gentleman had, good and efficient ship.—(Hear, hear.) A reference to
to his knowledge, often proposed similar motions during other ships would show the same result. As to the num-
the last ten years; and, although he might not have suc- ber of artificers employed, the returns before the House
ceeded in carrying them at the time, it had generally would show that much more work had been done by
happened that in the course of a few years what he pro- fewer hands during the last two years than was done be-
posed was carried into effect.—(Hear, hear.) And he fore that time. He should be sorry to sea building in
(Mr. Cobden) would venture to predict that the reduc- our own yards given up. One result of such a step would
tion his I-lon. Friend had proposed would be carried out be that it would become absolutely necessary to hire men
before long, and probably with the aid of the Hon. Mem- when ships came in for repair, and that at an increase of
ber for Oxfordshire.—(Bear, hear.) expense.
Mr. HUME rebutted the charge of insincerity, and Sir G. PECHELL said there were great complaints as
said that the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire and his to the unnecessary work carried on in the building
friends,: who were constantly crying out for a reduction yards, and he was anxious to see a remedy for that evil.
of taxation, and yet when they had an opportunity of As a specimen of the mode of doing business in the docks
lessening the expenditure did not embrace it, gave a he might refer to the case of the Tremendous. Some
pretty strong proof that they were not sincere.—(Hear, four or five years ago she was condemned as rotten, and
hear.) And, he would tell the Honourable Gentlemen, was about to be broken up. Having been brought into
moreover, that these who voted for large establishments Chatham she was, somehow or other, saved from destruc-
and yet demanded a reduction of the taxation by which tion; she was then rezed and sent out, and came back
those establishments were supported—in other words, under a new name—the Eagle, be believed—being then
those who refused to diminish the expenditure before considered a very fine vessel.—(Hear, hear.)
reducing the taxation—did not, in his opinion, adopt Mr. PLUMPTRE asked if there had been any re-
a very honest course.—(Cheers, and hear, bear.) He duction of the wages of artificers? The agriculturists
begged to tell those Hon. Gentlemen, also, that when had reduced the wages of their labourers at least one-
they considered the situation in which they were placed sixth.
in consequence of the reduction which had taken place Admiral BERKELEY could only say in reply that
in the price of the produce of the soil, they would pro- the wages of artificers were regulated by those given in
bably find it their interest before long to join him in re- merchant builders' yards. It was indeed found that
duciug the expenditure of the country. ebipwrights and artisans generally were not to be had at
Mr. S. CRA WFORD said, that if the Honourable wages so low as formerly.—(Hear, hear.)
and Gallant Officer went to a division he would sup- Mr. APGREGOR did not see what necessity there
port him. could be for such an amount of naval force as was con-
Mr. HENLEY explained that his observations with tended for. Almost every nation on the continent, ex-
regard to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for cept Prussia, Naples, Denmark, and Bslgium, was in
the West Riding had reference to what that Hon. Gen- a state bordering on bankruptcy; and what was the
tleman stated two years ago, and not to what was the naval strength of Russia? It was not more than equal
number of men in the navy in the year 1848. With to the ships of two of our most eminent shipping
respect to the Hon. Member for Montrose, ho (Mr. firms. Instead of expending such large rums on our
Henley) begged to say, that he had no intention of naval establishments, he would rather tee them reduced,
accusing the Hon. Gentleman of a want of sincerity, and relief given to the public, the agricultural interest
What he intended to say was, that the Hon. Gentle- included. by a reduction of taxation.
man could have no expectation of carrying his motion. Mr. lIUME cited the report of the Committee up
Mr. HUIIE— Indeed I had.—(Cheers and laughter.) stairs, to show that the cost of building ships in the
If Hon. Gentlemen had lulfilled their pledges I have no dockyards was 221. per ton, without including one slail-
doubt I should have succeeded. ling for tie dockyards themselves; while, for vessels
Colonel SIBTHORP observed that the Hon. Member built in private yards, the cost was 16'. 14s. 23. per ton.
for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy), having bimseif been a Lord of Mr. COBDEN remembered that when Sir H. Ward
the Admiralty, had admitted that a reduction of one lord was excusing the high rate of the estimates in his scheme,
was necessary; but he (Colonel Sibthorp) went further, he had told them they would not have so much expense
and considered that in these days of economy and Is- for sailing ships in future; and really with seventy
tress they might with strict propriety be reduced two. sailing ships of the line, and such a fltet or steamers as
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said the motion of the we possiese d, to go on building more vessels was mon-
Gallant Officer applied only to one service, whereas it strous. He had heard it said that in the next war the
ought to be applied to all the different branches of the contest would be wholly carried on by steamers. If sn,
service, Navy, Army, and Ordnance. The Hon. Member why go on building more sailing ships ? From the evi •
for the West Riding bad referred them back to the year donee taken before the Committee it appeared that while
1838 as a standard, but the propriety of the force to be there were few( r ships of war iu the world now then in
maintained was not a question of chronology but of ex- the 3 ear 1792, ae had double the naval force which we
pedieucy. There was no abstract amount of force that possessed at that period
could be determined upon. The amount to be kept up Admiral BERKELEY observed, that when they knew
depended upon whet were the probabilities of a hostile that other countries were building sine-of-batik ships,
force coming against us. Did any gentlemen in sober not as formerly, bat furnished with screw-propellers,
sadness believe that there was the same chance of a they ought not, to be unprepared.
greater force cowing against us now than in the years Mr. S. HERBERT said, that so far from our having
1835 and 1838? Thre were certain portions of more line-of-battle chips now than in the year 1792, the
the estimates which scorned to him to be very facts were the other way; while, with respect to the cost,
slightly passed over, but which in his opinion ought to they would find, it' they divided the whole amount by the
be explained. He referred to certain details such as oc- number of men, the result would give for the year 1792
curred in page 12. After putting the two assistant-sur- about 3501. per man, while fcr the present year it would
veyors at 800/. per annum each, there came these items: give about 3601. per man. As to the cost of sbips building,
—Four draughtsmen to the surveyor; one first-classy the question was not whether you would get a vessel
from 3501. to 5001.; one second- class, from 250/. to 350/. ; built cheaper in the merchant's yard, but a hether the
and two third-class, from 1501 to 250/. Then, and soon vessel so built would be more durable than a vessel built
after, there came, first draughtsman 250/.; second ditto, in the dockyard. Experience showed that it would ;for
1501.; then, first writer and calculator, 1501.; second they had not the same check relative to the materials
in a
ditto, 801.; then, assistant-engineer, 500/.; after that, di- private yard as they bad in a c.c.kln comparing
where they o
had
rector of engineering and architectural works, 1,0001.; their timber lying far three years.
then, chief assistant to the director of works, draughts- of ships, it should be remembered vesselsthatreparin built in
man to the director of works, and clerk and draughtsman dockyards were targe men-of-war, whilst those built In
to the director of works. Now the whole of these offices private yards were ships,merchante
sounded very queer, and concerning which the House were not of course so costly. With reference to the opinion
ought to receive some explanation. Then, there was that in future wars the contest would be carred on solely
another item, not only applicable to the service of the by steamers—whiluthat ti as the belief of some, it was on
Admiralty, bat applicable to all the public departments, the other hand, held by equally competent judges that the
and that was " Public Buildings and Repairs." Ho be- steamers, from the delicacy of their machinery, and the
lieved the largest and most extravagant expenditure on facility of damaging their hulls, would be so completely
account of these items came under the direction of the hors de combat by the injuries sustained in action that
Woods and Forests. These charges also required ex- they would never be able to re-engage. He did not, how-
planation. ever, mean to say that it was necessary to increase the
Sir E. BARING said, that with regard to the details number of our ships; but he thought it a wise policy to
which had been referred to, those of them which bad introduce the use of the screw-propellers in line-of-battle
been introduced since 1845 or 1846, he ought not to be ships generally.
called upon to explain, except as now holding the office Mr. COBDEN—As the sbcdaw-propellerpsianwtr were
whatto
hoehthhuoiulgnihntgitliannefonf:
of First Lord of the Admiralty. The principal part of supersede the other class of.s ships,
tbe increased expense of the establishment had, as he elusive argument against them going
had already explained, arisen from the creation of the battle ships.
steam navy. With reference to the particular items Mr. HENLEY
_asked on what principle they calm•
mentioned by the Hon. Member for Surrey in regard to lated their expenses
engineering architectural works, and other works, he for machinery?
what they allowed for
0 DEN said he thought he could answiehr
theirtt
had no doubt that the persons appointed to those various , frequently asked it himself.
machinery as no
contended that
Theay
thinega calculated
departments were required to superintend and check the quMestroCn as he had
great expense of the works going on in the public counted with private manufacturers, who
buildings and the dockyards. For such purposes there competition..Dgo_
r that sort. He, therefore,
must be some establishment. There was one °Meer ap- evercYthti'their plant and
-0, price of an article built in a private
pointed as assistant to each establishment, and, although t the
tariog yard ought never to be quoted in or naaeufae-
they were called hard names, yet they were in effect
the comparison was perfectly fallacious. that House, as
clerks; and he did not think that the sums set
Gallant Sir G. PECHELL asked when the public would be
their names were very large. The lion. and
eduction gratified with an account of the differentsailing
Officer (Colonel Sibthorp) had proposed
the
was afraid exhibited by the vessels in the ea e • qualities
of his fir F. Baring's) own salary.
He,
nof the Sir F. T. BARING said when
rimental squadron?
he must leave that entirely to the dem:l:seed,
and ceived he had no objection to lay . the report was re-
House. The question had been alreadydis
et ybe might other- Mr. HUME asked if there was it before the House.
made
any process
that relieved him from any
diffic—t" therefore, abstain in the process of preserving timber?
wise feel on the subject. He should,
With regard to Sir F. T. BARING replied-that the progress was
from any further observations upon it. Admiralty, the Hon. naturally a slow one.
the number of the Lords of thek .
en in supposing that Mr. HENLEY did not doubt that the Hon. Member
and Gallant Gentleman
was mistaken
included the First for the West Rid'
there were two lay lords, unless he
lay
lord on the board. meat, but he she ail! (Mr. Cobden) wasn ' ht in his state-
Lord.
There was only one junior be glad to hove it from authority.EG
hadreferred to the evi- Mr. HU ME 'll
'
for Lewes would send the evidence to the on. en-
The Hon. Member
(Sir F. Baring) before the Com- tleman.—(Ls h e
deuce given by .him
was true he was asked wise- ..11g ter.,
Mr.HENLEY had great respect both for the Hon.
mitten on this subject. It
in
could be made the number Member fur West Riding and the Lion Member for
they he thought a reduction the
and his answer was that he Montrose, but he should hke to have an answer from
constituting the board,
.
thought would be very unwise to melee any reduction 1
it . . • • theßight lon. Gentleman opposite.
I
It happened, perhaps owing to his previous CO , Sirexnerien BARING had not the return with him; but
_ F. T.
in other offices, that he interfered much more In the bu- 1, he apprehended the Hon. Gentlemen behind him were
siness of civil lords than was usually done by the parson I right.
holding the office of First Lord; but, as a general prin. I •
the Committee then divided whsn there appeared_
ciple, ha did not think it advisable to cut down the For the amendment ••• ••• e 8
number of junior lords; but that the House would act Against it ... ••• ••• •
••• 127
unwisely if they were to adopt the course intimated by Majority ...
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewes. The vote was &greed to.
Mr. HUME asked whether it was intended to re- 35,556/. for wages to artificers abroad was also
move that portion of the Admiralty Department which agreed to.
now occupied rooms at Somerset-house either to the Ad-
The tireesnit then resumed the chair, and the CHAIR-.
miralty itself or to some cenvenientplace Wh•teh ll MAN reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.
near i a
where all the business might be more conveniently trans- VALUATION (IRELAND).
acted? Ho understood tbat it would e very soon be abet' The Valuation (Ireland) Bill eas read a second time
luiely necessary to make the removal. 1 pro forma, and ordered to be referred to a Select QM-
Sir. r• BAITING said the tom um occupied at i mime, after a few words from Dire cllauvr,

•• • -59