The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-10 00:00:00

SPAIN.

Mr. M. BAILLIE asked whether any application had
been made to admit Spain to the rank of a first-rate power ;
and, if so, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to withhold its consent so long as the Govern-
ment of Spain continued to tolerate the slave trade, and
systematically to disregard its treaties and engagements
with this country ?

Lord J. RUSSELL—I am not aware that Spain has
herself made any application, or expressed officially any
desire, to be admitted as a first-rate power with the five
great powers of Europe, which are usually so denominated.
But the Government of France has expressed an opinion
that it would be desirable that Spain should be added to
those five powers. Upon that proposition or suggestion,
the Government of Austria, or rather the Emperor of Aus-
tria, has answered that he would have no objection to see
Spain one of the great powers, but that such a step ought
not to be turned into a precedent for the admission of any
other power. The Government of Prussia, on the other
hand, has expressed an opinion that it would be injurious
to the protestant states of Europe, if the balance in an as-
sembly of five powers were altered by admitting another
Roman Catholic power amongst them, and that if that were
done it would be desirable that Sweden also should be ad-
mitted. (Hear, hear.) Now upon that it is to be consi-
dered that Spain, Sweden, and Portugal signed the original
treaty of -Vienna ; and I think it would not be desirable, if
Spain and Sweden were admitted, that Portugal, which has
always entertained some jealousy with regard to Spain,
should be excluded. If this were dong, there would be
eight powers instead of five. But we must also consider
that Sardinia is a very thriving and flourishing state—
(cheers)—and Sardinia would, no doubt, put in her claim ;
and if that were the case, there would be nine powers in-
stead of five. (Hear, hear.) Considering, however, that
since 1815, or somewhat later, the consent of these five
powers has upon the whole, with two intervals certainly,
very well preserved the peace of Europe, which I imagine
was the object of the Congress of Aix•la-Chappelle in mak-
ing this arrangement—l own it appears to me very unde-
sirable that we should change the present state of things in
that respect. At all events I can assure the hon. gentle-
men that during the recess her Majesty's Government will
not consent to any change in the existing arrangement.
(Hear.)

PROPOSED CONSUL AT LYONS.
In answer to Mr. BAZLEY,
Lord J. RUSSELL stated he was very unwilling to in-
crease the public charge for the consular service—(heat,
hear)—and for the present certainly he should not advise
the appointment of a British consul for Lyons.
MANUFACTURE OF ARTILLERY.

Mr. BERKELEY asked whether the Low Moor Com-
pany (ironfounders in Yorkshire) were making smooth-
bored guns for her Majesty's Government, and for what
purpose ; the same company having made cast-iron guns,
to he afterwards strengthened by Sir W. Armstrong, how
many had been made, how many had burst upon trial or
failed, and how many had succeeded ? Did guns made by
Colonel Wilmot on nearly the same plan in Woolwich
Arsenal succeed? Was net the Secretary of State for War
aware that guns made after the same plan had been adopted
and were perfectly successful in France, and if not placed
actually on board ship, were ready stacked for that purpose,
both at Cherbourg and Toulon ? Was he aware that the
Russians had adopted that gun, and were at the present
time manufacturing it in Liverpool ?
Mr. S. HERBERT was understood to say that the Low
Moor Company were making guns, 68-pounders and 32-
pounders, for the use of the navy. Those guns would pro-
bably never be displaced by any rifled guns that could be
made. (Hear, hear.) Upwards of 300 cylinders had been
made for the purpose of being strengthened with iron hoops.
Of those five had been tested ; three had burst ; and that
number bursting the Government had thought that there
must be something defective in the manner in which they
had been hooped. They had therefore resolved to wait for
further inquiry into the mode of hooping, with the view of
strengthening them more effectually ; and he had no doubt
they should succeed in doing so. With respect to the other
questions, Colonel Wilmot had hooped a gun made by one
of the great founders ; it showed considerable strength,but
burst at 391bs. pressure. He ought to state that. specimen
guns were tried to destruction, inorder to ascertainwhat pres-
sure they would bear. As to the last two questions, the hon.
gentleman had information which he had not. There cer-
tainly were guns stacked at Toulon and Cherbourg which the
French Government had so little confidence in that they had
not placed them in ships, and did not intend to do so, but in
fortresses. Ho might state that there was doubt whether we
did not over-try our guns, and apply too severe a test. The
powder used here was very much stronger than the powder
used abroad. That question had to be considered ; and it
was very possible that gun might stand the test applied to
them in France, and not stand the test applied here. The
Russians laad not adopted the gun referred to, but they had
in use a gun made at Liverpool by the Mersey Company,
which was a wrought-iron gun.
FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES)
BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. E. JAMES moved as an amendment that, before pro-
ceeding further with this bill, it is desirable that this house
should be in possession of further information as to the en' ire
cost of the construction and efficient maintenance of the sea
defences, and the proposed land fortifications, distinguishing
th• expenses necessary to be incurred by the country in re-
spect of such proposed sea defences and land fortifications.
The amount proposed to be expended was so enormous that
the Government ought' to furnish farther information be-
fore the bill was read a second time. Its object was to con-
firm the expenditure of two millions of money on the forti-
fications mentioned in the schedule. II• would not trouble
the house with the details of this expenditure, but would
rather take their sense on the question whether further in-
formation was not required. There was very great differ-
ence of opinion as to whether land fortifications were de-
sirable. Some great authorities were of opinion that the
noble lord ought to have applied the amount asked for in
sea defences. It would appear from the report that a sum
of £11,000,000 was proposed to be expended on the construc-
tion and armament of the fortifications, but not a word was
said upon that to which his amendment pointed—the cost of
the efficient mainter.ance and manning of these fortifications.
It appeared that about £6,000,000 of the £11,000,000 was
to be expended on the sea defences, dockyards, and arsenals,
and £3,000,000 on the land defences. The report stated
that about 68,000 men would be required for the efficient
maintenance and manning of these fortifications. Taking
the cost of each man at £6O a year, they had an ex-
penditure of £3,000,060 a year for the maintenance of the
fortifications. (Hear.) The report asked for £150,000 to
buy land for a central arsenal at Cannock-chase. They fur-
ther said that the defences of Woolwich might cost £700,000,
which was as much as to say that they might cost three or
four times that amount. Now his complaint was that they
were called en to vote these enormous sums of money with-
out having got from the Government any distinct statement
as to the ultimate limit of tho cost, and he thought the
House of Commons would be stultifying themselves if they
voted £2,000,000 without having the most remote idea of
the extent of the expenditure. He therefore called on the
Government to give the house something like accurate and
precise information on this point. (Hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER seconded the motion. They had already
spent 21,500,000 on the works at Portsmouth and Ply-
mouth, and the £2,000,000 now askec' for would go but a
small way towards the completion of the fortifications men-
tioned in the report of the commissioners. The commis-
sioners classed the fortifications of Portsmouth under five
heads. The first related to the defences of the harbour and
its entrance. Now there was not a waterrnan at Ports-
motsth who did not know that by taking up the buoys and
mark s of the harbour, it would be impossible for the pilots
themt elves to run a fleet into it. (Hear, hear.) It was
excet'sively narrow and shallow. (Hear, hear.) A three-
decker' could not get inside with. her guns in, and of what
use would she be with her guns out ? Some of their vessels
were now ,built 3,50 feet long, and he had no hesitation in
saying the tt the smallest mistake in turning the helm would
run.ships i7f that kind on shore. (Hear, hear.) You would
no more th ink of taking out a three-decker with guns in
than you would of flying in the air. Again, you had only
to create a fog at the mouth of the harbour, and no vessel
could get in or out. (Hear, hear.) But it appeared from
the evidence of the report itself that even with the for-
titlcation of Portsmouth east and west complete, it