The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-03 00:00:00

value of Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham being
preserved from falling into the hands of an enemy. He
believed that in times like this, when changes were taking

place that would make war ten times more destructive and
perhaps impossible—which Heaven grant—the only course
for an honest and economical government to take was to go
slowly, cautiously, and inquiringly to work, and not to com-
mit themselves to a vast and extravagant expenditure which
a short experience might show to he of no value at all.
(Hear, hear.) Besides the commission there had been a
committee, of which the Duke of Cambridge was at the
head.. This committee said that the public would be satis-
fied with the measures that were being taken to put the
Channel fleet, which formed our first line of defence, in an
-efficient state. Then they said that doubtless the public
mind would also be satisfied with the fortifications proposed
by the commissioners, which (if efficiently garrisoned)
would place our arsenals out of the reach of sudden de-
struction by a foreign force, whether on land or at sea. The
house uld see that the committee did not say the fortifi-
cations would give our arsenals absolute security, but would
only protect them from sudden destruction. (Hear, hear.)
Next they expressed their opinion that having reference to
the changes introduced by steam, our army was of
.a very
insufficient magnitude : and they trusted that steps would
be taken to make the army of a scale corresponding with
that of the navy. Now, what did that mean ? Our navy
was larger than any other in the world—was it intended
that our army should exceed the army of any other power ?
(No.) He understood that' the committee did not mean
that ; but they ought to define with precision what they
did mean. (Hear, hear.) Then they said further that
these said volunteers of whom they heard so much—and
really he hardly knew some of his acquaintances, so changed
were they in their new habiliments—(laughter)—the com-
misaioners stated that these said volunteers and the militia
could only be relied upon in the case of a grave emer-
gency. The ordinary defences were therefore to be trusted
to the regular soldiers, and the volunteers and militia
were only to come in when one of these great emergencies
turned up. Lastly, the committee said there was another
subject which appeared to them of very great importance,
though it was not included in the terms of their reference—
they meant the Channel Islands and the sea surrounding
them (mark the absurdity I) as a naval station. The com-
mittee would now be able to comprehend the expenditure
into which they were invited to launch—so far indeed as any
one could comprehend what was incomprehensible. (Laugh-
ter.) If there was any doubt as to the particular quality
which was ascribed to these gentlemen, it was supplied in a
letter which they wrote to Lord Overstone, bearing, of
course, a great official seal, and expressed with the usual
pomp of official language. Lord Overstone was accounted
an eminent authority upon certain things. He was a man
of prodigious wealth; and like many of them when they
got older, especially if they were never very robust, he had
become exceedingly timid. (Laughter.) But what was it
that those gentlemen asked Lord Overstone ? They de-
sired to know what were his lordship's views if England
were invaded. If he had not been a lord and a millionaire,
it was quite clear that they would never have thought of
asking him ; but how could the fact of being a lord and a
millionaire make a man an authority upon a great question
of national defences ? (Hear.) However, the commis-
sioners inquired the noble lord's views as to the effects upon
the commerce and manufacturers of the country that would
follow the landing of an invading army ? " Would such a
state of things," they asked, "be compatible with a con-
tinuance of the ordinary operations of trade and commerce?
(Loud laughter.) Would not the evils of such a state of
things be so intolerable that the people would force the Go-
vernment to a peace at any cost to the honour, the wealth,
and the future greatness of the country ?" (Laughter.)
The answer of Lord Overstone showed a simplicity which
was positively charming. First, he said that money
would be withdrawn from savings banks. (Great laughter.)
Then he said that money would also be taken out of the
country banks and from all persons—here the shop peeped
out—holding money at call. (Laughter.) He said further,
and here he showed some discretion, that it was "useless
to discuss what would happen when London had fallen into
the hands of an invader. (Cheers.) Seeing the exhibition
that Lord Overstone had made, he (Mr. Bright) felt thank-
ful that he was not a lord and a millionaire, or the commis-
sioners might have been patting questions to him. (Laugh-
ter.) The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Herbert) talked as if
this question could not be debated, and as if it was obvious
that what the Government proposed was the right thing to
do. But was there anything in the world that they could
be asked to do, and would do upon such counsel as that
which he had read ? It was like a man who could not be
shown to be ill having a dozen doctors coming to discuss
his health and each offering him a different prescription.
Surely in such a case the man would be likely to rise and
drive the whole dozen doctors away. Every one of the au-.
thorities who had been consulted recommended somethinpj
different from the rest, and each said that unless his plan
were adopted they would have no security. It appeared to
him that if they adopted all they were asked, they would
have no diminution of panic, and in fact nothing but
an interminable expense. (Hear.) But now he would ask,
had the country done nothing in the way of national de-
fences ? In 1835 our warlike expenditure was only
£12,000,000. In 1853 it was between £15,000,000 and
£16,000,000; while in 1800 they had voted £30,000,000.
(Hear, hear.) And had they made any approach
lea security ? Not the least. On the contrary, there was
not then nearly the feeling of insecurity that had sprung
up of late years. The noble lord quoted the Duke of Wel-
lington. The Duke of Wellington did a great deal for his
order during his life, and somebody had persuaded him to
leave it a legacy when he died. But he (Mr. Bright) would
rather look to the acts of the duke when he was twenty
years younger, when with Sir Robert Peel he brought in
those moderate estimates which he felt to be sufficient. In
1851, soon after he wrote the letter in question, everybody
knew that the duke was much more nervous and irritable
than he was when he was younger. He fancied that
at the opening of the Great Exhibition the country
was running a great peril. He thought that all the
refugees in Europe, and everybody who was discontented,
would come over under pretence of attending the Exhibi-
tion, and would dethrone the Queen, put the House of
Lords into the Thames, and overturn everything that Eng-
lishmen were supposed to hold in reverence. He therefore
advised that as many troops as could be brought together
should be drawn round London, and accordingly 30,000
men were gradually brought near the metropolis, in order
to save the Queen and Court when they went to open the
Great Exhibition. With that fact before him he was not
bound to take the opinion of the Duke of Wellington.
(Hear.) The noble lord had contributed in his speech the
other day to create the evil impression which existed in the
public mind. The noble lord had misstated the facts, for he
said, " You know the exertions which the French Govern-
ment are making to create a navy equal, or very nearly
equal, to our own." In that the noble lord stated what he
could not know to be true. For what were the facts? There
was no concealment about the matter, for the English Go-
vernment did not allow either foreigners or Englishmen to
go through their arsenals and dockyards with anything like
the frankness with which the French Government allowed
strangers to go through theirs. In 1858 the number of men
in the French navy was 30,000, the number in the English
was 59,000. In 1860 the number in the French navy had
only been increased by 500, whereas the number in the
English had been raised to 84,100. (Cheers.) Would any-
body get up and deny that fact? Again, it was notorious
that in 1857 the French Government openly adopted a
scheme by which they expected that in 14 years they would
have 40 line-of-battle ships, 15 being first class, and 25
second class vessels. That was the scheme which had been
proceeded with, and about which there had been no conceal-
ment or deception whatever. Again, what was the ex-
penditure on the French navy? Their budget only showed
a charge on that account of £5,600,000. It was quite pos-
sible that the expenditure might go somewhat beyond the
estimates; but adding a million, and calling it £6,600,000,
it did not come near half what we had spent. Let it be re-
membered that engines cost more in France than in-Eng-
land, and how was it possible they could have a navy any-
thing like ours ? At least if they had, the noble lord the
Secretary to the Admiralty ought at once to be driven from
office and be made to give place to somebody who -would
spend the money of the English tax payer with more eco-
nomy and with a better result. (Cheers.) There had been
the same exaggeration as to Cherbourg, but that had passed
away. He had been shown an important letter from a cor-
respondent in the Army and Navy Gazette. He said that he
been allowed to go all over the place, and that he had found
very little doing. There was very little going on in the way
of preparations in the arsenal; and he saw only one soli-
tary mason. There was no vessel in the dock but a small
sloop and a revenue cutter. The digue, s ith its long line
of guns, appeared enally deserted, He saw the frigate
Normandie which had frightened several admirals inEng-
land. (Laughter.) They told him that they were not doing
much with their frigates blindees there ; but that they were
somewhere else. At Toulon or Brest they would, no doubt,
have told him that they were very busy at Cherbourg. The
writer said that having seen the Normandie, he felt.much
better satisfied as to the peaceable intentions of the French
Government than he should have been by a dozen articles
of M. Grandguilhst, or official remonstrances in the lifoni-
&tr. (Hear.) He (Mr. Bright) should not be surprised
1,
1 he were told that it was quite true that nothing was doing
t
tCherbourg; but that it was all a blind; for some day the
ships at the other ports would be brought round to Cher-
bour
(LZ,_
.er. then they would see what they would see.
persulnata )lle was aware that he might just as well try to
him, that ra
suer who fancied everybody was trying to poison
a feeling. Ise elawas not the case, as attempt to combatsuch
one day as he e knew a person who had this fancy ; and
hotel at Derby th e :Zing' with him from that beautiful
bread they gave m e'?„ man said, " Didn't you notice the
wi(tthhe hon. member) soon found
twat any atterapt ts argu:
him was thrown away. In
the same way he 'night t:yn
:tvlclaisl:ow that there were neither
ships, nor men, nor yet
oxyPerasnditure—neither a po-
licy on the part of t b e French G
fear
smfellt, nor a feeling in
the French mind, t, justify the
1111. au evasion—but it
would be no marine r of use. The idea
ot
heads, just as the i dea that the bread was
peoitstod
had
rfpeople's
into the head of thi unfortunate lunatic. (Laughter.) The
Secretary for War b lad turned round and cast upon the people
the same reproach vhich had ever been thrown upon thpe,
by men in office, ar tal which he (Mr. Bright was prepared
'to denounce not on' as hypocrisy but as a crime. The noble
lord said that the p es )ple were favourable to this expenditure.

Of course if the people believed that they were about to be '
eaten up by a foreign invader they would not grudge two
millions more or less to save themselves from such a fate.
But the fact that the people believed—if they did believe—
that they were going to be invaded, was proof of a contemp-
tible cowardice on the part of the cabinet. They allowed a
cry to be got up which was utterly absurd, and then they
squandered away the public money because they had not
courage to tell the people the truth of the matter. (Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Bright) would not say which was most to
blame, the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman opposite,
for he thought they were both tarred with the same stiek.
(Great laughter.) Why, what did they do with regard to
the Italian war? Austria had for years been stupid; Sar-
dinia was restless and ambitious ; and everybody knew that
before long there would be a collision between those powers.
France interfered, and marched into Lombardy. What to
do ? The French policy was the policy of England. Eng-

land, it was true, did not choose to intervene—and moss
wisely did not—but a vast majority of the people of
England were of opinion, as the present Government were
of opinion, that it would be very desirable to see Austria on
the other side of the Alps, and Italy free from a foreign
Government. What did the Government of the right
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks do ? They created
the greatest possible alarm in the country, and said
that it was necessary to be prepared for war. The French
army having marched into Italy, one would not have ex-
pected to see them march into England, for even French
soldiers could not be in two places at once. (Laughter.)
The probability was, as every man in Europe felt, that the
fact of French troops being engaged in Italy made it, if
possible, infinitely less likely that they could be engaged in
England. And yet the moment before this was begun all
kind of alarm was created. The right hon. baronet the
member for Droitwich took credit for—he was going to say
the profligacy, but he would say for the profuseness with
which he expended the money of the country in increasing
a navy to put a stop, he supposed, to the march of sol-
diers who were then probably on their way across the
Alps. But the French were triumphant, and the policy of
England succeeded in Italy. There was no hostility against
England, and yet England armed, they still armed, and
from that time to this they had continually armed, and any
excuse had been considered sufficient to hoodwink the
people and make them content with extra taxes wrung
from them. We had a change of Government. The noble
,lord the member for Tiverton came in. He always, conti-
nued the hon. member, does come in. (Loud laughter.)
Soon after the noble lord came in, we had the debate in
this house to which I have already referred. The right
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer both spoke in that debate. I took the
liberty of addressing the house after him, and I recom-
mended them to enter into commercial relations with
France. I will just give the house a few extracts from the
speech of the noble lord at:the head of the Government, and
of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary, and then I ask,
whether it is fit that the great interest of the country should
be trifled with by gross inconsistencies of this nature.
The noble lord at the head of the Government said : " I
feel assured that nobody can fairly refuse to acknowledge
that the Emperor of the French!has been the faithful, true
ally of England, both in time of peace and of war, and that
we have every reason to regard him as a monarch who feels
personally, and upon system, desirous to cement and per-
petuate the alliance which subsistsbetween his country and
our own." What did the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) say ?
" I feel, with my hon. friend, that there is something dan-
gerous, not in the present disposition of the Emperor of the
of the French, or in the present disposition of the French
people towards this country, but in the constant endeavours
made to excite a jealousy and alarm as if some deep plot
were laid against our peace and security. That fear is
readily imbibed. The people are urged to prepare them-
selves when there is no cause, and I must say that as bad as
are wars of ambition wars of panic are equally bad. I be-
lieve that whatever reproaches may be cast upon the Em-
peror of the French as to various questions of his domestic
and foreign policy, yet that as regards this country—and I
have often repeated it—he has been a faithful ally to us ;
and I believe'also that upon any great question which may
arise his wish is to obtain the concurrence and approbation
of the people of this country." (Hear, hear.) Now I don't
blame the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) for having ex-
horted the people to arm. and for creating, and, if I may so
speak, exasperating the excitement which has been occa-
sioned. But I say that while the speech of the noble lord
was a speech exactly of that character which required the
observations and condemnation which the noble lord (Lord
J. Russell) gave in the paragraph I have just read, what
can be more extraordinary than the course of the Govern-
ment on that occasion ? Both the noble lords on that occa-
sion objected to my policy of a commercial treaty. Well,
immediately afterwards, very wisely, they made a commer-
cial treaty. But at the same time, after declaring with
unanimous consent their confidence in the good intentions
not only of the French people, but of the French Emperor,
yet from that time to this they have been doing all they can
to arm against him as if he were an enemy. Therefore, as
things go by contraries, they did that which they condemned
in the case of the treaty, they have very wisely taken apolicy
with regard to that question wholly in opposition to that
which we should expect from the observations they made in
their speeches. What have, they done during the s,essiesis
and winter? I am not going to quibble with the committee
about a fort more or a fort less. lam speaking now upon
the great policy the Government are pursuing, and which
they are constantly asking Parliament to unite with them
in pursuing. Very soon after they came into office, that
unfortunate transaction happened in China. They imme-
diately entered into partnership with the Emperor for the
purpose of restoring—l think they called it—the prestige
of English arms in the Chinese waters. They invite the
French Emperor to send a large force to the East. I should
have thought that it was the object of the English Govern-
ment, having, as they say, great influence in the East,
partly political and partly commercial, not to invite any of
the European forces to send forces into that quarter of the
world. But they invited the French Emperor to send
forces to the East ; they sent an hon. friend of mine for the
purpose of negotiating a great treaty of amity, and at the
same time they arm yith the greatest vigilance and energy
against the very man with whom they are in such intimate
alliance in the East, and with whom they are negotiating a
treaty of amity at home. I say nothing can be more grossly
inconsistent, more hypocritical and insulting at once to the
people of England and to the people of France. Let us take
a short and impartial review of the transactions whic=h have
taken place between this country and France ':thin the
last few years; and I tell the committee frankly that I use
the same language, and I feel the same sentiments as I
should if it was not a Bonaparte, but Louis Philippe, who
was at this moment on the throne of France. When the
republic was overthrown the news was received almost with
acclamation by many members of this house, and especially
those on the other side. The noble lord at the head of
the Government rushed with hat haste to congratulate
the Emperor of the French, then the president of the
republic, upon what had taken place. He applauded
it, he supperted it, and ho gave all the support
that could be given in this country to that act and
to that policy. In 1853 the Government of this country
broke with Russia, and dissolved an alliance of long dura-
tion. They entered into a new alliance with France, for
purposes connected with what was called the Oriental ques-
tion. In 1854 they declared war against Russia, in alliance
with France. I recollect the noble lord at the head of the
Government at that time telling us that extraordinary har-
mony existed between the Governments of France and Eng-
land. He used this expression—" In point of fact, there is
but one Government and one Cabinet." So united were
they together,:that.some people said the union was too hot to
last. In 1856 there came the termination of the war—a war-
into which people said the noble lord and his colleagues had
dragged the Emperor of the French, and that the Emperor
of the French dragged us out of it. That I believe was not
denied. (Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Well,
I understand many hon. gentlemen opposite, and many
others, thought that the peace was made too soon. (Hear,
hear.) In the autumn of 1856—1 want to show how closely
we have been allied, and, therefore, how false must be our
conduct, whether in our alliance or in our armaments—we
had a joint quarrel with Naples, and both France and Eng-
land withdrew their Ministers from that country. In 1857
we had the China war again, and we were united in opera-
tions there. In 1859 we had the Italian war, and the
opinion of Europe was entirely against Austria, and the
English policy was supported by the French arms. Then
we come to the peace of Villafranca, and English policy has
I since prevailed in Italy. It must be obvious to everybody
that the course which the Emperor marked out for himself
at that peace has not been followed. But the policy of the
noble lord at the head of the Foreign-office has been fol-
lowed in Italy ; and state after state, Parma, Modena, Tus-
cany, and the Legations, have been added to Sardinia, con-
trary to the wish of the Emperor of the French. Well,
that does not show that the Emperor of the French was
hostile to this country, but rather that he endeavoured in
everything he could to meet the views of the English Go-
vernment and to carry out a policy in accordance, to a large
extent, with the policy of England. I will not go into that
question of Savoy which our Government endeavoured to
make a great question, but which all Europe was unani-'
mous in deciding was a very small question. But, big or
little, the English Government knew the conditions on
which Savoy was to be annexed to France. (Hear.) They
insisted on the conditions of the cession of certain slates to
Sardinia, and they thought they could prevail on the Em-
peror to give up the annexation of Savoy. (Hear.) But it
was folly to expect that, after a monarch 'had carried on a
war, and had been successful in it, he could surrender every
portion of his policy. He allowed you to make the annexa-
tion to Sardinia, but he did not allow you to frighten him
from the annexation of a petty province to his empire.
Well now we have this question of Syria, in regard to which
the noble lord gave us the other night a frank and proper
explanation, as far as we knows' anything about it, and it
led to this conlcusion, that the Emperor of the French had
behaved with the greatest possible moderation and frank-
ness towards the English Government. , (" Hear," from
Lord J. Russell.) The noble lord assents to that—that
the first thing he did when the necessity of intervention
presented itself to his mind, was to ask the counsel and con-
currence of the Government of England. That doe's not
show any hostility or treachery, or any anxiety to aggran-
dise himself, or to take a position isolated and independ Ant
in the affairs of Europe. Then I say, that being so, it
Would be but fair that we should act as if we thought there

was in his conduct that which was sincere and honourable

;o this country. And now, sir, we have got a stronger

proof in that vary commercial treaty, of which some persons
affect to think lightly, but which all those who are con-

netted with commerce with France believe to be the most
important measure of peace and commerce which has
ever taken place between these two• nations. That
treaty has its friends and its foes ; but the foes of that
treaty, in my opinion, if they understand its provisions
and its probable effect, are the foes of peace and the foes
of the two nations between whom that treaty has been
negotiated. I say that those who write in the city apparently
to embroil two nations who are not Bonapartists, but more
likely Orleanists—constantly attack the treaty, althoUgh
there is not a single deputation from the trades of England
who have been before the joint commission which has not
returned, not only satisfied, but delighted with the opening
prospects of trade in all its branches between the two coun-
tries. I said I should make an observation on the noble lord's
speech, but it will be very light. I say the noble lord might
himself have brought forward this very proposition—a pro-
position I entirely condemn—but he might have brought it
forward in a manner much less injurious than that which he
adopted. Ido not believe that the gentlemen sitting *ith
the noble lord can approve of that language, and I am sure
that the great body of the members in this house do not. I
have never heard from any person outside this house any
opinion but one of regret that the noble lord should have
used language calculated to produce a panic in England,
and to create excitement and distrust, and it may be passion,
in France. Now I shall ask the house one question before
I sit down, namely, whether this expenditure which we are
now discussing is to be without limit, and whether the
house, contrary to the opinion of all men who have ever sat
as representatives of a nation, is of opinion that it does
not much matter how much money we throw away in mili-
tary expenses every year ? How has this change come
about? From the year 1853, when the floodgates of pas-
sion were thrown wide, to the present time, the Exchequer
has been open, and every man, it appears, is allowed to put
his hand into it, and spend just as much as he likes. Up
to that time it was boasted that the reign of Queen Victoria
was to be a reign of peace. We were told that—
" No war, or battle sound,
Was heard the world around—
The idle spear and shield were high up hung."

But since then the court seems to have its occupation In
connexion with military affairs—reviews in Hyde-park, re-
views at Aldershott, shooting-matches on Wimbledon-
common—all these are occupations which for a long time
have been foreign to the English court, and for which, I
believe in my conscience, there is not a particle of justifica-
tion at the moment at which lam speaking (Hear, hear.)
The people are stimulated to arm ; the Cabinet is constantly
devising new means of expenditure ; and all this appears to
be based upon the ignorance of the people, the clamours of
the services, and the want of courage in the Cabinet to
speak the real truth to the nation. (Hear.) There was
one of the Ministers of Queen. Elizabeth who once declared
that England would never be undone except by a Parlia-
liament, and I fear the course we are taking in our utter
negligence of matters, with regard to matters to which I
have alluded, and with reference to our expenditure, is
tending to that which we understood to be the undoing of
a nation. You are told, at this moment, after £30,000,000
have been voted for the service of the country, that you are
not safe. You are told that in another year, not in case of
war, but in a time of peace, you will see votes still higher ;
you have voted this year for all the services of the Govern-
ment, and for the payment of the debt, a sum exceeding.
£73,000,000 sterling. My' hon. friend the member for
Lambeth has devoted much time in calling the attention of
the house to this extravagance; but altogether I am eorry
to say, without effect. But suppose you were to place all
this taxation upon the persons who have £lOO a year and
more, that is, upon the income taxpayers, it would actually
absorb and extract about one-third of the whole income of
all the people of the United Kingdom, because if a penny
piece gives £1,000,000 of income tax, £73,000,000 would re-
quire 73 pence in the £l, or 6s. id. of income tax ; and
therefore within a little, it would be one-third of the whole
income, and consequently of the whole property of the
population of the United Kingdom having an income of
£lOO a year and upwards, which you take 2:om them and
give to somebody else. You put it into the Exchequer, of
which the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxford
University holds the key—which has been rifled from day
to day and from session to session against his will, and he
has no power probably to withstand it.—[An HON.
MEMBER--Why does he hold the key ?] The hon. gentle-
man asks me why the right hon. gentleman holds thekey ?
Perhaps he is one of those hon. gentlemen who wish to hold
the key themselves. (Laughter.) I should be very glad to
see him surrender the key, if anybody with a firmer hand
will hold it in his place. But there is a country where Eng-
lishmen live, and where this does notitake place. I saw a
speech of wonderful power delivered by Mr. Everett in the
United States, which was an answer to a speech made in
another place attacking American institutions. Mr. Everett
stated that the next coming census would show a population
in the United States of about 32,000,000 of souls. That is
more than the Census of next year will show for the popu-
lation of the United Kingdom, and yet the whole expenses
of the government at Washington, including the govern-
ment of 33 separate states, werenot more than.. 12,000,000
sterling. I ask any hon. gentleman who has the slightest
knowledge of legislat!on or government to say whether it is
possible to continue to raise from the people of this country
£60,000,000 sterling of taxes, being far more than an equal
population is called upon to pay in the United States ; and
that we can go on with safety to our institutions, or that the
people can bear the strain of that enormous pressure.
(Hear.) France inky be our enemy. I do not believe she is.
(Hear, hear.) There may be enemies abroad, but I find no-
body who can point them out. I can, however, point to an
enemy at home, and that is thisunsound, this wicked policy
which requires you to abstract from the labour and indus-
try of the people this enormous, incredible, and ruinous sum
from year to year. (Cheers.) What is the result in every
other country ? If somebody had told the Minister of Louis
XIV. that his extravagance would end in ruin to France,
he would be answered, as I shall be answered, that the
country is rich enough, the glory of France is worth
more than your sordid considerations' of pounds, shil-
lings, and pence. France must keep a great position in
Europe; there is no burden which France will
not easily by its elasticity raise itself under and support.
But have we not seen his family exiled, the aristocracy of
his country overthrown, and another branch of his family
banished from the throne. Have we not seen his country
reduced to ruin and anarchy ? And if we pursue the same
course, has not history written the same lesson for other
countries as for France ? There is no path so easy, so slip-
pery as that we are now following, if year after year these
enormous expenses continue, until the time will come when
some voice throughout the country will ask who has de-
ceived them, and then you will have to pay the penalty
which all men in authority must pay when they have not
discharged the duties which belong to their station. It is
because I believe that this course of policy will lead to these
results that I oppose with all my heart the resolution of the
noble lord, and in doing so I feel the strongest conviction
in my conscience that I am doing what is best not more for
the people of whom I am ene, than to the monarchy under
which I live. (Great cheering.)
Mr. NE WDE GATE asked why the speech of Mr. Bright
had been made ? Was his sole object economy ? He told
them not ; for he said that it was the policy as well as the
expenditure of the Government that he opposed. That po-
Hey was to maintain good relations with France, and at the
same time to provide for our own defence. That was the
policy which the hon. gentleman opposed. In his recent
letter the French Emperor declared his anxiety to remain
on friendly terms with this country, but ho admitted that in
undertaking the expedition to the East, he had acted only in
accordance with the general feeling of France. But might
not that feeling be excited in favour of other expeditions ?
The inference from the whole speech of Mr. Bright was,
that he was jealous of England standing in a position of in-
dependence towards France, and wished to excite the feel-
ings of the people against the Government for the course
they were now pursuing. He had talked of our most emi-
nent military authorities as a collection of lunatics. His
object either was to vex and delude the public or to prevent
this country from assuming a position of independende.
Sir F. GOLDSMID said there was reason to believe that
some of the works proposed were not necessary. The total
cost of those works would not be confined to the mere con-
struction, but would involve a large annual expenditure for
manning. No case had been made out for any of the land
works, except perhaps at Portsmouth. The paper laid before
the house last Friday showed that the Government them-
selves did not concur in the recommendations of the com-
missioners as to the land defences. Of works recommended
to the extent of eight millions, the Government only pro-
posed the commeneement of works of about four millions.
He hoped the Government would reconsider the matter in
regard to the other works. It was clear that the commis •
sioners had approached the subject with an exaggerated fear
of invasion. In the third paragraph of their report they
stated that if our fleet lost for a time the command of the
Channel our insular position would be a disadvantage for
purposes of defence. This was a most extraordinary conclu-
sion, in which few persons would be disposed to follow the
commissioners. They had greatly underrated the import-
ance of railways and telegraphs, which would be found
most valuable auxiliaries in the event of an invasion. He
did not believe that the French Government would ever un-
dertake an invasion for the purpose of destroying our dock-
yards. They would have to consider the probabilities of sue-
cess, and the serious injury to themselves in the event of
failure. The commissioners had estimated ho additional
cost of manning at £68,000 or £70,000. This was clearly an
under-estimate, and was so regarded by the committee of
the Horse Guards, who stated that a considerable number
of additional troops would be required. Probably not less
than 15,000 additional men would be necessary. The annual
cost of these, at £65 per man, with the proposed cost of the
works, would be equivalent to contracting a loan of 30
millions.

Lord R. MONTAGU said that the extracts from letters
read by the hon. member for Birmingham really proved
nothing. Nor did his sneers at ministers ani lords. Pro-
bably the hon. member, if he had the chance of becoming
one himself, would not sneer at either lords or millionaires.
(A laugh.) The recurrence of panics proved that we were
not safe, and even if an invasion were not possible, the Go-
vernment ought to take the course they now proposed. On
the question of probability of invasion the Government