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

was in his conduct that which was sincere and honourable
to this country. And now, sir, we have got a stronger
proof in that very commercial treaty, of which some persons
affect to think lightly, but which all those who are con-
nected 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 with
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 refer ence 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 sorry
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 incomelax, £73,000,000 would re-
quire 73 pence in the £l, or 6s. ld. 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 haring an income of
£lOO a year and upwards, which you take 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 pace. lint there is a country where Eng-
lishmen live, and where this does not take 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, were not more than £12,000,000
sterling. I ask any hon. gentleman who has the slightest
knowledge of legislation 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 ge on with safety to our institutions, or that the
people can bear the strain of that enormous pressure.
(Hear.) France may 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 one, than to the monarchy under
which I live. (Great cheering.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE askedwhy 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-
licy was to maintain good relations with France, and at the
same time to provide for our own defense. That was the
policy which the hon. gentleman opposed. In his recent
letter the French Emperor declared Ns anxiety to remain
on friendly terms with this country, but he 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 independence.
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 comrneneement 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 -
sifters 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 bo 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 suc-

cess, and the serious injury to themselves in the event o f
failure. The commissioners had estimated tke additions it

cost of manning at £68,000 or £70,000. This was clearly'rert

under-estimate, and was so regarded by the committee, of
the Horse Guards, who stated that a considerable nu-Jiber
of additidnal troops would be required. Probably nct le%s
than 15,003 additional men would be necessary. The annus 1

cost of these, at ce6s per man, with the proposed cost of the
works, would be equivalent to contracting a loan of 30
millions.

Lord It. MONTAGU said that the extracts from letters
read by hon. member for Birmingham really proved
nothing. Nor did his sneers at ministers and lords. Pro-
bably the hon. member, if he had the chance of beco ming
one himself, would not sneer at either lords or millions sires.:
(A laugh.) The recurrence of panics proved that .w• i were
not safe, and even if an invasion were not possible, f he Go-
vernment ought to take the course they now proper Jed. On
the question of probability of invasion the G-0, fprnmeut