The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-12 00:00:00

levying upon them taxes for which there is not the smallest
necessity. My hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) blamed the Go-
vernment and the house for this, but said he blamed the
country also, because the country had been alarmed. But
ho knows perfectly well that what is called the country
must necessarily take its opinions at second hand. Manu-
facturers, farmers, professional in3n, shopkeepers, artisans,
and labourers do not con over these blue-books of ours and
read the accounts minutely given in the French votes.
They know very little of this. They take their opinions
from what is stated in this house and in the public press.
And, of course, when there aro men in the high position of
the noble lord at the head of the Government and others as-
sociated with h'm, who have been in the sery ice of the coun-
try for 20, 30, or 40 years, it is reasonable that the opinions
which they express and the statements which are made in
their hearing, but which they do not take the trouble to con-
tradict, should sinkinto the minds of the people and become
with them a fixed belief, although founded upon no know-
ledge whatever. I have never heard the noble lord at the head
of the Government or any of his colleagues make a distinct
statement. They don't condescend to particularize on this
matter, but allow these alarms to exist and these asser-
tions to circulate throughout the country. They make
use of them for the purpose of seizing on a time of popular
delusion to add to the navy and to the expenditure of the
country. Instead of that, if they were to tell the people
the truth, which they know, which I know that they know,
which to my certain knowledge their own officers send to
them from Paris, they might have saved millions during
the last few years. There is not a man in Paris, whethar
Bonapartist, Orleanist, or Republican, who does not en-
tirely disbelieve and disavow all the statements made in
this house and in this country as to the gigantic naval pre-
parations of France, and the disposition of its Government
towards England. My hon. friend the member for Stirling
called attention the other night to the public expenditure in
connection with the present condition of the country—but
it does not seem to affect the votes in the least degree. The
diminution in the Estimates is altogether trifling. Every-
body admits that you should not build any more wooden
ships—yet a large sum is taken for timber, of which you
have already great quantities in stock, that in all probabi-
lity will never be necessary. Surely, after what was done
in consequence of the panic, excited when the right hon.
menber for Droitwich was at the Admiralty, and consider-
ing that this is a time of peculiar pressure, when a general
discontent is arising in different parts of the country at this
enormous expenditure, the Government might easily have
reduced the Military Estimates of the year by four or five
millions! And I don't believe there is a man in the king-
dom with the slightest knowledge of politics who would
imagine that we were not quite as safe as we shall be when
all this money has been voted. The noble lord at the head
of the Government has disappointed the country and those
who usually support him in this house in some things,
but, seeing how little necessity there has been for our in-
terference by force in Europo during the last few years,
when a war of very considerable magnitude has prevailed,
surely he might have concluded that there was no likeli-
hood of our interference this year or the next, and might
with credit to his Government and satisfaction to the
country have touched these estimstes with a bolder hand,
and given his Chancellor of the Exchequer the means of
making some amends in his budget to a heavily taxed
nation for the other failures and shortcomings of the Ad-
ministration. (Hear.)

Lord PALMERSTON.—The hon. member who has just
sat down says it is remarkable how much hon. gentlemen
who pass to these benches from other parts of this house are
apt to change the opinions they may have previously enter-
tained on matters of fact. Now, that is perfectly true, and
it arises from this simple circumstance, that those who
speak on such subjects in other parts of the house are fre-
giuently uninformed as to the facts on which their opinions
are based—(hear, hear)—and that when they come to this
bench and know the real state of things in a greater degree
than before their views change with the change of their in-
formation. Why, so natural is that that if the hon. gentle-
man himself were to come and sit here among us, and be-
come acquainted with all those details on which alone an
opinioh can properly be founded, and if he were, moreover,
charged with that responsibility from which he is at pre-
sent free—(hear, hear)—l should not at all despair, know-
ing the power of his mind and the accuracy of his observa-
tion when the facts of any case are fully before him, of
finding him one of the stoutest advocates for good naval
and military establishments, quite adequate to defend the
country from any attack to which it might be liable.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The hon. member says we are
highly culpable for sitting still and not contradicting asser-
tions which we know to be erroneous. Well, I don't wishto
be any longer subject to that reproach ; and therefore I rise
to contradict the hon. gentleman's own erroneous assertions
—(laughter and cheers)—as well as those of the hon. mem-
bers for Montrose and Sunderland. Those gentlemen came
here propounding opinions based on extracts from some
newspaper or other. I really think it was a Scotch news-
paper that one hon. member quoted. (A laugh.) They re-
count to us what they were told by friends whom they met
at Paris, and they repeat the denials given there by persons
excessively interested in misleading public opinion here—
(hear)—and making us all believe that nothing can be more
harmless than all the military and naval preparations of
France. Why, these gentlemen come here like the Trojan.
horse in order to deceive us as to the real possibility of dan-
ger to which we might he exposed. I say, " Equo ne credit e
Teucri." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) How inconsistent is
the argument of the hon. member for Sunderland to-night
with what we heard him not long ago state in
the broadest possible terms I Why, he gave us
an account of his conversation with the Minister
of Marine in France, who endeavoured to persuade
him that France hid no navy at all—(No, no)—or only a
very small one, when my hon. friend, like an Englishman,
stoutly told the French Minister, and if I mistake not also
told the French Emperor; that,, whatever the French navy
might be, England ought to have, and England would
have, double that amount of force. (Hear, hear) He said,
" It is of no use for you to go on increasing your navy, be-
cause if you think that by that means you can get i. supe-
riority I tell you you are totally mistaken ; for, whatever
sacrifice may b 3 necessary for the purpose, we are deter-
mined to have double what you may have." (Hear, hear.)
But my lion friend to-night makes it an accusation against
her Majesty's Government that we happen to have, ac-
cording to his own statement, not quite double the amount
of the French force, because he states that the French have
75 ships of a particular kind, while we have 140. There-
fore we have hardly yet come up to his own standard of
what we ought to have in comparison with the French
navy. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Really, Sir, it is shut-
ting one's eyes against notorious facts, to go on contending
that the policy of Franco—of which I certainly do not now
complain--has not for a great length of time been to get up
a navy which shall be equal, if not superior to our own.
(Hear, hear, and No.) Why, everybody knows more or
less the result of that elaborate work L'Enquete Parleinen-
faire, published some years ago, and which studiously and
laboriously aimed to inculcate that policy on the French
Government, An instance of the way in which my hon
friend the member for Sunderland has been misled by the
recent communications he had at Paris is this :—He says
there wore 16 innocent mail packets built expressly for the
passage between France and America, and these vessels net
being wanted for the purpose for which they had been des-
tined, the French Government knew not what else to do
with them except to add them to its navy, although they
were just as fit for warlike purposes as any of the Cunard
line. Now, I happen to know something about these 16
steamers, because I was at the Foreign-office at the time
they were constructed, and we understood perfectly well
that they were built for the purposes of war—that it was
a mere sham to say they were Transatlantic packets. (Hear.)
`Well, it soon turned out as we foresaw when we heard of
their construction. By a stroke of the pen they were all one
fine day added to the warlike navy of France, and the pre-
tence of their bring intended for the Transatlantic commu-
nication was henceforth entirely at an end. (Hear, hear.)
Therefore, I say that as regards ships the French navy has
been'tonsiderably increased; and we have hardly yet that
double proportion. which my hon. friend admits we ought to
possess; and we ought to possess it for this plainest of all
reasons—the French have very few colonial establishments.
My hon. friend said their commerce is falling off, and there-
fore they have smaller interests to protect at distant stations.
The hon. member for Portsmouth described how they are
acquiring naval and military positions in different parts of
the world where we have only commercial relations. (Hear.)
By those means, in the event of any unfortunate difference
between the two countries, the French forces would be on
the spot and able to interrupt in the most serious manner all
our extensive commercial operations. And at these stations
they now have a naval force superior to ours. (Hear, hear.)
On the other hand, we are obliged to scatter our naval force
over every quarter of the globe. If we did not do so, and
any interest should unfortunately suffer for want of pro-
tection, I ask who would be blamed for the damage and
disaster caused by the neglect ? (Hear, hear.) lam really
sorry to be discussing the possibility of feelings of hostility
between two countries that, I hope, will long remain friends
—(hear, hear)—but it is with the object of impressing on
the house and on the country that there is no possibility of
peace and friendship between two wealthy and powerful na-
tions unless each is on such a footing as to its defences that
neither may invite attack by the other. (Cheers.) France,
for her own defensive purposes, has no reason for scattering
her naval force widely over the globe ; and whatever navy
she has she can concentrate it almost all, at the commence-
ment of a war, either on her own coast or on any given
point, for an attack, either in the Mediterranean or on
these islands. (Hear, hoar.) Now as to the number of
men. France has 34,000 in her naval service now, and in
a few months about 50,000 more can be added to that num-
ber. But then, it is said, to do that France must take into
her navy all the fishermen of her coast, all her mercantile
seamen, all her sea-faring men of every kind; and why
should she not do so ? (Hear, hear.) If a war took place
she would naturally call on all her mercantile seamen.
They:would he of no use at sea for commercial purposes;
she would take all within her reach, and put them
into her war navy, to attack your commerce. It is no argu-
ment whatever to say that, to obtain the additional 50,000
men, it would lie nucc:::,ary to take all her mercantile i.opu. •
lation into the navy, because thatis just what France would
do—(hear, hear)—and ought to do. (Hear, hear.) And
her power of doing that with facility should never be over-
i
looked, We have not the same means, because our nstt-