The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-30 00:00:00

than the French had done. The French had been convert-

ing, and not building, so that they now possessed fewer

sailing vessels by 114. than they did in, 135.2,1 whilst we had
nearly the same Lumber of saiiiiieveSseli now as we had

hen. Taking then the whole force of sailing vessels and steam

ships together, he found that in 1852 the English navy had
475 vessels, and in 1853 it had no fewer than 760 vessels,
showing an increase of 285 in six years. On the other hand,
the French in 1352 had, of steamers and sailing vessels to-

gether, 380, and in 1858 they had 408, showing an increase
of only 28. This great increase of the French navy, which
had been so much talked of, amounted to just 28 vessels—
whereas the increase of the English navy in the same period
amounted to 285 vessels. Really, when he saw these figures

be almost doubted whether there was not some mistake abut
them, until they were corroborated by persons more conver-

sant with the matter than he himself was. But if it were

true that we had now 760 ships of war against the French

408, and if the augmentation of our navy had been 285
against the French 28 in a period of six years, what became
then of those gigantic !preparations for an attack upon

our naval power at which the right hon. gentleman
was so much terrified. (Hear, hear.) Now, he observed in
the comparisons which had been publicly made of English

and French navies, one omission, and he must say it was an
uncandid omission—that of the corvettes and other small
vessels of war. He was told by the wisest heads both here
and in America, that those large line-of-battle ships, upon
which were now pluming ourselves as our sole defence,

would in a case of war be found to be mere slaughterhouses

He did not pretend to offer this as his own opinion.

knew that it was acted upon in America, where the United

States Government had not laid down one line-of-battle

ship, and did not intend to do so, confining their navy alto-
gether to those long, low vessels, the corvettes, of a tonnage
_ _ _

equal to our severty-fours. The argument he had heard
was that, if we put a thousand men into a line-of-battle
ship, with 30 tons or 40 tons of gunpowder below them, and
exposed that great ship, a most conspicuous target, to the
fire of such missiles as were now contrived to be discharged
from the kind of guns at present in use or in preparation,
we should really be providing a mere slaughterhouse for
those men. (Hear, hear.) This idea was corroborated by
one passage of the report he had quoted, in which, speak-
ing of the iron-sided ships under construction, it was re-

marked that they were expected in France to supersede
line-of-battle ships ; that no more of these would be laid
down, and that in ten years that class of vessels would be-
come obsolete. Now the point he would call attention to
was this. With the rapid progress of discovery and im-

provement now both in the building of ships, and in gun
nery, was it not apparent that we should be subjected to a
great and constant increase of expenditure in substituting
one kind of ship and gun for another ? This novel state of
things must be the cause of endless expense for different
new kinds of armament. Only compare the armaments of
the present day with those in use 20 years ago. He remem-
bered 12 years ago sitting on a committee with respect to
the navy, and at that time there was not a screw line-of-
battle ship in existence; at that time they were think-
ing of having a fleet of paddle-wheel steamers. Now, all
our steamers had the screw. He remembered the time
when it was considered that 32-pounders were the ne plus
ultra of the armament of a ship of war, and we were
just then dispensing with the old carronades by which
Nelson won his battles. Now, a modern ship of war
was armed with sixty-four pounders, and with ninety-
eight pounders carrying hollow shot and shell. The
whole thing had been completely metamorphosed, and so it
might be with regard to the line-of-battle ships. At the
end of this financial year we should have fifty line-of-battle
ships. He was informed by competent judges that they
were a complete mistake, and that in case of war, we had
better put our men and guns into anything rather than a
line-of-battle ship. The impression was now gaining
ground that we should have to alter that system, and 'to
adopt a longer, lower form of ship. This opinion recom-
mended itself to common sense, for we were making im-
provements in gunnery to enable us to throw a shell three
or four miles. It would not be difficult to strike such a
mark as a line-of-battle ship, and if a shell were thrown
into her, causing her to explode, with 800 or 1,000 men on
board of her, and with 30 or 40 tons of powder stored be-
neath them, the destruction would be enormous. He did not
think we had yet got to the limit of these inventions ;
mechanical genius was only now beginning to be directed
to these things, and he observed that in America an im-
proved rifled cannon had just been tested, carrying twice
the distance with the same quantity of powder. He did
not say we should adopt all these inventions, but we should
not have a larger stock on hand than we could help, lest it
should have to be superseded at a great expense by some-
thing different. Now, seeing that by this alarm and panic
about invasion we did not mend our situation, he asked
could we not find some better way to remedy the evil ?
Could not reason and common sense be brought to bear
upon it ? What was it that we were afraid of ? It was said
that we were afraid of France, for no one said anything
about America ; no one pretended to be afraid of Holland
or Spain ; and as for Russia, since we had destroyed her
fleet in the Black Sea, Lnd limited her future armament
there, he had not expected to hear anything more of that.
It was obvious that wo were only alarmed at France, and in
that case the question they ought to ask was, " is our Go-
vernment, after all, on friendly terms with that of the Em-
peror ?" (llear.) lie had heard his noble friend (Lord J.
Russell) declare that he had the most perfect confidence in
the Emperor's loyalty, good faith, and fidelity. Now was
that true, or was it not ? That the country did not believe
it was true was certain—(cheers)--and the reason was this,
while the Government were telling us that they had confi-
dence in the Emperor they presented us with a bill of four
or five millions for the increase of our armaments to protect
us against him. He (Mr. Cobden) could imagine nothing
more perilous, and he must tell the house he had come to the
conclusion that we really were in danger of a war with
France. He had of late observed quite an altered tone in
the way in which men spoke about the matter. He heard
them beginning to say that we had better fight it out ; and
they argued very intelligibly. They said, "If while the
Government is telling us that they have perfect confidence
in the Emperor they indrease our armaments and add 4d.
to the income tax, which they require us to pay in October
—if all this goes on when there is no quarrel, when there is
nothing to explain and nothing to remove out of the way,
where is it all to end ? Surely we had better have a war,
destroy the French fleet, and start afresh." Apart from
the question of humanity, which, however, he should be
sorry to put for one moment out of:his sight, there was no
logical answer to this line of argument. It was a great
misfortune, but we were drifting towards that point, for the
English people were beginning to get reconciled to the pos-
sibility, nay to the inevitableness of a war with our neigh-
bours. (Hear, hear.) He did not say that it was the fault
of this Government or that Government, or of the Govern-
ment of France ; but amongst all those Governments the
responsibility must lie. We all knew the amity which the
two Governin:'nts had long expressed for each other; we
had heard of our Sovereign going over to France and em-
bracing its ruler in a bathing machine—(laughter)—and of
ths French Emperor coming over to England and receiving
courtesies and honours at Windsor. But was there, with
all this, no forbearance, no honesty, no desire to come to a
proper understanding ? It was degrading the policy of one
enlightened and civilised nation towards another below the
conduct of the red Indians in their woods. The Indians
when they had smoked the pipe of peace, buried the hatchet
of war, in token that they did not intend to go on alarming
each other by preparations for hostilities. (Hear, hear )
Yet we, while professing all this apprehension, went on ex-
pressing confidence and even offering adulation to the Em-
peror of the French—of whom if he (Mr. Cobden) had to
speak, he should not have fallen into quite such a strain of
compliment as had been us,ed by the noble lord. (Hear.)
He (Mr. Cobden) feared the separation of Parliament.
because when Parliament was not sitting other organs of
public opinion, which were not always so peaceable as
they were in that house, were left in possession of
the field ; and much more mischief consequently hap-
pened in the recess than in the session. (Hear, hear.) He
wa ; anxious, therefore, that this house should give expres-
sion to the fact that other states of feeling and other views in
Englandexisted than he had seen prevail out of doors for some
time past. (Hear, hear.) Was it impossible in the course
of the friendly communications which were passing between
the two countries to exchange a word of explanation ?
(Cheers.) Had his noble friend, or the noble lord the mem-
ber for London, or the right hon. gentleman opposite, or
Dord Derby, ever exchanged a single word in explanation of
these preparations for war? Let him not be told that those
preparations wci not against :France. Everybody knew
that it was against France that we were preparing. Look at
our facetious publication, Punch, of that very week, and
they would find John Bull was represented grumbling at
having a heavy extra insurance because his next door neigh-
bour—they could not mistake who that meant—was so fond
of fireworks. (Hear, hear.) Look at all our organs of opi-
nion—look at the Edinburgh, at the Quarterly, and at all
the newspapers, from the nines downwards, and they would
find them all possessed with the threats of an invasion. He
had been so struck with a paragraph in the letter of one of
" our own correspondents" at Paris that he had cut it out
and brought it down with him to the house. The writer
stated that, " at Toulon, notwithstanding the peace, appli-
cations for leave of absence had been stopped ; the men-of-
war's men were armed with tomahawks and boarding Pikes,
and a war with England was considered imminent." He
(Mr. Cobden) only wondered that the writer did not add
that the men were supplied with scalping knives as well as
tomahawks. (Laughter.) He hoped that the country
would not fall into a false security engendered by the old
Latin maxim which said that if you would preserve yourself
in'peace be prepared for war. No one could really think
that that old saw had any application in these times. Look
at the great military powers ; look at France, at Austria,
at Russia. lied they not all been at war, and coul I any
one doubt that the reason was to be sought in their great
standing armies ? (Cheers.) An honourable member talked
of fifty line-of-battle ships; but they had all read the
statement in the Edinburgh, showing that in point of ton-
nage and weight of metal thrown by our guns, our naval
f ,ice now exceeded that which we possessed in 1809, when
we were at the very height of the war; and they did not
think there was some danger of our falling into what had
been described by Lord Aberdeen as a desire to test the effi-
ciency of our great warlike preparations? (Cheers.) Was
there net dangir that something might happen in Egypt
or elsewhere, and that we might find ourselves after all in
that state in which we had all at least dreamt we should
never again fail—plunged into a war with our next door
neighbour ? What proof had we that France wished to in-
vade us ? What overt act had the Government of France
or the French pcopl in any collective capacity ever com-
u'as
constantlyinvo
flatted to warrant such suspicion ? Recollect it was not
against a war with France that we were nicking these pre-
parations, but against an invasion. Englishmen never fell
into such a panic before ; and it was surprising that they
lveasds inurniitn. g ha) ‘tv
dwied
jnotjke seetil
etVreiiiiresluilttetlbmetNsvheouinlil_
tended to invade them without warning? (Hear.) He
should perhaps be told that the Emperor had attacked Aus-
tria. Ile (Mr. Cobden) was the last man will would wish
to see two neighbouring powers going to war for any con-
ceivable purpose whatever, feeling certain as he did that
there was no rational object to be gained by hostilities that
could not be equally gained without them ; at the same time
he must remind the house that in the late war the feeling
of all the world was in favour of France and against Aus-
tria. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of any or-

ganised Government, but the Austrian rule in Italy had,
nevertheless, been universally considered as the standing
nuisance of Europe ever since it had been established.
(Hear.) It was, however, ti very different thing to go and

help a 'discontented people, and to go and invade a nation
that was at peace with them. Moreover, we were their best
customers. The exports of France to this country were greater
than to any other country in the world ; and we were thus
their best friend. We were told that they wanted to come
and plunder the Bank of England ; but the Bank of France
always contained a far greater amount of bullion than our
great national monetary establishment. Then we were told
that they desired to pillage London ; but he did not hesitate

, •-•
to say that there was far more portable wealth in France—
he meant wealth in the shape of jewellery and ornaments—
than in this country. They were a naticn that liked that

sort of thing ; and (hough we might put more capital into a
steam-engine, they spent far more than we did on their orna-
ments. (Hear, hear.) Was it probable that France would
descend from its high station at the head of the civilised

nations of the globe, and fall into the ranks of savages who
were in the habit of making piratical filibustering descents

upon their neighbours ? (Cheers.) Was he to be told that
he was merely one of those peace-men who would rush into
'danger with their eyes shut ? They were far more fanati-
cal about war who overlooked the considerations to which
he had been adverting, than he was fanatical on.the subject
of peace. Were they sure that we had not ourselves pro-
voked all that had happened by our great armaments ? He
(Mr. Cobden) had kept a careful watch over this subject,
and he was by no means prepared to say that we had not
brought the whole difficulty upon ourselves by the steps we
had taken to fortify our coasts, to increase our fleets, and to
create docks for steam ships. Take the works at Keyham,
which had cost £1,500,000. He well remembered that it
was immediately resolved to construct similar works at

Brest or Cherbourg. In 1851 he (Mr. Cobden) moved an
address to the Queen on the subject. That address was so
reasonable that the noble lord did not venture to meet it by
a direct negative, and so he moved the previous question.
The address was to the effect that her Majesty would enter
into negotiations with France with a view to stop the rivalry
between the two countries, and if possible to lead to a rautual
reduction of their armaments. On that occasion he brought
forward evidence to show that the French had increased their
fortifications solely because we had increased ours. France
was a great country, with an extensive seaboard, and she was
therefore entitled to maintain a large navy, but it did not

follow that she should wish to have as large a navy as ours
Indeed, she ought not to haveso large a navy. Nay, more
than that—if he saw any disposition on her part to have as
large a navy as ours, and especially if she did not yield to a
fair explanation, then he should suspect some sinister de-
sign. (Hear, hear.) He would tell the house candidly
that if it came to a rivalry between the two countries, and if
France refused to listen to explanations, he would as cheer-
fully vote £.500,000,000 as £5,000,000 to maintain our mari-
time superiority. (Loud cheers.) And for this reason.
England had no frontier but the sea. England had unfor-
tunately forty or, fifty colonies which had no means of
defence except that naval protection which we afforded
them. Lastly, we had five times the mercantile tonnage of
France ' • for all of which reasons we ought to have a larger
navy. Besides, France was obliged to collect a large army
to guard her frontier, and therefore he did not think she
would refuse at our hands so reasonable an explanation as
this. (Hear.) Tho French had never pretended to com-
pete with us in naval matters. M. Thiers, M. Lamartine,
and other great authorities had laid down the doctrine that
she had no need for so large a navy as we were obliged to
keep. M. Thiers, it was true, said it was necessary that
some power in Europe should keep up a large fleet, in order
to prevent any power from exercising a despotism by sea
but he had never pretended to dispute the right of England
to have a larger fleet than France. But why should we
not have a reduction of our armaments in the same man-
ner as we had had an inciease of them ? The taxpayers of
the country, and especially that quiet but influential portion
of them who possessed fixed incomes, and on whom the 4d.
income tax payable in October would especially press,
would begin to inquire why the navy should be increased at
a cost of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. Mind, he (Mr. Cobden)
did not ask for a disarmament. He did not want our navy
to be reduced till it was as low as the French ; but he
wanted to know why an agreement should not be come to
that where they had two ships we should have-three. Surely
a proposition of that kind might be made between powers
which had such a high opinion of each other's loyalty and
fidelity. We ought to look beyond the circle of European
politics, and think what would be the effect of continued
over-taxation on our relation with the United States. There
could be no doubt that the prosperity of this country would
be very seriously affected if it were called upon to bear un-
necessary burdens. There would be a daily increasing dif-
culty in maintaining our rivalry, and people would be more
and more induced to emigrate. That was not a state
of things which would be at all desirable. It was said
that it would make ns a military people ; but it had
hitherto been our boast that we were not a military
nation, and no one could for a moment suppose that to
alter our character in that respect would conduce to our
prosperity. Look, for example, at the disparity of the sexes
caused by the military system. They took numbers of able-
bodied .young men and sent them abroad or shut them up
in barracks; and that, joined to the effects of emigration,
was already producing serious results. In 1851 there were
in this country half a million more women than men. He
feared that in 1851 there would be nearer a million ; and
that naturally led to a state of things which was the reverse
of desirable. (Hear.) He trusted that hon. gentlemen would
see that they had far, more at stake in the general prosperity
of the country than in the mere interest of any member of
their families. Let them look at the question in that patriotic
light, and lend their aid in cutting down an expenditure
which at the best was a necessary evil. So far as it was
necesary he would submit to it, but he entreated the house
not to continue any burden upon the people of this country
which they could not defend by the argument of reason and
justice. (The hon. gentleman was loudly cheered.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I am desirous, Sir, before this
discussion closes, to offer some few observations to the
house, and particularly to notice portions of the speech of
the hon. gentleman which we have just heard. The hon.
member, in the early part of his speech, instituted a com-
parison between the strength of the English and French
navies, and made an omission—l have no doubt uninten-
tionally—which destroys much of the value and importance
of his statement in that respect. In drawing that compa-
rison the hon. gentleman adverted to the total number of
screw steamvessels in both navies, and inferred therefrom
that the English navy was stronger than that of France, in
a considerable ratio ; but he altogether omitted from his
estimate of the apparent superiority in point of strength of
the English nary the important fact that no less than 160
or thereabouts of those vessels are gunboats—(hear)—and
therefore vessels of extremely small size, carrying only one
or two guns—(hear, bear)—though no doubt very valuable
for purposes of home defence, for action near the shores, or
in our harbours or rivers. The hon. member for Roch-
dale also commented much on what he called the impolicy
of persevering in the construction of line-of-battle ships,
founding his remarks on his recent experience in the United
States, where he says they have entirely abandoned the
construction of vessels of that calibre, having discovered
that the modern corvettes were more valuable for purposes
of war. I admit there is some truth in that part of the hon.
gentleman's speech ; but I may be allowed to remind him
that we have been told this evening by the Secretary of
State for War that we live in a time when great improve-
ments and changes are being rapidly made in the means
and appliances of war ; and I think the hon. member will
hardly contend that, at such a time, a great nation like
England is to stand still as regards the maintenance of her
armaments. (Hear, hear.) 'lfie thing is impossible; we
must protect our interests. We must in this particular case
establish our armaments as best we may with reference to
the existing state of things ; and I maintain that in the
existing state of things it would be the height of impolicy
and imprudence for England to allow any nation to get
ahead of her in respect to line-of-battle ships. (Hear,
hear.) But I admit that in the course of years that
class of ships • may become less in vogue than they have
been heretofore ; and, feeling uncertain as to what may be
the ultimate importance of line• of-battle ships, it was the
intention of the Board of Admiralty, having once esta-
blished the unquestionable superiority of England in that
respect, to suspend the building of that class of vessels un-
til certain experiments in naval architecture with respect to
iron-bound ships and corvettes should have been fairly
tested. I hope the new Board of Admiralty will adopt a
similar course. The hon. member for Rochdale also alluded
to what he denominated the great panic in this country
with regard to the French. He says he complained of a
panic of that kind seven years ago, and now he has to do
so again. Does the hon. member mean to argue that be-
cause there may be an undue state of alarm in the public
mind in that respect, that therefore we ought to suspend
all preparations for the defence of this country, to trust
entirely to the amicable relations between the two Glevern-
ments, and to take no precautions with a view to our secu-
rity ? (Hear.) I hope that that is not the feeling of the
hon. gentleman, and from one passage in his speech I am
disposed to trust that it is not. I understood him to say,
if he could be once satisfied that the French Government
had ulterior designs against us, and were not disposed to
continue amicable relations with us, he would be ready to
support a vote for £100,000,000, or any other sum, in order
to put the defences of the country on a satisfactory footing
to meet such a state of things. (" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Cobden.) I heard that declaration with sincere pleasure,
and I cannot doubt that the country at large would readily
adopt the same liberal view, should circumstances ever ren-
der it necessary. There is no one less disposed than lam
to say a word that might induce a feeling of anything like
panic ; but in discussing a question of this kind, which has
been so ably brought before us by my right hon. friend the
member for Stroud, I think it linwir to look only to the
French or ta.any one country in particular. (Hear.) There
are other countries to which we ought to look ; and it seems
to ale that the wise and prudent course for this country is,
not to treat this as a comparative question in connexion
with France or Russia, or any country in particular, but as
a positive question, in which we recognize the absolute duty
imposed upon the nation to take care that its means of
defence aro in the state they ought to be, having due regard
always to the degree of preparation in countries abroad,
It has been said by the Secretary for War that we are en-
gaged in these efforts not from jealousy of France or any
other country, but in order to make up a long arrear of
neglect. (Hear, hear.) No doubt that is so. At the end
of the last great European war we fell into a state of false
security. (Hear, hear.) We thought the world would be
at peace for ever, and we allowed our preparations for a state
of war to cease. (Hear, hear.) As has been truly observed,
we have been living on our capital, and now we must incur
the cost of raising those means of defence which in common
prudence we ought not to have neglected for a day. (Hear.)
No one can be more earnest than I am to cultivate peace.
Tie palicy of this country is essentially a policy of peace.
We have no ideas of aggression upon any country. (Hear,
hear.) Our desire, above all, is to cultivate friendly rela-
tions with France. (Hear, hear.) The happ'ness of both
countries and of the world depends on those friendly rela-
tions being maintained, but that is no reason why we are
not to take those precautions that every great nation ought
to take to support its position among the other nations of
the world. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the motion be-
fore t lie house, I cannot but observe that the reference made
to Portland harbour is a very strong point indeed in its
S favour. We have there established, as the ecretary of War
infoimed us, a harbour to which our fleets are now con-
stantly reortirig•; and yet we are told by the right hon.
gvatleinan that this noble harbour is absolutely without
defence, and not only without defence, but wo have been
informed that it will take twenty years to complete the de.
(Hear, hear.) I think The
fences that are necessary.
right hon. the Secretary for War made a very gati4f4otory
statement with regard to the expenditure q the current
vear in so far as the construction of our harbours and the
defences of our arsenals are concerned, for he stated that
the works were going on as rapidly as they could do, and
that, if more money was voted for that purpoae, it Would
be difficult to spend it during the preset Year. So far
the.i newer of the right hon, &emlowall was satisfactory.

But I do not thins he caught up the spirit and scope of the
motion of my right hon. friend (Mr. Horsman), nor did I
understand him to give the house any information as to
the policy of the Government on this question for the
following year. (Hear, hear.) I am sorry that the Sec-
retary for War did not state more distinctly than he did
how far he concurred in the scope and spirit of the light
hon. gentleman's proposal—viz., that a large sum should be
devoted to the speedy construction of our fortifications, ',and
that we should not go on year after year spending driblets
of money, and taking as long as 20 years to complete the
most important of them. (Hear, hear.) I should like to
hear the Government tell us whether they think the spirit
of my right hon. friend's motion is wise and prudent or
not. (Hear, hear.) I confess that I agree with him in
thinking that it is not prudent to go on spending our money
in driblets for these important objects, and that the sooner
the great objects we have in view are accomplished the
better. (Hear, hear.) I would in some degree apply the
same principle to the improvement and strengthening of
our navy. Before Parliament meets again after the proro-
gation, the Government will have to prepare their estimates
for the coming year, and I must be allowed to exprees my
anxious hope that on this subject of strengthening the navy
they will not be content to rest where we are. (Hear.)
The hon. member for Rochdale is mistaken if he thinks

the navy of England is now what it ought to be. (Hear,
hear.) When I brought forward the navy estimates for
this year, though I made large proposals to the house, I
distinctly stated that in the opinion of the late Government
those proposals were not sufficient ; that they should be
extended over at least another year. The opinion of the lath
Government was, that to place the navy of England in the
state in which it ought to be would require an expenditure
of from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000. (Hear, hear.) The pro-
posal which I made on behalf of the Government was, that
for the current year there should be an extra expenditure
for ship building of £1,300,000. I afterwards brought for-
ward a supplementary estimate, which had been proposed
by the present Government, of £400,000 rnore for the con-
struction of sloops and other small vessels—so that the ex-
tra expenditure for shipbuilding purposes I proposed for
the present year amounted to from £1,700,000 to £1,800,000.
(Hear, hear.) No doubt that will effect a great deal, but
I believe that in the following yearthe present Government
ought to propose extra estimates of not less than another.
million. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET would not have troubled the house if it
had not been for the topics touched upon by the hon. mem-
ber for Rochdale. He (Lord C. Paget) thought he had
better show the house what the French had in line-of-
battle ships. They had in commission 20 line-of-bat; le
ships, and they had in reserve 12 line-of-battle ships which
might be put to sea in a few days. From the last infor-
mation received from Brest, it appeared that there were no
less than 3,000 sailors in barracks inside the main fort at
Brest. Those ships, therefore, though not in commission,
were perfectly ready for war if required. The French,
therefore, had 32 line-of-battle ships. We had 26 sail of
the line in commission and nine blockshipi, so that we were
nearly equal. But, in addition to the French fleet, there
was Russia, which was also making great progress. Russia
had now 8 screw line-of-battle ships, 6 frigates, 4 paddle-
frigates, 9 corvettes, 75 gunboats, 1 transport, and 18 small
steamers. That was a very respectable force, and therefore,
without agreeing to the proposition of adding a million or
two to our estimates every year, or, on the other hand, to
that of the hon. member for Rochdale—of cutting our navy
estimates down to £5,000,000, we might safely follow an
intermediate course.

Mr. BENTINCK observed that the real difficulty under
which we laboured was the manning of our ships, and not
so much the number of the ships themselves. That was
the great point to which attention should be directed, for,
without success in that, all our vast naval expenditure was
useless. His anticipations 'as to the result of his question
had been fully realised, for he had elicited very little infor-
mation, and he hoped the house would support the motion
of the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud. It was
nothing short of national insanity to leave our navy in an
ineffective state; and he hoped no opportunity would be
lost of urging a vigorous policy upon the Government,
without which we may one day have to witness the tread
of a hostile force upon our shores. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the only policy for Eng--
land to follow was to be prepared for attack, for, without
attributing any ill-faith to the Emperor of the French, it
was impossible to feel secure against a nation so fond of
military glory, and in which changes were so frequently
occurring.
Lord H. VANE; hoped that his right hon. friend the
member for Stroud would not go to a division, for he had
elicited an opinion on the part of the house in accordance
with his views. He thought it would not be necessary to
show distrust of France, but it was evidently necessary that
we should plaCe our country in an efficient state of defence,
and that without regard to the armaments of France.
Lord PALMERSTON—I imagine that my right hon.
friend must have accomplished in the course of this debate
the purpose which he had, which I suppose to have been a
desire to impress on the house by his own remarks the great
necessity of speed in completing those fortifications which are
essential for the safety and defence of our naval establish-
ments, our dockyards ; and also to impress on the house the
fact that the measures requisite for the permanent defence
of the country, whether connected with our naval or mili-
tary establishments, are measures which indicate no desire
on the part of the country for war, and measures which can
give no umbrage to any foreign power whatever—measures
which indicate no jealousy of any particular power, but are
founded on the common sense principle that a nation which
is desirous of peace must be able to show the world that it
is able to defend itself against any attack. (Hear, hear.)
Well, I think the unanimity that has been expressed from
every part of the house sunk be exceedingly gratifying and
satisfactory to my right hon. friend, and I hope that, con-
sidering the particular nature of his motion, and con-
sidering also the particular working of it, that he will be
satisfied with the result which he has now obtained, and
will not press his motion to a division, which would
imply, perhaps, differences of opinion which do not exist
as to the matter of the motion. The motion goes to ex-
press an opinion of the house that some fund should
be provided for the completion of 'their fortified places,
and that that fund should be independent of any vote
of Parliament.' Now it would not, I think, be very expe-
dient for the house to affirm in the abstract that some fund
should be provided unless they point out in what way the
fund is to be raised. It would be a more fitting and more
usual course to wait until the occasion arose when some
specific proposal was suggested for the consideration of the
house, and whatever arrangements might be deemed fitting
I think the house would be of opinion that this expendi
ture, in whatever manner it might be provided, should not
be wholly withdrawn from the annual and periodical super-
vision of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) In the course of the
debate two great branches of our defensive system have been
adverted to, to which my right hon. friend has more pointedly
directed the attention of the house. The first is the comple-
tion of those works which are for the permanent defence of
our naval establishments. There cannot be two opinions on
that point. (Hear.) It is quite obvious that our maritime
power depends on these great dockyards, which are the cra-
dles of our naval power, remaining safe from all attack, and
there are certain fortifications which are necessary. My hon.
and gallant friend the member for Southwark seemed to think
thae it was wholly unnecessary to defend either Ports-
mouth or Plymouth, that it was sufficient to secure them
from an irruption of ships from the sea, and that land de-
fences were totally unnecessary. My hon. and gallant
friend, according to the old theory, thinks there is nothing
like leather. (A laugh.) He thinks that everything turns
upon naval attack and naval defence. But thqse who had
considered the matter withoutsuchprofessional views, must
see it is necessary to provide against land attacks, that a com-
paratively small force might lani in the neighbourhood, and
might by shelling, or by rapid assault, deprive us of the
elements of our naval pqwer. Now, it is quite clear that it is
an object of the very first importance to complete these de-
fences. My noble friend ;the Secretary for the Admiralty
has told the house that soon after our taking office it was
resolved that a commission should be appointed to consider
what were the works requisite to make those defences
efficient. That commission will proceed with its examina-
tion, and I have no doubt that these works will not be very
long in being completed. When we know what are the
works which are necessary and best calculated for the defence
of these various establishments, the expenditure that will be
required for completing them, and what lathe shortest period
within which, if ample funds were provided, the work might
be completed, we shall then be in a condition to make parlia-
ment such proposals as we consider are best adapted to the
security of the country. I should hope that my right hon.
friend will be disposed to leave to the Government any pro-
posal which they may think fit to submit to the considera-
tion of the house. I entirely differ from what fell from my
hon. and gallant friend the member for Southwark, who said
the safety of this country depended entirely on our naval
defences. I estimate as highly as any man can do the great
importance of our naval defences. It is manifest, looking
at our insular position, looking at our various colonies and
foreign possessions which we have to defend looking at
the vast amount of commercial property which we have
continually floating on the ocean—it is plain that we must
have a large naval force, and that without it possibly great
injury might be sustained. But I protest against the doc-
trine that if by any accident we sustained a naval reverse
—that if by any accident the fleets of any other nation had
for a time the command of the Channel by which they were
enabled to land troops in this country, I protest against the
doctrine that this country would then be lost. (Cheers.) I
admit it is necessary to provide the best and most complete
naval defence the science and resources of the country can
supply; but I feel satisfied that,. if by any accident a landing
should be effected on our coasts by a hostile force, there are
on land in this country ample means of repelling the inva-
sion and causing the invaders to rue the hour they sent the
force. Sir, the works we propose are not intended, as some
gentlemen suppose, to prevent any landing on the coast ;
no man would dream of fortifying our coasts so as to
prevent the possibility of an enemy's force making a de-
scent. We know from what we ourselves have accom-
plished, at Alexandria and elsewhere, that a determined
force will always effect a landing in spite of any opposition.
The works, sir, which we propose and which form the sub-
ject of this discussion, are simply for the defence of particu-
lar points and particular dockyards, and for their defence in
case of the descent of a military force we will have at our
command the regiments of the line, the militia regiments, and
the population of the country ; because, although I think
the rifle corps fever in some parts of the country was a sort
of epidemic not likely at the present moment to lead to any
particular result, yet, when we look to what occurred in the
great war, when hundreds and thousands of men were ready
in arms to defend their country, when the population was
much less, we must feel that, if the country was again in
peril of invasion, hundreds of thousands of men would enrol
themselves in her defence; and if by possibility any enemy's
force landed, it, would find itself far inferior to the force
which attacked it, and must meet a reverse. But however
earnest we are to afford the country the best possible naval
defences, and however essential it may be for the country
to have an adequate naval defence, I hope neither the house
nor the country will be led away by the notion put forward
by my hen, and gallant Mend the member for Southwark,
that the country 4.zkends solely and entirely on her naval
rasources, and a that defence was forced or eluded, we
jaw° my right hon. friend will be satisfied with the
should have nothiui: to do but go like lambs to the buteher.
I shou,l4
result---die has obtained a very useful result—he has elicited
the general determination of the house to support the Go-
vernment, whatever it may be, in all measures necessary
for the defence of the country. When the proper time ar-
rives, and when the Secretary far War has received the re-
port of the commission as to the works necessary for the
protection of the dockyards, what the cost will be and what
the shortest time in which they can be completed, then it
will be the duty of the Government to consider what pro-
posal to make to find the money, and then I will call on my
ghat hon. friend, and I am quite sure we shall hay? his