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

iy had,

ganised Government, but the Austrian rule in Itak,
nevertheless, been universally considered as the standing
nuisance of Europe ever since it had been established.
(Hear.) It was, however, a 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 expo its 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 nation that liked that
sort of thing ; and though 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 t4eir nefo-13041:.$ P. (Cheers.) Was he to be told that
he was merely one of tnose peace-men who would rush into
danger with their eyes shut 2 Tboy WO far more fanati-
cal abed war oVerloeked 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 E He
(Mr. Cobden) lqad kept 4 careful watch over this subject,
and lie was by no reemis prepared to say that we had not
brought the whole difficulty upon ouxselves 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 J 31,400,000. He well remembered that it
was immediately resolved to construct similar work at
Brest or Cherbourg. In 1851 he (Mr. Cobden) moved an
addresa 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 efiliat 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 have so 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.) The 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. 31, 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 increase of them ? The taxpayers of
the country, and e specially 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 us 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,
VMS already producing serious results. In 1851 there were
in this country half a million-more women than men. He
feared that in 18.51 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 navy 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, hear)—though no doubt very valuable
for purposes of home defence, for action near the shores, or
in our harbour's 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.) The thing is impossible; we
must protect our interests. We must in this particular case
. .
establish our.armarnents as best we may with reference to
the existing Atate 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 Govern-
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 unwise to look only to the
French or to any one country in particular. (Hear.) There
are other countries to which we ought to look ; and it seems
to me 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 are 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.
The policy 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 happiness of both
countries and of the world depends on those, friendly rela-
tions being maintained, but that is no reaFoa 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 the house, I cannot but observe that the reference made
to Portland harbour is a very strong point indeed in its
favour. We have there established, as the Secretary of War
informed us, a harbour to which our fleets are now con-
stantly resorting, and yet we are told by the right hon.
gentleman that this noble harbour is absolutely without
defence, and not only without defence, but we have been
informed that it will take twenty years to complete the de-
fences that are necessary. (Hear, hear.) I think the
right hon. the Secretary for War made a very satisfactory
statement with regard to the expenditure of the current
year 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 purpose, it would
be difficult to spend it during the present year. So far
the,: lamer of the right hon. gentleman WAS satisfactory.