for asking a large Vote for fortifications that France had 244 steam vessels that the increasing armaments maintained by could be mannned and sent to sea in a neighbouring Powers and especially by few weeks, some in a few days, and asked France. He referred to her great army, where we should be if hostilites broke and more especially dwelt upon the fact out. The Government were not satisfied that she had a navy which could not be with the enormous wooden fleet which required for purposes of defence; and that we then had, and during the year 1859-60 while she had increased her naval force they built 85,000 tons of wooden ships, our fleet had, owing to the change from consisting of line-of-battle ships, frigates, sailing ships to steam ships, been dimi- and so forth. Yet at that time they must nished in number. On the faith of that have known that France had long ceased statement the House readily granted a to build wooden ships, and that one ironVote of £2,000,000. Similar statements plated ship could destroy all our wooden had been constantly made; but it was ones. In 1861 the House voted for the only within the last month that there had navy) £12,029,000 besides £250,000, been laid upon the table, by command of an instalment of £2,500,000, which was Her Majesty, authentic reports respect- voted later in the Session. The number ing the naval and the military forces of of men was 78,200. The noble Lord, France. Those reports appeared to him in moving those Estimates, observed that to differ in material particulars from the it was impossible that our force, either statements which had been made during in men or ships, could be fixed without the last two years, both by the noble Lord relation to the forces of other Powers, at the head of the Government and by and stated that France had then two very the noble Lord the Secretary for the Ad- large and powerful iron-cased ships, which miralty, and he therefore thought that they ranked as line-of-battle ships, mountit would be well for the House to postpone ing fifty-two rifled guns each; four powerthe consideration of these fortifications ful vessels which they called iron-cased friuntil they had further information upon gates, mounting from forty to thirty-six this subject. He was about to move that guns; four of a very formidable class, the consideration of further expenditure called floating-batteries, mounting fourteen upon the fortifications authorized by this guns each; and, in addition to all these, Bill should be postponed until there had five gunboats of a very formidable chabeen laid before the IIouse the reports of racter. He thus made it appear that in our naval attaché at Paris showing the March, 1861, France had built or was state of the French navy at various periods building fifteen iron-cased ships, while we during the years 1860 and 1861. The had only seven under construction; and House would not have sanctioned so large on the faith of that statement of things an expenditure-it was questionable whe- the House readily granted the large sum ther it would have sanctioned any expen- of money which he had mentioned. There diture for fortifications, but for the impres- was a very long discussion upon those sion which was created by the statements Estimates, and in the course of it the of Her Majesty's Government that we noble Lord stated that the Magenta and were fast becoming, in comparison with Solferino would be ready for launching France, only the second naval Power, and in a very short period and might be sent should not be able to maintain the com- to sea in a few months, and that of the mand of the sea. What, however, were four frigates one was then at sea and the the facts? That we possesed more effi- others were ready. He was in Paris ; and cient steam vessels mounting twenty guns having confidence in the statements of and upwards than all the rest of the the noble Lord and the noble Viscount world, France included, and that we had as to the immense preparations of France, twenty more line-of-battle ships (the noble he took occasion to speak to the Minister Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty him- of Marine, and the Minister of Marine said self admitted seventeen) than all the other that the iron-cased ships were not in the nations of the world together. In 1860 advanced state which was represented. the House voted £12,800,000 for the The Minister of Marine, moreover, placed navy, and the number of men voted was in his hands the means of contradicting 85,500, or 6,000 more than were voted these statements. He (Mr. Lindsay) alse while we were at war with Russia. The mentioned the subject to M. Chevalier, noble Lord the Secretary to the Ad- who wrote him a note which he read to miralty, in asking for those Votes, stated the House at the time. He, however, thought it necessary to trouble the House | had himself previously made on the authowith an extract from that note "You have a full statement of our navy in a your blue-book placed in a solemn manner before House. You have it from the lips of the Minister of our navy. You were told by our Minister, privately as well as publicly, that of iron-cased vessels France has only one at this moment fit for sea, namely, La Gloire. That in a short time there will be a second one of a similar character ready for sea. I tell you, too, it will be necessary to have two more built; but two years must elapse before we are in a position to complete six iron-cased vessels ready for sea." Now, observe those two years dated from The noble the 19th February, 1861. Viscount, however, who doubted the assertion, said it was no use shutting their eyes to notorious facts, and to go on pretending that the policy of France for a length of time had not been to get a navy equal, if not The Estimates were superior to our own. voted in March or April, and on the 31st of May the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) came down to the House, and stated, on the authority of Admiral Elliot, who had visited all the dockyards of France except Toulon, that La Gloire was completed, that the Solferino were to be Magenta and launched in June; and the hon. Baronet summed up the matter in these words sures me. rity of the French Minister of Marine, "The practical point we arrive at is, that the French are rapidly preparing 15 powerful armourplated ships, to be added to 9 of a different description also covered with armour, giving them in the whole a force of 24 armour-covered ships, exclusive of the old batteries which were used Admiral Elliot asduring the Russian war. . . . that in every one of the yards which he visited the utmost efforts are being made to press all those ships forward to completion. I have no wish to excite alarm by making this statement. The point to which I invite atten-precated, because it would give offence to tion is, that whatever may be the motive of France, the practical result is that we are rapidly becoming the second maritime Power of Europe." [3 Hansard, clxiii., 416-17.] The Return of the strength of the naval and military forces of France, and the state of advancement of the iron-cased ships and batteries building on the 1st of January, 1862, did not confirm the statements made by Admiral Elliot after his flying visit to the Franch dockyards, and endorsed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. It was now clear that in May, 1861, no such progress had been made in the French iron vessels to justify the statement which was made to the House on the 31st of May by the right hon. Baronet on the authority of Admiral Elliot; and that the statement he France, and the people of England were information should be supplied as to the actual naval force of France up to the latest date possible. Now, he believed it was correct as regarded numbers to say that France had built and was building 37 iron-cased ships, and England only 26. As far as France was concerned, there were 6 iron-cased frigates to be completed this year. There were 10 ordered to be laid down in the winter of 1860-1, and the building of which would extend over seven years. Not one of those was to be launched before 1863. Now, those made altogether 16 sea-going vessels. The keel of La Gloire was laid down in 1858. Besides those he had enumerated, there were four floating batteries for the defence of the mouths of rivers and coasts, building at Bordeaux, and they were nearly ready. There were also 7 other floating batteries of only 150-horse power each, which had just been ordered. There were 5 gun boats, which were built for the Italian war, and about which his noble Friend had alarmed the House. They were of 32horse power each, and besides there were 5 batteries that were built for the Crimean war, and they made the total of 37, with a tonnage of 68,000. Now, compare our 26 vessels with these 37. We had 11 completed this year, the tonnage being 47,887, six in the course of construction, each of which was 6,621 tons, making a total for these six of 39,726; one battery, on Captain Cole's principle, which was 2,529 tons, and those 8 old batteries of about 16,000 tons; so that we had built and building 106,000 tons of iron-cased ships, as against 68,000 built and building by France. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: How many guns?] As the English vessels were each of about 6,600 tons, and the French of about 3,000, he presumed that the English ones could carry double the weight of metal of which the others were capable, or that, at least, they were stronger and more efficient in some other respect. If that were not the case, then the Admiralty, of course, did not know its duty, or it would build two vessels of the smaller kind for one of the larger sort. Therefore the number of guns did not much matter. Should any emergency arise, we could build iron-cased ships faster than any other nation. It was, therefore, enough if we kept ahead of others in our naval force for the current year. France would this year have ready for sea six iron-cased vessels, of 23,000 tons, while we should have 11 vessels, of 47,887 tons. Two of those vessels, the Magenta and Solferino, would not be ready for trial trips before October. Surely these figures did not justify any alarm on our part. If that was our present position, and an emergency should arise, we could turn out three iron-cased ships for every one that France could turn out, and twice as many as all Europe put together could produce. During the last three years we had voted £38,000,000 for our navy, while France in the same period had voted for hers only £17,600,000; and even of the latter sum £2,500,000 were on account of the expeditions to Cochin China and Mexico. It was said that France nominally voted £5,000,000 and expended £7,000,000. He had before given the House the sums voted and the sums actually expended in the two countries during ten years, and had shown that the excess of expenditure over the Votes was not so great in France as in England. It was constantly stated, that although we had ships, we had not men. Now, France had this year voted 35,000 men for her navy, and 10,000 more for Cochin and Mexico brought up the total to 46,000. It was said that maritime inscription gave her 156,000 men; but that number included the whole of her merchant seamen, her fishermen, bargemen, boys, and, in many cases, the labourers in her dockyards. On the other hand, we had 76,000 men this year for our navy; our reserves might be taken at 40,000 more, although, to be safe, he was willing to take them at a smaller number; and when to these we added our mercantile marine and the other classes comprised within the French aggregate, we had a "stand-by," if he might use the expression, in round numbers of about 400,000 men as against the 150,000 of France. In all these various elements of comparison, then, we were in advance not of France merely, but of France and any other two naval Powers. We were in as good a position now with regard to our maritime supremacy, whether in respect to our wooden ships or our iron ships, as we ever were at any time. Therefore, if we had the command of the seas, he must look upon these fortifications as unnecessary. The House should therefore pause, especially as severe distress prevailed in the manufacturing districts, before spending millions upon millions thus needlessly. Such a course, if persisted in, might produce greater internal dangers in this move Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient to postpone the consideration of further expenditure upon the proposed Fortifications authorized by this Bill, until there have been laid before the House Copies or Extracts of Reports from our Naval Attaché at Paris, showing the state of the French Navy from time to time, at intervals not exceeding three months, during the years 1860 and 1861," -instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." iron-cased ships are of very much But country than any troubles with which it | fore, our could be threatened from abroad. For heavier tonnage than those of any other these reasons he had placed his Motion nation. Hon. Gentlemen who attend to on the paper, which he now begged to these subjects will find that there are many opinions as to the advisability of having ships of this very large tonnage. when we come to guns, and the power of throwing projectiles, I could show the House that the proportion between this country and France is not so favourable to us as my hon. Friend supposes. But, avoiding at present the making of any detailed statement, I can only assure the House of this, that the French iron-cased navy has made very great progress. I never said myself, nor has my noble Friend or any other Member of the Government ever stated, that there was any unusual haste or preparation on the part of France in reference to the increase of her navy. We know perfectly well that the conduct of the French Emperor and the French nation has been loyal and generous towards this country; we know that there has been no desire on their part to molest us; but we also know that by husbanding their resources and by very great care and expenditure the French navy is making very great progress, and is in a state of very great perfection. In regard to the number of men, I could, if I did not think it very inexpedient, go into details which would convince the House that what my hon. Friend said about the comparative force of the two countries is really fallacious in the extreme. And whether the Government of England is composed of Gentlemen on tho one side of this House or on the other, it behoves it to take proper steps to ascertain what are the naval forces of other States, and to regulate our doings by that which takes place in other European countries. Having said that, I hope the House will excuse me from entering into any further particulars on the subject. LORD CLARENCE PAGET: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland has, I am happy to say, rectified a great many of the misstatements which he made, I have no doubt unintentionally, in our recent discussions in regard to the numbers of the French navy. Now, I should be ready to remark on his quotations from previous speeches of mine, but I certainly think it unadvisable that we should have these periodical debates on the relative strength of the French and English navies, entering into all these details. Every word that my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) has at various times stated with regard to the strength of the French navy is perfectly correct, and has been corroborated to night by the hon. Member for Sunderland himself. He has given every ship, every frigate, and every floating battery which my noble Friend and I had before enumerated, and he has stated the numbers, the force, and all the other details connected with them. The only point, as I understand it, upon which we are at issue is as to the state of forwardness of those ships. With respect to tonnage, my hon. Friend knows as well as I can tell him that that is not one-half as important as the question of guns. It is perfectly well known that the ships of our navy have always had to carry fewer guns in proportion to their tonnage than those of any other navy. And why? Because our business has been, and is, to send our ships all over the world. They have to go wherever they may have to meet an enemy-north, south, east, or west; whereas other Powers do not require to have their navy in so complete a seagoing state as ours. Undoubtedly, there MR. COBDEN: If the noble Lord who has just spoken, and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, had held the doctrine in times past that it was unadvisable to introduce into the debates of this House references to the strength of the French navy, I should have agreed with them. But we hear that argument now for the first time. When we have before us official and authentic facts by which we can prove that the statements which have been made by the Government in times past with regard to the strength of the French navy have been entirely fallacious and delusive, and when we seek to remove that most lamentable spirit of animosity | French dockyards. I do not give the which has been created towards the French total expenditure, because when you atGovernment and the French people by the tempt to draw a general comparison, there constant appeals to our fears on the ground are discrepancies in the mode of keeping that France was making undue naval pre- accounts which make it totally unreliable; parations, I think this is not the moment but when you come to the amount exfor stifling discussion, but rather for exa-pended in labour you get a fair compamining the plain facts that are before us. Is there a man in this country accustomed to pay any attention to this subject who has not been led to believe-mainly by the statements of the noble Viscount, repeated for many years past, on all occasions when opportunity offered-that France, during the time the present Emperor has held sway there, has unduly raised the proportion of naval force which in former times it was customary for France to maintain as compared with ourselves? Is there anybody who doubts that France, during the time of the present Emperor, has not had a larger navy in proportion to the English navy than she was accustomed to have in former times? That has been the general impression. That is the ground on which we have been asked to vote these enormous Navy Estimates. It would be affectation in me to pretend that I have not had as good opportunities for access to every official source of information on both sides of the Channel as the noble Viscount himself; and I say, in opposition to everything the noble Viscount has stated in the way of vague assertion, that for the last twelve or fourteen years, during which the present ruler of France has had sway in one capacity or another in that country, the French navy has borne less proportion-far less proportion to the English navy than it did in the time of Louis Philippe. When I make that assertion, in opposition to the noble Viscount, I wish it to be accepted only for what it is worth. I intend to support it by specific proofs, for I hope we have now got to the end of those vague assertions under which, according to the old legal maxim, fraud lurks. Unwilling as I am to trouble the House with statistics, I feel bound to give them a few figures on this matter; and first of all I will give them the outlay in the French dockyards during the last twelve years of Louis Philippe's reign and the first twelve years of the Republic or Empire down to 1859, which is the last year for which we have the audited and official accounts of France, and contrast it with the same expenditure in the English dockyards. 1 take the expenditure for labour in the rison. I will give, then, the amount expended in the English and French dockyards from 1836 to 1847 in Louis Philippe's reign, and the amount expended from 1848 to 1859, during the time of the present Emperor. In England the expenditure for labour in the dockyards from 1836 to 1847 was £7,294,000, and in the French dockyards in the same time £4,540,100; showing an English excess of £2,750,000 during that period. Between 1848 and 1859 the English expenditure was £11,510,800; in the French dockyards for the same time it was £6,989,500; showing an English excess of £4,521,300 in the last period, against an excess of £2,750,000 in the time of Louis Philippe. So that, in fact, we have been spending during the last twelve years nearly double of what we had spent, in comparison with the expenditure of France, in the former period. If these facts be true, and I challenge the disproval of them, how is it that during the last twelve years, down to 1859, which immediately preceded the outburst of this mania for fortifications, with any kind of management which could be tolerated by a business-like people, that France could get ahead of ourselves in naval strength? There is another and still better test of the comparative strength of the two navies than that of the expenditure on dockyard labour-the number of men maintained in the navies in those respective periods. The yearly average of the num ber of seamen in the English navy between 1839 and 1847 was 38,120 and in the French navy 30,150, giving an English excess of 7,570 men in Louis Philippe's time. The yearly average of the number of seamen in the English navy between 1848 and 1859 was 51,660, and of the French navy 33,150, giving an English excess of 18,510 in the latter period, as against 7,970 in the former period. To be still more specific, let us take the number of seamen in 1847, the last year of Louis Philippe's reign, and compare them with 1859, the last year for which we have officially audited returns, and the year which preceded the outburst of the fortification scheme. The number of seamen in the English navy in 1847, was 44,960, and in the French navy 32,160; |