giving an English excess of 12,800 in the maximum in the naval force of France fixed last year of Louis Philippe's reign. In by an Imperial decree in 1857-a decree 1859 the English navy had 70,400 sea- published openly, known to the whole men, and the French navy 39,470; giving world, and in the possession of everybody an excess of 30,930, against an excess of who takes an interest in such matters12,800 in the former period. What appeal and that maximum was fixed for a concan there be from facts like these? I siderable number of years to come. But beg the noble Lord will not reply to me I find that the right hon. Baronet the with vague general assertions; and if Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), in these facts cannot be gainsaid, as I be- bringing forward the Navy Estimates for lieve they cannot, what foundation can 1857, stated the number of English line there be for the alarmist statements which of-battle ships then built and building as have been made on the assumption that 40. And in a paper presented to the France was making extraordinary and suc- House of Commons in April, 1859, by cessful efforts to change the accustomed the right hon. Baronet the Member for proportions between the strength of her Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), the navy and ours? But can we not, with the number of line-of-battle ships possessed aid of these documents, which have been by the French Government at that time is almost incautiously presented to the House stated as 40, built and building. Here, by the Government-can we not by these then, is a datum line; and if, instead of despatches of Captain Hore, the English allowing our minds to be diverted to other naval attaché at the Paris Embassy- subjects, we would concentrate our attenwhich alone brings me to my feet-bring tion on this point, we should be able to this question to a still more precise and measure the increase and diminution of the tangible issue? I think we may, I go French navy by a test laid before us that back to the time when the French Govern- the Government itself cannot reject. From ment devised a scheme for its naval estab- 1857 down to within the last fortnight the lishment. In 1855 the French Govern- noble Lord at the head of the Government ment appointed a Commission to inquire has been constantly reiterating the great into the state of the navy, and to devise a efforts made by the French Government to programme for its future establishment. increase its navy, and to give it a disproIn consequence of that Commission a de- portion of strength compared with that of cree was published in 1857-I beg atten- the English navy. But we have now laid tion to the dates-in which the Emperor before us a despatch from the naval attaché defined and fixed the naval strength of of our Embassy in Paris; and I find he France, and in which he published to the states that the number of line-of-battle world the amount of naval force which his ships in the French navy, built and buildGovernment intended to maintain for a ing, on the 1st of January of the present long period of years to come. In that year, was just 37. So instead of 40, decree the French Government decided which was announced by the French Gothat the maximum of the strength of the vernment as its maximum in 1857, we find, French navy should be forty line-of-battle on the authority of our own naval attaché, ships a moderate establishment if we France has only 37. During these last compare it with what France had been five years our Naval Estimates have enoraccustomed to maintain in former times, mously augmented; we have heard conwhen the standard of naval strength was stant alarms expressed at the increase of in sailing line-of-battle ships. From a the French navy; and appeals have been statement of the number of line-of-battle made to us in support of an enormous ships in the French navy in each year, system of fortifications; yet we find that down to 1859, it appears that in 1778 it France has fewer line-of-battle ships now was 68, in 1794 it was 77, and in 1830 than she had five years ago. The fact is the number was 53. And it will be found a conclusive proof that these statements by any one who will consult that interest- were illusory. I am willing to believe that ing work, The Memoirs of the First Lord the noble Viscount has been himself under Auckland, that when he was, in 1783, some official delusion in respect to this negotiating the commercial treaty with matter. My hon. Friend the Member for France, he sent over to Mr. Pitt a list of Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) has proposed all the ships of the line possessed by there should be an addition to this deFrance at that time. The number was spatch, showing what was the French naval 68. Now, 40 line-of-battle ships is the force in 1860 and 1861; and I think this is due not only to the noble Lord, but quiet, without making an attack on me. to Captain Hore, our naval attaché at The noble Lord is the representative of an Paris, placed there to furnish informa- idea; he seems to be possessed by it-it tion for the instruction of the Govern is the idea of invasion. It is an idiosynment. Either he has not given cor- crasy of the noble Lord. Now, it will be rect information, or the noble Lord can- in the recollection of the House that in not have read his despatches, because it 1860, when the plan of fortifications was is impossible, taking the statement he now proposed, several hon. Members, among sends, compared with what has been stated them the Members for Sunderland, Glason official authority during the last five gow, and Montrose, took steps, either by years, that the Government could have writing or sending to France, to inquire been under such an illusion as to the for themselves as to the reality of the French having made such great naval naval preparations of the French Governpreparations. I have confined my state- ment. And, surely, if there are three ment to the number of line-of-battle ships, hon. Gentleman in this House who may be because that class of ships has been the supposed likely to give an impartial judgmeasure of naval power in past years. But ment as to a proposal for an increase of if I extended it to smaller vessels, our case maritime defence, it would be the Memwould be infinitely strengthened. The bers for three of our largest commercial hon. Member for Sunderland has told us seaports. Those hon. Gentlemen, with that our navy comprises more vessels of my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury twenty guns and upwards than all the (Sir M. Peto) took great pains with this other navies in the world. I believe he subject. I happened to be in Paris at the states that correctly; and it proves what I time, and I know the pains they did take. say, that by extending the comparison Some of them visited the French dockfrom large ships to small we should find yards, or employed trustworthy agents to the case strengthened against the Govern- do so. Others saw the French Minister ment in reference to the exaggerated state- of Marine. And after the groundless allements they have laid before us. Now, it gations that had been made here, almost is impossible to deal with this question imputing to the French Government some without the facts rising up in accusation clandestine design against us, I think it against the noble Viscount. Whenever proves a great amiability on the part of the question of the organization of the the French authorities that these Gentlenavy is raised the noble Lord puts himself men were graciously received, and were prominently forward as the advocate of given every facility for visiting the French these large armaments, and always with dockyards and arsenals. Those Gentlemen reference to the state of things in France. came back, and in the spring of 1861 In the whole of the past five years I defy took the opportunity of stating in the any one to show an instance in which the House what they had heard and seen, noble Lord has advocated an increase of controverting and opposing the statements our naval armament in reference to any of the noble Lord, as to the great prepaother country but France. We have heard rations, and hostile intentions of France. the word invasion" from him a dozen How did the noble Viscount treat these times within the last few years. Now, hon. Gentlemen? One would have thought for a Prime Minister to talk about this that, at all events, their sincerity would country being invaded by a friendly Power not have been questioned. But I will read without one fact to justify a suspicion of an extract from a speech of the noble Lord it-on the contrary, when the navy of that on March the 11th, 1861, when the Navy Government is less than at any former Estimates were brought forward, when time is to commit this country to an some of the Members of his Cabinet attitude towards that neighbouring Power shrunk away, and others could say nothat no Minister ought to give it, with the thing. levity of indiscretion that has marked the noble Lord's course on this subject. The hon. Member who preceded me read saidextract from a speech of the noble Lord that shows the manner in which the noble Viscount has dealt with this question. He is aggressive in his defensive policy. He would not allow me to sit an The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), among others, had spoken on the occasion. The noble Lord "I rise to contradict the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Bright's) own erroneous assertions, as well as those of the hon. Members for Montrose and Sunderland. Those hon. Gentlemen came here propounding opinions based on extracts from some newspaper or other. I really think it was a Scotch newspaper that one hon.' Member quoted. They recount 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, 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 danger to which we might be exposed." [3 Hansard, clxi., 1787]. And then the noble Lord knocks them down with a Latin quotation. But he again returns to the charge "When some well-intentioned gentleman asks the French if they really mean to invade this country, if they really have any hostile intentions towards us, of course they say, 'Not the least in the world,' their feeling is one of perfect sympathy and friendship with us, and that all their preparations are only for their own selfadvancement."[3 Hansard, clxi., 1791.] In this speech the noble Lord stated-and it was the only fact in his speech-that the French had 34,000 men in their navy and just before, the Secretary of the Navy, on the same evening had taken a Vote for 78,200 men for our own naval service. I It speaking of the land forces of France, said "On the 1st of January, 1862, the French army consisted "[these are the corrected figures which the noble Lord afterwards gave]" of 446,348 men under arms. There was, besides, a reserve of 170,000 men, liable to be called out at a fortnight or three weeks' notice, making altogether 616,348" Not 816,000, as the noble Lord really said. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No, I never said anything of the kind. MR. COBDEN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, because this was not a mistake of a figure. There was addition and subtraction, and the statement was the same all through. The noble Lord proceeded "In addition to this force actually under arms, or liable to be called out for service, I stated that there were 268,417 National Guards, making a total available force of 884,765." That is the noble Lord's statement of the land forces of France on the 24th of May, 1862. Now, I have here another statement made by the noble Lord on the 30th of July, 1845, when he was urging Sir Robert Peel to increase our expenditure. On that occasion he said— will defy any one to show any year during the reign of Louis Philippe when there was "France, as I had occasion to state on a former such a disproportion between the naval occasion, has now a standing army of 340,000 forces of the two countries, as there had men, fully equipped, including a large force of been during the reign of Louis Napoleon, cavalry and artillery, and, in addition to that, 1,000,000 of the National Guard. I know that except in the time of the Crimean war. should be remembered that in 1859, when the National Guard of Paris amounts to 80,000 we had such a large disproportion of naval men, trained, disciplined, reviewed, clothed, equipped, and accustomed to duty and perfectly compower as compared with that of France, petent, therefore, to take the internal duty of the France was engaged in a war in Italy, country, and to set free the whole of the regular while it was a year of peace with us. But force." [3 Hansard, lxxxii., 1223.] in no year of peace during the reign of Now, let us compare the land forces of Louis Philippe did not the navy of France France according to the noble Lord's own bear a larger proportion to that of England authority in 1845, just previous to the fall than it has done during the reign of Louis of Louis Philippe, with those which she Napoleon. It is not, therefore, a question has at the present moment. In 1845 he of who began first. France has never in-states the total of the army and National creased the proportion of her navy. There has not been one year in which you can show a tendency to increase, except on the part of this country. But the noble Lord has not confined his statements to the navy. He has also given us some facts and figures respecting the land forces of France; but in his statement there was an inexactness of a very grave kind, for he exceeded the real amount of the French force by 200,000 men, which called down a correction from the Moniteur. I must complain of the habitual inexactness of the noble Lord as to these matters; and if the China debate should come on to-morrow, I shall have to recite another grave inaccuracy. On the 24th of May, the noble Lord, in In 1862 he Guard at 1,340,000 men. states the total force of France at 884,765 men, being less in 1862 than in 1845 by But there has been since 455,235 men. then a great change in the number of our own armed force. We must add to our own land forces at least 200,000 additional men in the shape of Militia, Volunteers, and increase of our regular forces. That is Add these 200,000 to a low estimate. the 455,000 which France has less now than in 1845, and it gives 655,235 fewer armed men in France, as compared with those in England at present. That is not an alarming state of things; and if you remember that the National Guard of Paris is now virtually disbanded-oven taking into account the increase in the regular force, which I am not here to defend, for it is the monster evil of the ageconsidering all these points, the House will see that France has not so large an armed force as in the time of Louis Philippe. I will make one more remark upon the question of the responsibility which rests upon the Government and upon the House in these matters. I have heard a doctrine very much insisted on-namely, that we are not to take the dicta of independent Members upon this question, but are to trust implicitly the statements of a Prime Minister. One would think that the sagacity of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) would lead him to take a different view of the matter. Yet what is his maxim as to the authority of a Prime Minister? In July last, when an attempt was made to get more money from us on the plea that more iron ships were wanted, that attempt was opposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay), who, under the discouragement, the taunts, the imputations, and the little attention he received some years ago, deserves the thanks of the country for the manner in which he op. posed increased Estimates. Speaking of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) on that occasion said The facts are all accessible to us. There are no secrets about the French naval armaments. Every information which is possessed by the Government may be had by us; and I think it is the duty of the House, as representing the people and finding the money for these armaments, to see that the grounds upon which we vote such enormous sums are valid grounds, and do not rest merely upon the fanciful and excited imagination of a Prime Minister. Now, is this the proper time-does anybody who reflects upon what is passing among multitudes of men out of doorsdoes any one think this is the proper time to be discussing in this House from day to day the question of more outlay upon bricks and mortar at Portsmouth or Woolwich for the defence of the country? After the statements we have heard, unless the facts and figures can be disputed and disproved, I say that to spend money now upon gigantic fortifications, backing up our enormous naval power, would be a waste of public money impossible to justify. I think we might more properly be engaged in discussing other questions, as was stated by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, relating to the internal state of the country. There is no question in this House as to defending the country against a foreign enemy. It would be a Speaking as the noble Lord did from his place piece of supreme impertinence in me or in as Prime Minister, if 100 persons had been sent any other man to lay claim to an exclusive by hon. Members to look round them, open and interest or regard for the security of the shut their eyes when they liked, perhaps having country against a foreign enemy, and I no eyes to see with at all, he did not think that hold the man to be a charlatan who sets the reports of such people ought to be allowed by the country to weigh for one moment against the up a claim to popularity because he holds positive declaration of the Prime Minister from the honour and safety of the country in his seat in Parliament, that he knew the facts higher estimation than I do. That is not he stated to be facts." [3 Hansard, clxiv., 1676.] the question here, where every man has ["Hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen ery "Hear, an equal interest in the safety of the counhear!" but I think that is a dangerous try. We may take different views—as doctrine. Are we absolved from our re- we are entitled to do-as to the best sponsibility because a Prime Minister makes certain assertions? We are here as representatives of the people. The Prime Minister is responsible to us, and we are responsible to the country; and if we take implicitly the statement of the noble Lord, neglecting our own duty, do you think that, by-and-by, when we get into that condition in which the country is apt to judge of Parliament, and of Ministers by a very ugly retrospect upon their past policy-do you think that we shall stand acquitted before the country for voting these large sums of money without inquiry into the facts upon which the noble Lord bases his statements and opinions? modes of fortifying and permanently defending the country. Some think we cannot do better than appeal for armaments and fortifications in addition to our existing resources in time of peace, notwithstanding the weight of taxation under which the country is struggling; while others, like myself, may think, with Sir Robert Peel, that you cannot defend every part of your coast and colonies, and that in attempting to do so you run a greater risk of danger to the country than you would incur by husbanding the resources which you are now expending upon armaments, so as to have them at call in time of emergency. That is my view. Let no one presume nor dare to say that he has more regard for the safety of the country than I have. They may try to create imaginary dangers and to take credit for guarding against them; but give us a real danger, show us that our navy is not equal to our defence, that a neighbour is clandestinely and unduly trying to change the proportion which its force should bear to that of this mercantile people living in an island, and then I would willingly vote £100,000,000 of money to protect our But, in saying country against attack. this, I claim no merit. I do not set myself up as a great patriot, for there is nobody here but would put his hand in his pocket and spend his whole fortune rather than have this island defiled by the foot of I have my own views as to an enemy. what constitutes the strength of the country, but they are not the views of those who have had a hand in promoting this The gigantic system of expenditure. right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. HorsIt is man) is the author of this scheme. his sober, sagacious leadership of which The hon. Member for you are followers. Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) has commended this great plan of expenditure; he is the great champion of the noble Viscount in this matter. I cannot follow those gentlemen, for I do not entertain their views. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud thinks that in proportion as you go on extending your commerce and increasing your wealth you must also be continnally increasing your armed force. That might be if we were an enervated people, gaining our wealth from the labour of slaves, or if remittances from gold regions were keeping us in idleness and luxury; but my view is that every step you take towards the increase of wealth and the extension of commerce, by that very commerce you are strengthening yourselves and building up those materials and that kind of population which will best provide means of defence whenever we are attacked. Our wealth, commerce, and manufactures grow out of the skilled labour of men working in metals. There is not one of those men who in case of our being assailed by a foreign Power would not in three weeks or a fortnight be available with their hard hands and thoughtful brains for the maThat nufacture of instruments of war. is not an industry that requires you at every step to multiply your armed men. What has given us our Armstrongs, our Whitworths, our Fairbains? The industry of the country, in which they are mainly SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. Member for Rochdale and others have referred so directly to me on the subject of exaggerated statements alleged to have been made in this House with regard to the navy of France, that, in justice to Admiral Elliot, I wish to say a few words. The speech of the hou. Member for Rochdale has been mainly directed against the noble Viscount, whom he has charged with vague and exaggerated statements as to the navies of France and England. I leave the noble Lord to answer that charge, but I must say that I believe he has made no specch upon the subject which was not only not open to the charge of vagueness or exaggeration, but was not strictly founded upon most accurate data. But I must say further, that the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale with regard to the naval proportion has really nothing to do with the question now before us, no more than if he had addressed the House upon the relative strength of the navies of Spain and England at the time of the Spanish Armada. His speech was in a large degree taken up by comparison of the outlay of France and England during two periods-one during |