country than any troubles with which it | fore, our iron-cased ships are of very much could be threatened from abroad. For heavier tonnage than those of any other these reasons he had placed his Motion on the paper, which he now begged to

expedient to postpone the consideration of fur-House that the proportion between this ther 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

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 sup. port 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 number 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 scamen 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;

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 linethere 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 tangible issue? I think we may, I go back to the time when the French Government devised a scheme for its naval establishment. In 1855 the French Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the state of the navy, and to devise a programme for its future establishment. In consequence of that Commission a decree was published in 1857-I beg attention to the dates-in which the Emperor defined and fixed the naval strength of France, and in which he published to the world the amount of naval force which his Government intended to maintain for a long period of years to come. In that decree the French Government decided that the maximum of the strength of the French navy should be forty line-of-battle shipsa moderate establishment if we compare it with what France had been accustomed to maintain in former times, when the standard of naval strength was in sailing line-of-battle ships. From a statement of the number of line-of-battle ships in the French navy in each year, down to 1859, it appears that in 1778 it was 68, in 1794 it was 77, and in 1830 the number was 53. And it will be found by any one who will consult that interesting work, The Memoirs of the First Lord Auckland, that when he was, in 1783, negotiating the commercial treaty with France, he sent over to Mr. Pitt a list of all the ships of the line possessed by France at that time. The number was 68. Now, 40 line-of-battle ships is the

4.

measure the increase and diminution of the French navy by a test laid before us that the Government itself cannot reject. From 1857 down to within the last fortnight the noble Lord at the head of the Government has been constantly reiterating the great efforts made by the French Government to increase its navy, and to give it a disproportion of strength compared with that of the English navy. But we have now laid before us a despatch from the naval attaché of our Embassy in Paris; and I find he states that the number of line-of-battle ships in the French navy, built and building, on the 1st of January of the present year, was just 37. So instead of 40, which was announced by the French Government as its maximum in 1857, we find, on the authority of our own naval attaché, France has only 37. During these last five years our Naval Estimates have enormously augmented; we have heard constant alarms expressed at the increase of the French navy; and appeals have been made to us in support of an enormous system of fortifications; yet we find that France has fewer line of battle ships now than she had five years ago. The fact is a conclusive proof that these statements were illusory. I am willing to believe that the noble Viscount has been himself under some official delusion in respect to this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) has proposed there should be an addition to this despatch, showing what was the French naval 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 nava! 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 judg measure 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 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 an extract 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

Cabinet

The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), among others, had spoken on the occasion. The noble Lord said

"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 propounding opinions based on extracts from Sunderland. Those hon. Gentlemen came here some newspaper or other. I really think it was

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 There was, besides, a reserve men under arms.

a Scotch newspaper that one hon. Member quoted. speaking of the land forces of France, 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.]

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, there were 268,417 National Guards, making a or liable to be called out for service, I stated that

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

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. IJuly, 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 such a disproportion between the naval forces of the two countries, as there had been during the reign of Louis Napoleon, except in the time of the Crimean war. It should be remembered that in 1859, when we had such a large disproportion of naval power as compared with that of France, France was engaged in a war in Italy, while it was a year of peace with us. But in no year of peace during the reign of Louis Philippe did not the navy of France bear a larger proportion to that of England than it has done during the reign of Louis Napoleon. It is not, therefore, a question of who began first. France has never increased 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

"France, as I had occasion to state on a former occasion, has now a standing army of 340,000 men, fully equipped, including a large force of cavalry and artillery, and, in addition to that, 1,000,000 of the National Guard. I know that the National Guard of Paris amounts to 80,000 men, trained, disciplined, reviewed, clothed, equipped, and accustomed to duty and perfectly competent, therefore, to take the internal duty of the country, and to set free the whole of the regular force." [3 Hansard, lxxxii., 1223.] Now, let us compare the land forces of France according to the noble Lord's own authority in 1845, just previous to the fall of Louis Philippe, with those which she has at the present moment. In 1845 he states the total of the army and National 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-even