Page images
PDF
EPUB

the reign of Louis Philippe and the other under the present Emperor of France. Let me remind the House that nothing can be more fallacious than to make a comparison of the navies of England and France founded solely upon statements of the money expended during two periods. The rates of wages, the prices of every element of shipbuilding, are so different. [Mr. COBDEN: Labour.] I said so. But that is not the most important fault I have to find with the hon. Gentleman's statement. He told us of a programme issued by the Emperor Louis Napoleon in 1857. Let me remind the House that the year 1857 was the year preceding the commencement of the idea of armour-plated ships; therefore you cannot attach much importance to a programme of 1857. I must also remark, that during the whole of the hon. Member's speech he did not say one word about what has been passing in England or France since 1859. In 1859 we commenced building iron-plated ships, and, under correction, I believe all the noble Viscount's speeches, and certainly all my statements which have been made since 1859, have had reference to the efforts of France to rival this country and to surpass us in the construction of armourplated ships. I appeal to the papers upon which the hon. Members for Rochdale and Sunderland have founded their statements to prove that the noble Viscount and the Secretary for the Admiralty were right, and that at this moment France is ahead of England in this important element of naval strength, and that it behoves the Government not to discontinue the efforts they have made. The hon. Member has repeated that he desires to see the navy of England superior to that of France, and that he would sanction any expenditure necessary for that object. But upon that principle the House is not justified in finding fault with the late nor the present Admiralty for their efforts to make the navy of England superior to that of France. The hon. Member communicated his intention of impugning, I will not say my statements, but those of a gallant officer whose name I used. Now, I am bound to state, in justice to that gallant officer, that the hon. Member has failed to impugn his statement, and that the facts, indeed, completely justify every word that Admiral Elliot advanced. My statement was, that the French had fifteen ironplated frigates and line-of-battle ships, and nine others of different descriptions. In

the official return placed in our hands by the Government I find that the French had, on January 1, 1862, six iron-plated frigates afloat and ten building, making a total of sixteen. Admiral Elliot stated the number of iron-plated vessels of other descriptions at nine; while by the Return it appears the French have twelve afloat and two building, being a total of thirty, instead of twenty-four, which was my statement last year. The hon. Member for Sunderland has referred to the state of progress of those ships; but there is this difference-that he speaks of July, 1862, and I made the statement in question in May, 1861. I have spoken on the authority of this paper of sixteen iron-plated frigates. I do not, however, know whether the Solferino and the Magenta are included in that number of sixteen, for they ought not to be classed as frigates— they are two-decked vessels, carrying more powerful guns than any ships in the French or English navy. Captain Hore had fully accounted for the delay to which allusion had been made, the spur with which the bow of the Solferino was to be armed having been reduced from twenty-seven tons to sixteen tons weight, and a similar delay having occurred in regard to the Magenta. I think that Her Majesty's Government are right in the course they have taken on this subject, and I trust they will continue to pursue the same line of policy.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I should like to ask the House whether we are discussing the Naval Estimates of the year, or whether we are discussing plans for the permanent fortifications of the dockyards? The two speeches of the hon. Member for Sunderland and the hon. Member for Rochdale had no bearing on the question now under discussion, but turned upon a simple comparison between the existing navy of France and the existing navy of England. Now, the hon. Member for Rochdale seems to be excessively angry with me. He accuses me of indiscretion, of levity, and of every possible breach of every possible duty that is incumbent upon a Prime Minister. I receive these accusations from him with the utmost possible quietness. I differ so entirely from the hon. Member that it is quite natural I should feel proud of being the object of the hon. Member's attacks. He said that I am actuated by an idea. Sir, I am actuated by an idea. My idea seems never to have entered the fertile brain of the hon. Member. My

sudden attack. It is blindness and infa-
tuation on the part of the hon. Member to
entertain these views, and I am astonished
that he should not be conscious of that
which any man who has thought at all on
this subject must comprehend. The hon.
Member accuses me of great exaggeration
with regard to the French army and navy.
Now, I utterly deny that I have been
guilty of any exaggeration. The hon.
Member for Sunderland has confirmed the
statement that I made, and it has been
further confirmed by the papers laid be-
fore the House. Now, with regard to the
French army, I stated on a recent occa-
sion that the French army on the 1st of
January consisted of 446,000 men under
arms, and 170,000 men of the reserve,
making a total of 616,000 men.
I was
reported to have made that total 816,000.
It is very seldom that those gentlemen
who report our debates in this House com-
mit an error, and an error in one figure
is not unnatural. But my statement
was 616,000, and not 816,000. The
French Moniteur corrected my state-
ment; and what was that correction?
It charged me with having made a little
error both in the force under arms
and in reserve, and the aggregate was
stated by the Moniteur to be 612,000
instead of 616,000. That was the cor-

idea is that England ought to be defended, I them beforehand, can avail to ward off a that her navy cannot exist without dockyards, and that those dockyards must be placed in a safe position against sudden attacks. That is an idea that has never entered into the mind of the hon. Member. The hon. Member has told us that he is ready to spend £100,000,000 to maintain a good navy. Now, we do not ask him to do any such thing. We ask for no more than the moderate sum recommended by the Defence Commissioners to place our naval arsenals in a state of safety. I say that the hon. Member for Rochdale is in a state of blindness and delusion which renders him utterly unfit to be listened to by the country as an adviser on matters of this sort. When the hon. Member deals in matters that he understands-when he descants on questions of free trade and commerce, we generally listen to the hon. Gentleman with the utmost deference and respect. He understands those subjects; he is imbued with sound principles, and his conclusions command our assent. But he goes beyond his crepidam on such matters as these. When he descants on our naval and military defences, he goes beyond the scope of his knowledge, and beyond the reach to which his understanding has extended, and he becomes a most dangerous adviser for this House and the country. ["Oh!"] Why, Sir, I say it is so, because the hon. Member declares that it is pre-rection of the Moniteur, which completely sumption in any one to state that he is not as anxious for the honour, and dignity, and defence of the country as any man living. And the defence he proposes is reducing your army and your navy, and leaving your dockyards unfortified; because, he says, you have increased your manufacturing capital and your workmen in Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, and other hives of industry and capital. But the richer you are, if you do not defend your wealth, the more you invite attack. The very accumulation of wealth in the country is the reason why a part of that wealth should be devoted to national defence. And, as to the fact of your having plenty of workmen and artisans in your manufacturing towns, you cannot reckon upon them for the defence of the country against a sudden attack, because there would not be time to bring those labouring men from the centre of England, and organize them as a military or naval body, or set them to work to make fortifications. Why, it is childish, to imagine that the possession of these -esources, if you do not avail yourselves of

and substantially affirmed the statement that I had made. My statement with respect to the National Guards was also substantially true. Then, with regard to the French navy, the Returns laid upon the table and the statements of the hon. Mem. ber for Sunderland have shown that the number of ircn-clad ships in the French navy is greater than that which I represented last year. The hon. Member has stated that they have thirty-seven and we have twenty-seven, and those are very much about the relative numbers. I said that they were thirty-six and twenty-five, and he says they are thirty-seven and twenty-seven respectively. Whether we take one statement or the other, it is admitted that in iron-plated ships, which are to be regarded in future as the real strength of a navy, a neighbouring Power is stronger than ourselves. Well, then, the hon. Member for Rochdale has repeated this evening the statement which he published in his pamphlet, and has endeavoured to show the comparative amount of labour employed in the dockyards of

England and France at certain periods, will be shared in by the country, because and the amount of the Naval Estimates of I have a conviction that these opinions the two countries. Now, the right hon. are confined to a few persons; and, so far Baronet the Member for Droitwich has from my being afraid of any responsibility very properly stated that that comparison which I am incurring in proposing that is fundamentally fallacious-fallacious upon we should defend our dockyards, I should the ground of the money expended on feel myself unworthy to hold the posiworkmen. A man in the French dock- tion which I occupy-I would not conyards gets 2s. 6d., a man in the English tinue to be responsible if I thought that 4s. 6d. a day. It is evident, therefore, the Members of this House would not furthat with the same number of men work-nish the means of defence which I consider ing, the cost of the English dockyards absolutely indispensable for the future semust, from the rate of wages, be greater. curity of this country. I therefore have Then, with regard to the ships in commis- an "idea "which the hon. Member has sion, the general expenditure in wages of not, that "idea" been deeply implanted in a 90-gun ship in the two services is as my mind. So far from believing that the £19,000 a year for a French ship, to attacks of the hon. Member will do me the £29,000 for an English, so that the latter least damage in the estimation of my councost £10,000 a year more. Well, all that trymen, I am glad that he has had an opshows, that the forces being equal, the portunity of pointing out distinctly the actual expenditure of the one country must wide difference of opinion between himself be much larger than that of the other. and me. With regard to the defence of Therefore, it is perfectly fallacious, as a the country, my mode is different from his. measure of relative strength, to tell us Whatever he may say with regard to the only what is spent, unless you also take improbability of war, though his advice may into account the disproportion between the be wages of labour. Well, Sir, I shall not "Oremus pacem, et dextras tendamus inermes," intrude long upon the attention of the I, on the contrary, am for preparing ourHouse, because it does really appear to me, selves for war in time of peace, and doing as was stated by the right hon. Baronet it scientifically, and with forethought. I the Member for Droitwich, that all the am for preparing ourselves for the storm eloquence which we have heard from the that may or may not come, and then we two hon. Members was utterly beside the may reckon on a continuance of peace; question. Granted, if you will, that there for we may depend upon it there is nothing is at present no appearance or any likeli- which will contribute so much to the perhood of war between the two countries; manent peace and security of the country that is the reason why you ought to em- as its being known to foreign nations that ploy the interval of peace in placing your- we are in a condition to defend ourselves if selves in a condition to meet a different attacked. As to the expense which these state of things. It is the utmost degree fortifications will involve, I will ask any of folly to conclude that because this year, hon. Member to compare it with the disasor next year, or the year after, we are not trous consequences of the presence of an likely to have our relations with a neigh-invading force in this country for a fortbouring Power altered, we are therefore to leave our dockyards in a state which, if anything were to happen, would not find them in a condition of adequate defence. If we were proposing something that could be accomplished in twelve months, or a couple of years, I should deem the argument of the hon. Member of some force and value; but that which we are proposing to you is a measure founded upon deep reflection, and calculated to endure for a length of time. We ask you to place our dockyards in that position in which they will be safe from attack by any foreign Power. And here I must say that I entertain very little apprehension that the feelings of the hon. Member for Rochdale

night or a month. Let us see what war is costing that republic beyond the Atlantic, let us see the efforts that nation has been compelled to make because there was no previous preparation. They had all on a sudden to organize what they wanted for the contest they are engaged in. Let not us, in this country, fall into the same error; let us do what we can quietly and economically; let us prepare what is necessary for any contingency that may happen, and when that is done we shall have done more for peace than the commercial treaty of the right hon. Gentleman. We shall have done more than his free trade. We shall have done that which I trust will make us respected by other countries, and will tend

[blocks in formation]

MR. SCULLY moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be committed this day three months. He thought that it was too late an hour (a quarter past one o'clock) to commence a discussion on the measure. The present mode, according to which the county surveyors in Ireland were appointed, was better than the plan proposed by this Bill, which would establish a system of centralization, inasmuch as the qualifications of candidates were to be examined into by the Civil Service Commissioners in England instead of by the Board now appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. His opinion was that even with the Amendments of which notice had been given, the Bill could not be made a presentable measure; and he concluded by moving that the House should go into Committee upon it that day three months.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That " to the end

of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"

-instead thereof.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

MR. SCULLY moved that the Chairman should report progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.'

The Committee divided: - Ayes 5; Noes 62: Majority 57.

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, that seeing such a determination evinced on the part of some of the Members from Ireland to offer every opposition to the measure, he should move that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. HENNESSY stated his determination to oppose the measure throughout.

COLONEL DICKSON hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not be induced to withdraw the measure.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, his right hon. Friend had no intention of withdrawing the Bill.

House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

House adjourned at Three o'clock.

[INDEX.

« PreviousContinue »