MR. COBDEN ON OUR NATIONAL DEFENCES.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 3, Issue 111, 5 November 1859, Page 5

MR. COBDEN ON OUR NATIONAL DEFENCES.

M*.^ Cob&sh said that if after voting 26| millions this year for army and navy, we hjawd no defences, -we might perhaps inquire #rother we had not altogether mistaken til© evil. He referred to the panic in 1852 as like the £anid at present, and he quoted from an official paper to show the real comparative state of the French and English navies. In 18&2, England had 176 war iteamera, and in 1858 she had 464 war •teamen ; this; was an increase of 288 in that period. The. French in 1852 had 122 war steamers, and in 1858 they possessed 264 war steamers, showing an increase of 142 against our increase of 288. Our increase had therefore been just double the Increase of the French in the number of steamers. In 1852, moreover, the English navy had 299 sailing' vessels, and in 1858 we had 296 sgilfctg vessels, showing a diminution of 3. ••Tfc| French in 1852 had sailing vessels, But in 1858 they had only 144, showing ammunition of 114 in the number of Frehd.fi sailing ships, whilst our number had diminished by only 3. The reason of this was fcne vast increase spoken I of in the number of thie French screw, steamers having arisen ifrora the conversion of their sailing vessels into steamers. We - Jaad been going through the same process "With iour sailing vessels, but at the same "time^we 3»ad been building other sailing vessels, whilst we had converted more sailing vessels into steamers than the French had done- ( Hear, hear.) The French had been converting, and not building, so that they now possessed fewer sailing vessels by 114 than they did in 1852, whilst we had neatly the same number of sailing vessels now as we had then. Taking then the whole force of sailing vessels and steamships together, he found that in 1852 the English navy had 475 vessels, and in 1858 it had no fewer than 760 vessels, showing en increase of 285 in six years. On the other hand, the French in 1852 had — of steamers and sailing vessels together — 380, and in 1858 they had 408, showing an increase of only 28. The great increase of the French navy, which has been so much B talked of, amounted to just 28 vessels— H whereas the increase of the English navy ■in the same period amounted to 285 yesHeels. Really, when he saw these figures Hhe almost doubted whether there was not Hsome mistake about them, until they were ■corroborated by persons more conversant ■with the matter than he himself was. But Hif it were true that we had 760 ships of ■war against the French 408, and if the ■augmentation of our navy had been 285 Bagainst the French 28 in a period of six Hyears, what became then of those gigantic ■preparations for an attack upon our naval Hpower at which the right hon. gentleman Hmras so much terrified ? Now, he observed ■fin the comparison which had been made of Hthe English and French navies, one omisHuon, and he must say it was an uncandid Hpmission — that of the corvettes and other ■small vessels of war. He was told by the ■wisest heads both here and in America, Kfthat those large line- of- battle ships, upon gHfthich we are now pluming ourselves as Hour sole defence, would, in case of war, be Broun d to be mere slaughter-houses. He Hpid not pretend to give this as his own Bftpinion. He knew that it was acted upon Gfln America, where the United States GoHrernment had not laid down one line-of-■wattle ship, and did not intend to do so, Hflonfining their navy to those long, low ■Ressels, the corvettes, of a tonnage equal to jflffur seventy-fours. The argument be had ■Heard was that, if we put a thousand men, SKito a line-of-battle ship, with 30 or 40 [Hens of gunpowder below them, and expose ■■pat great ship, a most conspicuous target, BR> the fire of such missiles as were now |Hontrived to be discharged from the kind BHf guns at present in use or in preparation, Hhe should really be providing a mere slaughhouse for those men. (Hear, hear.) HHthe present progressive state of military HS e nce, huge preparations made in one HBar would become useless in the next. jHV we encourage these constant suspicions |^B France, where were our fears to end ? Hflrhat just cause had they for suspicion j^Kainst France ? Was a country which itself on being at the head of civiliI^Rtion suddenly to turn pirate and filibusand invade England without reason or j^Hptice ? He had of late observed quite an tone in the war in which men spoke the matter. He heard them begin - HHng to say that we had better fight it out ; Hjßid they argued very intelligibly. They ■wd, — 'If, WJfeHe the Government is telling H^R that they have perfect confidence in the BBBnperpr, they increase our armaments and <

add 4d. to the income tax which they require us to pay in October — if all this goes on when there is ho quarrel, when there is nothing to explain and nothing to remove out of the way, where is all to end ? Surely we had better have a war, destroy the French fleet, and start afresh.' Apart from the question of humanity, which, however, he should be sorry to put for one moment out of his sight, there was no logical answer to this line of argument. An hon. member talked of 50 line-of-battle ships ; but they had all read the statement in the 'Edinburgh,' showing that in point of ton- | nage and weight of metal thrown by our guns, our naval force now exceeded that which we possessed in 1809, when we were !at the very height of the war ; and did | they not think there W3S some danger of our falling into what had been described by Lord Aberdeen as a desire to test the efficiency of our warlike preparations ? (Cheers.) Why should the French invade us ? We were their best customer. The exports of France to this country were greater than to any other country in the world ; and we were thus their best ftiend. 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 ; 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 ornaments. (Hear, hear.) In 1851 he (Mr. Cobden) moved an address 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. It was to the effect that her Majesty would enter into negotiations with France with a view to stop the rivalry between the two countries, and if possible lead to a mutual 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 so large a navy as ours, and especially if she did not yield to a fair explanation, then he should suspect some sinister design. (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 cheerfully vote five hundred millions as five millions to maintain our maritime superiority. (Loud cheers.) And for this reason, England had no frontier but the sea. England had unfortunately 40 or 50 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 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, hear.) 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 bad two ships we should have three. Surely a proposition of that kind might be made between Powers which had so high an opinion of each other's loyalty and fidelity. Let them look at the question in a patriotic light, and lend their aid in cutting down an expenditure which, at the best was a necessary evil. So far as it was necessary 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.