Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Naval and Military Estimates was ruled by considerations of policy, which were not fitted for a Committee of Supply, so that the discussion of those Estimates was useless and meaningless unless connected with the principles and views of policy which really governed them. What time, then, could be more fitting and less open to objection than when the whole Estimates for the year had been voted, and it was impossible to pervert the question into one of want of confidence in the Government? Approaching the financial question involved in the Resolution, he observed that our national defences were of the very essence of the question; but he warned the House against the consequences of an expenditure out of proper. tion to the resources of the country. Upon an average of the last few years, our expenditure had reached the amount of 70,000,000l., equal to an Incometax of 68. a head of the population, and the question was, whether a normal and permanent expenditure of this amount was to be maintained in time of peace; whether we had not arrived at a time when some effort should be made to save our resources from a wasteful and excessive drain.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Baxter, who objected to the amendments of which Lord Palmerston and Mr. Walpole had given notice, that they only expressed a hope that reduction of expenditure might be effected, whereas the Resolution boldly asked the House to affirm the expediency of retrenchment. He referred to figures, to show that this economy might be effected without detriment to the defences

of the country, by cutting down the military and naval expenditure.

Lord Palmerston moved, as an amendment, to substitute for Mr. Stansfeld's Resolution the following Resolutions :-" That this House, deeply impressed with the necessity of economy in every department of the State, is at the same time mindful of its obligation to provide for the security of the country at home and the protection of its interests abroad. That this House observes with satisfaction the decrease which has already been effected in the national expenditure, and trusts that such further diminution may be made therein as the future state of things may warrant." He thought, he said, it would save the time of the House, if he proposed the amendment which the Government deemed it proper to submit to the House. He could not concur in the argument of Mr. Stansfeld, that the discussion of the Estimates in a Committee of Supply was inconvenient; on the contrary, he considered the Committee, where members were not restricted to a single speech, was a most convenient forum for the discussion of the Estimates. He contended that the expenditure complained of had been wisely asked for by the Government and sanctioned by Parliament; that it was their duty to take care that this country held a proper position in the affairs of the world, and for this purpose it was necessary that it should be in a state of perfect self-defence. The House, if it adopted Mr. Stansfeld's Resolution, would stultify itself; whereas his amendment pledged

the House to a reduction of expenditure consistently with its duty to the country, and he hoped that the Government would be able next year to come before Parliament with diminished Estimates. The assumption that the Government had been going on year after year in a reckless increase of expenditure was the reverse of the fact; compared with preceding years, there had been a reduction of expenditure, accompanied by a remission of taxation. After a skilful comparison and contrast of the other five amendments, he observed, with reference to Mr. Walpole's, that if the House was desired to express a want of confidence in the Government, it should be done in a direct manner; it was a thing not to be done indirectly. If the party opposite wished for a trial of strength it should be open and avowed, and if the House had not confidence in the present administration, let it say so.

Mr. Disraeli observed that there was a material omission in Lord Palmerston's speech. He had made no reference to the present condition of our finances, which a member of the Government had declared to be unhealthy, and it was the belief of the people that it was dangerous, which had called the attention of Parliament to the expenditure of the country.

He argued that our home defences were ample, and in relation to our interests abroad, he observed that the real cause of the influence of England was the belief that it was the only country which, when it entered into a quarrel for an adequate and worthy object, never ceased its efforts until it accomplished its

aim; but if our finances were weakened, the prime source of our influence in other countries would be impaired. In considering the means of reducing expenditure, he insisted that a vast sum appeared to be unaccounted for; that a reduction might be made without affecting the efficiency of our defences at home or abroad; that the money voted for iron ships had been diverted to other purposes, and that we were entering at this moment into a very large expenditure for military and naval purposes, not necessary for securing our shores or for the maintenance of our influence abroad. He denied that there was anything in the state of Europe at present that would justify extraordinary armaments. Europe was tranquil, because Europe was exhausted and impoverished by military expenditure. With regard to the Resolution moved by Mr. Stansfeld-whom he had never known, he said, as an apostle of retrenchment-he regarded it as sound, with little meaning. After a facetious criticism upon the other amendments, he examined with more seriousness that of Lord Palmerston, which ought, he said, to have some definite object and to intimate some policy, whereas it was an awkward and shambling vote of confidence in his own Government. He had been extremely anxious that Mr. Walpole's amendment should be accepted by the House; for, if adopted, the House would have had next year a Government, of whatever materials composed, that would have submitted the expenditure of the country to a severe revision, with a view to

a retrenchment that would be perfectly consistent with the efficiency of the public s rvice.

Mr. Horsman, in dealing in the first instance with the original Resolution, observed that Mr. Stansfeld had touched upon two main questions-taxation, and our naval and military expenditure. With respect to the first, he denied that the people of this country were heavily taxed. As to the expenditure upon our army and navy, he adverted to the mischief occasioned by the doctrines of the economists and the peace-at-any-price party, and to the lessons thereby taught to the nation, which had undergone something like a panic, through the advantage which appeared to have been taken by France of the supposed ascendancy of the peace party in England. Hence the rise of the war feeling in this country, the Volunteer move. ment-which was a national protest against that ascendancy and the increase of the naval and military expenditure. He then referred to the invasion of Italy by France and its results; to the difficulties which these transactions imposed upon the English Cabinet; to the annexation of Savoy to France, and the change which this act wrought in our relations with France, since which, he observed, the foreign policy of England had assumed a new character, and our armaments had given her increased influence, not in Italy only, but in our recent difference with America. The Crimean war had been brought on by the low condition of our armaments; it had added 40,000,000l. to our debt, and, looking at the matter as traders

and money-dealers only, we had received cent. per cent. for the addition to our expenditure. Mr. Horsman then scrutinized the amendment moved by Lord Palmerston, which, he thought, denoted divided counsels in the Cabinet, as in the time of the Crimean war, when there was no policy, no conscience in the Government.

Mr. Cobden, after a severe reply to Mr. Horsman, whom he accused of being an exponent of discontent, justified the motion, the object being to bring down our expenditure an expenditure which was kept up under the plea of its being necessary to protect ourselves against France. Why should we not endeavour, he asked, to produce peace and quiet in a cheaper way? We were in alliance with France; why could not Lord Palmerston, or somebody else he (Mr. Cobden) would undertake to do it--take the matter in hand, and talk over the question of the number of iron vessels ? Unless the Government would address themselves to the task of retrenchment, and to the relations of this country with France, the consequences would be serious

Upon a division, the motion was rejected by 367 to 65.

Lord Palmerston's amendment was then put as a substantive motion.

Mr. Walpole said the announcement made by Lord Palmerston at the beginning of the evening placed the House, as well as himself, in a position of great embarrassment, and, considering that his perseverance in his amendment might be attended with consequences and

entail responsibilities he was not prepared to encounter, he forbore to move his amendment

Mr. B. Osborne, in a humorous speech, taunted Mr. Walpole for having brought a great num. ber of members down to the House, by giving notice of his Resolution, and then saying, "I like economy much, but I like Lord Palmerston more." He said that the effect of the whole proceeding would be to make the Government stronger than ever and more unchecked in their extravagance.

Mr. Disraeli also assailed Mr. Walpole with some sharpness for withdrawing his amendment, and said that, as things had turned out, it would be best to let Lord Palmerston's amendment pass unchallenged, as it was certain that it would exercise no influence whatever.

Sir W. Heathcote briefly vindicated the course taken by his friend Mr. Walpole. Lord Palmerston's amen iment was then agreed to without a division, and so the debate, from which important results had been expected, ended in nothing.

A new arrangement for the Parliamentary Revision of the Public Accounts was this year adopted on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by whom a Resolution was proposed, and agreed to nem. con., to the effect that there should be a standing Committee of the House of Commons to be designated, "The Committee of Public Accounts," for the examination of the accounts, showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure.

CHAPTER V.

ARMY, NAVY, AND FORTIFICATIONS-Sir G. C. Lewis moves the Army Estimates, and enters into a full explanatory statement of the Expenditure and Condition of the Land Forces-A Motion to Reduce the number of men, and some other Amendments, being negatived, the Estimates are agreed to. Purchase of Commissions in the ArmySir De Lacy Evans moves a Resolution for giving effect to the Report of the Royal Commission—Sir G. C. Lewis opposes the Motion-Speeches of General Peel, Lord Stanley, and Lord Palmerston-The Resolution is negatived by 247 to 62. The Naval Estimates are moved by Lord Clarence Paget-Much discussion takes place with reference to the construction of iron-cased vessels, and on the relative strength of our Navy and that of France-Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Baxter contend that the growth of the French Navy in strength and numbers has been over-stated by the Government-Lord Clarence Paget justifies his own representations on this subject, and enters at length into a statement of the operations in our Dockyards, and the plans of the Government for increasing our naval strength-Further debates on Naval Armaments-Impression produced in this country by the engagement in America between the Merrimac and the Monitor-The question of Fortifications of the Coast is discussed in connection with that of ironsheathed vessels—Important Debate in the House of Lords, and statement of the Duke of Somerset, as to the condition of the Navy and intentions of the Government-The relative efficiency of Iron and Wooden Ships of war is again discussed in the same House, with reference to the action between the American vessels-Speeches of Earl de Grey, the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Ellenborough, the Duke of Somerset, and other Peers-The same subject is mooted in the House of Commons by Sir Frederick Smith-Remarks of Mr. Laird, Mr. Gregory, Sir J. Hay, Capt. Jervis, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Bright, Sir G. C. Lewis, and Lord Clarence Paget. FORTIFICATION OF THE DOCKYARDS AND ARSENALS-Sir G. C. Lewis proposes, on the part of the Government, a Resolution authorizing a grant of 1,200,000l. for these works-His speech-Mr. Bernal Osborne opposes the proposition, objecting to the scheme, as ineffectual and extravagantHe moves an Amendment, to give effect to his views-Speeches of Sir F. Smith, Mr. H. A. Bruce, Mr. Vivian, Sir J. Northcote, Mr. Bentinck, Sir M. Peto, Mr. Monsell, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Disraeli -Mr. Osborne's Amendment is withdrawn-On a further stage of the Bill, the opposition is renewed by Mr. Lindsay, who renews

« ElőzőTovább »