might prove as a matter of statistical study, he found it was barren of any practical results. The circumstances of the two countries were widely different; the French army was formed by conscription, the English army by voluntary recruiting. The rates of wages were different in the two countries; the systems of finance were different. The French budget was made two or three years in advance, and was prepared upon a system of allowing only ordinary expenditure; but there were extraordinary credits which did not appear in the regular returns of expenditure. The noble lord did not want to reduce the army, nor the pay of the army; so far they were agreed. What he wished was, to have the wages of the artificers and the pay of the clerks reduced. But the Government could not reduce the wages of the artificers at Woolwich, as the rates were regulated by the state of the market; and if the noble lord advocated the reduction of the wages of the clerks in the War-office, he should be prepared to apply the same rule to the clerks in the Home-office, the Treasury, and the whole of the Civil-service departments. The Government had reduced the army within as narrow limits as were consistent with the exigencies of the public service.

Several members who took part in this discussion acknowledged the ability and pains which Lord R. Cecil had bestowed upon the subject, and some expressed their concurrence with his views, but the House was not prepared to set aside the calculations which the Government had formed upon their official responsibility as to the exigencies of the service, and, after a good deal of debate upon various matters of detail, the votes proposed were agreed to.

The Estimates for the Navy, which were moved by Lord Clarence Paget, the Secretary to the Admiralty, also exhibited a considerable reduction. The total amount of money asked for was 10,736,6327., which was less than the vote for the previous year by 1,058,2737. The noble lord congratulated the House on this reduction, because they had been enabled by the liberality of Parliament to make such great exertions that the navy was never in so efficient a state as at that time, whether in regard to men or to that class of ships which were now most in vogue. After pointing out the reductions in the several items of expenditure, Lord Clarence stated the number and description of armour-clad vessels afloat and building. The number of these vessels under construction or at sea was twenty-one. Of this number ten (including one small vessel) were actually at sea or would be ready at the end of the year, and eight more would be completed by April next year. He explained the course proposed to be taken in the conversion of line-of-battle ships, and with the frames of wooden ships building. The number of seamen and marines was the same as last year-namely, 76,000 men. He read an account of the amount of our naval force afloat and its distribution, and, in conclusion, gave satisfactory details as to the condition of the seamen and the various improvements introduced into the management of

the departments, and the means adopted to improve the health and comfort of the men. In particular he stated the results of the new experiment of the Naval Reserve, which had been recently organized to meet the difficulty of a sudden demand for men for purposes of naval defence. "That great body of merchant seamen, which has now become a national institution, has largely increased in number during the last year. Last year the number of men enrolled was 10,000. We have now nearly 17,000, of whom 15,000 are drilled and perfectly ready to serve their country. Of these 7000 are at home and can be called out at any moment. It is impossible for me to speak too highly of this valuable force. We have also established a body of officers in connexion with the Naval Reserve. Of the 400 officers which Parliament empowered us to engage we have already 191, which in a single year is a considerable number to obtain. Then we have the Naval Coast Volunteers, a very fair body of men, whom we think we may still improve. At present we have no power to take these men beyond 100 leagues from their own shores. It appears to us very desirable that, in the event of our requiring the services of this force, we should not be confined to employing them within so limited a distance. We believe that, by a little more care in the selection of recruits, we may be able to induce seafaring men to join the force on the understanding that a more extended use is to be made of their services, should necessity require them. Accordingly, it will be my duty to introduce a Bill for the purpose of reorganizing that force."

This statement, though well received by the House, elicited some diversity of opinion. Sir John Pakington expressed, with some qualification, his approval of the measures taken by the Government, and of the amount of force which it was intended to maintain. Mr. Lindsay criticized, with some severity, the mistakes made and waste of money incurred through the successive changes and experiments in ship-building. Mr. Baxter deprecated the policy of maintaining an enormous naval establishment with the view of guarding against foreign invasion, the fear of which he regarded as a foolish panic. Mr. Cobden assailed more broadly what he considered to be the disproportionate scale and cost of our maritime armaments. He admitted, indeed, the justice of the notion that England should maintain a Navy superior to that of any nation in the world; but the superiority of a Navy did not now depend upon the number of men; it was a question of science and skill, so that, when he objected to 76,000 men, he did so for this reason, that he defied the Government so to employ that number in the ships they had that they could be of any use to the country. And when he objected to the number of men, he objected to the whole expenditure of the Navy, for the number of men voted was the measure of the expenditure in all the departments. The conduct of the Government in ship-building had been nothing less than insanity, and the House should be cautious in trusting them now. Could we afford, rich as the country was, to go into all these novel

ties on a grand scale of iron-clad broadsides? Were we sure that in a few years they would not share the fate of the sailing line-of-battle ships? He called upon the Admiralty to suspend the building of monster broadsides till the plan of Captain Cowper Coles had been tried, and, if it was successful, this enormous number of men would be unnecessary.

Mr. LAIRD expressed his concurrence in the opinion last expressed by Mr. Cobden.

The vote for the number of men proposed by the Government was however adopted without division.

On a subsequent occasion, when the Estimates again came under discussion, Mr. Cobden renewed his protest against the extravagance of our Naval management and the superfluously large force which had been proposed by the Government. He had before stigmatized the policy of maintaining so many "obsolete vessels of war," and he would now justify his statement. We had now, besides corvettes and small vessels, 106 wooden steam line-of-battle ships or large frigates, and, after the invention of a kind of artillery which projected shells not vertically, but horizontally, with all the precision of the ordinary artillery, these wooden vessels were rendered obsolete, not by iron-clad vessels of war alone, but they were objectionable before an iron-clad vessel was made. Since the introduction of iron-clad vessels, indeed, wooden ships of war were not merely worthless, but a source of weakness. There had been no want of warning; we had had warnings from all quarters. He considered that the Admiralty was responsible for 10,000,000%. wasted upon these useless wooden line-of-battle ships. On whom did the blame rest? It must be divided, he said, between the two sides of the House. He referred to a variety of documents and detailed statements relating to the Navy of France, as well as that of England, in order to establish his conclusions, and he cited a declaration of Lord C. Paget, in 1858, when out of office, which he contrasted with statements made by him in moving the Navy Estimates, in 1860 and 1861. Looking at what Lord C. Paget had done, and what Sir J. Pakington had contributed to, in this waste of public money, he thought they must both feel some remorse, and hoped that the House would take warning, and not allow itself to be frightened into such extravagance again. If these wooden ships were not only useless, but positively dangerous to their crews, 30,000 men of the number voted were not wanted, and it was competent to the House to review, and if necessary reverse, its vote. He insisted that they were not doing justice to their constituents by voting 76,000 men, when it could be demonstrated that that number could not be employed.

Lord CLARENCE PAGET, in vindicating the conduct of the Government, explained that the great mass of the men in wooden ships were employed, not in large but in small vessels, on distant stations. He complained of the broad statements made by Mr. Cobden, and defended the late and the present Admiralty, who were

quite right in making great exertions at particular periods to put the Navy in an efficient state. Mr. Cobden, he observed, had not well-timed his criticisms; he had waited until the events were over, when it was safe to criticize.

Sir J. PAKINGTON complained that Mr. Cobden had made a violent attack upon him and his administration of the Navy without giving him notice, and thereby enabling him to refer to documents. He vindicated himself and the Government of Lord Derby against the charges made by Mr. Cobden,-whose speeches on naval affairs were, he said, full of mis-statements, and explained the views and policy of that Government in relation to our Navy.

Sir C. WOOD showed how much expenditure had been unavoidably incurred in the Navy by changes in the construction of ships of war, and the necessity of meeting sudden exigencies.

One of the most important questions that arose during the discussions upon the Navy Estimates related to the mode of constructing ships of war by laying iron plates upon wooden frames, it being argued on one hand that iron-covered vessels might thereby be built quicker and cheaper, and that the timber was already paid for; on the other, that there was no reason for using an inferior material for the frames of vessels because there happened to be a large excess of timber in store, and that if we were to have an iron fleet it should be an effective one, that would not be a burden on the country for repairs.

The latter view was urged with much earnestness by Mr. Lindsay, who moved a Resolution condemnatory of any further construction of wooden ships, which was supported by Mr. Laird, Sir M. Peto, Mr. Dalgleish, and Sir John Hay. The argument in favour of iron-framed ships as against wooden frames involved a variety of technical details. The comparative advantages of building in the Royal dockyards or in private dockyards by tender and contract were also introduced into the discussion.

Lord C. PAGET replied to Mr. Lindsay. Citing a statement in the Moniteur de la Flotte, which claimed a superiority over the iron fleets of other nations for France, he assured the House that it was absolutely necessary that we should continue to build ironplated ships. He then examined in much detail the evidence for and against iron and iron-plated ships respectively, pointing out inconveniences and disadvantages peculiar to the former. After a few explanations, with reference to the controversy between the Controller of the Navy and the iron shipbuilders, he showed the great improvements which had been introduced into Her Majesty's dockyards, as suggested by the Royal Commission. Then the question was whether the five ships in hand should be of wood and armourplated, or of iron. If of iron, the House must be prepared to state distinctly what was wanted, and was it possible, in the face of frequent changes, to tell what would be the best upper works three years hence? It was impossible for any Government to undertake to enter into any contract for what would be required in 1865.

F

After mature consideration, the Government were of opinion that they must proceed gradually, and that they should prepare a certain number of wooden frames for iron-plated ships. If the House insisted upon having iron ships, they must be prepared for supplementary estimates. As to the proposal of building in private yards, two years would be required for the building of a vessel by contract, which could be turned out of a Royal dockyard in a single year.

Various members, among whom were Sir F. Baring and Mr. Bentinck, expressed their opinion that in the present unsettled state of the controversy between wood and iron, the Government ought to be left free to act according to their own judgment, and not to be fettered by any Resolution of the House of Commons.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said he hoped that no member would vote upon this Resolution except under a sense of its extreme importance as regarded the future welfare of the Navy. The question involved in the terms of the motion was simply, whether the five ships to be laid down should be built of wood or iron. Lord Palmerston had assigned two reasons in favour of wooden shipsnamely, time and money. But the building of wooden ships was not a question of time, since they could not be hurried; and as to money, it was the weakest and worst view of the question to make it one of money.

Lord PALMERSTON observed that the whole of this discussion had turned upon a misconception of what the course of the Admiralty had been and would be. Was it supposed that the Admiralty had set its face against building iron ships and building by contract? Their course was quite the contrary; they had built iron ships, and had built them by contract. There was one objection against iron ships which had not been answered-namely, the fouling of their bottoms, which required repeated cleansing. This was of small importance in merchant ships, but of great importance in a ship of war. Opinions being divided as to the comparative merits of the two kinds of vessels, what did the Admiralty propose to do? In the summer an opportunity would be offered of testing by experiment the respective qualities of a wooden ship iron-plated, and a ship built entirely of iron, and the result would instruct the Admiralty. He entreated the House not to be led into a course that would be not only unwise, but unconstitutional. There were functions belonging to a deliberative assembly, and others which appertained to the Executive Government. This was a matter which ought to rest with the Government, and all they asked was that their hands should be left free.

Mr. Lindsay's Resolution was negatived by 164 to 81.

A proposal was afterwards made by Sir John Elphinstone for an address to the Crown to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the best mode of construction and form of the iron-clad ships which are to compose the future Navy of England; to report upon the ships built and building, and the dock and basin accommoda