which cannot be disputed-to the past conduct of men, which, according to the theories of these individuals, is the best test of what their future behaviour will be; and I must say that I do not see that the history of the past justifies the too prevalent opinion, that between England and France there is a natural rivalry and hostility. I know very well, Sir, that if you go back to ancient history-or rather to the ancient history of the two countries-that you may appeal to Cressy and Poictiers, and to Agincourt, and believe there has always been a struggle between the two countries, and that that struggle has always redounded to the glory of England.

But it should be remembered these were not so much wars between France and England as between the King of France and the King of England as a French prince-that the latter was fighting for his provinces of Picardy or Aquitaine-and that, in fact, it was not a struggle between the two nations. I take it for granted that, in considering this point, our history need not go back to a more distant period than to that happy hour when the keys of Calais were fortunately delivered over for ever to the care of a French monarch; and, when we take that view, which is the real point of our modern history, as one that should guide us on this subject, we shall observe that the most sagacious sovereigns and the most eminent statesmen of England, almost without exception, have held that the French alliance, or a cordial understanding with the French nation, should be the corner-stone of our diplomatic system, and the keynote of our foreign policy.

No one can deny that both Queen Elizabeth and the Lord Protector looked to that alliance as the basis of their foreign connections. No one can deny that there was one subject on which even the brilliant Bolingbroke and the sagacious Walpole agreed-and that was the great importance of cultivating an alliance or good understanding with France. At a later date the most eminent of the statesmen of this country, Mr. Pitt, formed his system on this principle, and entered public life to establish a policy which, both for political considerations On this head see some interesting remarks by Professor Ranke, History of England, vol. v. p. 393.

and commercial objects, mainly depended on an alliance and good understanding with the French nation. And, therefore, Sir, it is not true that there has been at all times, or at most times, a want of sympathy in England with the French people; but, on the contrary, the converse is the truth; and the alliance and good understanding that has prevailed between us have, in my opinion, been a source of great advantage to both countries, and has advanced the civilisation of Europe. Even what has occurred in our time proves, I think, the truth that the natural tendency of the influences that regulate both countries is to peace; because the fact that, after such extraordinary events as the European revolutions at the end of the last and the beginning of this century, the great struggle that occurred, and the great characters that figured in it-the fact that all should terminate in a peace of so permanent a character as that which has prevailed proves the tendency of all those causes which influence the conduct of both nations, and which lead to peace, from a conviction of its advantage to both countries. I will not, therefore, dwell further upon this point, except to express my protest against the dogma which, I am sorry to see, has been revived of late-not merely in England, although it is too prevalent in this country-that there is a feeling of natural hostility between the nations of Great Britain and France.

Sir, there are undoubtedly more novel and more important causes to which may be imputed the present unfortunate opinion that is prevalent on the subject of our relations with France, and the first, and the most important, unquestionably, may be found in the increase of the armaments of this country. There are many who say, whatever may be the assertions of statesmen, whatever may be the public declaration of persons in authority, whatever may be the judgment formed by sensible and unimpassioned men of the circumstances of the hour, no one can deny the stern conclusion that the Government of this country feels the responsibility devolving upon it of increasing its armaments; and with what object can it be increasing its armaments unless it is from a fear of some imminent and impending danger from a foreign foe, and, if from a foreign foe, of course the nearest and the most warlike of those that can be our enemies?

Now, Sir, there is a great deal very plausible on the face of this position; nevertheless, the real truth is, that there is not in the circumstance of those armaments the slightest foundation for the belief that they have been occasioned by recent transactions in France, or by the appearance of any particular characters who have taken a leading part in the transactions of that country. The origin of the increase of our armaments for the defence of this country is of a date much more remote than the incidents which are appealed to as the cause of those increased armaments. The origin of completing and increasing the defence of this country finds itself in those great changes which have occurred in most of the affairs of life, which have principally been occasioned by the application of science to the business of life, and which application of science has not, among many circumstances and subjects, spared the art of war. Those who from their position were responsible for the defence of this country, who from their character and their talents were best calculated to observe the great changes that in this respect were occurring, long and many years ago called the attention of the executive Government of this country to that important subject. But we all know, especially in free and popular communities, that the few are sensible of the necessity of change before the multitude are convinced of that necessity, and that it is extremely difficult to bring the great body of a community to agree to a change, of the necessity of which they are not convinced. And the Government of this country many years ago attempted to adapt the position of the country, with respect to its means of defence, more to the present resources for that object which now prevail; but they found, of course, extreme difficulty in obtaining the assistance of the House of Commons for this object, when increased expenditure was a necessary condition of the change; and therefore for a long time the efforts were few and feeble; although the convictions of the cabinet of the day were deep and earnest upon the subject.

Well, Sir, there then happened, some ten years ago, during the Government of Sir R. Peel, a very unexpected incident, that startled even the two nations themselves at the possibility of a war occurring between the two countries. The cause was

almost a contemptible cause when we think of the stake at issue; but there is no doubt, without now inquiring into the peculiar circumstances which brought the crisis to such a fine position, that for a short time the possibility of war between England and France was not entirely out of question. Well, Sir, the Government of that day-ten years ago-took advantage, of course, of the public mind being somewhat startled and alarmed upon the subject, and endeavoured, even when the immediate danger had passed, to lead the public mind to the consideration of the important question which never slept in the councils of the cabinet; and there were some efforts, and not contemptible efforts, by the Government of Sir Robert Peel at least, to commence a new system with regard to the public defences of the country. The people of this country learnt for the first time that a great revolution had occurred in the art of war, that that revolution had deprived them of their ancient and, as it were, natural sources of defence, and they began generally to entertain the idea that they must adopt other means for their defence. So far the question advanced; but, as the fulfilment of what was necessary was, of course, attended with large and increased expenditure, and as there was a natural objection always to increasing our expenditure for the sake of armaments, in the House of Commons, the question, though it became, as far as the country was concerned, from that time a question that never entirely slept, yet advanced but slowly. There was controversy still whether the country was sufficiently defended or not, whether the ancient means were so completely superseded as they were represented to be: there was a lingering superstition in reference to the wooden walls of old England.'

Suddenly we had a series of revolutions on the Continent, a period of great alarm and of great disturbance. The people of this country were at last convinced that the dream of perpetual tranquillity and of continual improvement might be closed. That was a time when again an opportunity was offered to the Government of the day to lead popular opinion in the direction which it wished, so far as the defence of the country was concerned. The words of one of the greatest of our men were then prevalent round every hearth, and public opinion

at last assumed the form of an earnest desire to complete the defences of the country. I have no doubt, Sir, that whatever Government existed, they would loyally and completely have fulfilled that which was necessary to be done. It fell to the lot of the late Government to meet the requirements in this respect of England. I claim no merit for the late Government more than that to which they are fairly entitled in having earnestly endeavoured in this respect to do their duty. When they acceded to office the question of the national defences was ripe. No doubt if the Government of the noble lord (Lord John Russell) had continued in office, they would have done all that was required; it fell to us, however, to fulfil that duty, and briefly I would place before the House what we did in that respect. During the time that we were responsible for the administration of affairs with regard to the national defences, we established a Militia upon a popular principle-a principle which at the time was much derided, but which, notwithstanding the opposition that we received, we adhered to, and which succeeded in producing a body that commands, so far as a new force of that character can, the confidence, and, I may say, the respect of the country. Sir, we secondly placed the artillery of the country-that important arm-in an efficient state. Thirdly, we introduced measures, or we prepared arrangements, which would have completely, and will completely, fortify the arsenals of the country, and some important posts upon the coast. Fourthly, we increased our navy by a proposition which, when carried into effect, will add to it 5,000 sailors and 1,500 marines; and, fifthly, we made arrangements which I have no doubt will be well completed by our successors, which would have established, or rather will establish, the national garrison in the form of a Channel fleet, an efficient Channel fleet of fifteen or sixteen sail of the line, with an adequate number of frigates and smaller vessels, and which, when these plans are completed-and I trust they will be speedily completed— will allow a Channel fleet of that force to rendezvous at a very short notice from three or four ports. Into that fleet will be introduced all those modern improvements of scientific machinery which now are available.