This might be taken for granted as to 1854, 1870, and 1884. That it was equally true in my mind of 1859 may be seen by any one who reads my budget speech of July 18, 1859. I defended the provision as required by and for the time, and for the time only. The occasion in that year was the state of the continent. It was immediately followed by the China war (No. 3) and by the French affair (1861-2), but when these had been disposed of economy began; and, by 1863-4, the bulk of the new charge had been got rid of.
There is also the case of the fortifications in 1860, which would take me too long to state fully. But I will state briefly (1) my conduct in that matter was mainly or wholly governed by regard to peace, for I believed, and believe now, that in 1860 there were only two alternatives; one of them, the French treaty, and the other, war with France. And I also believed in July 1860 that the French treaty must break down, unless I held my office. (2) The demand was reduced from nine millions to about five (has this been done now?) (3) I acted in concert with my old friend and colleague, Sir James Graham. We were entirely agreed.
Terse figures of new estimates
The “approximate figure” of charge involved in the new plan of the admiralty is £4,240,000, say 4-½ millions. Being an increase (subject probably to some further increase in becoming an act)
1. On the normal navy estimate 1888-9 (i.e. before the Naval Defence Act) of, in round numbers, 4-¼ millions
2. On the first year's total charge under the Naval Defence Act of (1,979,000), 2 millions
3. On the estimates of last year 1893-94 of 3 millions
4. On the total charge of 1893-4 of (1,571,000), 1-½ million
5. On the highest amount ever defrayed from the year's revenue (1892-3), 1-½ million
6. On the highest expenditure of any year under the Naval Defence Act which included 1,150,000 of borrowed money, 359,000