The Sun. — London, England, 1860-08-03 00:00:00

value of Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham being preserved from falling into the hands of an enemy. He believed that in times like this, when changes were taking place that would make war ten times more destructive and perhaps impossible—which Heaven grant—the only course for an honest and economical government to take was to go slowly, cautiously, and inquiringly to work, and not to com mit themselves to a vast and extravagant expenditure which a short experience might show to he of no value at all. (Hear, hear.) Besides the commission there had been a committee, of which the Duke of Cambridge was at the head.. This committee said that the public would be satis fied with the measures that were being taken to put the Channel fleet, which formed our first line of defence, in an -efficient state. Then they said that doubtless the public mind would also be satisfied with the fortifications proposed by the commissioners, which (if efficiently garrisoned) would place our arsenals out of the reach of sudden de struction by a foreign force, whether on land or at sea. The house uld see that the committee did not say the fortifi cations would give our arsenals absolute security, but would only protect them from sudden destruction. (Hear, hear.) Next they expressed their opinion that having reference to the changes introduced by steam, our army was of . a very insufficient magnitude : and they trusted that steps would be taken to make the army of a scale corresponding with that of the navy. Now, what did that mean ? Our navy was larger than any other in the world—was it intended that our army should exceed the army of any other power ? (No.) He understood that' the committee did not mean that ; but they ought to define with precision what they did mean. (Hear, hear.) Then they said further that these said volunteers of whom they heard so much—and really he hardly knew some of his acquaintances, so changed were they in their new habiliments—(laughter)—the com misaioners stated that these said volunteers and the militia could only be relied upon in the case of a grave emer gency. The ordinary defences were therefore to be trusted to the regular soldiers, and the volunteers and militia were only to come in when one of these great emergencies turned up. Lastly, the committee said there was another subject which appeared to them of very great importance, though it was not included in the terms of their reference — they meant the Channel Islands and the sea surrounding them (mark the absurdity I) as a naval station. The com mittee would now be able to comprehend the expenditure into which they were invited to launch—so far indeed as any one could comprehend what was incomprehensible. (Laugh ter.) If there was any doubt as to the particular quality which was ascribed to these gentlemen, it was supplied in a letter which they wrote to Lord Overstone, bearing, of course, a great official seal, and expressed with the usual pomp of official language. Lord Overstone was accounted an eminent authority upon certain things. He was a man of prodigious wealth; and like many of them when they got older, especially if they were never very robust, he had become exceedingly timid. (Laughter.) But what was it that those gentlemen asked Lord Overstone ? They de sired to know what were his lordship's views if England were invaded. If he had not been a lord and a millionaire, it was quite clear that they would never have thought of asking him ; but how could the fact of being a lord and a millionaire make a man an authority upon a great question of national defences ? (Hear.) However, the commis sioners inquired the noble lord's views as to the effects upon the commerce and manufacturers of the country that would follow the landing of an invading army ? " Would such a state of things," they asked, "be compatible with a con tinuance of the ordinary operations of trade and commerce? (Loud laughter.) Would not the evils of such a state of things be so intolerable that the people would force the Go vernment to a peace at any cost to the honour, the wealth, and the future greatness of the country ?" (Laughter.) The answer of Lord Overstone showed a simplicity which was positively charming. First, he said that money would be withdrawn from savings banks. (Great laughter.) Then he said that money would also be taken out of the country banks and from all persons—here the shop peeped out—holding money at call. (Laughter.) He said further, and here he showed some discretion, that it was " useless to discuss what would happen when London had fallen into the hands of an invader. (Cheers.) Seeing the exhibition that Lord Overstone had made, he (Mr. Bright) felt thank ful that he was not a lord and a millionaire, or the commis sioners might have been patting questions to him. (Laugh ter.) The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Herbert) talked as if this question could not be debated, and as if it was obvious that what the Government proposed was the right thing to do. But was there anything in the world that they could be asked to do, and would do upon such counsel as that which he had read ? It was like a man who could not be shown to be ill having a dozen doctors coming to discuss his health and each offering him a different prescription. Surely in such a case the man would be likely to rise and drive the whole dozen doctors away. Every one of the au-. thorities who had been consulted recommended somethin pj different from the rest, and each said that unless his plan were adopted they would have no security. It appeared to him that if they adopted all they were asked, they would have no diminution of panic, and in fact nothing but an interminable expense. (Hear.) But now he would ask, had the country done nothing in the way of national de fences ? In 1835 our warlike expenditure was only £12,000,000. In 1853 it was between £15,000,000 and £16,000,000; while in 1800 they had voted £30,000,000. (Hear, hear.) And had they made any approach lea security ? Not the least. On the contrary, there was not then nearly the feeling of insecurity that had sprung up of late years. The noble lord quoted the Duke of Wel lington. The Duke of Wellington did a great deal for his order during his life, and somebody had persuaded him to leave it a legacy when he died. But he (Mr. Bright) would rather look to the acts of the duke when he was twenty years younger, when with Sir Robert Peel he brought in those moderate estimates which he felt to be sufficient. In 1851, soon after he wrote the letter in question, everybody knew that the duke was much more nervous and irritable than he was when he was younger. He fancied that at the opening of the Great Exhibition the country was running a great peril. He thought that all the refugees in Europe, and everybody who was discontented, would come over under pretence of attending the Exhibi tion, and would dethrone the Queen, put the House of Lords into the Thames, and overturn everything that Eng lishmen were supposed to hold in reverence. He therefore advised that as many troops as could be brought together should be drawn round London, and accordingly 30,000 men were gradually brought near the metropolis, in order to save the Queen and Court when they went to open the Great Exhibition. With that fact before him he was not bound to take the opinion of the Duke of Wellington. (Hear.) The noble lord had contributed in his speech the other day to create the evil impression which existed in the public mind. The noble lord had misstated the facts, for he said, " You know the exertions which the French Govern ment are making to create a navy equal, or very nearly equal, to our own." In that the noble lord stated what he could not know to be true. For what were the facts? There was no concealment about the matter, for the English Go vernment did not allow either foreigners or Englishmen to go through their arsenals and dockyards with anything like the frankness with which the French Government allowed strangers to go through theirs. In 1858 the number of men in the French navy was 30,000, the number in the English was 59,000. In 1860 the number in the French navy had only been increased by 500, whereas the number in the English had been raised to 84,100. (Cheers.) Would any body get up and deny that fact? Again, it was notorious that in 1857 the French Government openly adopted a scheme by which they expected that in 14 years they would have 40 line-of-battle ships, 15 being first class, and 25 second class vessels. That was the scheme which had been proceeded with, and about which there had been no conceal ment or deception whatever. Again, what was the ex penditure on the French navy? Their budget only showed a charge on that account of £5,600,000. It was quite pos sible that the expenditure might go somewhat beyond the estimates; but adding a million, and calling it £6,600,000, it did not come near half what we had spent. Let it be re membered that engines cost more in France than in-Eng land, and how was it possible they could have a navy any thing like ours ? At least if they had, the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty ought at once to be driven from office and be made to give place to somebody who - would spend the money of the English tax payer with more eco nomy and with a better result. (Cheers.) There had been the same exaggeration as to Cherbourg, but that had passed away. He had been shown an important letter from a cor respondent in the Army and Navy Gazette. He said that he been allowed to go all over the place, and that he had found very little doing. There was very little going on in the way of preparations in the arsenal; and he saw only one soli tary mason. There was no vessel in the dock but a small sloop and a revenue cutter. The digue, s ith its long line of guns, appeared enally deserted, He saw the frigate Normandie which had frightened several admirals inEng land. (Laughter.) They told him that they were not doing much with their frigates blindees there ; but that they were somewhere else. At Toulon or Brest they would, no doubt, have told him that they were very busy at Cherbourg. The writer said that having seen the Normandie, he felt.much better satisfied as to the peaceable intentions of the French Government than he should have been by a dozen articles of M. Grandguilhst, or official remonstrances in the lifoni &tr. (Hear.) He (Mr. Bright) should not be surprised 1 , 1 h e were told th a t it was qu i te true that noth i ng was d o i ng t t Cherbou rg; but that it was all a bli n d ; f or some d a y th e ships at th e other ports would be brought round to Cher bour (L Z,_ .er. then they wou ld see w h at they wou ld see. persu l n a t a )lle was aware th a t h e m i g ht j ust as we ll try to him, that ra suer who fancied ever yb o d y was try i ng to po i son a feeling. Ise ela was not th e case , as attempt to combatsuch one day a s h e e knew a perso n w h o h a d thi s f ancy ; an d hotel at Derby th e :Zing' with him from that be a utif u l bread they gave m e ' ? „ man said, " Didn't you notice th e wi(tthhe hon. member) soon f oun d twat any atterapt t s argu : him was thro wn awa y. I n the same way he 'night t:y n :tvlclaisl:ow that there were neither ships, nor men, nor yet oxyPerasnditure—neither a po licy on the part of t b e French G fear s m f ellt, nor a feeling in the French mind, t , justify the 1111. au evasion—but it would be no marine r of use. Th e id ea ot heads, just as the i dea that t he bread was peoitstod had rfpeople's into the head of thi unfortunate lunatic. (Laughter.) The Secretary for War b lad turne d round and cast upon the pe o p l e the same reproach vhich had ever been thrown upon thpe, by men in office, ar tal which he (Mr. Bright was p repared 'to denounce not on' as hypocrisy but as a crime. The noble lord said that the p es )ple were favourable to this expenditure. Of course if the people believed that they were about to be ' eaten up by a foreign invader they would not grudge two millions more or less to save themselves from such a fate. But the fact that the people believed—if they did believe — that they were going to be invaded, was proof of a contemp tible cowardice on the part of the cabinet. They allowed a cry to be got up which was utterly absurd, and then they squandered away the public money because they had not courage to tell the people the truth of the matter. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bright) would not say which was most to blame, the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman opposite, for he thought they were both tarred with the same stiek. (Great laughter.) Why, what did they do with regard to the Italian war? Austria had for years been stupid; Sar dinia was restless and ambitious ; and everybody knew that before long there would be a collision between those powers. France interfered, and marched into Lombardy. What to do ? The French policy was the policy of England. Eng- land, it was true, did not choose to intervene—and moss wisely did not—but a vast majority of the people of England were of opinion, as the present Government were of opinion, that it would be very desirable to see Austria on the other side of the Alps, and Italy free from a foreign Government. What did the Government of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks do ? They created the greatest possible alarm in the country, and said that it was necessary to be prepared for war. The French army having marched into Italy, one would not have ex pected to see them march into England, for even French soldiers could not be in two places at once. (Laughter.) The probability was, as every man in Europe felt, that the fact of French troops being engaged in Italy made it, if possible, infinitely less likely that they could be engaged in England. And yet the moment before this was begun all kind of alarm was created. The right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich took credit for—he was going to say the profligacy, but he would say for the profuseness with which he expended the money of the country in increasing a navy to put a stop, he supposed, to the march of sol diers who were then probably on their way across the Alps. But the French were triumphant, and the policy of England succeeded in Italy. There was no hostility against England, and yet England armed, they still armed, and from that time to this they had continually armed, and any excuse had been considered sufficient to hoodwink the people and make them content with extra taxes wrung from them. We had a change of Government. The noble ,lord the member for Tiverton came in. He always, conti nued the hon. member, does come in. (Loud laughter.) Soon after the noble lord came in, we had the debate in this house to which I have already referred. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks and the Chancellor of the Exchequer both spoke in that debate. I took the liberty of addressing the house after him, and I recom mended them to enter into commercial relations with France. I will just give the house a few extracts from the speech of the noble lord at:the head of the Government, and of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary, and then I ask, whether it is fit that the great interest of the country should be trifled with by gross inconsistencies of this nature. The noble lord at the head of the Government said : " I feel assured that nobody can fairly refuse to acknowledge that the Emperor of the French!has been the faithful, true ally of England, both in time of peace and of war, and that we have every reason to regard him as a monarch who feels personally, and upon system, desirous to cement and per petuate the alliance which subsistsbetween his country and our own." What did the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) say ? " I feel, with my hon. friend, that there is something dan gerous, not in the present disposition of the Emperor of the of the French, or in the present disposition of the French people towards this country, but in the constant endeavours made to excite a jealousy and alarm as if some deep plot were laid against our peace and security. That fear is readily imbibed. The people are urged to prepare them selves when there is no cause, and I must say that as bad as are wars of ambition wars of panic are equally bad. I be lieve that whatever reproaches may be cast upon the Em peror of the French as to various questions of his domestic and foreign policy, yet that as regards this country—and I have often repeated it—he has been a faithful ally to us ; and I believe'also that upon any great question which may arise his wish is to obtain the concurrence and approbation of the people of this country." (Hear, hear.) Now I don't blame the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) for having ex horted the people to arm. and for creating, and, if I may so speak, exasperating the excitement which has been occa sioned. But I say that while the speech of the noble lord was a speech exactly of that character which required the observations and condemnation which the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) gave in the paragraph I have just read, what can be more extraordinary than the course of the Govern ment on that occasion ? Both the noble lords on that occa sion objected to my policy of a commercial treaty. Well, immediately afterwards, very wisely, they made a commer cial treaty. But at the same time, after declaring with unanimous consent their confidence in the good intentions not only of the French people, but of the French Emperor, yet from that time to this they have been doing all they can to arm against him as if he were an enemy. Therefore, as things go by contraries, they did that which they condemned in the case of the treaty, they have very wisely taken apolicy with regard to that question wholly in opposition to that which we should expect from the observations they made in their speeches. What have, they done during the s,essiesis and winter? I am not going to quibble with the committee about a fort more or a fort less. lam speaking now upon the great policy the Government are pursuing, and which they are constantly asking Parliament to unite with them in pursuing. Very soon after they came into office, that unfortunate transaction happened in China. They imme diately entered into partnership with the Emperor for the purpose of restoring—l think they called it—the prestige of English arms in the Chinese waters. They invite the French Emperor to send a large force to the East. I should have thought that it was the object of the English Govern ment, having, as they say, great influence in the East, partly political and partly commercial, not to invite any of the European forces to send forces into that quarter of the world. But they invited the French Emperor to send forces to the East ; they sent an hon. friend of mine for the purpose of negotiating a great treaty of amity, and at the same time they arm yith the greatest vigilance and energy against the very man with whom they are in such intimate alliance in the East, and with whom they are negotiating a treaty of amity at home. I say nothing can be more grossly inconsistent, more hypocritical and insulting at once to the people of England and to the people of France. Let us take a short and impartial review of the transactions whic=h have taken place between this country and France ':thin the last few years; and I tell the committee frankly that I use the same language, and I feel the same sentiments as I should if it was not a Bonaparte, but Louis Philippe, who was at this moment on the throne of France. When the republic was overthrown the news was received almost with acclamation by many members of this house, and especially those on the other side. The noble lord at the head of the Government rushed with hat haste to congratulate the Emperor of the French, then the president of the republic, upon what had taken place. He applauded it, he supperted it, and ho gave all the support that could be given in this country to that act and to that policy. In 1853 the Government of this country broke with Russia, and dissolved an alliance of long dura tion. They entered into a new alliance with France, for purposes connected with what was called the Oriental ques tion. In 1854 they declared war against Russia, in alliance with France. I recollect the noble lord at the head of the Government at that time telling us that extraordinary har mony existed between the Governments of France and Eng land. He used this expression—" In point of fact, there is but one Government and one Cabinet." So united were they together,:that.some people said the union was too hot to last. In 1856 there came the termination of the war—a war into which people said the noble lord and his colleagues had dragged the Emperor of the French, and that the Emperor of the French dragged us out of it. That I believe was not denied. (Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Well, I understand many hon. gentlemen opposite, and many others, thought that the peace was made too soon. (Hear, hear.) In the autumn of 1856—1 want to show how closely we have been allied, and, therefore, how false must be our conduct, whether in our alliance or in our armaments—we had a joint quarrel with Naples, and both France and Eng land withdrew their Ministers from that country. In 1857 we had the China war again, and we were united in opera tions there. In 1859 we had the Italian war, and the opinion of Europe was entirely against Austria, and the English policy was supported by the French arms. Then we come to the peace of Villafranca, and English policy has I since prevailed in Italy. It must be obvious to everybody that the course which the Emperor marked out for himself at that peace has not been followed. But the policy of the noble lord at the head of the Foreign-office has been fol lowed in Italy ; and state after state, Parma, Modena, Tus cany, and the Legations, have been added to Sardinia, con trary to the wish of the Emperor of the French. Well, that does not show that the Emperor of the French was hostile to this country, but rather that he endeavoured in everything he could to meet the views of the English Go vernment and to carry out a policy in accordance, to a large extent, with the policy of England. I will not go into that question of Savoy which our Government endeavoured to make a great question, but which all Europe was unani-' mous in deciding was a very small question. But, big or little, the English Government knew the conditions on which Savoy was to be annexed to France. (Hear.) They insisted on the conditions of the cession of certain slates to Sardinia, and they thought they could prevail on the Em peror to give up the annexation of Savoy. (Hear.) But it was folly to expect that, after a monarch 'had carried on a war, and had been successful in it, he could surrender every portion of his policy. He allowed you to make the annexa tion to Sardinia, but he did not allow you to frighten him from the annexation of a petty province to his empire. Well now we have this question of Syria, in regard to which the noble lord gave us the other night a frank and proper explanation, as far as we knows' anything about it, and it led to this conlcusion, that the Emperor of the French had behaved with the greatest possible moderation and frank ness towards the English Government. , (" Hear," from Lord J. Russell.) The noble lord assents to that—that the first thing he did when the necessity of intervention presented itself to his mind, was to ask the counsel and con currence of the Government of England. That doe's not show any hostility or treachery, or any anxiety to aggran dise himself, or to take a position isolated and independ Ant in the affairs of Europe. Then I say, that being so, it Would be but fair that we should act as if we thought there was in his conduct that which was sincere and honourable ;o this country. And now, sir, we have got a stronger proof in that vary commercial treaty, of which some persons affect to think lightly, but which all those who are con- netted with commerce with France believe to be the most important measure of peace and commerce which has ever taken place between these two• nations. That treaty has its friends and its foes ; but the foes of that treaty, in my opinion, if they understand its provisions and its probable effect, are the foes of peace and the foes of the two nations between whom that treaty has been negotiated. I say that those who write in the city apparently to embroil two nations who are not Bonapartists, but more likely Orleanists—constantly attack the treaty, althoUgh there is not a single deputation from the trades of England who have been before the joint commission which has not returned, not only satisfied, but delighted with the opening prospects of trade in all its branches between the two coun tries. I said I should make an observation on the noble lord's speech, but it will be very light. I say the noble lord might himself have brought forward this very proposition—a pro position I entirely condemn—but he might have brought it forward in a manner much less injurious than that which he adopted. Ido not believe that the gentlemen sitting *ith the noble lord can approve of that language, and I am sure that the great body of the members in this house do not. I have never heard from any person outside this house any opinion but one of regret that the noble lord should have used language calculated to produce a panic in England, and to create excitement and distrust, and it may be passion, in France. Now I shall ask the house one question before I sit down, namely, whether this expenditure which we are now discussing is to be without limit, and whether the house, contrary to the opinion of all men who have ever sat as representatives of a nation, is of opinion that it does not much matter how much money we throw away in mili tary expenses every year ? How has this change come about? From the year 1853, when the floodgates of pas sion were thrown wide, to the present time, the Exchequer has been open, and every man, it appears, is allowed to put his hand into it, and spend just as much as he likes. Up to that time it was boasted that the reign of Queen Victoria was to be a reign of peace. We were told that— " No war, or battle sound, Was heard the world around — The idle spear and shield were high up hung." But since then the court seems to have its occupation In connexion with military affairs—reviews in Hyde-park, re views at Aldershott, shooting-matches on Wimbledon common—all these are occupations which for a long time have been foreign to the English court, and for which, I believe in my conscience, there is not a particle of justifica tion at the moment at which lam speaking (Hear, hear.) The people are stimulated to arm ; the Cabinet is constantly devising new means of expenditure ; and all this appears to be based upon the ignorance of the people, the clamours of the services, and the want of courage in the Cabinet to speak the real truth to the nation. (Hear.) There was one of the Ministers of Queen. Elizabeth who once declared that England would never be undone except by a Parlia liament, and I fear the course we are taking in our utter negligence of matters, with regard to matters to which I have alluded, and with reference to our expenditure, is tending to that which we understood to be the undoing of a nation. You are told, at this moment, after £30,000,000 have been voted for the service of the country, that you are not safe. You are told that in another year, not in case of war, but in a time of peace, you will see votes still higher ; you have voted this year for all the services of the Govern ment, and for the payment of the debt, a sum exceeding . £73,000,000 sterling. My' hon. friend the member for Lambeth has devoted much time in calling the attention of the house to this extravagance; but altogether I am eorry to say, without effect. But suppose you were to place all this taxation upon the persons who have £lOO a year and more, that is, upon the income taxpayers, it would actually absorb and extract about one-third of the whole income of all the people of the United Kingdom, because if a penny piece gives £1,000,000 of income tax, £73,000,000 would re quire 73 pence in the £l, or 6s. id. of income tax ; and therefore within a little, it would be one-third of the whole income, and consequently of the whole property of the population of the United Kingdom having an income of £lOO a year and upwards, which you take 2:om them and give to somebody else. You put it into the Exchequer, of which the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxford University holds the key—which has been rifled from day to day and from session to session against his will, and he has no power probably to withstand it.—[An HON. MEMBER--Why does he hold the key ?] The hon. gentle man asks me why the right hon. gentleman holds thekey ? Perhaps he is one of those hon. gentlemen who wish to hold the key themselves. (Laughter.) I should be very glad to see him surrender the key, if anybody with a firmer hand will hold it in his place. But there is a country where Eng lishmen live, and where this does not i take place. I saw a speech of wonderful power delivered by Mr. Everett in the United States, which was an answer to a speech made in another place attacking American institutions. Mr. Everett stated that the next coming census would show a population in the United States of about 32,000,000 of souls. That is more than the Census of next year will show for the popu lation of the United Kingdom, and yet the whole expenses of the government at Washington, including the govern ment of 33 separate states, werenot more than.. 12,000,000 sterling. I ask any hon. gentleman who has the slightest knowledge of legislat!on or government to say whether it is possible to continue to raise from the people of this country £60,000,000 sterling of taxes, being far more than an equal population is called upon to pay in the United States ; and that we can go on with safety to our institutions, or that the people can bear the strain of that enormous pressure. (Hear.) France inky be our enemy. I do not believe she is. (Hear, hear.) There may be enemies abroad, but I find no body who can point them out. I can, however, point to an enemy at home, and that is thisunsound, this wicked policy which requires you to abstract from the labour and indus try of the people this enormous, incredible, and ruinous sum from year to year. (Cheers.) What is the result in every other country ? If somebody had told the Minister of Louis XIV. that his extravagance would end in ruin to France, he would be answered, as I shall be answered, that the country is rich enough, the glory of France is worth more than your sordid considerations' of pounds, shil lings, and pence. France must keep a great position in Europe; there is no burden which France will not easily by its elasticity raise itself under and support. But have we not seen his family exiled, the aristocracy of his country overthrown, and another branch of his family banished from the throne. Have we not seen his country reduced to ruin and anarchy ? And if we pursue the same course, has not history written the same lesson for other countries as for France ? There is no path so easy, so slip pery as that we are now following, if year after year these enormous expenses continue, until the time will come when some voice throughout the country will ask who has de ceived them, and then you will have to pay the penalty which all men in authority must pay when they have not discharged the duties which belong to their station. It is because I believe that this course of policy will lead to these results that I oppose with all my heart the resolution of the noble lord, and in doing so I feel the strongest conviction in my conscience that I am doing what is best not more for the people of whom I am ene, than to the monarchy under which I live. (Great cheering.) Mr. NE WDE GATE asked why the speech of Mr. Bright had been made ? Was his sole object economy ? He told them not ; for he said that it was the policy as well as the expenditure of the Government that he opposed. That po- Hey was to maintain good relations with France, and at the same time to provide for our own defence. That was the policy which the hon. gentleman opposed. In his recent letter the French Emperor declared his anxiety to remain on friendly terms with this country, but ho admitted that in undertaking the expedition to the East, he had acted only in accordance with the general feeling of France. But might not that feeling be excited in favour of other expeditions ? The inference from the whole speech of Mr. Bright was, that he was jealous of England standing in a position of in dependence towards France, and wished to excite the feel ings of the people against the Government for the course they were now pursuing. He had talked of our most emi nent military authorities as a collection of lunatics. His object either was to vex and delude the public or to prevent this country from assuming a position of independende. Sir F. GOLDSMID said there was reason to believe that some of the works proposed were not necessary. The total cost of those works would not be confined to the mere con struction, but would involve a large annual expenditure for manning. No case had been made out for any of the land works, except perhaps at Portsmouth. The paper laid before the house last Friday showed that the Government them selves did not concur in the recommendations of the com missioners as to the land defences. Of works recommended to the extent of eight millions, the Government only pro posed the commeneement of works of about four millions. He hoped the Government would reconsider the matter in regard to the other works. It was clear that the commis • sioners had approached the subject with an exaggerated fear of invasion. In the third paragraph of their report they stated that if our fleet lost for a time the command of the Channel our insular position would be a disadvantage for purposes of defence. This was a most extraordinary conclu sion, in which few persons would be disposed to follow the commissioners. They had greatly underrated the import ance of railways and telegraphs, which would be found most valuable auxiliaries in the event of an invasion. He did not believe that the French Government would ever un dertake an invasion for the purpose of destroying our dock yards. They would have to consider the probabilities of sue cess, and the serious injury to themselves in the event of failure. The commissioners had estimated ho additional cost of manning at £68,000 or £70,000. This was clearly an under-estimate, and was so regarded by the committee of the Horse Guards, who stated that a considerable number of additional troops would be required. Probably not less than 15,000 additional men would be necessary. The annual cost of these, at £65 per man, with the proposed cost of the works, would be equivalent to contracting a loan of 30 millions. Lord R. MONTAGU said that the extracts from letters read by the hon. member for Birmingham really proved nothing. Nor did his sneers at ministers ani lords. Pro bably the hon. member, if he had the chance of becoming one himself, would not sneer at either lords or millionaires. (A laugh.) The recurrence of panics proved that we were not safe, and even if an invasion were not possible, the Go vernment ought to take the course they now proposed. On the question of probability of invasion the Government 00010110 1 THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST i ! 3, 1880. were certainly better authorities than the hon. member for thought the house had been entrapped into a false position Birmingham. What had taken place before.the invasion by the course pursued, and into money votes which they of Lombardy ? Up to the middle of April France declared otherwise would not have granted. He was also surprised that she had not begun to arm, that the army was on a that the noble lord should have asked for only two millions. peace footing; and before the end of the month 15,000 men If the danger were as great as the noble lord had stated it were on the march towards Italy. ' Why should they be- to be in his speech, why did he not ask for the whole Hove the Emperor's letter now, any more than his declare- money at once ? If there were any real necessity for the tions of last year ? Shortly after his celebrated declaration works, which ho did not admit, they ought to be erected at at: Bordeaux, " L'Empire c'est la paix," the Emperor of once. But the noble lord had acted most inconsistently in France had taken up the question of the holy places, and this matter—he had, on the one hand, negotiated a treaty had gone to war with Russia. There was nothing torender of commerce, and now he asked for nine millions to shut an invasion impossible. Suppose that it took place, and out our customers. He denied that there was any ground that we were compelled to accept a dishonourable treaty, or for these fortifications in consequence of the armed prepa that the French were beaten back, how would the noble rations in France. The army there had been reduced since lord meet Parliament after that if proper precautions had the last war in Italy, and as to the navy, it was not greater not been taken? The hon. member for Birmingham had than was required by the position of the country. But the rested his whale argument on the question of expenditure, Secretary for War said that we ought to have these arma and the effect upon commerce ; but there were more impor- meets and defences because we must keep up our influence tart questions than the pecuniary one. We had a church as a great Power. Well, but that was the very thing which to protect, a state to protect, and had our liberties to pro- was objected to, as in France, where the enormous increase tect—objects of far more importance than those to which in both their army and navy within the last three years has the hon. member and his friends regarded as those alone been held as a proof of danger to Europe. He felt, however, worth caring for. some difficulty in voting on this matter, because he did not Mr. WHITE admitted the necessity of preserving our quite agree with the motion of the hon. member for Sun dockyards and arsenals from sudden attacks, but suggested, derland ; nor did he concur in the opinions, though he re before they committed themselves to this vast expense, spected those of the hon. member for Birmingham. He they ought to have a preliminary inquiry as to what pro- had no objections to defences for our dockyards. He did portion of the national property deposited in those ar- object to removing our great arsenal to Cannock Chase, be senals and dockyards ought to be kept near the coasts. cause he thought better and more easily defensible positions Those large public establishments had now become but could be found on the Mersey. He objected also to all these little better than patronage preserves ; and he believed land defences—great fortresses, which would become in the that for every pound expended upon them the course of time practically useless. The fortifications of country did net get fifteen shillings in value. Paris, the works at Cherbourg, the inlandfortresses in dif- He believed that the gunboats and other vessels of war ferent countries that had been referred to as an example to might be built better and cheaper in private yards, and if follow, ought rather to warn us to avoid committing the same they were built at the private establishments of the Hum- error. With respect to the composition of the Defence ber, the Clyde, the Thames, and other rivers far removed Committee, he said that, with the exception of one member, from the seaboard, they would be free from all risk of end- there was not one engineer officer of any eminence in the ser den attacks. He was inclined to think that it would not be vice on that committee. Why was not Sir J. Burgoyne on an unmitigated evil if we had an invasion, for it would unite the committee ? He was the engineer in the Crimean war, all classes together in a spirit of union and harmony in a and pointed out the only weak spot of the defences at Sebas manner we had never yet witnessed, and would afford the topol.. Why were no artillery officers examined ? Why working classes an opportunity of exhibiting that true con- was Sir Howard Douglas, the greatest artillerist in the rage, that loyalty to the throne, and that love of country world, not examined ? The only witness examined as to the with which he knew they were animated, and which once range of the new ordnance was Sir W. Armstrong, and he displayed, it would be impossible for any Government to was bound to say there were great doubts in the minds of deny them the suffrage they had so long demanded in vain. artillery officers as to the range and power of those guns. He might say he had just come from taking a bath of liberty He could not imagine anything more absurd than for a com et Brighton—(a laugh)—where he saw with great gratifi- mittee of seven military men calling Lord Overstone to give cation that while at one time you might have brought down evidence as to what would be the effect on the money mar a cheer from the working classes by speaking against the ket if the French army was in London. (Laughter.) But House of Lords, such a sentiment would now be received he objected to the report of this commission, first, because with contempt, while expressions of loyalty and attachment its recommendations were fragmentary and incomplete ; and to the Queen and the institutions of the country invariably second, because the calculations as to the cost of the works commanded the warmest approbation. He mentioned this were so loose and so vague that no reliance whatever as a symptom of the times. A considerable change appeared could be placed upon them. An eminent engineering to have come over the noble lord's opinion of late in regard officer had lately addressed a letter to the Secretary for War to the Emperor of the French, but really he (Mr. White) on the subject which well deserved most careful attention. could see nothing extraordinary in the efforts his Imperial That officer saw that this country did not want fortifica- Majesty was making to place his navy on a more efficient tions. What they wanted was brain and muscle, and he footing. What was the history of that navy? Every- believed so too. The hon. member for Birmingham re body knew that ever since the drawn battle off Cape Ushant ferred to Captain Brialmont's work, but he did not dwell —7O years ago—it had been a history of disaster. Was it sufficiently upon it. That gallant captain went at great not natural, then, that an Emperor who cared for the honour length into the report of the commissioners, and objected to of his country should, uuder such circumstances, endea- it on many grounds, observing that the fortifications could , your, to 'use a French phrase, to rehabilitate his navy ? not be manned without a conscription. If they were afraid Lord Dundonald in his book showed what was the state of of an invasion, why let them take Captain Brialmont's the French navy during the late war, when he stated that plan instead of the plan of fortification proposed by the he was able to anchor within half a mile of Marseilles, and commissioners, and which would cost not nine millions, land upon the coast when he pleased in order to supply but nineteen millions. The commissioners recommended himself with water and provisions. Not only was it natural fortifications at Portsdown-hill. Sir John Burgoyne, in but the duty of the Sovereign of France to:take means, if his examination before the commissioners said he would not possible, to avoid such an indignity in the event of another recommend the fortifying of Portsdown-hill at present, for war. But then, said the noble lord, the Emperor of the it would take an army to support it. The hon. gentleman ' French knows very well that we are not going to war with then objected to the dockyard at Sheerness, which he said him. But it was net very long ago, viz., when Lord Malmes- was originally a job. Sheerness was known to be at the bury was at the head of the Foreign-office, that the Emperor wrong side of the river, and yet for the improvement of of the French had every reason to believe that England was Sheerness they proposed £lOO,OOO. (Mr. Herbert said the about to go to war with him, and it was his (Mr. White's) money was to be expended in defending the mouth of the conviction that had Ldrd Derby's Government remained in River Medway.) He contended that the number of men to power three weeks longer we should have been involved in a man the fortifications would not be 68,000 or 70,000, as war with France. He reminded the house that in the last proposed. It would be necessary to have at least 100,000 great war the fortifications of Coblentz and Rastadt did not men, and to fire the Armstrong gun they would require prevent France conquering Germany, nor did the fortifica- trained gunners. The hon. gentleman again quoted the tions of Posen and Konigsberg prevent the conquest of work of Captain Brialmont and Sir John Burgoyne against Prussia after the battle of Jena. In fact, all experience fortifications, on the grcund that they would not have proved that the best reliance in case of invasion was on the sufficient men to man the fortifications continually. He ' public spirit of the country, and not on armed works. It should have been glad if the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. was well known that after the affair at Leipsic the First Herbert) had laid before them a plan by which railways Napoleon was compelled to have large garrisons looked up could be made available in the case of an invasion. The at Dantzig, Konigsberg, and the other fortresses, but had hon. gentleman then quoted the opinions of Admiral Dun those troops been upon the soil of France to strengthen his das, Sir Baldwin Walker, and other naval officers, given armies his fate might have been different.. He entirely ap- before the commission, who all said that the defences of proved of the volunteer movement, and was a volunteer the coast ought to rest upon gunboats, and such like himself. (Hear.) All experience showed that where a pro- measures, and not be assigned to fortifications. The per feeling animated the people they were not mean anta- Duke of Wellington did not, in his famous letter, ask gonists in case of invasion, although they were not enrolled for fortifications to defend this country. He asked in the regular army. Let them remember what had been for 100,000' militia men and an increase of 4,000 to done by volunteers in Switzerland and in America, and the regular army. (Hear, hear.) But the increase of our doubt not that a people never was so strong as when fight- military power now was far greater than it was when the ing for their homes and their institutions. The large sums Duke of Wellington wrote his letters in 1847, and the army that had been expended in building forts on the south coast and navy estimates in that year were only £11,230,000, but were regarded by the people of that district as so much now they exceed £24,000,000. (Hear, hear.) This being so, money wasted, and he believed the present proposal was an he must declare that he had no confidence in the ratu--4- vmn - In tiro 15 en. o but on a 'nue''l laigut cfc m.. which ite vw.kmloo9o and in (Hear, hear.) conclusive, and that it did not warrant the expenditure pro- Sir C. NAPIER said, when he entered Parliament in 1841 posed by the Government on account of these fortifications. he had but just returned from the Mediterranean, where he He must observe that he was sorry to hear the speech of had an opportunityof seeing a very fine French fleet. That the noble lord at the head of the Government on this sub fleet presented a wonderful change to what he had been ject. He looked upon the letter of the Emperor of the accustomed to witness of the state of the French navy. French to be an answer to that speech. (Oh; oh, from the The ships were well manned and well officered, and in Conservatives.) He knew it was the fashion in that house every respect efficient. He could not help contrasting with to look with suspicion on all the actions of the Emperor of that fleet the British fleet in which he was serving, and the French. But for this, amongst ether reasons, he must he found it inferior in numbers, inferior in size, and infe- say that the Emperor of the French did not want to quarrel rior in manni n g ; an d h e f e lt th a t s h ou ld t h e two come into with England—namely, that it was not his interest to do so. collision, we should not be so certain as we had been in (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Well, what had France done times past of maintaining our superiority. He pointed of late ? Why, she inaugurated the present movement in this out to the Admiralty when he came home. The gal- Italy, which Italians and philanthropists so much desired. lent admiral complained of the reduction of the fleet in the (Hear, hear.) He contended teat they were not justified Mediterranean, and asserted that o u r naval force within in thus throwing suspicions on all the acts and expressions the last twenty years had frequently been in such a state of the French Emperor. What did France do even in our that it would have been unable to resist a well-organised case ? Why, when the Indian mutiny was at its highest attack from the fleet of France. An impression prevailed point, France, instead of glorifying in our difficulties, abroad that the introduction of steam into the navy ren- offered to assist us by sending men through her own pon dered a blockade impossible, but his own opinion was that sessions, the more effectually to put down the mutiny. it rendered it far more perfect, and that there had never (Hear, hear.) We also fought together in the Crimea, been such a thing as an effective blockade until the pre- and he would say thatethe proposed construction of fortifi sent moment. With the fine ships we new possessed it cations was in the teeth of the treaty which we had entered would be very easy to blockade the ports of France and into with France. He concluded by observing that it was prevent an invasion ; and und er such circumstances he not advisable to go into any great expenditure on the authoe was at a loss to imagine why Parliament should for a mo- rity of a report disputed by such high authorities. ment entertain a proposal for expending such enormous - Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that Sir Howard Douglas sums upon fortifications. (Hear.) It was perfectly right was the first officer he asked to sit on this Commission— to fortify our sea ports gradually, but to depend upon any —(hear, hear)—but he declined, on the ground that his great fortifications that could be erected for our security from age prevented his visiting the various localities. But he invasion was simply absurd. The experience of the Govern- promised to examine carefully and to report freely upon ment in the erection of fortifications was not of so satisfac- every portion of the report, and he had done so. (Hear, tory a character as to justify a further experiment. At hear.) He had examined the report and evidence with far Portsmouth they erected forts to defend the port, and they greater attention than his noble friend had done--(hear, were then obliged to fortify Portsdown-hill in order to de • hear, and laughter) —and the Government had been guided fend the forts. (Hear.) Then again with regard to Dover. very much by the advice which he had given. The fort fications of Dover was a whim of the Duke of Mr. B. OSBORNE—Where is it ? Wellingtcn, and every man of common sense would say Mr. S. HERBERT—I presume the hon. gentleman does that the money which had been expended was entirely not dispute the fact of its haying been given. (Hear, and thrown away. No one would deny that the late Napoleon cheers.) contemplated the invasion of this country. He assembled Mr. B. OSBORNE—We ought to have it. at Boulogne about 3,000 vessels of various descriptions Mr. S. HERBERT said it was by the advice of Sir H. and between 200,000 and 300,000 men, and all he wanted to Douglas that the Government had turned its attention to render his scheme successful was forty-eight hours' the sea defences particularly, and diminished the extent of command of the Channel. That command he never ob- the land defences. As to Sir J. Burgoyne not being placed tamed, and so long as our fleet was maintained in a on the commission, he was the official adviser of the Go proper state of efficiency it never would be obtained. vernment—(hear, hear)—and had they selected him it Without a naval force to protect them such fortifi- would have been said that he was one of their own men. cations as those which the noble lord at the head of (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) preferred having Sir J. the Government proposed would be wholly useless; for Burgoyne's unbiassed opinion as to what to accept and stronger works were erected by Russia at Sweaborg, and what to reject, without putting him on the commission. It yet they were inadequate to resist a naval attack, being was said that so long as our gunboats were kept efficient at utterly destroyed without the loss of a man on the part of Portsmouth, that was our best defence ; but we wanted our the attaching fleet. If our ships were properly manned all gunboats somewhere else than at Portsmouth. (Hear.) the talk about fortifications might be set aside. What was Mr. B. OSBORNE—Where would you put them? wanted was not fortifications, but such an increase in the (Order, order.) numbers of our ships of w ar as wou ld ena bl e us to retain Mr. S. HERBERT—,The use of a navy is not to stay at our position as mistress of the seas. home. Your navy may not always be master of the Chan- Mr. CORRY said it was his lot to be a member of a nel. We have an enormous colonial empire, and our fleet committee appointed by Lord Derby to inquire into the re- must be scattered everywhere. lative cost and expenditure of the navies of England and Mr. B. OSBORNE said the right hon. gentleman had France from 1852 down to 1858, whenthey discovered that, still one of his own men on the commission, namely, Col. while the French navy cost £19,800,000, the expenditure Lefroy. in building ships was £21,600,000; and although the navy Mr. HORSMAN said the first question we had to ask of England in the fame period cost £60,500 , 000, th e expen- was, whether this country was in a state of security or not ? diture was only £59,000,000. Then as to the dockyards, and if not, the expenditure was but a mere secondary consi the cost of England, in her dockyards, for the same period deration. (Hear, hear.) As to the absence of Sir J. Burgoyne of five years was £16,060,000, while her expenditure was from the commission, it was agreed that there should be, as £17,500,000; and that of France £7,600,000, although the far as possible, an elimination of the official element; and expenditure for new improvements and alterations was that the Government should certainly take action on the re £13,200,000. The hon. gentleman the member for Bir - port which it made. He believed his right hon. friend (er r . mingham said they were the cause of th e arm i ng g oing on S. Herbert) had faithfully fulfilled the promises which he all over Europe, and that the right hon. gentleman the had made. (Hear.) A commission was never more c are _ member for Droitwich was guilty of a criminal act in aug- fully selected, and never reflected more honour on th ose menting the navy last year. For his part he believed he who had made the appointments, and no inquiry had been did great service in so doing, and that the navy ought to more honestly carried out. But the recommendations were be still more augmented. The noble lord the Secretary for limited t o an i nqu i ry i n our arsena l s and dockyards. The the Admiralty, i n b r i ng i ng :f orward the naval es ti ma t es , no b le lord came down to the house :with the greatest so said that England ought to have three ships where France 'enmity and made his question of fortifications an imperial had two, but looking at her colonies he thought it should question. lie showed the inadequacy of our defences, the at least be four-fifths. France had scarcely any colonies perils arising from a hostile invasion, and a march on Len except Algiers, which was on the shores of a narrow sea, don; and he male . a speech, one of the most serious and and opposite Toulon, while their, colonies were scattered all alarming nature which ever in a time of peace was de over the world. With respect to the plan of fortifications, livered by the first minister of the Crown. The noble lord's he entirely approved of the recommendation to fortify our speech new had been contrasted with the speech of last dockyards and arsenals, and he should therefore give his year, and he (Mr. Horsman) was glad to mark the favour vote for the resolution, able aspects of that contrast—(hear)—fer the noble lord Mr. B. OSBORNE regretted that the house seemed to now used the language of truth and justice, whereas he had have prejudged this question, and to, vote for the resolutions formerly used the language merely of conventional compli • without considering the various questions connected with ment. With the public feeling of the population in favour it. But he would ask, if it was necessary to carry out the . of those defences, the population was nevertheless said to recommendations of the c omm i ss i on , w hy h a d it been left be struck with insanity. Now, upon military matters he over till the fag eud of th e sess i on ? What was the reason ? was disposed to defer to the opinions of military men ; on In February last tw o milli ons o f terminable annuities fell naval matters to the opinions of naval men, and on politics into the Government, but instead of app l y i n g these two to those of experienced and wise politicians ; but he must millions to the defence of the country the Chancellor of the say that there was nothing of which some people seemed to Exchequer proposed to apply them to the repeal of the paper think so lightly, as the possibility of invasion ; and there duty. Why did ho d eal with the ma tt er in that way ? Did were some gentlemen near him who affected to treat with the right hon. gentl eman k now that such an expenditure indifference the warning of the noble lord, and that they would be required ? The re p or t of the commissioners was were in the neighbourhood of a powerful and ambitious dated Feb. 7, and the budget was b rou ght in on the 10th. neighbour. (Hear.) He (Mr. Horatian) felt that if Eng (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen tl eman must therefore 'land were invaded and overrun, there would bo no security have been aware of th e necessity for the money, and for the ri ghts, the liberties, and the independence of any - -•• other country. (Hear, hear.) Her commerce and her civilisation were carried to every part of the world, and if she were extinguished to-morrow, the independence, the freedom of Italy and other nations would be nothing but a dream. Every man who desired to see peoples independent and blessed with free institutions ,looked to England as their great anchor of hope, and he felt that those interests would be best secured by the maintenance of England as a great naval, commercial, trading, and civilised power. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. SMITH agreed with the report of the commis sioners, so far as fortifying the seaboard, but he differed from them on many other points. He wished to know in what manner the five millions, about to be voted, were to be expended. Mr. S. HERBERT sail the five millions were intended for the works now in progress; and, if any more were wanted next year, it would come before Parliament. Sir F. SMITH continued—He also desired to be in formed whether they were to carry out all the recommenda tions of the commissioners. Mr. S. HERBERT replied that only a portion of them , would be carried out, of which a return was laid on the cable. Sir F. SMITH resumed—He was glad of that, and that answer disarmed many of his objections to the report. In addition to their fortifications they must have 100,000 men in the field, and he believed that in the face of such a force no enemy could invade England. As to the defence of London by fortifications it was all nonsense, and could not be effected. They must however keep their army always in the field, and he believed that if the occasion should ever arise, the volunteers would nobly do their duty and render the most effective service. The right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud said the commission was composed of non-official persons, but they were all official. One was the Governor of Sandhurst, another was the Governor of Addis combe ; a third was the Director of Military Education; a fourth an admiral of the Channel Fleet, and the fifth a civilian. He thought that Chatham should be strongly fortified, and ho remembered his lamented friend the late Sir Wm. Peel pointing out to him some years ago the princi - pal points on which he thought those defences should be erected. Lord PALMERSTON—Before the discussion closes I am anxious to make a few remarks upon the statements which have been made by various hon. members in the course of the debate. My hon. friend behind me, the member for Bristol (Mr. Berkeley) has been exceedingly eloquent in denouncing the un-English notion of fortifications, but if I recollect rightly when we have objected to the ballot as un- English he has commented strongly upon the low ground we have taken. (Laughter.) Now, I cannot see what there is un-English in fortifications. At ono time the whole coun try was studded with fortresses, and every country residence was fortified. I suppose my hon. friend has heard of Berke ley Castle — (laughter) —which I believe was at one time a place of strength. In point of fact, the whole of England, Scotland, and Ireland is full of places which at a time of in ternal disorder were fortified against attack. (Hear, hear.) Now, our danger is not from within, but from without ; and all we ask is that the principle that was formerly applied for our security within shall be applied for our security from attack from abroad. (Hear. hear.) In point of fact, the advantage of fortification is so apparent that the hon. mem ber for Brighton, when he informed the house that if he had intended to take part in the debate he would have come better prepared, naturally said that he would have fortified himself. (Laughter.) I think the hon. member lamented or intimated that it would be a better arrangement if our dockyards were placed in a more inland situation. (Laugh ter.) Mr. WHITE said the noble lord's joke was a very good one, but no such remark had been made. Lord PALMERSTON—The hon. member for Liskeard certainly suggested that the store for naval timber should be more inland. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Osborne.) I think the arguments of my hon. friend who began the debate are not likely to sway the decision of the house. The hon. member for Birmingham was exceedingly eloquent in sup porting the motion of my hon. friend, but, so far as I could collect the course of the argument of the hon. member, he dwelt more upon a variety of schemes which we have not adopted than he endeavoured to show that the plan we have adopted was one undeserving the attention of the house. The hon. member enumerated a great number of the schemes, which he pronounced absurb and totally unfit for adoption. I perfectly agree with him in his criticism, but it so happens that the plans to which he has referred have nothing to do with the proposal of the Government. The hon. member denounces as insane all those who differ from him in opi nion, and iu so doing he reminds me of the anecdote of a man who had a difference with the rest of the world. He thought them all mad, and they voted him mad, and as there happened to be a majority against him they shut him up. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Birmingham will, I trust, find himself in regard to this vote in a similar situa tion. (Laughter.) He thinks everybody wrong except himself—that the whole nation had gone wild on the sub ject—and I trust the result will be that the majority will be as great against him as it was against the unfortunate individual to whom I have just referred. (Laughter.) It has been said that it is wrong to attempt to fortify, and some allusion has been made to the fortifications of Paris. Now, the fortifications of Paris are not undeserving of considera tion, because I oeliwve mat it muse rortitications had existea in 1814 or 1815 Paris would not have been so easily occu pied as it was. (Hear.) It is very true that the Emperor Napoleon was deprived of the co-operation of a large body of troops he had left behind him in different positions, but that is the very reason why the fortification of Paris would have placed him in a better position. There was a National Guard belonging to the city, and with fortifications a stand might have been made sufficient to have enabled new troops to have arrived. (Hear.) My hon. friend the member for Liskeard complains of any attempt to defend the entire coast or London by means of fortifications. Our proposal is not to defend the entire coast, but to protect certain points of great importance, which form the cradles of our navy, and without which we should lose our maritime power—a power which everybody who has spoken to• night admits to be essential as our first line of defence. (Hear.) My hon. and gallant friend the member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) says, "Give me a fleet, double it or treble it, and I will undertake that no enemy shall land." I am not surprised that my hon. friend should deal lightly with fortifications, inasmuch as he has a way of his own in deal ing with fortifications. A military friend of mine once met my hon. and gallant friend on the northern frontier of Por tugal. He was mounted on a mule, and was followed by a marine with a musket on each shoulder, looking very much like Robinson Crusoe. (Laughter.) He stopped my military friend, and said, " You are a military man—tell me how you would take a fortress." My friend began to explain how to make breaches and zigzags, and so on, when the gallant admiral interrupted him with, " That's all very well for you, but it won't do for me. lam going to take the fortress of Valencia, but I mean to take it with a letter. <Laughter.) And the gallant admiral kept his word. He wrote a letter to the governor, telling him that if he did not surrender at discretion he would make him do so, and the fame of the gal lant admiral was so great that the governor surrendered. (Laughter.) Now, fortifications would enable an inferior force to hold out for a certain time against a superior force, and time in war is a great deal, and sometimes everything. What we want to do is to protect our dockyards and certain other important points from being taken by a coup de main. The hon. member for Liskeard has objected to the fortifi cation of Portsdown Hill. Well, that is a matter for con sideration, but it is an unquestionable fact that with the modern improvements in artillery whoever had possession of Portsdown Hill would have no difficulty whatever in de stroying the royal dockyards. I deny again that these works would involve any great increase to the army in time •f peace, whilst they would effect a considerable saving in the matter of barracks, and in war time you would have the militia and other auxiliaries, which would give you means of man ning the different works. The gallant officer says you cannot make gunners in a month, and I know there is generally an impression amongst military men that it takes a long time to make a soldier. But we have seen that the contrary has been the case with the militia and the volunteers, and I know one instance, that of the Devonshire artillery, which was equal to the practice of the line. Besides, there are but two gunners wanted for each gun. The rest are all handspike men, and have nothing to do with the direction of the piece. You must not, therefore, multiply the num ber of gunners at the same rate as the guns. I say, then, that in peace these works will not require an increased army, and that in - war they may be filled with troops of a less trained description, who will be perfectly competent to de fend them. I say that if you had not these works, and having dockyards to defend, you would be obliged to have a larger number of men, and there is this great difference between laying the money out in works and laying it out on men, that if like Lycurgus and the Spartans you call for men, not stone walls, and maintain these men for a whole year, they will be no use the following year unless you still maintain the same number at the same expense, whereas if you lay it out in works, you are so much stronger by all the money you lay out. I have been accused of varying my opinion in this matter. I dony that I have done so, and assert that on the contrary I have laboured for ten years in furtherance of the object which we are discussing to-night. But that is no proof that we do not hope for improved friendly relations with France through the means of the commercial treaty. Why, this commission was appointed twelve months ago, long before the commercial treaty was and proposed, and therefor e t o t a lly unconnec t e d w ith it; although we trust that the treaty may lead to a continuance that forms more friendly relation s b e t ween th e t wo countries, forms no ground, in our o pi n i on , f or a b an d o ning plans:Whie h on careful deliberation we believed to be n ecessary. I hope and trust that th e p resen t p eace f u l r elations between France and England may remain uninterrupted • but I am con.. vinced—and this is common sense, independent of military or naval knowledge—that the only way to secure yourself against attack is always to be ready to defend yourself, and that when you are strong enough for that purpose you are m ost likely to re ma i n at peace with fo rei g n nations. On these grounds I claim the veto of the hon. member for Binning_ ham, for if anything would be more than another likely to endanger the continuance of peace, it would bo that a country wealthy like England should remain exposrAl to the risk of attack or assault without having any tne?us of re pelling the attack or resenting the insult. The country looks to us to do our duty, and for that we have only to look at the great force which has been enrolled as volun teers. The country desires that Parliament should act in unison with that feeling which the mph) have displayed. To reject a motion which will at a moderate expense lay the foundation for making a great accession to our means of defence will be a misfortune which I hope will not happen. (Cheers, and cries of Divide.) Sir M. PETO rose amidst cries of "Divide." He would only detain the house for a short while. He felt that the committee was not in a position to deal with this question. He objected altogether to the land defences recommended in the report of the commissioners. The hon. gentleman then said that, referring to Sebastopol, it was clear that the earthworks kept the enemy at bay for a long time. Now, were the Governmevt justified in coming to the country to erect fortifications to oppose an invasion which could not take place without notice to us. The question was then put, and the committee divided, when there appeared : For the motion Against it 39 Majority —229 The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution. Mr. BRIGHT said that in lookingover the report of the commission he found no reasonable excuse for the fortifica tions at Dover and Portland. He hoped the money in tended for these places would be saved to the country. There were some other points upon which the house should have fuller information. Nothing was said as to what wa to be dote at Cannock Chase, or how much money was to be expended there. Two or three noble families were to be benefited, and the house should look upon the whole pro ceeding with a vigilant eye. He hoped the Government would be as economical as possible. Lord PALMERSTON said that Dover was the nearest point to the coast of France, and having a harbour there, it was necessary to prevent an enemy seizing it and using it for his own advantage. As to Portland, nothing would be done except to complete works already sanctioned by Parliament. As to Cannock Chase, that was only one of six or seven places that had been mentioned. It was desirable to have in a central position a quantity of stores in the event of Woolwich being taken. Mr. BRIUHT wished to know whether this central depot was to be an entirely new establishment, or merely to hold a portion of stores from Woolwich. They ought to know what sum the proposed new depot would Cost them. It might run up to millions, and they ought to have infornan tion fairly laid before them. Mr. MONSELL said although he believed it would not be proper to move an amendment to .the resolution in itg present stage, it would not be out of order to move an addi tion. From what he had heard, he believed that although the majority of the commission were of opinion that it was most desirable to construct works for the defence of their seaboard, they had not said one word on the subject of their land defences in the interior of the country, and, as far as he recollected, there was not even a suggestion from the commission to put those inland places in a state of de. fence. Now, so far as he knew anything of the question, the artillery was the branch of the service which was best ac quainted with that part of their defences ; and yet, strange to say, there was but one artillery officer upon the commis' sion ; and although there were experienced artillery officer% present during the inquiry, not one question had been put to them on the subject of their inland defences. Floating batteries formed a part of the subject in the consideration of their defences, and upon them the opinion of experienced naval officers was taken. The addition which he proposed to move to be made to the resolution was, that, " In the absence of all engineering and artillery information, it wag not expedient to incur any extraordinary expenditure in the permanent construction of works on Portsdown-hill." Sir MORTON PETO was desirous to know whether it was the intention of Government, before they proceeded to establish a central arsenal at Cannock Chase, to give the house and country their opinion what the amount of the eati• mate for such a work would be. Mr. NEWDEGATE thought it of great importance.that the fortifications of their seaboard should be carried outwith the least possible delay. With respect to the defence of their seaboard, there was no doubt they should not neglect that; but with regard to the establishment of a great central arsenal in England, that did not appear to - him to be nacos' sary. If invasion were to take place, he thought London would be the first place to be attacked, and that should not be lost sight of. Mr. V. SCULLY very much coincided in what had been expressed by the hon. member (Mr. Monsell). He (lR' Scully) had given an honest and independent vote in stir' port of the resolution of the noble lord, and his only difficult, in making up his mind was as to the establishment of a grea t central arsenal. Their best means of reliance in case of IZ' vasion would, in his opinion, be upon their railway meant of communication and their telegraphic means, and wit h regard to the former, if hon. members would do as he ile a done, furnish themselves with Bradshaw's map—(laughte r) —they would there find the best and most valuable infe r ' mation on the subject. Mr. S. HERBERT said the Government could not se: cept the proposal to exclude from the list the works at Portsdown-hill, which were supported by high military e t? thorities, including Sir J. Burgoyne himself, all of who rl especially recommended that Portsdown-hill should be f° l ; tified. With respect to Cann oc k Ch ase , th e s it e was not yet decided, but it was important that we should not hav e bewsket, as now at Woolwich; but ha thought that Woolwich would be an arsenal of 15311 0 , a nd Cannock Chase of reserve stores. Mr. BRIGHT said the right hon. gentleman had not answered one question—what was to be the cost and whe t the size of these works ? It might not be necessary to have any fortifications at all is the heart of a manufacturing die' trict. Was the fortress there to be a defence against foreign enemies, or against the political liberties of the country If he had not that information, he should move that gr• Massey leave the chair until the information was given. Lord PALMERSTON said that nothing could be further from the intention of the Government than wishing fo r such a purpose as that supposed by the hon. member. reserve for military stores was mo s t d es i ra bl e, b ut as ye t the Government had not decid e d upon t h e place, and coul d not give the information required at present. Mr. OSBORNE supported the addition to the resolutio n which had been moved by the right hon. member for Lilo"' rick. Sir F. Smith had told them that night that the works at Portsdown-hill were totally unnecessary, and he Pre' tested against any expenditure on these works. After some further discussion the committee divided ell the amendment declaring it inexpedient to proceed wall' out further information, with the works at PortsdoWS' hill. Ayes 37 Noes 165 Majority —l2B Mr. BRIGHT again urged upon the Government the necessity for showing the house that the Government knot the'r own mind on the subject. If not, let the matter posponed until next session. Lord PALMERSTON was desirous of giving all thy in' formation in his power, but as yet no site had been decide upon, though several had been suggested, and it was there' fore premature to state anything further on the subject , Afterwards, when the plans were more matured, the Go' vernment would give all the information required as far 93 in their power. The great object was to have a grea t de' posit of stores at some point less accessable than wich. (Hear, hear.) The resolution was then agreed to and reported. BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS BILL. The Lords' amend ments on this bill were considere d and agreed to. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL. The amendment of the Lords on this bill were also con' sidered and agreed to. The other business was disposed of, and the house that adjourned at a quarter-past two o'clock. . [ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably ag i gravate and perpetuate diseases; their annoyance, d i " appointment, and expense may be avoided by person@ in indifferent health sending only their address to N. S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and the, will receive gratis and free by post the " IsvArans' Owli GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex' pense, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the removal of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaint" nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitation, cough, asthma, consumption, drops)", flatulency, di arr hoea, dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats , catarrhs, cold" noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout , impurities, eruption" hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palPl" tation, heartburn, headache, despo n dency, cramps, spasms, sinking, fits, bronchitis.—" unquestionably tke saf es t Guide to health." Esq., o f a son BIRTHS. BUCKLEY.—On the 2d inst., at 25 , St. George's-equare, Isl osn ny.—On the I st inst., at 14 Roxburgh-terrace, llit" A. Buckley, verstoc k-hill, Mrs. F. It. M osley, of a son. the wife of A TOLLEMACITE:—On the Ist inst., at 1, Hyde-park-place /v., the wife of Arthur Lionel Tollemaehe, Esq of 16 son. MARRIAGES. MUSPIA.TT—NEALE.—On the Ist inst., at Rainhill, Lan' casbire, Dr. Sheridan Muspratt, M.D., Professor of Cho" mistry, Liverpool, to Anne, eldest daughter of the late John Neale, Esq., of the same place. DOXAT— RATTRA.Y.—At St. Marylebone, Charles Dozatt Esq., of 42, Gloster-square, to Rosalie Sydney, the mil/ daughter of Vice-Admiral Rattray. DEATHS. & T itToN.—On the 30th ult , at Kensington, Judith Anna, only daughter of the late Lieut.-General John Burton, R.A., aged 64. COOPER.—On the 31st ult., at Bath, Colonel John Cooper, 7th Bombay N. 1., aged 58. GILL—On the 31st ult., at Carlisle Villa, Bow, Mr. J 01312 Gill, aged 55. INGLIS.—On the 31st ult., at 15, Berkeley-square, Henri Inglis, Esq., of Cherra Poonjee, Bengal. KEMP.—On the Ist inst., at 2, Cleveland-terrace, HY" . park, Robert Kemp, Esq. READ.—On the Ist inst., Robert Read, Esq., late of Milton on Thames, aged 54. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUli tt, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112 ; Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the eountY Middlesex, Friday, August 3, 180.0. ~. Jo NV Jo JC