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

.sue 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 firms mom destructive and perhaps impossible—which Heaven grant—the only course filer an honest and economical government to take was to go slowly, cautiously, and inquiriagly to work, and not to com mit themselves to a vast and extravagant expenditure which a short experience might- stow to be 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 feet, 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 arsenide out of the reach of sudden de struction by a foreign force, whether on land or at sea. The house would 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 m i ght 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 missioners utated 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 ane 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 h ow 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 133 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 anythlng 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 r;ach 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 vino had been consulted recommended something different from the rest, and each said that unless his plan were adolpted they would have no security. It appeared to him tkat if they adopted all they were asked, they would have . no dimi nut i on of panic, and in fact nothing but an interminable expense. (Hear.) But now he would ask, bad the country done nothing in the way of national de fences ? In 1835 our warlike expenditure was only £ 1 2,000,000. In 1853 it was between £15,000,000 and £16,000,000; while in 1860 they had voted £30,000,000. (Hear, hear.) And had they made any approach to 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 thaa 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 thaExhibi 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 ram 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 ,e-0 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 coat 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 Gatette. He said that he been allowed to go all over the place, and that he had found very little doizig. 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, a ith its long line of guns, appeared equally 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. Grandguillot, or official remonstrances in the lifoni ,,,T*. (Hear.) He (Mr. Bright) should not be surprised c e were told that it was quite true that nothing was doing s hi p t i Zrn, but that it was all a blind; for some, day the Cher bourg, and other ports would be brought round to Cher (Laughter. then. they would see what they would see. persuade a)nillanewwhas aware that he might justas well try to tended everybody was trying to poison him, that si te ', a feeling. He onesez the case, as attempt to combat such one ay as was con c : a person who had thi s f ancy ; and hotel at Der he by th e p oor him him from th a t b eaut i ful bread they gave m e i r : rl o s h ai(l, "Didn't you notice the , that any attempt to argne Wit h on, member) so on f oun d . 1 Yhe might try and e r n was thro wn away. In IrA a low that there were neither no.:. mon, nor yet a-naval exenditu r • lie en the pttrt of the French Governmeanntivonia.ellfiecerliangpion ,..,,ot iutaton—but it the French mind, to justify the fear o f would be no manner of uie. The idea had heads, just ft,, th e idea that the bread was poisoneudp,e".le's (Lau ght7 l 'Ph o e t into the head of this unfortunate lunatic. Secretary for War had turned round and cast upon the P eople the same reproach which had ever been thrown upon them by men in office, and which he (Mr. Bright) was prepared ta denou nce ' not on l y as hypocr i sy but as a. erinie—The.!:loble /on' .said that the-people were favourable to this expenditure. the sam 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 stick. (Great laughter.) Why, what did they oh) 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 most 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 iii" - 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 lad been considered sufficient to h o od w i n k th e 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 Frenchlhas 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 autumn and winter ? I am not going to quibble with the committee about a fort more or a fort less. lam speaking now upon the groat policy the Government aro 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 with the greatest vigilance and energy against the very man with whom they are in such intimate affiance 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 which have taken place between this country and France within 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 hot haste to congratulate the Emperor of the French, then the president of the republic, upon what had taken place. He applauded it, he .supported it, and he 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 Tamale, 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. lie 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. (Near, 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 agqin, 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 Villafranea, and English policy has 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 bostile to this country, but rather that ho endeavoured in everything he could to meet the views of the English Go vernment and to carry out apolicy 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 states 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 questionof lyria, in regard to which the noble lord gave us the other' night a frank and proper explanation, as far as we know, anything about ft, and it led to this conletthion, 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 does not show any hostility or treachery, or any anxiety to aggrau tglhimse.lf, or to take a position, isolated ti.ndindepen" dent yr...0.1117d abffeintrustofEurope: Then I say, that being so, it fair that we should act as if we thought there p~~~ THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 11 3, -1860. were certainly better authorities than the hon. member for Birmingham. What had taken place before the invasion of Lombardy ? Up to the middle of April France declared that she had not begun to arm, that the army was on a peace footing; and before the end of the month 15,000 men were on the march towards Italy. Why should they be lieve the Emperor's letter now, any more than his declara tions of last year ? Shortly after his celebrated declaration at: Bordeaux, " L'Empire c'est la paix," the Emperor of France had taken up the question of the holy places, and had gone to war with Russia. There was nothing torender an invasion impossible. Suppose that it took place, and that we were compelled to accept a dishonourable treaty, or that the French were beaten back, how would the noble lord meet Parliament after that if proper, precautions had not been taken ? The hon. member for Birmingham had rested his whole argument on the question of expenditure, and the effect upon commerce ; but there were more impor teat questions than the pecuniary one. We had a church to protect, a state to protect, and had our liberties to pro tect—objects of far more importance than those to which the hon. member and his friends regarded as those alone worth caring for. Mr. WHITE admitted the necessity of preserving our dockyards and arsenals from sudden attacks, but suggested, before they committed themselves to this vast expense, they ought to have a preliminary inquiry as to what pro portion of the national property deposited in those ar senals and dockyards ought to be kept . near the coasts. Those large public establishments had now become but little better than patronage preserves; and he believed that for every pound expended upon them the country did not get fifteen shillings in value. He believed that the gunboats and other vessels of war might be built better and cheaper in private yards, and if they were built at the private establishments of the Hum ber, the Clyde, the Thames, and other rivers far removed from the seaboard, they would be free from all risk of sud den attacks. He was inclined to think that it would not be an unmitigated evil if we had an invasion, for it would unite all classes together in a spirit of union and harmony in a manner we bad never yet witnessed, and would afford the working classes an opportunity of exhibiting that true cou rage, that loyalty to the throne, and that love of country with which he knew they were animated, and which once displayed, it would be impossible for any Government to deny them the suffrage they had so long demanded in vain. He might say he had just come from taking a bath of liberty at Brighton—(a laugh)—where he saw with great gratifi cation that while at one time you might have brought down a cheer from the working classes by speaking against the House of Lords, such a sentiment would now be received with contempt, while expressions of loyalty and attachment to the Queen and the institutions of the country invariably commanded the warmest approbation. He mentioned this as a symptom of the times. A considerable change appeared to have come over the noble lord's opinion of late in regard to the Emperor of the' French, but really he (Mr. White) could 850 nothing extraordinary in the efforts his Imperial Majesty was making to place his navy on a more efficient footing. What was the history of that navy? Every body knew that ever since the drawn battle off CapeUshant —7O years ago—it had been a history of disaster. Was it not natural, then, that an Emperor who cared for the honour of his country should, uuder such circumstances, endea vour, to use a French phrase, to rehabilitate his navy ? Lord Dundonald in his book showed what was the state of the French navy during the late war, when he stated that he was able to anchor within half a mile of Marseilles, and land upon the coast when he pleased in order to supply himself with water and provisions. Not only was it natural but the duty of the Sovereign of France to take means, if possible, to avoid such an indignity in the event of another war. But then, said the noble lord, he Emperor of the French knows very well that we are not going to war with hire. But it was net very long ago, viz., when Lord Malmes bury was at the head of the Foreign-office, that the Emperor of the French had every reason to believe that England was about to go to war with him, and it was his (Mr. White's) conviction that had Lord Derby's Government remained in power three weeks longer we should have been involved in a war with France. He reminded the house that in the last great war the fortifications of Coblentz and Rastadt did not prevent France conquering Germany, nor did the fortifica tions of Posen and Konigsberg prevent the conquest of Prussia after the battle of Jena. In fact, all experience proved that the best reliance in case of invasion was on the public spirit of the country, and not on armed works. It was well known that after the affair at Leipsic the First Napoleon was compelled to have large garrisons locked up at Dantzig, Konigsberg, and the other fortresses, but had those troops been upon the soil of France to strengthen his armies his fate might, have been different. He entirely ap proved of the volunteer movement, and was a volunte er himself. (Hear.) All experience showed that where a pro per feeling animated the people they were not mean. anta - gonists in case of invasion, although they were not enrolled in the regular army. Let them remember what had been done by volunteers in Switzerland and in America, and doubt not that a people never was so strong as when fight ing for their homes and their institutions. The large arms that bad been expended in building forts on the south coast were regarded by the people of that district as so much money wasted, and he believed the present proposal was an error in the same direction, but on a much larger scale. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. NAPIER said, when he entered Parliament in 1811 he had but just returned from the Mediterranean, where he had an opportunity of seeing a very fine French fleet. That fleet presented a wonderful change to what he had been accustomed to witness of the state of the French navy. The ships were well manned and well officered, and in every respect efficient. He could not help contrasting with that fleet the British fleet in which he was serving, and he found it inferior in numbers, inferior in size, and infe rior in manning ; and he felt that should the two come into collision, we should not be so certain as we had been in times past of maintaining our superiority. He pointed this out to the Admiralty when he came home. The gal lant admiral complained of the reduction of the fleet in the Mediterranean, and asserted that our naval force within the last twenty years had frequently been in such a state that it would have been unable to resist a well-organised attack from the fleet of France. An impression prevailed abroad that the introduction of steam into the navy ren dered a blockade impossible, but his own opinion was that it rendered it far more perfect, and that there had never been such a thing as an effective blockade until the pre sent moment. With the fine ships we now possessed it would be very easy to blockade the ports of France and prevent an invasion ; and under such circumstances he was at a loss to imagine why Parliament should for a mo ment entertain a proposal for expending such enormous sums upon fortifications. (Hear.) It was perfectly right to fortify our sea ports gradually, but to depend upon any fortifications that could be erected for our security from invasion was simply absurd. The experience of the Govern ment in the erection of fortifications was not of so satisfac tory a character as to justify a further experiment. At Portsmouth they erected forts to defend the port, and they were then obliged to fortify Portsdown-hill in order to de fend the forts. (Hear.) Then again with regard to Dover. The fort fications of Dover was a whim of the Duke of Wellingtcn, and every man of common sense would say that the money which had been expended was entirely thrown away. No one would deny that the late Napoleon contemplated the, invasion of this country. He assembled at Boulogne about 3,000 vessels of various descriptions and between 200,000 and 300,000 men, and all he wanted to render his scheme successful was forty-eight hours' command of the Channel. That command he never ob tained, and so long as our fleet was maintained in a proper state of efficiency it never would be obtained Without a naval force to protect them such fortifi. cations as those which the noble lord at the head 01 the Government proposed would be wholly useless ; for stronger works were erected by Russia at Sweaborg, and yet they were inadequate to resist a naval attack, being utterly destroyed without the loss of a man on the part of the attaching fleet. If our ships were properly manned all the talk about fortifications might be set aside. What was wanted was not fortifications, but such an increase in the numbers of our ships of war'as would enable us to retain our position as mistress of the seas. Mr. CORRY said it was his lot to be a member of a committee appointed by Lord Derby to inquire into the re lative cost and expenditure of the navies of England and France from 1852 down to 1858, whenthey discovered that, while the French navy cost £19,800,000, the expenditure in building ships was £21,600,000; and although the navy of England in the Mlle period cost X 60,500,000, the expen diture was only £59,000,000. Then as to the dockyards, the cost of England, in her dockyards, for the same period of five years was £16,000,000, while her expenditure was £17,500,000 ; and that of France £7,600,000, although the expenditure for new improvements and alterations was £13,200,000. The hon. gentleman the member for Bir mingham said they were the cause of the arming going on all over Europa, and that the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich was guilty of a criminal act in aug menting the navy last year. For his part he believed he did great service in so doing, and that the navy ought to be still more augmented. The noble lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, in bringing :forward the naval estimates, said that England ought to have three ships where France had two, but looking at her colonies he thought it should at least be four-fifths. France had scarcely any colonies except Algiers, which was on the shores of a narrow sea, - , and opposite Toulon, while their colonies were scattered all over the world. With respect to the plan of fortifications, he entirely approved of the recommendation to fortify our dockyards and arsenals, and he should therefore give his vote for the resolution. Mr. B. OSBORNE regretted that the house seemed to have prejudged this question, and to vote for the resolutions without considering th e var i ous que stions connected with it. But he would ask, if it was necessary to carry out the recommendations of tho commission, why had it been left aver till the fag end of the session ? What was the reason ? In February last two millions of terminable annuities fell into the doNernmeni, — butinstead of applying these two millions to the defence of the country the Chancellor of the T Axchequer proposed to apply them to the repeal of the paper duty. Why did he deal with the matter in that way ? Did the right hon. gentleman know that such an expenditure would be required? T 1; report of the commissioners was dated Feb. 7, and tho budget was brought in on the lOtit. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman must therefore have been aware of the necessity for the money, and 40 thought the house had been entrapped into a false position by the course pursued, and into money votes which they otherwise would not have granted. He was also surprised that the noble lord should have asked for only two millions. If the danger were as great as the noble lord had stated it to be in his speech, why did he not ask for the whole money at once ? If there were any real necessity for the works, which he did not admit, they ought to be erected at once. But the noble lord had acted most inconsistently in this matter—he had, on the one hand, negotiated a treaty of commerce, and now he asked for nine millions to shut out our customers. He denied that there was any ground for thaw fortifications in consequence of the armed prepa rations in France. The army there had been reduced since the last war in and as to the navy, it was not greater than was required by the pos ,Z . fen of the country. B u t th e Secretary for War said that we ought have these arma ments and defences because we must keep up oZ influence as a great Power. Well, but that was the very thing wr.jch was objected to, as in France, where the enormous increase in both their army and navy within the last three years has been held as a proof of danger to Europe. He felt, however, some difficulty in voting on this matter, because he did not quite agree with the motion of the hon. member for Sun derland ; nor did he concur in the opinions, though he re spected those of the hon. member for Birmingham. He had no objections to defences for our dockyards. He did object to rem.ving our great arsenal to Cannock Chase, be cause he thought better and more easily defensible positions could be found on the Mersey, He objected also to all these land defences—great fortresses, which would become in the course of time practically useless. The fortifications of Paris, the works at Cherbourg, the inland fortresses in dif ferent countries that had been referred to as an example to follow, ought rather to warn us to avoid committing the same error. With respect to the composition of the Defence Committee, he said that, with the exception of one member, there was not one engineer officer of any eminence in the ser vice on that committee. Why was not Sir J. Burgoyne on the committee ? He was the engineer in the Crimean war, and pointed out the only weak spot of the defences at Sebas topol. Why were no artillery officers examined? Why was Sir Howard Douglas, the greatest artillerist in the world, not examined ? The only witness examined as to the range of the new ordnance was Sir W. Armstrong, and he was bound to say there were great doubts in the minds of artillery officers as to the range and power of those guns. He could not imagine anything more absurd than for a com mittee of seven military men calling Lord 0 verstone to give evidence as to what would be the effect on the money mar ket if the French army was in London. (Laughter.) But he objected to the report of this commission, first, because its recommendations were fragmentary and incomplete ; and second, because the calculations as to the cost of the works were so loose and so vague that no reliance whatever could be placed upon them. An eminent engineering officer had lately addressed a letter to the Secretary for War on the subject which well deserved most careful attention. That officer saw that this country did not want fortifica tions. What they wanted was brain and muscle, and he believed so too. The hon. member for Birmingham re ferred to Captain Brialmont's work, but ho did not dwell sufficiently upon it. That gallant captain went at great length into the report of the commissioners, and objected to it on many grounds, observing that the fortifications could not be manned without a conscription. If they were afraid of an invasion, why let them take Captain Brialmont's plan instead of the plan of fortification proposed by the commissioners, and which would cost not nine millions, but nineteen millions. The commissioners recommended fortifications at. Portsdown-hill. Sir John Burgoyne, in his examination before the commissioners said he would not recommend the fortifying of Portsdown-hill at present, for ' it would take an army to support it. The hon. gentleman then objected to the dockyard at Sheerness, which he said was originally a job. • Sheerness was known to be at the wrong side of the river, and yet for the improvement of Sheerness they proposed £lOO,OOO. (Mr. Herbert said the money was to be expended in defending the mouth of the River Medway.) He contended that the number of men to man the fortifications would not be 68,000 or 70,000, as proposed. It would be necessary to have at least 100,000 men, and to fire the Armstrong gun they would require trained gunners. The hon. gentleman again quoted the work of Captain Brialmont and Sir John Burgoyne against fortifications, on the ground that they would not have sufficient men to man the fortifications continually. He should have been glad if the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) had laid before thorn a plan by which railways could be made available in the case of an invasion. The hon. gentleman then quoted the opinions of Admiral Dun das, Sir Baldwin Walker, and other naval officers, given' before the commission, who all said that the defences of the coast ought to rest upon gunboats, and such like measures, and not be assigned to fortifications. The Duke of Wellington did not, in his famous letter, ask for fortifications to defend this country. He asked for 100,000 militia men and an increase of 4,000 to the regular army. (Hear, hear.) But the increase of our military power now was far greater than it was when the Duke of Wellington wrote his letters in 1847, and the army and navy estimates in that year were only £11,230,000, but now they exceed £24,000,000. (Hear, hoar.) This being so, he must declare that he had no confidence in the report of the commissioners, which he considered was loose and in conclusive, and that it did not warrant the expenditure pro posed by the Government on account of these fortifications. He must observe that he was sorry to hear the speech of the noble lord at the head of the Government on this sub ject. He looked upon the letter of the Emperor of the French to be an answer to that speech. (Oh, oh, from the Conservatives.) He knew it was the fashion in that house to look with suspicion on all the actions of the Emperor of the French. But for this, amongst ether reasons, he must say that the Emperor of the French did not want to quarrel with England—namely, that it was not his interest to do so. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Well, what had France done of late ? Why, she inaugurated the present movement in Italy, which Italians and philanthropists so much desired. (Hear, hear.) He contended that they were not justified in thus throwing suspicions on all the acts and expressions of the French Emperor. What did France do even in our case? Why, when the Indian mutiny was at its highest point, France, instead of glorifying in our difficulties, offered to assist us by sending men through her own pos sessions, the more effectually to put down the mutiny. (Hear, hear.) We also fought together in the Crimea, and he would say that the proposed construction of fortifi cations was in the teeth of the treaty which we had entered into with France. He concluded by observing that it was not advisable to go into any great expenditure on the autho rity of a report disputed by such high authorities. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that Sir Howard Douglas was the first officer he asked to sit on this Commission -(hear, hear) —but he declined, on the ground that his great age prevented his visiting the various localities. But he promised to examine carefully and to report freely upon every portion of the report, and he had done so. (Hear, hear.) He had examined the report and evidence with far greater attention than his noble friend had done—(hear, hear, and laughter) —and the Government had been guided very much by the advice which he had given. Mr. B. OSBORNE—Where is it? Mr. S. HERBERT—I presume the hon. gentleman does not dispute the fact of its having been given. (Hear, and cheers.) Mr. B. OSBORNE—We ought to have it. Mr. S. lIERBERT said it was by the advice of Sir H. Douglas that the Government had turned its attention to the sea defences particularly7and diminished the extent of the land defences. As to Sir J. Burgoyne not being placed on the commission, he was the official adviser of the Go vernment—(hear, hear)—and had they selected him it would have been said that he was one of their own men. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) preferred having Sir J. Burgoyne's unbiassed opinion as to what to accept and what to reject, without putting him on the commission. It was said that so long as our gunboats were kept efficient at Ports mouth, that was our best defence ; but we wanted our gunboats somewhere else than at Portsmouth. (Hear.) Mr. B. OSBORNE—Where would you put them? (Ordeir, order.) Mr. S. HERBERT—,The use of a navy is not to stay at home. Your navy may not always be master of the Chan nel. 'We have an enormous colonial empire, and our fleet must be scattered everywhere. Mr. 33. OSBORNE said the right hon. gentleman had still or , le of his own men on the commission, namely, Col. Lefroy... Mr. HORSMAN said the first question we had to ask was, a rhether this country was in a state of security or not ? and if not, the expenditure was but a mere secondary consi derati, (Hear, hear.) As to the absence of Sir J. Burgoyne from t he commission, it was agreed that there should be, as far as possible, an elimination of the official element; and that the Government should certainly take action on the re port wh: ich it made. He believed his right hon. friend (Mr. S. Herb ert) had faithfully fulfilled the promises which he . had mai le. (Hear.) A commission was never more care fully eel octed, and never reflected more honour on those who hai I made th e appointments, and no i nqu i ry h ad been more ho neatly carried out. But the recommendations were limited - to an inquiry in our arsenals and dockyards. The noble lead came down to the house :with the greatest so lemnity ant' made his question of fortifications an imperial questic tn. He showed the inadequacy of our defences, the perils a rising from a hostile invasion, and a march on Lon don; aud he male a speech, one of the most serious and alarmin g nature which ever in a time of peace was de livered 15y the first minister of the Crown. The noble lord's speech' 3191 V had been contrasted with the speech of last year, and; he (Mr. Horsraan) was glad to mark the favour able asp( sots of that contrast—(hear)—for the noble lord now used, the language of truth and justice, whereas be had formerly used the language merely of conventional oomph • ment. 'N'ith the public feeling of the population in favour of those defences, the population was nevertheless said to be struck with insanity. Now, upon military matters he was disposed to defer to the opinions of military men ; on naval matters to the opinions of naval men, and on politics to those of experienced and wise politicians ; but he must I say that there was nothing of which some people seemed to think so lightly as the possibility of invasion ; and there were some gentlemen near him ,who affected to treat with indifference the warning of the noble lord, and that they were in the neighbourhood of a powerful and ambitious neighbour. (Hear.) He (Mr. norsman) felt that if Eng land were invaded and overrun, there would be no security for the rights, the liberties, and the judepeildence of any other country. (Hear, hear.) Her commerce and her civilisation. were carried to every part of the world, and if she wero 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 an d b168,c,4 with free institutions looked to England as their great anehOt: of hope, and he felt that those interests would be best secured IV the maintenance of England as a great naval, commercial, tradjng) and civilised power. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. SMITH agreed with the report of the commis sioners, so far as fortifying the seaboard, but Le differed from them on many other points. He wished to 607 in what manner the five millions, about to te voted, wore to be expended. Mr. S. HERBERT said the five millions were intended for the works now in progress ; and, if any mote were wanted next year, it would come before Parliament. Sir F. SMITH continued—He also desired to be in io:vned whether they were to carry out all the recommenda tions of Ommissioners. Mr. S. HERBERT replied that only a portion of them would be carried out, of which a return was laid en the cable. Sir F. SMITH resumed—Re was glad of that, and that answer disarmed many of his object;ons to the report. In addition to their fortifications they must Lave 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 he 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 one 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. hoar.) 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 wax 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 adopicd than he endeavoured to show that the plan we have adopted was' one undeserving the attention of the house. The hon. member eni2morated a great number of the schemes, which he pronounced absurb and totally unfit for adoption. I perfectly agree with him izt his criticism, but it so happens that the plans to which he has Oferred have nothing to do with the proposal of the Governmei: t. The hon. member denounces as insane all those who differ from him in opi nion, and in 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 bo 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 believe that if those fortifications had existed in 1814 or 1315 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 be bad 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 aNational 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 sihoulder, looking very much like Robinson Crusoe. (Laughter.) Re stopped my military friend, and said, " You are a military maa—tell me how you would take a fortress." My friend began to explain how to make breaches and zigzags, and so on, when tine 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 ho 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 of 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 moans 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 ono 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 aro 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 deny 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 appointe d twelve months ago, long before the commercial treaty was proposed, and therefore totally unconnected with it ; and although we trust that the treaty may lead to a continuance of more friendly relations between the two countries, that forms no ground, in our opinion, for abandoning plans which on careful deliberation we believed to be necessary. I hope and trust that the present peaceful relations 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 most likely to remain at peace with foreign nations. On these grounds I claim the vote of the hon. member for Birming ham, for if anything would be more than another likely to endanger. the cont inuance of p ea ce , it would b e th a t a country wea lthy like England should rema i n exposed to the risk of attack or assault without having any means 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 l oo k at the great force which h as b een enrolled as volun teers. The country desires that Parliament should act in unison with that feeling which th e people 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 invasii,n which could not take place without notice to us. - . The question was then put, and the committee divided, when ti: ere appeared : For the motion Against: it Majority ..-229 The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution. Mr. BRIGHT said that in looking over 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 done 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 cemplete works already sanctioned by Parliament. As to Cam2ock 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 informa tion fairly laid before them. Mr. MONSELL said although he believed it would not be proper to move an amendment to the resolution in its 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 commie' sion ; and although there were experienced artillery officers 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 then 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 Wa ll 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 esti• mate for such a work would be. Mr. NEWDE GATE 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 eentsl arsenal in England, that did not appear to him to be neer sary. If invasion were to take place, he thought London would be the first place to be attacked, and that should ne t be lost sight of. Mr. V. SCULLY very much coincided in what had been expressed by the hon. member (Mr. Mengel!). He (Pir . Scully) had given an honest and independent vote in or port of the resolution of the noble lord, and his only difficulti in makbg up his mind was as to the est a bli s h men t o f a g reat central arsenal. Their best means of reliance in case of hi' vasion would, in his opinion, be upon their railway meg° of communication and their telegraphic means, and /TO, regard to the former, if hon. members would do as he S a done, furnish themsOves with Bradshaw's map—(laughte r) —they would there fit,:d the beat and most valuable infer' mation on the subject. Mr. S. HERBERT said the Government could not OX' cept the proposal to exclude from the list the works at Portsdown-hill, which were supported by high military thorities, including Sir J. Burgoyne himself, all of who' especially recommended that Portsdown-hill should be for' tified. With respect to Cannock Chase, the site was not yet decided, but it was important that we should not have all our eggs in one basket, as now at Woolwich ; but be thought that Woolwich would be an arsenal of Woof and Cannock Chase of reserve stores. Mr. BRIGHT said the right hon. gentleman had not answered one question—what was to be the cost and what the size of these works ? It might not be necessary to have any fortifications at all in the heart of a manufacturing dis • trict. Was the fortress there to be a defence against foreign enemies, or against the political liberties of the country f If he had not that information, he should move that lam'' 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. -i t , reserve for military stores was most desirable, but as Ye; the Government had not decided upon the place, and could 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 Lime' rick. Sir F. Smith had told them that night that the work ° at Portsdown-hill were totally unnecessary, and he pro" tested against any expenditure on these works. After some further discussion the committee' divided on the amendment declaring it inexpedient to proceed with' out further information, with the works at Portsdowir hill. Ayes Noes Majority OOOOOO -128 Mr. BRIGHT again urged upon the Government the necessity for showing the house that the Government knot the own mind on the subject. If not, let the . matter be posponed until next session. Lord PALMERSTON was desirous of giving all the in formation in his power, but as yet no site had been decided 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 0 0 vernment would give all the information required as far as in their power. The great object was to h ave a great de posit of stores at some point less a ccessa bl e t h a n Wool wich. (Hear, hear.) The resolution was then agreed to and reported. BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS BILL. The Lords' amendments on this bill were considered and agreed to. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (SCOTLAND) was in his conduct that which was sincere and honourable to this country. And now, s i r , we h ave got a stronger proof in that very commercial treaty, of which some persons affect to think lightly, but which all those who are con nected 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 with 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 refer ence 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 sorry 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 incomelax, £73,000,000 would re quire 73 pence in the £l, or 6s. ld. 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 haring an income of £lOO a year and upwards, which you take 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 pace. lint there is a country where Eng lishmen live, and where this does not 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, were not more than £12,000,000 sterling. I ask any hon. gentleman who has the slightest knowledge of legislation 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 ge on with safety to our institutions, or that the people can bear the strain of that enormous pressure. (Hear.) France may 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 one, than to the monarchy under which I live. (Great cheering.) Mr. NEWDEGATE askedwhy 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 licy was to maintain good relations with France, and at the same time to provide for our own defense. That was the policy which the hon. gentleman opposed. In his recent letter the French Emperor declared Ns anxiety to remain on friendly terms with this country, but he 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 independence. 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 comrneneement 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 - sifters 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 bo 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 suc- cess, and the serious injury to themselves in the event o f failure. The commissioners had estimated tke additions it cost of manning at £68,000 or £70,000. This was clearly'rert under-estimate, and was so regarded by the committee, of the Horse Guards, who stated that a considerable nu-Jibe r of additidnal troops would be required. Probably nct le%s than 15,003 additional men would be necessary. The annus 1 cost of these, at ce6s per man, with the proposed cost of the works, would be equivalent to contracting a loan of 30 millions. Lord It. MONTAGU said that the extracts from letters read by hon. member for Birmingham really proved nothing. Nor did his sneers at ministers and lords. Pro bably the hon. member, if he had the chance of beco ming one himself, would not sneer at either lords or millions sires.: (A laugh.) Th e recurrence of panics proved that .w• i were not safe, and even if an invasion were not possible, f he Go vernment ought to take the course they now proper Je d. On the question of probability of invasion the G - 0 , fprnmeut BILL. The amendment of the Lords on this bill were also con• sidered and agreed to. The ether business was disposed of, and the house then adjourned at a quarter-past two o'clock. [ADvEuTta.mENT.] Pills and medicine Invariably ag' gravate and pei:petuate diseases ; their annoyance, die appointment, and expense may be avoided by personil in indifferent heaLth sending only their a ddress to E. S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent -s tre e t , W ., London, and thel will receive gratis and free by post the " Inv.s.laDs' °wit GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex nervousness, palpitation, pease, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and impurities, eruptions , refreshing sleep, to the mom' • enfeebled, insuring the removal sianplessness, acidity, pal& of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaints, nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, don'Ality , cough, asthma, consumption, dysentery, biliousness, fevers, .'ore throats, catarrhs, cola, dropsy, flatulency, di arr hma, Unquestim ably tke safest Guide noises in the ears, rheumatism, Out' hysteria, neuralgia, irritability , tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, spasms' sinking, fits, bronchitis. — " to health." . Esq., of a son BIRTHS. , BucKLE y.—On the 2d inst., at 25, St. ,George's-square, e—of.--tßeriulest:t eiellyslts.t' big., at 1, Hyde-park_piaco k-hill, Mrs. F. R. Mosley, of a so.u. at 14, Roaburgh•terrace, Ha' :0., i irv t ori ll es L e r: :3: w t l i rc f .A the wife of Arthur Lionel Tollemache, Esq , of a son. MAID RIA G ES. MUSPATT—NEALE.—On the Ist inst., at Rainhill, Lan cashire, Dr. Sh er id an M us p.ratt, M.D., Professor of Che n 3', Liverpool, to Anne, eldest daughter of the late John N ea l e, E sq., o f the same place. DOXAT—RA TTRAY —At St. Mar vlebone, Charles Doast, Esq., o f 42 , Gloster-square, to Rosalie Sydney, the otil daughter of Vice-Admiral Rattray, Vvill COui the tlae and oth Eas YE, on and xfr 21st Ivitl sups seer o'ch the 'writ AdE der Vac pere trac cons per add =is be ll] elf bo DEATHS. BURTON.—On the 30th ult , at Kensington, Judith Anne/ only daughter of the late Lieut.-Gentoral John Burton) It.A., aged 64. COOPER.—On the 3lst ult., at Bath, Colonel John Cooper, 7th Bombay N. 1., aged 58. GILL.—On the 31st ult., at Carlisle Villa, 84.)w, Mr. John Gill, aged 55. INoLls.—On the 31st ult., at 15, Berkeley-sql.tare, Hoar/ Inglis, Esq., of Cherra Poonjee, Bengal. KEMP.—On the Ist inst., at 2, Cleveland-terrace, Hyde- • 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 YOUNG of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, N,e. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the oolostY of Itiligleseat, Friday, August 3, 1860. ORI pail No. DAN etc] Hess Pt Jour A the Way Wa J,