The Sun. — London, England, 1860-07-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING; JtTLV!': - 24, 1860. pointed a commission to inquire into the present state of those most important points to which I have referred. The result of the commission is a report which is upon the table of the house. The recommendations of the commissioners, which have been confirmed after revision by a committee of military officers, called the Defence Committee, amount to a recommendation of a total outlay of £11,000,000, in which is included £1,500,000 for armaments and floating defences. I hold that it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the country that these recommendations should substantially b e carried out. (Hear.) Now, there are two modes of doing this. You may either vote annually such a portion of the annual income as the country would like to spend on a matter of this kind, and by so doing defer, perhaps for 18 or 20 years the accomplishment of these defences ; or you may take that course which it will be my duty to recommend, and en deavour to complete them at the earliest possible period— (hear, hear)—without at the same time laying upon the country for a considerable period of years a larger annual burden than would be incurred if you prosecuted these works more slowly. I mean you may, by raising by termin able annuities to run for thirty years a sum that would be sufficient in the course of three or four years to complete these works—you may get immediately, or within a short period, the security you require; you will not lay upon the country a much heavier burden than that which would be incurred if you were to wait until the slow process of an nual votes brought these works to a conclusion. (Hear.) My opinion is that if these works are necessary, and I think common sense shows you they are necessary—(hear, hear) —if they are necessary, they are necessary as soon as we can get them. (Hear, hear.) They are necessary for time present—(hear, hear)—and it would be folly to postpona for eighteen or twenty years the completion of defences against dangers which I hope may not arise, but dangers which we may contemplate as possible, and which, if possible, may be possible in the course of a comparatively short space of time. (Hear.) Now, that is a course which I know is to a certain degree a departure from ordinary usage ; it is con • trary to principle to raise money by loans for the annual ex penditure of the country. To do so for the purpose of de fraying the ordinary expenses of the year would be as spend thrift a proceeding as for an individual to borrow money every year to pay his household expenses. We know what would be the fate of an individual, and the country which did so would no doubt be brought into great emtarrassment. But, by recent legislation, Parliament has empowered and encouraged individuals to raise money by loans, either from the Exchequer-bill Commissioners or from private com panies, for the purpose of effecting permanent improvements upon their landed property, and spreading the repayment over a considerable period. Now, what is sound policy, re cognised by Parliament, in the case of individuals cannot be unwise or inexpedient as regards the greater and more im portant interests of the nation. By raising money by termin able annuities we could prevent that loan from becoming a permanent addition to the debt of the country. I think that ought to be avoided in all cases where it is possible, and in the present case I am convinced it is possible. Now, as to the necessity of these works, I think it is impossible for any man to cast his eyes over Europe and to see what is passing there without being convinced that the future is not free from danger. It is difficult to say where the storm may burst, but the horizon is charged with clouds which betoken the possibility of a tempest. (Hear, hear.) The house, of course, knows that in the main I am speaking of our imme diate neighbour across the Channel, and there is no use dis guising it. (Hear.). It is in no unfriendly spirit that I am speaking. No one has any right to take offence at conside rations and reflections which are purely founded upon the principle of self-defence. (Hear, hear.) We have, it is true, recently concluded a commercial arrangement with France. (A laugh.) These are not matters to be treated with levity. (Hear, hear.) These are not arrangements without great value—(hear, hear)—for it is well known from experience that nations which have with each other great commercial intercourse—nations between which great mutual interests are involved in the maintenance of peace—are less likely to fall out and become antagonists than nations between which those ties are not cemented. (Hear, hear.) But at the same time these things are not brought about at once. A great nation which has not hitherto been much addicted to com merce, whose mind, whose feelings, and whose glories have chiefly been in relation to warlike operations—such a na tion cannot be expected on a sudden to be entirely free from its former habits, and at once to comprehend all the benefits and advantages that would arise from peaceful and com mercial relations. I hope much from this treaty, but that treaty alone would be a frail security to a great nation like this, with extensive interests, with great wealth, and whose shores are more open to attack than the land frontiers of any country—(hear, hear)—because, whereas upon a land frontier the points of attack can be pretty well guessed, and can be guarded, a country whose frontiers are the sea is open to attack at any point to which an enemy able to command the sea may choose to direct his opposing force. Therefore I say it would be folly to rely upon the future effects of the commercial treaty when we know that we have vulnerable points which re quire artificial defences, and that we have the means of pro• viding those artificial defences. (Hear, hear.) Is there nothing in the state of Europe that leads us to think that we might by the course of events be called upon to defend ourselves against hostile attack ? We see in France an army of 600 and odd thousand men, of whom 400 and odd thou sand are actually under arms, and the remainder are merely on furlough, and can be called into the ranks in a fortnight. That army is greater than France requires for the purposes of defence. (Hear, hear.) No nation in the world would think, unprovoked, of attacking France. Nothing could be gained by it; no one could expect to dismember France, and no one would fare otherwise than ill who ventured upon an unprovoked attack upon France ; and therefore for the defence of France we may pronounce that vast army un necessary. I do not mean to say that that army is raised for the deliberate purpose of aggression. I trust it is not, but the possession of power to aggress f"equently gives the desire to do so. (mar, hear.) You cannot, you are not entitled to rely upon the forbearance of a stronger neigh bour. You are bound to make your defensive means pro portionate to his means of aggression. (Hear, hear.) But is it only on land that the arrangements of France are dis proportionate to her necessities for defence ? We know that the utmost exertions have been made, and still are making, to create a navy—(hear, hear)—very near equal to our own —a navy which cannot be required for purposes of defence of France, and which, therefore, we are justified in looking upon as a possible antagonist we may have to encounter—a navy which would give to our neighbours the means of trans porting within a few hours a large and formidable number of troops to our coast. (Hear, hear.) 'While, on the one hand, the French navy has increased far beyond any amount that it has reached since the end of the last war, our navy has, on the other, from the change that has taken place from sailing ships to steam, necessarily diminished in numbers. (Hear, hear.) We had at one time, as I have stated, 84 sail of the line, all sailing vessels ; but they have been necessarily greatly reduced. The right hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), when he was at the head of the Admiralty, did good service in proceeding to substitute steam line-of-battle ships for sailing line-of battle ships. I trust we are going on in the same course, and that in a short time we shall establish our navy on such a footing of superiority to that of any neighboui 'an- Power as is absolutely necessary for our existence as a nation. (Hear, hear.) I say, however, that in the present state of things we have no right to rely for our security on the mere forbearance of a rival Power. (Hear, hear.) Our interests are spread over the whole surface of the globe. Agents in every quarter are at all times liable, through an excess of zeal or a mistaken sense of duty, to lead the na tions they represent into difficulties ; and no one can en swer from day to day that something may not happen in some part of the world that will lead to disagreeable com munications between different Powers. (Hear, hear.) With the utmost desire that these matters may be amicably adjusted, yet, if one country is obviously greatly the strong est and another country greatly the weakest, it is very dif ficult for any arrangement to be made. (Hear, hear.) The stronger Power naturally exacts conditions wh;ch the weaker may not be disposed to grant, and though in the case of an arbitrary monarchy and despotic Government things might be easily arranged, yet where the Power con sists of a high-spirited and patriotic nation, with free insti tutions and with the popular feeling manifested on every public event, you may be quite sure that the bulk of the nation, who are not responsible for consequences, and who do not know very often the difficulties and dangers that a certain course might produce, would revolt against the con cessions made by the Government; and if they were told thet those concessions were rendered necessary, by the ab sence of the means of defence, or by the neglect of former Governments to provide for the security of the country, they might be tempted to vent their indignation against those in power, and lay the seeds of future dissensions. (Hear, hear.) Thus, for the sake of peace, it is desirable that we should not live upon forbearance, but that we should be able fully and effectually to defend ourselves. (Hear, hear.) When that is the case no foreign country will, without ample reason and provocation—which I trust we never shall give —disturb the state of peaceful relations that may exist. (Hear, hear.) 'What are the dangers to which we are exposed ? They are of two kinds—l speak now only of the United Kingdom, and say nothing of the colonies on oural various foreign possessi o n s . Th e d anger t o w hi c h we 0 ;1 41 be exposed would be that of invasion, for one or two, n may say three purpose s — e ith er w ith th e h ope o f con which I think no country would imagine to be pea and(ese) a there levyla; next, to get possession of the metropolis, spir and hopes of contributions, and by overbearing the o it f peace that would frthe country dictate in the capital terms vantageou s t o the 4 iny be Ignominious to the country and ad as I think much mor e probable (Hear, hear.) The third, and Bea and d ro b bab i le attempt, would be by a sud den attack—by or by land if the sea de fences were too strong s s Y t a ir d ' a possessi?n of—on our naval arsenals, the cradles of l u g r anet n avy, which is our national strength, and by destroy root our naval forces, to lay us open afterwards to other e t a of aggression which they might be enabled to care a y sl : fo (11!ar, hear.) ith re t i lfe n I dismiss from my mind the idea that ry a n iit . P ower would dream of conquering this count permanent possession, as I do not believe it 'would env:aerwthoe mind of any one. (Hear, hear.) No doubt London might be open to invasion, but London is too vast a spac e to be sur rounded by fortifications. (Hear.) You cannot fortify Lon don as you can Paris. London must be defended in the field. (Hear, hear.) There are strong natural positions between thercoast and London, which, skilfully taken ad vantage of, might enable even a small force to repel a larger force, and successfully drive back an invasion. (Hear, hear.) And there is this to be said, that what ever amount of force an enemy might land. on our shores, so long as we retain our naval power, that force must ulti mately be lost, because its communications would be cut off, its supplies rendered impossible, and, sooner or later, it would be compelled to surrender. (Hear, hear.) It might do great mischief ; it might cause extensive de struction of life and property, and entail great misery on the country, but the ultimate success of such an operation would not, I apprehend, enter the mind of any military man or be regarded as one likely to be attended with per manent advantage to an enemy, except in so far as it might inflict injury on this country. (Hear.) The operation which I apprehend is most likely to be attempted is that of landing a considerable force for the purpose of destroying our dockyards. (Hear.) If your dockyards are destroyed, your navy is cut up by the roots. If any naval action were to take place, your enemy, whatever the success of it might I be, would have his dockyards and arsenals to refit and re plenish and reconstruct his navy ; while, with your dock yards burned and your s' ores dispersed, you would have no means of refitting your navy. (Hear.) If ever we lose the command of the sea, what becomes of this country? (Hear, hear.) Only let hon. gentlemen consider how dependent we are for everything that constitutes national wealth—ay, and a large portion of national food, on free communication by sea. We import about 10,000,000 qrs. of corn annually, besides enormous quantities of coffee, sugar, tea, and cot ton, which is next to corn for the support of the people, by enabling them to earn their food. (Hear.) Our wealth depends on the exportation of the products of our industry, which we exchange fer those things that are necessary for our social position. Our exports amount to considerably more than 100 millions in value annually. (Hear, hear.) Picture to yourselves for a moment such places as Liver pool, Bristol, London, and the Thames blockaded by a hos tile force. (Hear.) What would become of the industry and wealth of the country in such a case ? The effect of the landing of any number of troops upon our shores it is impossible to contemplate without fear and alarm, nay, without horror, and such a result is one which no gentle man ought to regard as possible. (Hear, hear.) Some gentlemen think that we keep up excessive peace establish ments in regard to troops, but at least we ought to be pre pared to resist whatever force can be brought against us. (Hear.) If London were in danger, what you would want would be to fight a battle, or two battles, or three, if you please—the first, I hope, would be sufficient—(hear)—with the greatest amount of military force you could bring against the force that attacked you. But your army being limited, and your military means limited, and your dock yards being points that require defence, the way to get the largest possible force to meet an enemy in the field is to make arrangements for requiring the least amount of mili tary force to defend your dockyards and arsenals. (Hear.) It is obvious that if large forces are required to defend your dockyards, you cannot concentrate for the defence of Lon don that amount of force which would be necessary to meet an invading army. Therefore, it is demonstrable that forti fications for your dockyards—the effect of which will be to equalise by artificial means, for purposes of resistance, tke smaller force within and the larger force without thesefor tifications—will be, in fact, means for the defence of Lon don, because they will set free a large amount of force for the defence of the capital by operations in the field. (Hear.) There are those who say why should you confine your de fences to such places as Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devonport, Pembroke, and the like, and leave London undefended ? Where are your fortifications for London ? they say. My answer to them is that bastions and works are not a defence for a great, vast city like London, surrounded as it is by districts as large and as thickly populated as any of the villages in the interior. Really the only defence for Lon don is an army in the field, and any means which enable you to make that army as large as ycur military establish ments will allow are directly subservient to the defence of the capital itself. (Hear.) Then we are told that we ought not to confine our arrangements to our dockyards, and other such points—that there are other points of great import ance—Liverpool, for instance, a port of great wealth and importance; Bristol, Newcastle, and other points. My answer to those who make this objection is that we have not neglected these outports, but that the defence of these great commercial towns need not be of the same kind and character as those required for your dockyards. ~ These towns partake in a great degree of the nature of London. They contain vast populations, for whose supply it would be difficult to provide if they were surrounded by walled enclosures covering a vast space of ground, with suburbs extending far beyond them ; and fortifications, unless they stand on a apace entirely free from houses, would be of no use. To defend those towns, therefore, by land against a force once landed would be as difficult as to pros:de a similar defence for London. These towns are not likely to be attacked by an army landed for the purpose of occupying them. What Government at all skilled in mili tary operations would thick of sending a large force to attack Liverpool, even with the certainty of success? Liver • pool taken, no doubt, would create a great deal of loss and injury to the district which surrounds it, but Liverpool taken would not have the same effect on the political exist ence of the country as London taken. (Hear, hear.) It is clear, therefore, that the enemy who wanted to strike a blow would go at once to the heart of the country. (Hear, hear.) He would go to London, he world not waste his time and throw away his resources by an attack of that sort merely on experiment. (Hear.) We have taken measures—my right hon. friend the Sc cretary for War is now pursuing them—to protect not merely Liverpool and Bristol, but several other commercial ports, from the only kind of attack to which they were liable—the attack of small squadrons for the purposes of mischief and les /lug contributions, without any large force being landed. That protection can be given by batteries, either permanent or in the nature of earthworks, for which means can be provided in a different manner from that to which we resort in this case. We have therefore thought it right to follow the recommendations of the Military Commissioners, and confine these defensive works to the points which they have indicated. There are many gentlemen who think that the sum estimated by these commissioners is excessive for the purpose. (Hear.) We can only judge of these things by comparison, and if we find that other countries have spent sums corresponding in amount for similar purposes, wanting them perhaps not so urgently as we do, it may be thought that the demand now presented is not out of proportion to the object to be at - tained. I have inquired what other countries have done in this respect, and I n ill give the house the result. In the first place, however, I should say that that portion of the estimate of the commissioners which applies to what they call armaments and floating defences—viz., to guns and floating batteries—is an expenditure which we think should properly come out of the arnual expenditure. In the course of the four years it is to be expected that, in the ordinary course of things, the artillery for these works will be completed, and it is not necessary to in clude those things in the sum which I propose to raise by terminable annuities. We are of opinion that, instead of £11,000,000 odd, which make up the total estimate of the commissioners, £9,000,000 would be sufficient for all the purposes which we contemplated in this matter. It should be remembered that out of that there is £1,850,000 taken for the purchase of land, part of which, no doubt, will have to be covered by works, but a consider able portion of which would be available for letting in a manner to produce some sort of return annually for the money expended. That will reduce the actual sum for works to £7,150,000. But what has France done in regard to these things ?—France, which is not so likely to be in vaded, not requiring so much defence—a country whose orgy accessible frontier lies between Belgium on the one hand, and Switzerland on the other—because an at' ack upon France by the Alps is now out of the question, and an attack from Spain through the Pyrenees is equally unlikely In the year 1841 the French Assembly voted £13,255,616 for works, of which the fortificatiors of Paris alone cost £5,600,000, and the works, as I am reminded by the Secre tary for War, were not done by contract to be paid for in the usual way, but the workmen employed were soldiers, who only received their ordinary pay in that capacity. Cherbourg has cost, from first to last, £8,032,000. France now feels that the great improvement in cannon and the greater range of missiles have rendered both Cherbourg and Toulon less secure from attack from the sea than they were before. Further works, therefore, at Cherbourg are going on, whichlhave included in this £8,000,000, and at Toulon other works are in progress which % ill cost £475,000. What have the Netherlands done ? At the end of the war it was deemed right to improve and extend the works of those for , tresses on the frontier of the Netherlands, now forming part of Belgium, which were likely to be attacked by an enemy coming from the west. There was spent on those works £6,409,000. There was no land topurchase, the works were already existing, they had only to be improved and extended ; there was less to be done on the n, in fact, comparatively speaking, than we have to do in regard to the works now proposed. How have the Germans thought in regard to these matters ? The fortresses of Coblentz, Ulm, and Rad stadt have cost L 3,022,000; Posen, Konigsberg, and another fortress have cost £2,829,000. The works at Alessandria have cost nearly 7,000,000 francs. Russia, since 1813, has spent £7,250,000 on her fortifications, of which £2,000,000 belong to Cronstadt. My hon. friend the member for South wark can tell us how effectual these fortifications were. (A laugh.) Other naval officers, too, can tell us of what valu3 they were, for whereas we bombarded Sweaborg and destroyed it, none of our officers, gallant as they were and strong as were their flees, were able to get near enough to Cronstadt to have a chance of attacking it with any success. During the whole of the last winter the most energetic means were taken still further to strengthen those works. Two thousand carts were employed all the winter in conveying across the ice immense masses of stone, in square cases 24 feet square, to the extent of 14,000 cubic fathoms, 16 tons to the fathom, so that when the thaw came they might sink and render the barrier in front of Cron • stadt still stronger and more effectual. When we see other countries laying out these sums on their defences, it really would be criminal in the people of this country if they were to neglect doing something of the same kind for the purpose of defending those most important positions on our coast. (Hear.) I have no doubt that when these works are com pleted, as I trust they will be in a comparatively short space of time, they will place us in a position of comparative safety. (Hear, hear.) The destinies of nations are in the ha nds of a higher Power, but it is the duty of man to do all that he rea sonably can to deserve the support of that protecting Power. (Hear, hear.) When these works are finished, we may say— _ __ - " Be gracious, Heaven, Laborious man has done his part." (Hear.) We shall have done everything that, humanly speaking, lies in our power to protect ourselves from inva sion. (Hear, hear.) If danger were to arise, I have no doubt we should be able to muster in the field a force suffi cient to resist, and successfully resist, any invader who might present himself upon our shores. We should show that the British nation are, as they always have been, capable of making any exertion that may be required of them. At the beginning of the second act of the late war we had 470,000 volunteers. Now we have 1.30,000 ; but, if there were any imminency of danger, there is no doubt that that number would be manifold greater than it is at present. We should show that we have— "The unconquerable will, The courage never to submit or yield, And what is else not to be overcome." But, with all that, I say that any Government who had this report before it, who knew what the dangers and the neces sities are, who knew what are the means of remedying and guarding against them, and yet should fail to call upon this house to furnish it with the requisite resources for providing those defences which are indispensable, would be betraying its duty, would be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour, and would d eserve—l say it not as a mere metaphor, but in sober, sole/ an earnest—would deserve the penalties of impeachment. (Cheers.) And I cannot believe that any House of Commons to which this proposal is made would do otherwise than rc spend to the feeling of the country by adopting it. lat a quite sure that any House of Commons which should have that appeal made to it, and should turn a deaf ear to it, NU mild lose irretrievably and for ever the confidence and good' opinion of the nation. (Loud cheers.) Sir, I now beg to submit the resolution with which I shall conclude, viz.: " That it is the opinion of this committee that towards providing for the construction of works for the defence of the Royal dockyards and arse:aals, and of the ports of Dover and Portland, and for the creation of a central arsenal, a sum not exceeding £2,000,000 (which is the sum we pro pose to take for the present year) be charged on the Conso lidated Fund of the United Kingdom ; and that the Com missioners of her Majesty's Treasury be authorised and em powered to raise the said sum by annuities for a time not exceeding 30 years, such annuities also to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund." Sir, the course we propose is this :—We do not ask the house to vote at once the £9,000,000 which we think will be requisite for the completion of these works. The works will necessarily be spread over three or four years. We think that £2,000,000 are as much as can advantageously be spent between the present time and this time 12 months. We therefore limit our present demand to that amount, re serving it to ourselves, if we should be in office, or to those who may succeed us, to apply annually to Parliament for such other portions of the £9,000,000 as may be found ne cessary to each successive year. There will be laid before Parliament each year an account of the application of the money so voted. I propose to bring in a bill which will be an Appropriation Act for this purpose, by which the money thus raised shall be paid into a separate account kept dis tinct from the ordinary revenue of the country, and which shall be strictly applicable to these purposes and no other. (Hear, hear.) An annual account shall be laid before Par liament for each instalment. Ido not now pretend to say the exact amount of annual interest at which these £9,000,000 of terminable annuities may be raised. That will depend on the state and circumstances of the market. But it happens that there are terminable annuities which were raised for a period of 44 years in 1823, and which will therefore ex pire in 1867, involving an annual payment of A 580,000. Well, it is quite clear, whatever may be the rate of interest at which these terminable annuities may be disposed of, that the aggregate charge for the whole £9,000,000 will fall far short of the £580,000 which will drop in 1867 ; so that the only additional charge beyond that now incurred which will arise from this measure will be limited to the interval between the present time and the year 1867. In 1867 these other terminable annuities will drop in, and from that period to the end of the 30 years for which these new an nuities will run, only a portion of that £580,000 will remain as a charge upon the public. I think that the course we have proposed will, on the one hand, provide adequately for the defence of these various important positions, and, on the other, will involve as small an arnual charge on the country as it is possible to impose. (Hear) The £2,000,000 which we ask at first will be applied more or less to all the different places which are pointed out in the report of the commissioners. It is obvious that that sum will not be sufficient for undertaking all the works so recommended ; but as those works cannot all be undertaken at once, we think the £2,000,000 will suffice for our present purpose. There n 'AI be laid before Parliament a schedule to show in what proportions the £2,000,000 will be divided among these different places. Sir, I hope the committee, notwith standing the caveat of the hon. member for Birmingham, will be disposed to agree to the resolution to-night. There n ill be ample opportunity, on the resolution being reported, and on leave being obtained to bring in the bill, for discuss ing the whole matter at length. The session is far advanced and it is essential that Parliamentary authority should be given to the proposal without any delay that can reasonably be avoided. At the same time we have no wish to deprive hon. members, or the house at large, of all those proper opportunities for discussion which are naturally demanded upon a measure the importance of which we are far from seeking to underrate. (Loud cheers.) The noble lord concluded by moving the resolution. The question having been put, Mr. HUBBARD thought, if it were deemed desirable to raise this money in the most economical manner, it was certainly not desirable to raise it in the form of terminable snnuities. The holders of such annuities had been so often robbed that nobody would lend money on such a security, without requiring a large allowance for the risks to which he would be exposed. An allowance would be insisted upon not only for the possible continuance of the present income tax, but also for the possible increase of that impost. They would therefore be unable to borrow money upon these securities ithout sacrificing sor 10 per cent. on the total sum they world receive. By adhering to terminable an nuities he did not think it would I e exaggerating to say that out of the whole £12,000,000 they would throw away £1,000,000. Landlords who borrowed money to improve their estates did not adopt the form of terminable annuities, but that of loans repayable in a cm tain term of years, capital and interest. Why should the noble lord not resort to the more productive medium of Consols ? (Hear.) The noble lord wished, by giving 30 yea's for the completion of the repayment, to throw th's expenditure on the present gene ration. That was an excellent plan ; but it implied that he durst not trust the House of Commons to repay with pru dence what they could re-pay year by year. What were they told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing forward his budget ? We had £2,000,090 of Long Annui ties falling in; but what were we called upon to do now? To borrow £2,000,000 more. Therefore, what was the vir tue of such a rule? We cor'd never repay op- debts if we were in a Position to be obliged to borrow opal.. The only mode of repaying debts was by their repayment out of sur plus revenue, which we could only obta'n by economy in the management of our expendittin3. It came to this, if the house doubted that its successors would have the good sense and intelligence to repay the loan out of surplus re venue, let them accept the proposition of the noble lord; but if they were of his opinion, that it was useless to fetter themselves by engagements of tl-'s 17'nd, which they could not force themselves to keep, let them not borrow the money in a manner which world, upon the whole amor - it, add many hundred thousand pounds to the cost of these works. (Hear.) Mr. BRIGHT—I shall not go into the point to which the hon. gentleman has referred, nor to that which is a thousand times more important—the propositions of the noble lord ; but I will undertake to say that, during the 17 years that I have sat in this house, a question of this character, of this magnitude, and involving the expenditure of such enormous sums of money, has never before been brought forward with out notice, and the house been asked to adopt it the same evening. The noble viscount speaks of £9,000,000 or £12,000,000, but it is impossible for any one who has read that report, and knows what we all do of public works, not to come to the conclusion that in all probability there will be an expenditure of double that amount. (Hear.) I be lieve that as sure as you commence, in stead of spending £12,000,000, you will spend £24,000,000 ; and,without refer ence to the principle of the matter at all, I am not at all pre pared to give my sanction to a resolution like that, which has never been placed upon the table of the house, which we heard for the first time from the lips of the noble lord at the conclusion of his speech, and which involves the house sad the country in so enormous an expenditure. I will not go into the question as to whether or not it is necessary that anything of this kind should be done. In the name of the house I protest against its being entrapped, if I may use such a tam, or invited, or cajoled, into agreement to a resolution of this kind without notice. I shall not even say what I think of the tone and manner of the speech of the noble lord. He will hear of them on another occasion, no doubt. 1 shall content myself with moving that you, Sir, report pro gress and ask leave to sit again ; and I beg to state that I shall divide the house upon that question, that if there are gentlemen in the house who will support me, and the reso lution is pressed to-night, the committee will have the pleasure of dividing a good many times before it is agreed to. (Hear, hear.) Mr. S. HERBERT—I think it is but fair that the com mittee should be in possession of some of the details of the plan as it is proposed to be carried into effect before they are called upon to vote for the resolution which has been pro. posed by the noble viscount. It is difficult, in discussing so largo a scheme, to make oneself intelligible to the house, but I will endeavour to point out what are the portions of the scheme to which the Government attaches the greatest importance, and which they propose to take first, partly be • cause of their importance, and partly because there is, for obvious reasons, great facility in commencing them. I ob serve that many hon. members have in their hands the re port upon which the recommendations of the Government have been founded, and if they follow me I will explain as shortly and as clearly as I can what are the works which we propose to take first. The sum which the Government ask to be voted this year, and to be raieed by terminable annuities, is in round numbers £2,000,000, but that is not the wh o l e sum w hi c h th ey i n t en d t o spen d w ithi n th e year if the house should sanction the r proposal. There is upon the estimates which have not yet been laid before Parlia ment, except a lump sum for fortifications in the ordinary army estimates, a sum of about £450,000, which is to be de voted to carrying on some of the very works which are in cluded in this general proposition. The commissioners, it will be observed, give two distinct sets of estimates, one for the completion of works now in progress, and the other for the erection of works not yet begun. If you add the £150,000 charged for works in progress in the ordinary army estimates, you will find that the sums proposed to be expended in the year will amount to about £2,500,000. I suppose there can be no doubt about this, that of all the places to be defended, Portsmouth is the most important. (Hear, hear.) There fore, we propose to deal almost entirely with the sea de fences at Portsmouth, and to commence the works covering a great part of the land faces. Now, I have heard it said that the defence of Portsmouth ought to be by a fleet. (" Hear, hear," from Sir C. Napier.) The gallant officer has said that, but I think I shall have him on my side if he re flects what is the main object of a fleet and what is the main object of a dockyard. You want your fleet to be constantly moving about, and if once you are induced to defend Ports mouth 'bya fleet at Spithead you have lost that fleet. (Hear.) You are then endeavouring to do the work of permanent fortifications with perishable materials such as ships. Those ships are invaluable because they have the power of moving to whatever point requires immediate defence, but if you condemn them to be the fortifications by which your dock yard is to be defended you cannot move them. What is the object of a dockyard except to make a fleet ? But if the ob ject of a fleet is to defend a dockyard, it would be cheaper and better neither to have one nor the other. You must de fend that which makes the fleet by something other than the fleet which is made by it. (Hear, hear.) You must be able to send your fleet at a moment's notice to act hostilely against the enemy; but in order to do that you must have something left behind which shall not be moveable, which shall be permanent, and be capable of defending these dock yards. I am going to say one thing upon this subject which it is necessary I should say, because I anticipate the objec tions which shall be raised to-night. I know it has been stated, and efr ecially with regard to Portsmouth, that there are in the evidence the opinions of naval men pointing out the weakness of its present defences and showing how it might be attacked, and it has been asked how can the Go vernment take the responsibility of showing up the weak ness of these defences when information may by that means be communicated to our enemies? Well, Sir, in a constitu tional Government we must risk a great deal. (Hear.) If the House of Commons is to deal, as I hope it will deal, in a generous and patriotic spirit with this question, you must take it into your confidence. You cannot use reserve ; you cannot say to this house, " We call upon you to spend large sums, but we will not show any justification. You must ' take it upon trust. 'We will not tell you how the money is to be expended; it is a question of confidence in the discre tion of the Government." The House of Commons would rightfully say, "Lay before us the materials upon which you formed your judgment, in order to enable us to form one for ourselves." In this country you must deal with Parliament in that spirit at whatever risk, and it would be an immense risk if you had a doubt about the success of the measure. But I have no doubt as to the success of the measure. I do not care about slims :ng up the weak places if I know that you will assist the Government to snake them strong. That is the proper way in which to meet this difficulty—a diffi culty upon which we have had to decide, but in regard to which I believe that we have decided rightly, because I am confident that the country will be disposed to forward the efforts of the Government to put the dockyards in a state of security. At Portsmouth we propose to proceed first m:th the sea defences and the landing places in the Isle of Wight, which, after all, is the breakwater of Portsmouth harbour. We propose to take three out of the five defences at Spit head. I will not quote from the es:dence, but hon. gentle men who have read' the report must have seen that naval men tell us that the anchorage of Spithead is not a safe one. Steam has come in there again, and would enable a hostile navy to make a rapid invasion upon that anchorage. Spit head is a harbour net only for ships of war, which can de fend themselves, but also for merchant vessels taking refuge either from bad weather or from an enemy in the Channel. We take these three works out of the five which have been proposed, because about them no doubts have been ex pressed. As to the work upon the Spit, I believe that some doubts have been entertained. It has been said that it would be a buoy to lead ships in. For my own part, I do not attach much importance to that objection. There are buoys which are very unattractive to hostile ships. Vessels do not like to come near great tiers of guns, and at night there would no lights in these works. The marks by which a hostile fleet could attack Portsmouth would be the lights in Portsmouth and Gosport, and not any in the towers upon those !shoals, which in themselves would not be visible. We propose also to complete the works at Gosport, which are now very much advanced, and to go on with the defences to the westward, taking, not the whole number of forts upon the plan, but five instead of eight. We propose to finish other works at Ports-. mouth, and that will be all that will be done this year at that place. The cost of the works at Portsmouth when com pleted will be £1,920,000, including the purchase of land. [Sir J. Pakington—This year ?] No, for the completion of the works. The sum to be spent this year will be about £510,000. At Plymouth we propose to take the sea defences, that is, the work behind the breakwater, and the work upon Stand Point, and the three works to the north east, defending it from any force which might advance from Torbay. All the works when finished will cost £1,200,000, of which we shall this year spend something like £300,000. At Pembroke it is proposed simply to have some works at the landing places in the neighbourhood, and to erect a work on the north, which a al stand upon' an eminence and arrest the progress of an enemy who may advance from that side. Those works when completed will cast about £220,000, of which we propose to spend this year about £130,000. I think no gentleman will deny that what ever is to be done for strengthening the Thames ought to be done at once. 'We propose therefore to take £lBO,OOO, of which we shall this year probably not be able to lay out more than £lO,OOO or £50,000. The same applies to Chatham and the Medway. At Dover it is proposed to hasten the existing works, and the same course is to be pursued at Portland. It has been proposed by the com missioners to make a large purchase of land at the latter ' place, under the impression that, some time or other, there will bo a naval establishment there. The Government, however, do not intend to carry that proposition into effect, because it would be impossible to defend from bombardment from the seaward any works in the nature of an arsenal or a dockyard which might be erected at Portland. We wish Portland to be made perfectly safe as ' an anchorage, but we do not contemplate making a large naval establishment there. Portland would be open to the ' same objection as Sheerness, and would be constantly ex ' posed to be bombarded from the sea without any power of resistance. The only other works which I have to men tion are those at Cork, where there is a magnificent har bour, and where we propose to erect works which will ulti mately cost £120,000, of which about £20,000 will be ex pi:Wed in the present year. We believe the works at Cork will put that harbour in a good state of defence. I know not whether the committee now clearly understand what are the works which the Government intend to commence at once ; but I may say generally that they are the sea defences everywhere, partially land defences at Plymouth and Chatham, and nearly the whole of the land defences at Portsmouth. Those are the works which will be commenced in the present year, and which will ultimately, when completed, involve us in an ex penditure of nearly £5,000,000. The hon. member for B ir mingham says he knows what public works are, and he will be much surprised if we get out of these under £24,000,000, instead of £12,000,000. The Government have excluded from their proposals everything which is perishable. It would not be honest to saddle posterity, even in the limited form of terminable annuities, with a charge for that which perishes soon after it is created. Armaments are perishable. Your cannon became useless and unserviceable after a few years. Floating batteries, which are proposed as one means of defence, and which are popular with many gentlemen, would cost more than solid defences, because they are like ships, which live only about 25 or 30 years. At the end of that time, having cost an enormous amount for repairs in the meanwhile, they would have to be rebuilt. There is a further disadvantage connected with floating batteries. At present we know little as to the way of making them invul nerable by iron coating, and if it should turn out that a floating battery was not invulnerable one unfortunate shot might send the whole concern to the bottom—men, guns, and all. The committee will see that there is an immense risk attached to floating batteries, which does not apply to solid defences. All the works we propose will be of a lasting and permanent character. The estimates, moreover, have been framed studiously and OR purpose upon the largest pos sible scale. We have taken a very large sam for the pur chase of land, and I intend to introduce a bill which will give us a power that, under the Defences Act, the Secretary of State does not possess. It will enable us, where wo want land as a rayon around a work, not to purchase the fee simple, but to buy up the building rights, paying the diffe rence of value between agricultural and building land. There will be considerable advantage in that provision. It will prevent us from purchasing more land than is abso lutely necessary for our purpose, and as most of the places where the contemplated works are to be erected are Parlia mentary boroughs, it is neither wise nor wholesome that Government should become large landed propfieters within them. (Hear.) Public opinion, moreover, is subject to sud den changes. 'We recollect the time when there wore no apprehensions of war, and when, in consequence of the eco nomical notions which prevailed, land of immense value to the national defence was sold. The committee will under stand that it would be much less lucrative to sell a right of building upon land than the land itself, and therefore we shall not be exposed to ono very obvious temptation. (Hear, hear.) As I have said, the estimates are very large, because our defences ought to be made as perfect as possible ; but still the Government, as they were bound to do, have exer• cised a discretion, especially on the land side, as to whether or not, looking at the probabilities of attack, the whole of the works recommended by the commissioners aro abso lutely necessary. The consequence has been that where there has been a doubt between engineer officers as to whe ther additional works are wanted or not at any given place we have decided in favour of the negative view. Hence I have little doubt that the estimates we have framed will be found more than sufficient to meet the expenses of the pro posed works, and at the conclusion of the business we may discover that we have spent less money on the defences than was originally contemplated. (Hear, hear.) Let me say a few words upon a cinestion which has been very much discussed —the defence of London. How is that defence to be ac complished ? A. writer of great ability, in a popular periodical, has proposed to defend London by six forts placed apart at distances of something like seven or ten miles. What military commander, bent upon entering Lon don, would stop because he knows he has got two small forts, one on either side of him, each five miles off ? (Hear, hear.) Such a defence would not, I imagine, shake his reso lution to make a raid upon London. But it is proposed that the forts in question should be built for fabulously small sums. The land, for example, is to be got for £2OO an acre. I know something about the purchase of land in the imme diate suburbs of London, and I say you would be more likely to pay £5,000 an acre. (Hear, hear.) Moreover, the very places you would select for your forts are just the sites which, from their height and picturesque character, are the best suited for villas and expensive gardens, and which con sequently bring the highest price. The zone around Lon don is far more valuable than that around any other town in the world. Each fort would require to be surrounded by a clear space ; in fact, you would have to make a kind of desert round London, and the land would have to be pur chased at a cost so enormous as to render the completion of the scheme impossible. Talk of locking up men. That is the objection taken to the plans of the commissioners. I am not certain whether it is a sound.one. The plans have been modified, and a much less force of men will be re quired than that contemplated by the commissioners. We have to consider the relative expense of men and works. When works are cheaper let us take works; when men are cheaper let us take men. It so happens we are strongest in raw levies. Raw levies cannot be manosuvred in the field, but they may make a brilliant and successful defence behind works. The most untutored nations in the world— the Turks for instance—fight stoutly behind works, but they will not stand in the field for one moment. So your irregulars and raw levies should be used to defend your arsenals and dockyards. Napoleon said it is dangerous to trust to earthworks which are to be got up on a sudden, unless there is a strong force behind them. It has been stated that Sebastopol is an instance of a successful defence made by earthworks hastily erected. But those earthworks were not erected on a sudden. We were never able to force the sea defences, regular fortifications, twhich were eminently successful, and we gave the enemy three weeks or a month to make their land defences. That is a pecu liarity in the case, and I believe that if Sebastopol had been defended by permanent works on the south side, to which we went because there were strong fortifications on the north, it never would have been attacked at all. (Hear.) Napoleon observed that a provincial militia was a force to defend strong places. Keep your good troops in the field, he said, and place your militia in works where they are as good as the best soldiers in the world. That is my belief, and for the very reasons why it is cheaper, better, and more secure to defend your dockyards by permanent works, I think it world be impolitic to adopt the same course in the case of London. (Hear, hear.) lam sure the more tire House reflects on the proposals of the Government and examines the plans of the Commissioners, the more it will be satisfied that we have taken a wise and politic course. (Hear, hear.) It was an argument prominently put forward in Mr. Pitt's time, though I do not expect to hear it repeated now, that you cannot trust the Crown with the possession of places so strong, because they might be used as positions of aggression against the people. Ido not think that any man in his senses would think of using suchen argument in the present day. It had, however, a great effect formerly, and Mr. Pitt's plan to fortify Portsmouth and other places was defeated. It has been since said that this was a fortunate circumstance, be cause otherwise a considerable expense would have been in curred and we should have had to make other works over again. That however is not so, for Mr. Pitt's plans showed great foresight and judgment, and a great many of them are being executed at present. Though you are now com pelled to extend your fortifications further, owing to the longer range of guns, and to defend yourselves by detached forts, instead of continuous lines, yet it is always an advan tage when you have detached forts to have an inner line to fall back upon. It is highly important that those places where the means of your power are produced should have every appliance which skill and art could produce to make them secure. I cannot sit down without expressing my ear nest hope that the committee will consider this question to be, as it really is, a national question. (Cheers.) Last year, when my predecessor moved the army estimates, I was struck by an observation of his to the effect that the house should makeup its mind what to do with those fortifications and not go on peddling with small sums year by year; but that if the fortifications were necessary they ought to be completed at once, and if not they ought to be abandoned. (Hear.) The right hon. and gallant gentleman repeated the observation on another occasion. I had already made a pro posal to Government on the subject; but I thought it ne cessary to be strengthened by the report of men eminent in science, and I believe that thereby we have found the means of making an enormous improvement in the the security of this country. (Hear, hear.) I have laboured at the matter with great anxiety, and I confess I should despair of this country if I thought the people would hesitate to make the sacrifice we ask. Of course, a large expense is to be in curred, and to be defrayed not in the cheapest way—by means of terminable securities. It is said that the money may be had more cheaply and easily by means of Consols, No doubt ; but is it not important to show that we are no t imposing a burden on posterity and making no effort our selves, and that this is an exceptional and extraordinary proceeding ?'This country, looking at these questions with an anxious mind, is determined that the kingdom shall be put in such a state of security, that nothing less but enor mous preparation, attended necessarily with due notice, should be able to produce a force that cou Id make an im pression of a permanent nature upon it. (Hear, hear.) If these works are put into a thorough state of defence you may rest on your pillow in the confidence that Portsmouth or Plymouth, if attacked, will be able to defend itself, and you may then concentrate all your energies upon the de fence of London, if you think it likely to be attacked. (Hear.) Portsmouth, Portsdown, Dover, and Chatham are the great outworks of London, and you are not neglecting London or the navy when you are doing these things. lam sure that the Government have no wish to force this pro position in a. hurry through the house, and if gentlemen wish for time to consider it will not bo denied them. I hope they will give the subject the most earnest attention, confident that they a►:11 not be deserted by the generosity and patriotism of the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) General PEEL said that, so far as human foresight and human means could provide for the safety of the country, the Government of the day should be responsible for the sufficiency of the national defences, and no punishment could be too great for that Ministry who, by neglecting the construction of needful works, allowed such a misfortune to occur as that of tke metropolis falling into the hands of an enem y. (Hear, hear.) He thought that this house and the country had a right in return for the large sums of money voted to expect that the nation should be placed in a state of defence and made secure against the danger of any attack. The country would be willing to see any money voted to secure that object, and in throwing the responsibility on the Government he could not, for one, refuse to grant them the means to provide for the protection of the country. (Hear, hear.) He did not think it wise for individual members of Parliament to take upon themselves, how ever competent to form an opinion, to criticise these plans, or to quote military authorities who did the same thing. Let the house remember that those persons were not responsible, and that the plans under consideration were proposed by men responsible for the advice they gave (Hear, hear.) It was this responsibility that he wished to insist upon, not only for the plans themselves, but for the construction of the works to be carried out. The fault of the military administration of this country had been that when a great error was committed it was not possible to place one's hand on the responsible person. Now, he hoped, with respect to these large works, for which the house we s called upon to vote so groat an expenditure, that, at all events, there would be some person responsible to the house for seeing that this largo sum was spent to the best advan tage. (Hear.) Ile observed from a paper placed in the hands of members that day that the Defence Committee expressed themselves entirely in favour of the views of the Royal Commission ; but they said further that, either with or without fortifications, there must be a great addition to the regular army. (Hear.) The total of her Majesty's forces, including 15,000 of the local European forces in India, was 245,000 men. If, then, the largest number of troops which it was reckoned could be required in India were maintained there—namely, 80,000—the average num - ber required in the colonies and our military stations abroad being 40,000, that would leave a body of 125,000 regular troops in this country. To these must be added 17,000 pensioners who were available for garrison duty, as well as that portion of the army of India who must always be in depot here. This would leave us 150,000 regular troops, and, after making all deductions, we should be able at short notice to bring into the field 80,000 regular troops, including the finest artillery in the world, and, he believed, the finest cavalry. (Hear.) This was exclusive of the militia, and of the magnificent auxiliary army which had been recently created, and which on an emergency might be increased to hundreds of thousands. If all these resources were properly organised, there would be no reason for the least alarm. But the safety of the country depended materially on the organisation of our army of reserve, and he confessed that he was not satisfied that the proposed plan for re organis ing the militia would render them as efficient as they ought to be. No doubt, they would be made as efficient as it was possible for any men to be who had received on 28 days' drill, but in his opinion an army of reserve ought to consist en tirely of regularly drilled soldiers. Depend upon it, if their services were required, there would be no time for prepara tion. There would not be six months' notice of any war. It would be a word and a blew, or very probably the blow would fall without the word ; and tinder those circumstances he was afraid that the training of the militia would be found insufficient. This, however, was a subject on which he should have future opportunities of speaking. He would only now say that those who sat on the benches around him saw no reason for postponing this vote, and thought the committee might very well come to an immediate decision. (Cheers.) Mr. OSBOItNE—The very able and concise statement of the noble lord opens such new, and, to my mind, such alarming considerations, that it is impossible to suppose, alter that speech, we can have the same friendly relations with France which existed at the beginning of the session. (Oh, oh 1) Sir, Ido not think the house ought to legislate on a sudden. (Hear.) I expressly guard myself from saying that I do not approve parts of the noble lord's plan.. At the same time I can conceive nothing more detrimental to the character and the weight of this house than to legislate under the pressure of a sudden panic —(Opposition cries of " Oh I")—which I conceive we should Le doing if we at once rushed to a vote on this question. How stands the case ? My hon. friend (Mr. Bright), with whose general views on this subject I do not agree, has said that during the time he has been in Parliament he has never known such a course taken. I challenge any hon. gentleman to say whether, since this was a House of Commons, any Minister of the Crown ever came forward suddenly with a resolution which had not been upon the table before, and asked for an imme diate vote upon that resolution. (Hear.) Ido hope, from a few observations which fell from the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) at the conclusion of his speech, that the Government do not intend to press us for a vote to-night. He said he was sure that the more the house reflected on this statement, the more wise and politic they would consider the proposed plan to be. If that be so, why should not the right hon. gentleman postpone the vote and give us some little breathing time? I don't say that I shall not sup port the right hon. gentleman. All I ask is that we may not expose ourselves somewhat to the sneers of foreign nations as well as to the distrust of our own constituents, by immediately rushing to an impetuous vote. (Opposi tion cries of "Oh ?") What is it we are about to do ? It is true that to-night we are only asked to spend £2,000,000 ; but does not every one feel that this is only the beginning of an enormous addition to our expen diture ? (Hear, hear.) The noble lord has very well laid down his plans, but has altogether kept out of sight the troops for which we shall be asked. (Hear, hear.) I be lieve Cannock Chase, also, is not included. (Yes I) Well, I will throw Cannock Chase in ; but I say we shall not be consulting our own dignity as a deliberative assembly if to night we agree to a resolution which we have never seen or heard of before. It seems now that the blue-book was known to the Government on the 7th of February. Since then we have had a budget brought forward, in which most mate rial financial changes were introduced, the Ministry know ing at that time that this call of £7,000,000 would be made. (Hear, hear.) They were perfectly aware of all this, yet on the 23d of July the house is called upon, for the first time, not indeed to take their proposals into consideration, but to give without notice an immediate vote ; and we have hon. gentlemen getting up under the influence of a panic. (Opposition cries of " No,") The delay of this resolution for three or four days cannot be of the slightest possible moment. The fortifications are to occupy four years, and I think it will not be becoming the House of Commons to decide so hastily. Ido not wish to be placed in a position hostile to the Government on this question. On the con trary, I hope to be able to give them my support ; my cnly object is to press for the postponement of the resolution. I wi I only add one word with regard to the publication of the report of the Commissioners. The War Secretary has said that in a constitutional Government you are obliged to make these matters public. To that doctrine I cannot assent. I believe in all warlike operations that the one essential thing is secrecy. (Hear.) If we are to pub lish our weak points to all the world, we invite all the world to attack us. (Hear, hear.) When the Duke of Wellington formed the lines of Torres Vedras, an operation which occupied more than 10 months, Massena was not a bit aware of them, nor was their existence known to any persons in the English army, except the members of the confidential Staff. That is a sufficient answer to those who defend the publication of the blue-book. Those lines at Torres Vedras saved the liberties of the world, because if Spain and Portugal had fallen at that time, the whole world would have been in the grasp of the first Napoleon. (Hear.) I look upon the publication of this report as most mischie vous. (Hear.) However, that is done and cannot be un done ; but with regard to the resolution, I do hope the no ble lord will not to-night call upon us to vote upon it. (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—I think the argument of my hon. friend is rather at variance with the course which he suggests. He finds fault with the Government for having given in too much detail the reasons why they propose the vote, and at the same time he objects to the vote being taken to-night because, he says, the committee have not had sufficient time to examine into those details. Now, if there was any force in the argument of my hon. friend, he ought to be prepared to vote the money on terms of general confidence in the Government, upon our declararation that we think such a sum is necessary for the defence of the country, and without calling upon us to say why we think it necessary. (Hear, hear.) I therefore claim the vote of my hon. friend on his own argument. (A laugh.) It is really not fair to say that we are calling upon the House of Commons to act on a sudden panic. This report has been for some time before the house. It gives all the details, and those who have read it are just as wise as they will be this day week. (A laugh.) Then, again, my hon. friend says that after my statement this evening it is hopeless to expect the . continuance of any friendly relations with France. Why, the only foundation for friendship between equals is perfect frankness—(hear, hear)—and, so far from the fair statement of what we intend to do for our own de fence being the ground for bad relations between us and France, I say that not only the statement made to-night, but the works which are to follow that statement, are the only foundation for real and substantial friendship with France. (Hear.) lam quite sure that if we press this question to a die ision it will be carried by a large majority—(Opposition cheers)—but I am far from wishing to call upon hon. members for a decision which they are not immediately prepared to come to. I concur entirely with my right hon. friend in thinking that the more the house reflects en the matter, the more completely they will come round to our proposal, and that they will be more ready to assent to it this day week than they are now. lam pre pared, therefore, to yield to the request which has been made, and to move, sir, that you report progress now, and that the debate he resumed this day week. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE rejoiced that the Government had at last determined to act on the recommendations of the commissioners. Mr. DISRAELI—I do not intend to trouble the com mittee upon the particular question before us. I will only say that as to the mode in which this money is to be raised I confess I have great doubts of the wisdom of the plan, and I should like to have heard the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon that point. (Hear, hear.) But what I want to ask is, now that this change has taken place in the business, can the noble lord fix a day when the new Paper Duty will be taken ? Sir G. LEWIS—The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, and therefore I can't say when the Paper Duty will come on. The Indian Army Amalgamation Bill is fixed for Thursday, and Friday is a private night. I must make one or two remarks upon the mode in which it is proposed to raise this money. In the first place, although my noble friend stated that the plan contemplated ultimately an expenditure not exceeding £9,000,000, all we pledged the house in this year is to consent to raise £2,000,000 on terminable annuities. There is no doubt an equal sum might be borrowed on Consols at a somewhat less annual charge. (Hear, hear.) Terminable annuities are not the most saleable stock. (Hear, hear.) In general, assurance companies alone deal extensively in them, and the public will not take them except at a higher rate, although net a considerably higherrate than Consols. But let the com mittee consider the alternative. If we had proposed to raise this money by creating an amount of 3 per cent. Consols or Exchequer Bonds or bills, it is certain th a t it would form an addition to the permanent debt of the country, and that the public would not consent to raise the funds for extinguishing that debt in the present generation. The committee will remember that an attempt was made during the last war to compel the extinction of a certain debt in Consols, but that act had not been in existence three years when the right hon, gentleman opposite, the then Chan cellor of the Exchequer—l do not say without necessity— came down and proposed the repeal of that act. Even this year it is proposed to renew a debt of a million in Exchequer Bonds, and there is no reasonable prospect, unless you com pel this house by the terms of the contract to repay a por tion of the principal periodically, that the money will ever be repaid. The advantage of terminable annuities is this— although it costs you something more when you borrow in that form, yet the excess of charge is not considerable; you make it necessary that a portion of the principal should be repaid every year, together with the interest. The essence of terminable annuities is that on the repayment principal and interest are confounded. That mode of compelling the public to repay the principal of the debt seems to me to be well suited to the present occasion, when we are departing from the ordinary course of defraying the current service of the year by contracting a loan. Although I admit that terminable annuities are not the most economical mode of contracting a loan, yet that plan seems to me to have an advantage in compelling the Government which contracts the loan to specify in the contract, whieh cannot be broken without a violation of national faith, that a certain portion of the principal shall be repaid each year, and I should be glad to see a considerable portion of our national debt con verted into terminable annuities. Mr. DISRAELI—I am sorry again to trouble the com mittee on the same subject, but it appears to me that, at this period of the session, the house has a right to expect some thing more definite than the statement we have already heard of when the paper duty will come on. Can the noble lord tell us when will be the next supply night, and will the paper duty be taken then ? Lord PALMERSTON—I cannot state with certainty now. I will state to-morrow. Mr. BRIGHT—I wish to ask when the right hon. baronet the Secretary for India intends to make his state ment respecting the finances of India. I understand there is a deficit of £7,000,000, and therefore it is probable that a loan will have to be contracted. That is a question which should not be deferred until the last day of the session. Lord PAPIERSTON—In the absence of my right hon. friend I cannot give an answer, but the day when my right hon. Mend will bring on his Indian budget must depend upon the other. business. I will state to-morrow what will be done. - ---_. Mr. RICARDO wished to guard himself against being supposed to concur in the observatilns of the HOMO Secre tary as to terminable annuities. He considered that raising money by such means was an extravagant and wasteful proceeding. (Hear.) Mr. CONINGHAM had no faith in bricks and mortar as national defences. We had experience in the bloe C rt Islands, where extensive works had been executed on the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington, but the late Mr. Stephenson, the engineer, who visited those works, de clared that every shilling thati had been spent upon the m had been thrown away. (Hear.) It wo th u e ld no b b e le give facilities and encouragement to working men to enlist under what he might call the national banner. Sir S. NORTHCOTE wished to havreieanuenxdpelrasntoa9tidonthoef a discrepancy between the statements of the Home Secretary as to the cost. xthse,oNovoorokos commenced ht d earn and cte noble lord to say £7,000,000 would be required, while the right hon. gentleman said £5,000,000. that t ether the v o o . te for forti fications S O G. N C 0 . RLTE;VcIoSThEa d a said sked this year would, when finished, cost in the estimates was to boproceeeded with ? Also how the half-million which the noble the sum to be paid on terminableannourdiqems providedsi q-, ro ? C. LEWIS said the gut aiwtaioentede be for fortifications in _ . the army estimates would be sufficient to cover the interest on the terminable annuities for the year. Sir L. PALK said it seemed to him an unfortunate acci dent that the Minister who ought to have charge of this debate was absent. Considering that if the noble lord's re solution had passed it would have pledged the house to the expenditure of a very large sum of money, it was a most ex traordinary circumstance that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer should be absent on such an occasion. He had no doubt that there were some excellent reasons for that ab sence, but it still seemed to him extraordinary, and not re spectful either to the house or the country. (Hear.) He wished to point out to the Government the propriety of not dealing in a niggardly spirit with those from whom land was purchased for the construction of fortifications. It should be borne in mind that taking a portion of land for such purposes vary often destroyed a great deal more for building purposes. Mr. JAMES objected to this important question being discussed in the present desultory and unsatisfactory manner. As the subject was one which was of the greatest conse quence to this country and to its standing in Europe, it should:be discussed in a serious m anner , and after the house had had ample time to consider it. Mr. J. EWART pointed out the importance of converting steamboats at Liverpool into gunboats, for defensive pur poses. The motion that the Chairman report progress was then agreed to, and The house resumed. SUPPLY—THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. li. D. SE YMO UR moved, as an amendment, " That, in the opinion of this house, the state of the ecclesiastical law in England and Ireland, and of the courts in which it is administered, and especially the act called the Clergy Dis cipline Act, require to be amended and reformed ; and that it is incumbent on the Government to direct measures to be prepared for that purpose." The amendment was seconded by Lord FERMOY, Sir G. GREY observed that the question had been brought forward in a most unfortunate manner as an amendment upon the motion for supply, which had already been delayed to a very late period of the session. He re fused to pledge the Government as to what they should do on that or on any other subject next year. After some further discussion, the amendment was nega tived without a division. SUPPLY. The house then went into a committee of supply on the Civil Service Estimates. On the vote of £44,595 for the expense of the royal palaces, Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH thought that before going into committee the Secretary of the Treasury should have favoured the house with some statement by way of explana tion as to the nature of the estimates. At this late period of . the session it was not possible for hen, members to give those estimates due consideration, and therefore the Govern ment were to blame in not at an earlier period giving a fair opportunity to hon. members of discussing them. Mr. LAING said the estimate had been prepared with great care, and that on the aggregate, as compared with last year, there had been a large decrease. The Government admitted that the present system of accounts and audit was not satisfactory, but they intended to devote their attention during the recess to an investigation of the whole matter, and would probably be able at the beginning of next session to lay the results of their inquiry before Parliament. After some discussion, the vote was agreed to. The next vote proposed was the sum of £119,529 for public buildings. Mr. W. WILLIAMS referred to the great increase of the sum required for the civil service, and said it was his intention to take the sense of the committee on the excess in the present vote, amounting this year to no less a sum than £20,812. Mr. COWPER hoped the hon. member would not have opposed this vote, as there was a decrease this year, as com pared with the last year, to the amount of £3,211. Mr. MILDMAY moved that the vote should be reduced by the sum of £l,2oo—an item stated to be for the expense of a house to contain the Wellington funeral car, which he thought was unworthy of having Imlay expended upon it —by whom such a thing was designed he knew not. (Hear.) Lord J. MANNERS always objected to questions of taste being submitted to that house. The car was used upon a memorable and national occasion, and it would be desirable, when it became necessary to remove it, there should be a proper place provided for its reception. Mr. J. LOCKE regarded the proposed institution as a folly. (Cheers and laughter.) They would have to provide for the keeping, warming, and cleansing of this new build ing, and as a body of practical men, he called upon the house to reject the vote. Mr. COWPER said he quite felt the difficulty of the oc casion. Here was a car used on a memorable occasion, and it was owing to Its associations with the remains of that great hero who was held in hoaour in this country. There was nothing more visited in London, or in which greater interest was manifested by the people generally, and he did not think that either the people or the house would like it to be broken up. Mr. E. JAMES supposed the Chief Commissioner rase to withdraw the vote. He really did not think him serious, and hoped he would at once withdraw the vote. Lord C. HAMILTON suggested that the car might be taken to the Tower, (Cries of "Divide.") Mr. COWPER would be very sorry if the car was not placed in a proper situation, but as the opinion of the house was against the vote he would withdraw it. The item was then withdrawn. Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the vote be reduced by £6BO, being the expense incurred for keeping up the Eccle siastical Commission. Sir G. C. LEWIS thought it was reasonable the public, should pay a portion of the commission. Lord J. MANNERS was of opinion that when they ap pointed an Ecclesiastical Commission to manage Church property they ought to pay the expense of providing them with an office. Mr. WALPOLE defended the vote. Mr. - WILLIAMS contended that this office was not for public purposes, but for the Church, and it ought to be paid out of property belonging to it. The committee divided, when the numbers were— Fer the amendment Against it 179 Majority .-118 On the motion that a sum of £29,000, a portion of the vote, be granted to her Majesty for the maintenance and repairs of public buildings and offices, Mr. CHILDERS was desirous to know whether the country was spending more this year than in the last for the rent and repairs of public offices. Sir J. SHELLEY took exception to the vote. Mr. COWPER, in answer to the hon. member (Mr. Childers), said there was a comparison to be instituted be tween this year and the last, and looking at the vote in that way, the increase this year amounted to £3,211. After a few words from Lord J. MANNERS and Mr. MONSELL, Mr. COWPER said the reasons why the public offices were rented in private houses were well known. The sub ject had been frequently discussed, and while he admitted that it would in many respects be preferable to have these offices combined, and owned by the Government itself, yet that was a large question, on which he would not then enter. He would only say, that as long as the present system was allowed to exist, they ought to be prepared to pay a fair ental for the buildings they required for the public service. Mr. E. JAMES wished to have some explanation of the item for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's stable, and of that also of £56 per annum for a suspicious-looking house, called Manley Cottage, on Kennington-common. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. COWPER said that the stable in question had been attached to the official residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ho did not suppose the hon. and learned gentleman meant to object to it. As to the house on Ken nington-common, he knew nothing about it, except that it was well tenanted, and that they paid the rent of it. (Great laughter.) The vote was then agreed to. The next vote was one of £23,000 for the supply and repair of furniture for the various public departments. Sir J. SHELLEY said that that vote required great consideration. A great deal of reform and econom7 had taken place in this department, but their experienee in the Kensington Museum showed that still greater improve.. ments might be effected. He wished to call the attention of her Majesty's Government to the subject, as one which espe3ially called for it. Mr. A. SMITH, as a member of the committee which had sat on the subject, observed that the vote had increased to £23,000 from £12,000 in 1541; and of the money voted last year there remained £12,000 in hand. He should there fore move to reduce the vote by £12,000. The School of Art, Brompton, alone received £2,900 for furniture, and he should propose to include that sum in the reduction. Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the Chairman report prO• gress. Mr. COWPER thought the amendment would introduce confusion into the accounts, as money voted and not ex pended was returned into the Exchequer. The motion for reporting progress was withdrawn, and the committee divided upon the vote, when the numbers were— For the amendment . . 44 Against it Majority --118 The amendment was lost, and the vote was agreed to. On the motion that the amendments be reported to the house, Lore J. MANNERS asked when the paper duties would be brought forward ? Lord PALMERSTON said he had stated twice that evening that due notice would be given on that subject. On Wednesday next the house would again go into Com mittee of Supply. The house resumed. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE. opleyrashpowerle hyinstal ments to len The house went into committee on this bill. Clause 1 was agreed to. d to the clause altogether, as it money On clause 2e, trusteesw hich g thea o v f e m a y extending over 22 years, n e ror s r i e would practically preclude tho house from dealing with the Mr. SPOONER objected question of withdrawing the grant , 1 .uring that period. Mr. NEWDEGATE also opposed the clause on the same grounds. The committee dirided, when the numbers were— For the clause lO7 Against . ... ............. Majority for the clause --64 BANK OF IRELAND (No. 2) BILL. This bill also passed through committee. GAME CE RTIFICATES, &c. , BILL. This bill was re a d a third time and passed. CORRUPT P RACTICES PREVENTION ACT (1854) CONTINUANCE BILL. This bill was read a second time. UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES ESTATES BILL. The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered and agreed to. Mr. HOPWOOD moved that the Chairman should re port progress, which was agreed to. LANDED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT (IRE LAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time. The house then adjourned at a quarter past three o'olock. [ADVERTISEMEN r.]—Holloway's Pills and Ointment. The friends of the afflicted.—For more than a quarter of a century have these medicaments been before the public, by which their merits have been universally recogn sed and commended. In all ailments they prove useful. In debi litated constitutions they act as preventives to disease, a nd where maladies have manifested themselve s the afdicted can resort to no remedies at once so efficient and harmless as Holloway's. They keep the blood pure, and preserve the stomach in a sound state ; they cool and cleanse the whole system. These medicaments should be possessed bY all ; they will confirm good health, and prove serviceable under any infirmity which can afflict mankind. Plain di rections accompany each box of Pills and pot of Ointment. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112 • Strand, in tke Product of the Savoy, in the oonakf of giddlosoz, Tuesday, July 24, 1860.