The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-03 00:00:00

THE DAY'S NEWTS.

In the House of Commons yesterday, Sir George
Bowyer asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether Garibaldi, having taken possession of Milazzo,
punished with death thirty-nine of the inhabitants for
having fought against him, and in defence of the rights
of their sovereign. • Lord John Russell replied that he
had received no information on the subject. The
House having resumed consideration of the report of
the Committee on Fortifications and Works, Mr.
Lindsay moved as an amendment a resolution that, as the
main defence of Great Britain against aggression depends
on an efficient navy, it is not now expedient to enter into
a large expenditure on permanent land fortifications.
He pointed out, in a long speech, the immense expense,
not less than £50,000,000, to which the proposals of the
Commissioners would lead. Steam, of which so much
had been said, was more in our favour than against us.
In the hour of danger a million of volunteers would
annihilate, to a man, the invading army. Our
best defence was our trust in a happy, united, and con-
tented people. Mr. ;Berkeley quoted Lycurgus to show
the uselessness of stone walls ; and he denied the asser-
tion of the commissioners that the British volunteers
would not be able to face an invading army. He asked
what we were doing with our rifled guns, of which it
appeared that there were but two in the Royal Navy,
while France had six hundred. The best way to fight a
Frenchman was to take him when he was sea-sick upon
our own element, to which we had trusted so long—the
water. Mr. S. Herbert denied these facts. The Emperor
was at this moment strengthening the forts of Cher-
bourg, of L'Orient, of Brest, of Rochefort, and of
Toulon. Mr. Bright said estimates always ended
by being doubled, and he felt assured that the
ultimate cost would be at least £20,000,000
spent in carrying out the propositions. Further
than this, an, increase of 70,000 men to the standing
army would be necessary to the defence of the works. As
for the commissioners, he never knew an act of greater
stupidity—to use a less offensive term, a greater act of
lunacy—than their report. If they could get rid of the
Foreign-office, its head, the noble lord, its follies, and
its superstitions, they might at the same time get rid of
the cost of the policy it involved, and trust to their
volunteers for their defence. He analysed the report of
the Commissioners, declaring that- he had never read an
official document so illogical, incoherent, and absurd.
He pointed
.out at length the inconsistencies and
follies of the report, and the absurdities of many of the
answers of the witnesses examined. No doubt the
people of England were ready with their money, bat it
was because they were frightened by the contemptible
cowardice of Cabinet Ministers. We were once told
that the reign of Victoria was to be a reign of peace, but
nqw everything in the court and in the people was war-
like, and a dangerous spirit was universally infused into
the nation, through the ignorance of the masses,
the clamours of the service, and the want of courage in
the Ministry. Our extravagance would end as it ended in
other nations—an exiled and an overthrown aristocracy.
Mr. Newdegate observed that the speech just made would
have been appropriate if we were preparing an expedi-
tion against France, but it had little to do with a pro-
POsal to defend our arsenals. The resolution was •
founded on the simple principle of defence, and it was
because. Mr. Bright did not wish the country to be inde-
pendent that he opposed it. Sir G. Goldsmit contended
that the mode of borrowing the money upon terminable
annuities must entail an annual charge manifold larger
than would arise under more economical methods of
rising the reqUired loan. Lord R. Montague supported
the motion. Mr. White thought that even an inva-
sion would not be au unmitigated calamity, as it would
knit all classes in the country together, and by attesting
the spirit and loyalty of the working men, secure for
them a better Reform Bill than had ever been offered
before. Sir C. Napier said if a sufficient naval arma-
ment were but kept up, invasion would be rendered im-
possible. Land fortifications were sheer absurdities. Mr.
Corry maintained that the English navy was still,inade-
quote for the defence of the country. Mr. B. Osborne
enquired why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told
the House nothing about this vote for fortifications
when bringing forward his budget in Feb-
ruary. He could not support any vote which com-
prised a large expenditure for land fortifications.
After some
.explanation from Mr. Sydney Herbert, Mr.
Horsman defended the COmmissioners and their report.
Sir F. Smith approved of the plan of defence so far as
related to seaward fortifications, but censured the pro-
posal to construct expensive works on the landside.
Lord Palmerston observed that the great object to be
obtained was to secure the dockyards and their precious
contents from a comp de fnain. Strength at home was
the high assurance for the maintenance of peace with all
the world. Sir M. Peto having briefly spoken in oppo-
sition to the scheme of defence, the committee divided :
For the resolution, 268 ; for the amendment, 39
majority, 229. The resolution which granted £2,000,000
for the expense of fortifications and works during the
year, was then agreed to.
The Prince of Wales and suite landed at St. John's
on the 24th ult., amid great enthusiasm, received a
deputation and addresses, and held a levee. On the
26th his Royal Highness attended a regatta and state
ball. The PrinCe would leave -on the 26th. During
his presence all business was suspended.