The Express.
London, England, 1860-08-03 00:00:00

(Stamped, ld. Additional.)

France. He had faith in the professions contained in the
letter of the Emperor of the French, who had, he said,
given proof of his sincerity, and who had more interest
than we bad io maintaining peace ; and, above all, it was
his interest to be at peace with this country. Would the
projected works, he asked, make us safe? He denied that
they would, and bleated that the house must go on with
this expenditure, fortifying every pert of the east,
and incur an outlay not of 9,000,000 i., bat
at least 69,000,0001. We had now a powerful navy; we
had a volunteer force, in addition to our army, of 1304000
men, which could be augmented to 1,000,000 ; and if the
French should succeed (which he doubted) in throwing
100,000 men upon our shores, not one of those 100,000 men
would ever return to their native country.
Mr. H. BERKELEY, in seconding this amendment, said
be differed from Mr. Lindsay in some points. He admitted
that there was • necessity for defending the country, but
be did not think the best mode of defence was by construct-
ing stone walls and placing cannon upon them. With
L be preferred walls of men to walls of stone, and
thought that Lord Palmerston had made out no case why
we should skulk behind fortifications rather than take to
Mar usual defences, and resort to stone walls instead of
wooden walls. Our volunteers, he contended, like other
volunteers and raw levies, if well led, would beat the best
regular troops.
Mr. S. HERBERT said if the Emperor of France was
anxious for peace, imbed ;imam gut peace in his own hands.
No nation would attack France, least of all England. (Hear,
hear.) England would engage in no European war unless
she was herself attacked. The whole of our prosperity de-
upon the maintenance of peace ; and be believed Ctr Listed generally ie this country a feeling that war,
unless forced upon us and in self-defence, was a crying 'sin.
(Hear, bear.) He did not believe that in the whole of Eng-
tend there was a man who wished for war, end
that there were very few who did riot pray that
such • terrible callosity might be averted. Then what was
the conduct of the Emperor of the French, with whin
under the circumstances he described, he (Mr. S. Herbert
had no cause of comp/slot ? He was at this moment,
had been for • long time past, strengthening the fortifica-
tions of Cherbourg, L'Onent, Rochefort, and Brest. Of
that we had no right to complain. We had no right to
complain of any sovereign putting hie own coasts in a state
of defence. Nor, on the other hand, had any foreign
power a right to complain of our putting ourselves in a
state of defence. (Hear, hear.) But we had even a better
right to do so than France in this respect, that the fortifi-
cations and defences of our dockyards and arsenals were
much weaker than those of France ; and secondly,
that a navy was an arm more vital to us than
to any country in the world. The honourable gen-
tleman had quoted the authority of a French officer.
He (Mr. 8. Herbert) remembered that a great French
authority, whom be saw some years ego when he was here
with Louis Philippe, saying, " You have the finest fleet in
the world, and a large amount of important property in
your dockyards and arsenals, yet you make no effort to pro-
tect it from attack." Since then no doubt great improve-
meats had been made, and there had been considerable
during the last ten years, especially in strengthen-
garter works and fortifications of the dockyards and on our
coasts. Let it not, then, he said, as had been two or three
times repeated, "Have nothing to do with this new-'
(angled idea of fortifications—Portsmouth was fortified,
Chatham was fortified, and Plymouth was fortified."
Mr. F. BERKELEY—I said fortifications to stand& siege.
Mr. 8. HERBERT—Then his gallant friend meant not
that there should be no fortifications, but that we should
have no fortifications that would stand a siege. (" Hear,"
sod • laugh.) But that was precisely what they wanted to
prevent. (Hear, bear.) They desired not only that we
should be secure against a coup de main, but that we should
be protected against any attempt to destroy our dockyards
sod ships by • regular siege. (Hear, hear.) He need hardly
quote authorities at this time of day to show that fortifica-
tions were useful This was sufficketly proved in the last
great oontisental war—when frequently small bodies of
troops opeathig behind fortifications were enabled to resist
powerful armies. It was the same at Silistria and at Kars.
But it had been saidfortifyiog your coasts is needless, your
fleet is your defame ; and if by any accident an enemy's
squadron did make a descent on our coast, his ships would
never get back. But what happened at the commencement
of the last war? In 1798, notwithstanding our blockade of
the French ports, a French fleet of seven sail of the line,
with transport. and frigates, sailed out and entered Bantry
Bay, landing a force under General Roche. The expedition
was defeated and dispersed, but the ships all got back
In 1798 a French fleet of nine sail, with troops, reached
Ireland, but was defeated by Sir J. Warren. In the same
year there was another expedition reached Killala Bay.
Again, in 1797 four French frigates entered Bristol, and
destroyed several ships and much merchandise, afterwards
landing a body of troops at Pishguard, which was, in the
end, compelled, it etas true, to capitulate. But the
troops arrived, and landed on ourcoast, and had they been
more numerous would have done infinitely more mischief,
and this at the time when the French ports were blockaded
by our fleets, and our navy was flushed with the successes of
St. Vincent and the Nile. This showed that it was not impos-
sible for • hostile fleet to assail our coasts under circunistances
of greater difficulty than now existed. The value of earth-
works was mentioned the other night in connexion with the
siege of Sebastopol ; but it was a mistake to suppose that
mere earthworks were sufficient, or that the defences
erected on the instant on the south side of Sebastopol
would have been any sufficient protection if the more im-
portant defences in the north had not existed? Napoleon L,
in reply to the question, what was the use of fortifying a
camp? asked, how was it possible for troops to maineuvre
without such protection? Then, what did they see on all
sides ? Not only France, but Russia, Prussia, Austria,
and all continental tiatious were strengthening their defences
by fortifying their °caste and frontiers. If there
was any country which more than another was
dependent on fortifications whenever her see line
was broken it was England. Our regular army was small,
and we should be compelled to depend upon raw
levies The hon. gentleman said raw levies were sufficient,
and he (Mr. 8. Herbert) believed that raw levies of
Englishmen had performed great achievements. The ob-
jection, don't adopt fortifications because it was • new-
fanglod idea, might be urged with far more force against
the Armstrong gun, the Enfield rifle, or any modern im-
provement He (Mr. 8. Herbert) would ask, taking the
question in the lowest point of view—that of
pounds, shillings, and pence what was the coat
of fortifications re compared with the cost of
soldiers and the sacrifice of human life? But was
it any reason that they should sacrifice their men
because some hon. gentlemen had • contempt for what they
called such " new-tangled things" as fortifications, which
by the way, we had had for upwards of 30D years ? (Hear,
hear.) He supposed he was not quite justified iu alluding
to the motion on the table of the bon member for Birming-
ham, which differed in some respects from that of the hon.
gentleman who moved another resolution, hut it seemed to
him (Mr. S. Herbert) that, always supposing they were not
acting like lunatics, which thehon. member for Birmingham
seemed to think, they could not accede to his motion. The
hon. member for Birmingham was a great believer in the
"Vox populi vox Der" maxim, and therefore he
ought to be aware that the whole country was sentient
of alarm on this subject, and that there well might be in
the minds of an immense majority of the people some cause
for alarm, and thas therefore the government ought to deal
with the whole of this question as soon as they could. He
(Mr. 8. Herbert) did not think we should be wise in neglect-
ing any details which in their opinion were necessary, and
they had arrived at the conclusion that we were not in that
state of defence which an great, and powerful, and rich a
nation ought to be. (Her:, hear.) Ore great means of
maintaining peace, no doubt, was a prudent and pacific
policy. (Hear.) Wo ought, in our foreign relations, to
show an appreciation for the rights and feelings of
other people. U all nations did that, there would
be no de Igor of war; but at the same time,
knowing that we must comport ourselves pacifically
to other nations, we must also deprive other nations of the
temptation of attacking us. (Hear.) With that view the
government had appointed a commission, whose report nose
lay on the table. He remembered that last year a motion
was made by an bon. member to the effect, that they should
no longer deal with this question by voting year after year
small sums, hut that they should by some wellcousidered
and comprehensive effort •Aeupt to do that which would
put them in • state of security at once. That motion was
discussed hi that house, and he was c-rtain that if the fire
vernment had not given it to be undesstood that they in-
tended seriously to consider this matter, that motion would
have been carried. Well, that commission had brought
forward • very masterly repmt, which declared that it was
our duty to defend ourselves by the best means which
science and art could afford us. (Hear, bear.) That
report MU now before the house, and he would not,
therefore, go into any details upon it , but if the house
should be of opinion that the whole of this supposed weak-
Oen of our dockyards and arsenals was purely imaginary,
and that fortification was not the way todefend them, but,
on the Spartan principle, that we should trust to flesh and
blood, that house world reject the resolution of the noble
lord, awl it would be for the government to say what they
would do under the pressure of • responsibility so heavy.
But his belief was that that house fully represented
the feelings of the country on the subject. (Hear, hear.
They might have discussions as to the how and the when
' and the where, but be believed it was the unanimous opi-
nion of the country that they ought not to allow
those great depositories of their naval strength
to lie at the matey of any one. (Hear, hear.) He had
beard it mid by some we ought to increase our standing
army ; bat there were 15 battalions now due to us—three
on the sear coming from India, three more promised by
India, and nine in Chita. But with • large force of vohui-
teers they must take meanies to release from garrison duty
as large an amount of the regular army as they could spare
for duty in the field. His hon. friend (Mr. Berkeley)
quoted • gallant officer, Sir M. Berkeley, who told them not
to spend anything on fortifications. He (Mr. B. Herbert)
bad been told by seamen to trust to ships, and ships alone ;
he was told by artillerymen to trust to trained gunners
he had been told by officers of the line to trait

[TWOPENCE.

to the military only—in fact it was the old
story of " Nothing like leather." (" Hear, hear," and a
laugh.) The government had appointed a commission
which voneyed the whole of the neighbourhood of London,
and the whole coasts of England, Ireland, and Scotland. did
by means of that commission the house had got together an
enormous amount of information which, in cane of hostilities,
would be invaluable to officers in command. (Hear, hear)
He believed the amount of stores collected was very great.
He heard a gallant officer say that our reeit fortresses had
only 150 rounds of artillery • but he Mr. S. Herbert) had
got a return which showed that those °dresses had got,
some of them 350 rounds, and some of them as much as
1,000 rounds, and he did not believe those fortresses
were ever better stocked than they were at present.
He had stated now to the house that he believed the
country saw the necessity and believed in the wisdom of the
measure which the governmentproposed. The government
had not put themselves blindfold into the Math of engi-
neers, or of artillery or naval officers—they had taken
counsel from all AS to the best means of putting the country
in a proper state of defence. The government did not pre-
' tend to say that those works would prevent invasion. No
works, no navy, no army, would do that. Invasion—mean-
ing thereby the landing of troops—would be always a pos.
sibility ; out let them make these chief points invulnerable,
and when they had made Portsmouth and Plymouth safe,
they might concentrate their force elsewhere. He believed
that years hence, if these works were executed, gentlemen
would be found who would say that they always predicted
nobody would ever land at those places, and woaM exclaim
"See how you have wasted our money! " But he (Mr. S.
Herbert) would not be disturbed by those predictions. He
should look upon an investment of money in defending those
plams as the best safeguard against the lauding of an enemy.
(Hear, hear.) He hoped therefore the house would=
with him in thinking that the government were only
to hasten the completion of that system of works which the
house had already one by one mactioned. With these
opinions, 11.11 d with the greatest confidence as to the result.,
he left the measure in the hands of the house, trusting to
that patriotism which they had always displayed in every
matter in which the national safety and the national honour
were involved. (Loud cheers from both sides of the house.)
Mr. BRIGHT said that the proposed amendment of
which he had given notice would be answered by that before
I the house, and he did not press it. The house was not die-
cussing a question of two or even five millions, but the
question involved an expenditure of at least twenty millions
and more, for the standing army would be increased, for
these works would require 70,000 men to man them. He
wished to know if the cabinet was unanimous with regard
to the expenditure? He did not believe it. Neither
were the military authorities united on the subject.
The hon. gentleman read a number of plane propounded by
different military men, giving them a ludicrous aspect by
his comments and his ironical mode of stating them. He
stated that many of the pamphlets published in France were
the productions of persons opposed to the present dynasty,
and who sought to sow mistrust sod create a war be-
tween England and France, with a view to replacing the
hereditary rulers of the latter kingdom on the throne.
The hon. gentleman made a summary of and com-
mented on the Report of the Defence Commission ; arguing
that the evidence showed that we had now more fortifica-
tions and guns than could be made available for want of
men to man them, while they would be totally useless
againat the new long-range guns. The hon. gentleman read
a letter of the Defence Commission to Lord Overstone, to
which he gave the most absurd aspect, and dealt
in the same way with Lord Ovesetone's reply. He
=generally that the result of the advice of the com-
mis that it offered no security, and only entailed
expenditure. He contended that France had not added to
her naval strength in anything like the relative proportion
to the increase which had been made in ours. He
characterised the idea of danger from foreign aggres-
sion which pervaded the mind of the government, par-
liament, and the people as a lunacy which would come
to an end some time or other, but he declared that it
originated in the hypocrisy and the cowardice of cabinets.
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 bon.
gentleman opposite, for he thought they were both tarred
with the same stick. (Great laughter.) Why, what did
they do with regard to the Italian war? Austria had
for years been stupid; Sardinia 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 Eng-
land. England, it was true, did not choose to intervene—
ard 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 aide of the Alps, and Italy free from a
foreign government. What did the government of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks do' They
created the greatest possible alarm in the country, and said
that it was necessary to be prepared for war. The French
army having marched into Italy, one would not have ex-
' pected to see them march into England, for even French
soldiers could not be in two places at once. (Laughter.)
The probability was, as every man in Europe felt, that the
fact of French troops being engaged in Italy made it, if
possible, infinitely less likely that they could be engaged in
Europe. 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 sa
the proffigacy,hut he would say for the profuseness with
which he expended the money of the country iu increasing
a navy to put a stop, he supposed, to the march of
soldiers 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
England, and yet England armed, they still arm and
from that time to this they had continually armed, and any
excuse had been considered sufficient to hoodwink the
people and make them content with extra taxes wrung
them. Now I shall ask the house (continued the hon.
member) one question before I sit down, namely, whether
this expenditure which we are now discussing is to be with-
out limit, and whether the house, contrary to
the opinion of all men who have ever sat as representatives
of a notion, is of opinion that it does not matter how much
money we throw away in military expenses every year.
How has this change come about? From the year 1853,
when the floodgates of passion 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, sod 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 Alderehott, shooting matches on Wimbledon
Common—all these are occupations which fora long time
have been foreign to the English court, and for which, I
believe in my conscience, there is not • particle of matfi-
cation 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 bused 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, hear.) There was one of the ministers of Queen
Elixaheth who once declared that England would never be
undone except by a parliament, and I fear the course we
are taking in our utter negligence of matters, with regard to
matters to which I have alluded, and with reference to our
expenditure, is tending to that which we understood to be
the undoing of a nation. You are told, at this moment.
after 30,000,0001. have been voted for the service of the
country, that you are not safe. Yon are told
that in another year, not in case of war,
but in a time of peace, you will me votes
still higher ; you have voted this year for all the
services of the government, and for the payment of the
debt, • sum exeeediug 73,000,0001. sterling. My hon.
friend the member for Lambeth has devoted much time in
calling the attention of the house to this extravagance ;
but altogether lam sorry to say, without effect. But sup-
pose you were to place all this taxation upon the persons
who have 1001. a year and more, that is, upon the income
taxpayers it would actually absorb and extract about one-
thirdof the whole income of all the peopleof the United Kin-
gdom, because if a penny piece givesl,ooo,ooo/. of income tax,
73,000,000/. would require 73 pence in the It, or Gs. 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 having
an lucerne of 101 K a year and upwards, which you take from
them and give to somebody else. You put it into the Ex-
chequer, of which the right hon. gentleman the member for
Oxford University holds the key—which has been rifled front
day to day and from session to session against his will, and
ho has no power probabey to withatand Hoy.
Iteamit—Why does be hold the key The
honourable gentleman asks me why the right
hon gentleman hulls the key' Perhaps he is one
of those hon. gentlemen who wish to bold the key them-
selves. (Laughter.) I should he very glad to see him our-
render the ?my, if anybody with a firmer hand will hold it
in his place. But there is a country where Englishmen
live, and where this does not take place. I saw a
of wonderful power delivered by Mr. Everett in the
rn;ed States, which was an answer to a speech
made in another place attacking American institu-
tion. Mr. Everett stated that the next coming
census would show a population in the United
StiGes of about 32,000,000 of souls. That is more than the
Censers of next year writ show for the population of the
United Kingdom • and yet the whole expense of the
thutiltMernmen.threet
.wasat liTteashingtome:we,
of
sterling. I ask any hon. gentleman who has the slightest
inn,c.luotdimogorethALovle27ooome,nooot
is possible to continue to raise from the people of this
knows of legislation or government to say whether it