The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 10, 1363.

of Britain to repel any hostile attack, and the army that
would set foot upon the English shore would find a grave
there, for not a man of them would ever return to his own
country. Was the volunteer force a myth and a sham ?
From what he saw of that force, he would not be afraid to
see the English shores defended by the volunteers, assisted
by cavalry and artillery, against any force which could be
brcught to bear upon them. The landing of an army upon
a foreign shore when opposed was no plaything, as every
one who had witnessed such an operation could testify.
Having looked at this question with great calmness and a
sense of responsibility as a soldier, he felt it his duty to put
upon the paper an amendment which he submitted to the
consideration of the house. As he said before, he did not
want to stop works which were in a forward state; his ob-
ject was to invite the house to consider some more econo-
mical system of defending our shores. The hon. and gallant
gentleman concluded by proposing the amendment which
stood in his name.
Sir D. L. EVANS said he could not agree with the hon.
and gallant colonel who spoke last upon the question of
leaving the defence of our arsenals to the ships of war in the
ervice. The hon. gentleman seemed to think we were alto-
gether free from incidental dangers, and that we might at
all times depend upon a strong Channel fleet ; but suppose
that fleet, from necessity, should be distributed over the
world to protect our possessions abroad, in what position
should we find ourselves ?

The Marquis of HARTINGTON thought it would
have been more convenient if they had postponed the gene-
ral discussion until the bill had gone into committee, but
that not being the case, he would state that the whole of the
money required had been, or very shortly would be paid.
Out of the £lO,OOO that had been voted last year only
£26,000 had been spent; but, at the same time, nothing had
happened since to alter the opinions of the Government upon
the general question of fortifications. It had been generally
conceded that it would be inexpedient to endeavour to for-
tify the coast all round the country ; but the generalfeeling
as to strengthening the salient points remained unaltered.
Mr. CCBDEN said that, if the question before the house
bad been one involving only technical considerations, he
should have been the last to interfere. Upon an inquiry as
to what forts should be erected upon the sea coast com-,
mending a particular roadstead or entrance to a harbour, he
should submit entirely to the opinion of scientific men; but
that was entirely a new question. The terms of the Royal
Commission upon that subject, giving directions to the com-
missioners as to their duties, expressed that they should es-
pecially inquire into all such works of defence as were in-
tended for the protection of the Royal arsenals and dockyards
in case of any hostile attack by foreign enemies by sea or by
land. In a subsequent memorandum it was stated that, in
taking into consideration the condition of Woolwich, they
were bound also to consider the general question of the de-
fences of the metropolis, and Sir Harry Jones had remarked
that the new arsenal, involving as it did a considerable out-
lay for fortifications, should be so situated as to form a
rallying point for the defence of the country in the event
of London falling into the hands of the enemy. That
showed that what was contemplated, was not the protec-
tion of roadsteads and harbcurs, but that the scheme was
based upon the assumption that an enemy had landed in
the country and taken possession of the interior. He wished
to bring that fact under the notice of the house for another
reason, for he should show that the idea was entirely attri-
butable to one person. The commissioners had their in-
structions to report upon a scheme of inland fortifications,
and therefore he did not hold them responsible for its origin.
He was of opinion that the scheme was entirely attributable
to one person, who, he dared say, was in the mind of every
body present, and if that one person were absent from the
house, from any cause whatever, he ventured to say that
the scheme wonld not go on. (Hear.) The other day the
scheme was put off because that one person was absent, and
his hon. friend the member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright),
who was sitting by him at the time when notice was given
that the noble lord at the head of the Government could
not attend, rather bluntly remarked to his next neighbour
"that nothing bad could be done unless the Prime Minis-
ter was pres'ent." (Laughter.) He was not going to make
any assertion without proof, and when the noble lord (Lord
(Pabao.erston) thought fit to reply, if he substituted a few
facts and arguments for jests and pleasantries, he (Mr.
Cobden) would be very much obliged to him. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) When he came into the house in 1841 the
noble lord was pursuing the same course that he was now
pursuing with reference to fortifications and defences
against France. It was the peculiar idiosyncracy of the
noble lord, and it was this, that steam navigation had had
the effect of diminishing the power of England, as in oppo-
sition to the power of France. In June, 1845, he launched
the idea, and in July of the same season declared that
steam had " bridged'' the channel. Sir Robt. Peel scoffed
at the idea, and maintained that the demonstration which
England could even then make with her steam navy was
such as would surprise the world. That was Sir Robert
Peel's reply when the noble lord talked of steam bridges,
and what authorities had ha ever adduced in the house to
justify the opinion upon which they were acting and
spending millions upon millions of money ? Admiral Ber-
keley in 1848 was opposed to him ; Sir Thomas Hastings,
who at the time was at the head of the gunnery depart-
ment, was opposed to him ; Sir C. Napier ridiculed the idea
of invasion, and although the hon. and gallant member for
Westminster made a speech that evening which he (Mr.
Cobden) could not understand, he yet remembered that the
gallant gentleman spoke differently in 1852. But not only
had those authorities separated themselves from the noble
lord, but in 1852, on the subject of the ballot, Earl Russell,
in a very blunt manner, separated from him, declaring that
he could not agree in the fanatical idea of sudden invasion
of the country, which had its origin in panic and not in
reason.

An HON. MEMBER.--And Gibson. (Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. COBDEN—Yes, Mr. Gibson was also opposed to
the noble lord—(laughter)—but he (Mr. Cobden) was not
going to quote him as an authority. But when the noble
lord brought forward the subject in 1860, and culminated
in his folly, whom did he quote as an authority ? Sir R.
Peel, who had ridiculed his idea, but whom, nevertheless,
he did not hesitate to misquote in support of his project.
He trusted that the noble lord would now take the oppor-
tunity of correcting the error, and of recalling what could
not but be considered a calumny on an illustrious name.
The noble lord said that steam had given a great advan •
tage to the enemy. But how ? When sailing vessels were
the test of comparison it was supposed that England had
five tons of mercantile shipping to ono of France ; but if
they compared their steam mercantile marine with that of
France, it would be found that they had 20 horse power
to one of France. Was it possible, then, that that
could render the country more vulnerable which had
given it a fourfold increase of its strength ? Its superiority
in naval matters depended, as might be seen by a glance
at what was doing in the way of shipbuilding on all their
great rivers in its private dockyards ; and it was absurd
to suppose that any Government was so foolish as not to
estimate them at their true value in considering the re-
sources of the nation. (Hear.) Having referred to the fact
that Sir Howard aarglas, when ho gave his approval to
the scheme of fortifications, was 85 years of age, and was
so infirm that he could not be appointed on the commis-
sion, circumstances which detracted from the weight of his
opinion, the hon. member proceeded to say that if, acting
under such guidance, the house surrendered its opinion to
the noble lord, who had no more experience of military
matters than he (Mr. Cobden) had, having never risen to a
higher grade than a captain of militia—(laughter)—it
would prove that it had become effete and worn out. (Hear.)
The noble marquis who had just spoken for the Govern-
ment had voted twice against the project, and he was sorry
to see one so young able to do it so coolly—(laughter)—to
stoutly deny now that which he had so recently twice con-
demned. [He only wished the house could adjourn for one
day to the Southdowns—(hear, hear, and laughter)—and
hold a session under Nelson's monument, and ho was quite
SUM they would do one of ,two things—either vote that
those fortresses should be established, or pass a resolution
that Englishmen should never more sing " Rule, Bri-
tannia," or Ye mariners of England." (Laughter.)
These forts would be only useful after an enemy who had
made himself master of the sea had landed on our coast, for
they had a very high authority that the Southdown forts
could not prevent an enemy from landing. Of what use,
then, he :asked, were those forts, except for our soldiers
to take refuge in whilst the enemy marched to Brighton
or some other place far more pleasant than those forts?
The hon. and gallant member for Chatham had said it
would take a larger army than this country could
muster to man them% and where then, he asked, was
the necessity for their building solid structures for
time to gnaw away. (Hear, hear.) Hampshire and
Sussex had each 30,000 agricultural labourers, well used
to the spade, and he ventured to assert that in less
than twenty-four hours they could get upwards of 50,000
of them on the Southdown Hills and throw up mountains
of earthworks. (Hear, hear.) He doubted if they could find
in Portsmouth a military or naval man under 50 years of
age—and he made that stipulation—(hear, and laughter)—
who was not only opposed to those forts, but who was dis-
gusted with them, and who felt humiliated at their construe-
tion as a constant reproach and stigma on the manhood Of
the age, and a symbol of our disgrace. (Hear, and laughter.)
And the people of Portsmouth, when they went by railway
to Havant, rode with their backs to the engine, or covered
their faces with their hands, so greatly were they ashamed
of the forts. (Laughter.) Their construction was urged by
some on account of the extended range of our guns, and their
giving us an advantage over the landing of an enemy; but
had not the range of our rifles increased more than our guns?
And he was inclined to believe that 10,000 riflemen, if they
had sufficient time to dig their rifle pits, would be a far better
check to the landing of an enemy than those forts. They
were a disgrace and a dishonour to the ago and to English-
men, and such things were never heard of in former times.
He read an extract from Mr. Pitt's speech in 1804, when
there was really a fear of an invasion, and he proposed to
meet it in four ways; firet, by our large ships in deep water;
next, in shallow water, by our flotilla of gunboats ; third, to
prevent the landing of the enemy ; and the fourth, the least
convenient, was to meet him in the field when he had gained
a landing on English ground. (Hear, hear.) Were We then,
he asked, so degenerated that we required fortifications to
hide our soldiers in. (Hear. hear.) He should vote with the
hon. and gallant member to stop those works which had not
arrived at any great perfection ; but he (Mr. Cobdon) consi-
dered that the nearer they were to completion the more de- '
sirable it was they should be stopped, for the reaeou that

when completed there must be soldiers ready to man them,
and if not completed they would not involve that necessity.
Whatever state they were in, he considered that inland
forts ought to be stopped. He offered no opinion on [ties
commanding the sea, that wae a matter of engineering
skill and the judgment of artillerymen, and he deferred to
the balance of authority on that matter. The hon. gentle-
' man having referred to the grand scheme for a central
arsenal, in the course of which he expressed a hope that no
land had been purchased for it, said that inland forts ought
to be stopped unless her Majesty's Government could show
him, on some better authority than he yet had) that they
were required. The amendment had been brought forward
from the Opposition side of the house by an hon. and gal-
lant member, who was a very high authority on engineer-
ing and fortifications, and he (Mr. Cobden) looked upon the
scheme of fortifications brought forward by her Majesty's
Government as one calculated to inflict the most permanent
wound—he used the word advisedly upon the reputation
and good fame of the so-called Liberal party. They were
there to vote these fortifications at the instance of the noble
lord alone. Everybody admitted it, and without saying a
word in justification of it, every member on the Liberal
side of the house shrugged his shoulders and avotded the
question as much as possible. (Hear, and laughter.) They
were laying down a great scheme of fortifications that would
require an enormous amount of armed force to render them
safe or useful—(hear, hear)—because they must man theme
to protect them from a coup de main of the enemy. (Hear,
hear.) He put it to the great Liberal party in that house
whether they were acting wisely in allowing themselves to
be identified with this measure at the instance of the noble
lord. He should not trouble the house with any remarks
on the details of the plan, and he thanked them for giving
te
that
him an opportunity of entering his earnest but ample: pro-
test against the undertaking. Hear, hear.)
Sir
had
J.
not been
House t GreSsolvrandu l°eN wosaidnever
d,if
have pDlicy of
arrivedh at Govern-
went
stage
over again approved of by the
country,
at the o
which that subject had been taken up that day.
He contended that the country approved of the scheme,
believing that when it was carried out it would proye a
great saving of public money, especially in time of public
emergency ; and he urged that much of Lord Palmerston's
popularity was attributable to the determination of the noble
lord to fortify our arsenals and strengthen our coast defences.
It was extraordinary that the hon. member for Rochdale
should have quoted Pitt against a system of fortifications,
when Pitt was an advocate for both land and sea defences.
The hon. gentleman then proceeded to argue that forts were
found of great advantage to Russia in the Crimea, and he
pointed out the analogy between Spithead and Charleston
with regard to defences.

Col. DICKSON for once found himself in agreement
with the hon member for Rochdale. He believed a foreign
invasion of this country, especially a French invasion, was
utterly impossible, and therefore, in presence of the distress
both in England tnd Ireland, be should consider the pro-
proposed expenditure not merely wasteful but criminal,
Mr. C. BERKELEY pointed out that there was a dis-
crepancy of £60,000 between the estimated expenditure on
the proposed worts as stated last year and the estimate now
laid upon the table, and he called upon the noble lord a% the
head of the Government to account for the fact.
Lord FERMOV believed that when the people were ap-
pealed to, it woull be found that many hon. members who
thought they wee ensuring for themselves popularity by
supporting this xots, had reckoned without their host. In
his opinion aFrerch invasion was a mere panie,and assuredly
it would never ttko place unless England pursued a course
of policy that isdated her from the other nations of Europe.

--- ---
Mr. NEWDIGATE would support the second reading
of the bill, but caly on condition that the scheme for erecting
a great arsenal n the middle of England was given up.
Sir E. COLIBROOKE said it was a mistake to suppose
that the hon. aid gallant member for Chatham was op-
posed to every 'orta of fortifications. What ho had opposed
was fgant extent to which it was proposed to carry
them out rauetmitntl present instance. It was upon this ground
that he himeef had opposed, on a former occasion, the
hought the Government would smooth the
frankly stated how far they were
wpraeyp scheme;afroer
d the at no d he thought
ele, f
they
the
views of the hon. and gallant gentle-
man opposite.

Lord C. PACET said he was not at all surprised that the
hon. member fr Rochdale should take exception to the
scheme of fortiflations proposed by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. He had hmself every year to deal with the very able
and strenuous ()position of the hon. gentleman to everything
connected with lutting our navy in efficient order. [Mr.
COBDEN
—I oPPsed waste.] did not recollect any occa-
sion on which he gist of the hon. member's observations
was not to the came effect as that night. He was sure the
hon. member we as great a patriot as any one of themselves,
but his patrioti& was of a peculiar character. He believed
his hon. friend toed alone in the country in his opinions on
these matters. fat, as had been observed by an hon. member
opposite, what vas the best proof that the course pursued by
the Government was approved ? It was this--that they
never heard o any panics now ; they never heard of any
squadron combg over to insult this country, because for
the last few ye rs the Government had taken the precaution
of looking to he defences of our shores. Let them turn
to the question whether this Government had benefiaed
by steam or nt. No one could deny that the power of
the country hal, increased rapidly since the introduction
of steam ; bit, as had often been stated by his noble
friend at the head of the Government, the introduction
of steam also rendered the country more liable to inva-
sion than before The two principles were perfectly com•
patible. In these days of steam, however powerful the
fleet of the country might be, a blow might be struck
upon an unexpe2ted place. It was this that had led the
Government and the country to make some of the princi-
pal parts of our coasts more secure, irrespective of our
fleet, which might be drawn aside to protect the colonies
or a distant part of the empire ; so that it became necessary
to have Portsmouth and other important places safe against
Ele had great respect for the opinions of the
a coup de ntaiu•
hon. and gallant member for Chatham, and he would not
now discuss with him whether the forts round Portsmouth
should be larger or smaller; but this he would say, that
of fortifications had been recommended by
:mhienne nat Seenhgert:erBlit was idle to ask the house to chip a bit
away here ard
if they were to complete the larger works
said that everting,
thhi el
lr e
they The
s bhoonnl
d. gallant a nt
ht
eg ellnitilleeme
aalni
nheaed;
on P ortsdowa
but the hon. and gallant gentleman appeared to forget that,
of steam, there was nothing to prevent a body
If
thatth eonaemwenoudlindebuetslewdetroe
infer from
mit
in these days
of intelligent and resolute men from landing from a squa-
dron, who might turn the line of the forts. He trusted the
house would sot sanction the cheeseparing policy of the hon
the Government and completely ember-
ectthoef fortifications.nobe
lor d
that those who. did not
and gallant gtutleLmsaani.d
take the same views as the Government were opposed to the
7:s;ilrdt.hisreemiscrobb.saor:se.Esplir
defence of our dockyards. The only difference of opinion the observations of
be-
tween them was as to the most efficient way of securing that
object. The question of steam was not what they had to
discuss. but what effect would be produced by the largest
number of ion-clad vessels. If this country had the greatest
number of iron-clad vessels she would have the invading
country at her mercy, and would be able to destroy all the
preparations for invasion. (Hear.) It appeared to him that
it was not at Portsmouth the defence was required, but at
Cherbourg and Toulon. Anybody who would take the
trouble to read the correspondence of the first Napoleon
would see how idle it was to suppose that an invasion could
take place in these days of iron-clad ships. It would be better
to have half a deem iron-clad vessels as floating batteries
than to have recourse to this antiquated system of fortifica-
tions, which was the mere idiosyncracy of an individual.
He would support the amendment.
Mr. PULLER said there were two questions that the
house had to decide—first, whether, under existing circum-
stances, the invention of steamboats afforded reason to ap-
prehend an invasion from France ; and secondly, if it did,
whether the Government fortifications would be the proper
means of meeting the emergency. There had been much
talk about an expression of the late Sir R. Peel as to bridge
ing the Channel by the invention of steam, but the question
was, when the Channel was bridged, who would have the
most soldiers to send across the bridge. The future could
never be estimated by the present, and as an instance of
that he would cite the United States army, which four years
ago was as nothing compared with European armies, but
which had now become a great military power. (Hear.)
Supposing., for instance, that the Americans, after settling
their own affairs, should declare war against us, the British
navy would be employed in blockading the American ports,
and who could say that (supposing the present Emperor
removed) the French would not take advantage of the state
of affairs, and throw a force into this country ? The true
defence of England was her navy, and especially her iron-
clad ships, and the only reproach to England was that she
was always unready when first called upon.
Colonel SYKES said he had before condemned the
proposed vote as impolitic, inglorious, unnecessary, and
degrading to Englishmen. He had thought it an insult
to the national character to suppose that British soldiers
would wish to be put behind stone walls in case of an inva-
sion, and further investigation of the circumstances had
not led him to alter his opinion. It was possible that 100,000
men might land upon our coasts, and bring with them
30,000 horses; but, though they might make an imposing
figure, there would be an increase in the defences immedi-
ately, and if the 30,000 horses should be left for three days
without fresh hay—which, of course, would be all burnt
within 50 miles round at once—the whole force would be
disabled. With regard to the fortifications at Portsmouth
they would require 30,000 man to man them, and that num-
ber could with difficulty be spared. The hon. and gallant
gentleman concluded by calling attention to what Engian.
had done not many years ego, when the population was but
15,000,000, whereas it was now over 20,000,000, and, of
course, proportionately stronger.
Mr. B OSBORNE thought the house had exercised a
wise discretion in separating the forts of Spithead from the
general question of fortifications before them. It was said
the cost would be £12,000,000, but when they came to arm
the forts nobody could say that it would not be £20,000,000.
(Hear, hear.) Was the house then, he asked, which strained
at the Brompton gnat, now prepared to swallow the Ports-
mouth camel ? (Hear, and laughter.) The hon. member
for Hertfordshire had imparted a now feature into the de-
bate. He threatened them with invasion from America;
and, judging from its absurdity, hewas quite convinced that
if the noble lord had proposed to fortify Hertford the hon.

member would support him. The Secretary to the Admi-
ralty declaimed against cheese-paring, but he forgot that
his vocation at one time was that of clipper and parer.
(Laughtek.) liairing referred to the arguments of Mr.

. _
Newdegate and Sir James Ferguseon in support of the
scheme of fortifications, the hon. member contended that t he
works which had proved most difficult to carry at 'ebasto-
pol, and more recently in America, were earthworks, and
consequently deprecated the expettdittre of millions in sur-
rounding Portsmouth with fortifications of masonry covered
with iron. Military authorities were not unanimous in re-
gard to theta, and *hen it was said that he (Mr. Osborne)
and his friends stood alone in their opposition to the
scheme, he pointed to the hon, and gallant officer opposite
(Sir F. Smith), who had served in every hemisphere with
distinction, and to his hon. and gallant friend the member
for Westminster, both of whom withheld from it their
approval. The country might now hi apathetic on the
matter, but the time would come when it would inquire for
itself, and point to those fortifications, not as a monument of
the wisdom, but as a monument of the folly of the House of
Commons of the day. (Hoar.) They were called upon in a
time of peace, when we were on terms of friendship with
the Emperor of the French, and when America was ex-
hausted, to adopt precautions which they had never been
called upon to do in a time of danger. (Hear.) He grudged
nothing that might be wanted for the navy ; but having
strengthened the army and raised the volunteers, the vote
for whom might be much better devoted to the sustentation
of the regular army, for his idea of volunteers was that
they should pay for themselves, and not call upon the coun-
try ; but having done all that, he should protest against a
scheme of fortifications which was as extravagant as it
would be useless. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I must, in the first place,
defend my hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire from
the extraordinary misconception—l am sure it was not an
intentional misrepresentation—of my hon. friend the mem-
ber for Liskeard, who accused him of anticipating an inva-
sion of this country from America. Now, my hon. friend
said no such thing, nor said anything that was susceptible
of such an interpretation. My hon. friend said that we
might, by force of events in America, find ourselvesin hos-
tility with the Northern States of America ; that, in that
case, we should have to send our fleet to blockade the coast
of America, or to defend our commerce there, and that in
that case, our fleet being absent, and our protection of the
Channel having ceased, France might be tempted to take
advantage of our position, and prepare to invade the coml.
try. I did not follow the hon. member for Liskeard in the
description which he gave of the services of the hon. and
gallant member who made this motion, whom he repre-
sented as having serven in all the hemispheres. How
many there are in this world— (laughter)—he did not ex-
plain, but I am quite sure that whatever their number may
be, my honourable and gallant friend's services did him
credit, (Hear.) Now, I must look at this motion in
its true meaning and effect. It is nothing more nor less
than a motion to throw out the bill, and to put a stop to all
those works; it is nothing more nor less than a motion to
reverse the decision deliberately come to by this house, and
to act, as I maintain, in opposition to the general sense and
intention of the country. That is a very grave motion, and
my noble friend the member for Marylebone has anticipated
an appeal to the country upon the question. I can assure
him that I should feel perfect confidence in such an appeal,
and I an quite satisfied the verdict of the country would be

for us, and not for him. (Hear.) With regard to the hon.
member for Rochdale, I can only say that I am very much
obliged to him for that part of his speech which related to
me, and he could not do me a greater favour than printing
that speech and circulating it as widely as he can through
every part of the country. The hon. member did me honour
which I don't feel I deserved in fact, although I do deserve
it in p3int of intention. He was kind enough to say that
the whole system of improved defences of the country
made in the last few years was owing to me. Well, Sir, I
am proud of that praise, for praise I consider it to be ;
but, at the same time, although I do admit that I have
laboured from the pez iod he mentions, 1844 or 1845, to
convince this country and the house, that we were in an
inadequate state of defence, yet no one man, however right
he might have been in his opinion, could have succeeded
in producing the general and almost universal conviction
which has prevailed on the subject, and the great results
that have been accomplished, if he had not—l had al-
most said, followed, but certainly been accompanied by the
general sense of the country and Parliament in the mat-
ter. The real credit of awakening the country to a sense
of its want of protection is due to the late Duke of Wel-
lington, and when the hon. member quoted the Duke of
Wellington against a system of fortifications, he forgot
his celebrated letter to Sir John Burgoyne. In that
letter he called upon the country, by every motive that
ought to influence a nation, to increase and improve our de-
fences. In 1845, when unfortunate differences took place be-
tween this country and France, Portsmouth was in a totally
defenceless state, and all the guns we had were a few
mounted on batteries for salutes, whilst at Cherbourg there
were eight large steamers capable of carrying from 1,200 to
1,500 men each, which might have run into Portsmouth,
destroyed everything there, and have escaped without dan-
ger to themselves. Our army was then insufficient, and as
to our fleet, I remember seeing the old Collingwood, a 72-
gun ship, lying at Spithead—in fact, the only one lying
there—and that because she was detained, instead of carry-
ing Admiral Seymour to the Pacific—to show that we had
a channel fleet—(laughter)—and, in addition, we had only
two vessels to protect Gibraltar and Malta and our interests
in the Mediterranean. That state of things was induced
from a feeling of security arising from our great success in
the late war. There was at that time no likelihood of any
rupture with any foreign Power, and there was a desire on
the part of this house and the country to economise as much
as possible. I thank the hon. member for saying that I was
much to blame for inducing the house to establish the
militia. I certainly urged that our dockyards should be
protected, and I am convinced that this house never did a
wiser thing, or one more conducive to public interest, than
by their agreeing to that proposition. But hon. members
talk big and boldly, and vapour about the impossibility of
invasion, and appear to speak of it as nonsense. (Hear,
hear.) Some persons tell us, and the hon. member for
Rochdale amongst the number. how they would deal with
invasion. The latter hon. gentleman advises that a certain
number of riflemen should dig pits in the sand, and thereby
withstand the guns of any number of ships that might be
brought to bear against them. But it is well known ha'
amateur performers, though good in one thing,cannot succeed
in every hing. I admit the hon. gentleman met with emi-
nent success as an amateur diplomatist, and the country is
wry much indebted to him for his exertions as such—(hear
and laughter) —but non% let him fancy he can be as equally
• uccessful as an amateur general. America shows us an
example of the danger attending the entrusting ot our safety
to amateur generals. The notion of America is—that is in
the Northern States—that any man taken from any profes-
sion, provided he puts on a uniform, a cocked hat, and has a
sword by his side, becomes a general—(laughter)—and the
result is what we know by the last accounts. Hon. mem-
bers who speak of invasion as an impossibility are very much
like the Northern States, who have gone on for the last two
years saying and believing broadly and positively that the
rebellion would be put down in three months—DO days—
ever beginning, but never ending—(laughter)—and tee con-
sequence is that, instead of their now being at Richmond,
they are anxiously expecting the poss.bility of the enemy
being at Washington. (Hear, hear.) And so with the hon,
member for Rochdale ; and I cannot imagine anythingmore
amusing to military men on the Continent than the speeches
that are sometimes made to this house declaring invasion to
be an utter impossibility. I hope that nobody abroad who
has any control over these matters will be led to act upon
the supposition that that opinion is at all shared by the
country, or those who are responsible for
its safety. The
late Duke of Wellington considered invasion possible, and
he surveyed the whole of the south-eastern coast, and told
you at how many points invasion might easily and rapidly
be made. The noble lord then proceeded to refer to this
state of the country in 1854, owing to
.the application of
steam, and contrasted the means of invasion now with those
that existed in 1804, when it was necessary to bring soldiers
and artillery over in small transports, towed by sailing ves-
sels; whereas now, with the facilities of steam, assisted
.by
flat-bottomed boats, constructed for the purpose of. landing
on the seashore, it was easier for an enemy to invade a
country than formerly. It is said that army cannot be
collected in France for the purpose of invasion without
aware of it—but hon members must bear in mind
our being
that, if a rupture took place between the two countries, our
ambassador and consular agents, as well as our fellow-
countrymen who were scattered over France, would have
to leave that country, and we should have no means of
ascertaining the fact. Allusion has been made to the length
of Limo it took to laud our army in the Crimea—but it must
be borne in mind that that was an army unprovided with
the means of landing now in the possession of other coun-
tries, and especially France. It is, therefore, I contend,
essentially necessary, whether with regard to invasion or
to the support of our navy, that we should protect our ar-
senals from destruction. Even admitting that a body of
20,000 or 25.000 men made such a successful attack and
then surrendered, the destruction of our means of defence
would be a positive gain to the enemy. It was therefore
essential that we should protect our arsenals from a coup de
mane. It is asked why are we afraid of an invasion, for,
supposing 100,000 men were landed on our coasts, have we
not 120,0.0 militia, 150,000 volunteers, and a great number
' of regular troops ? True; but they are scattered over the
country, and some time must elapse before we could bring
' them together and organise them so as to bring them to
bear on the 100,000 men concentrated at the point ot land-
ing ; and in the meantime ur dockyards, it left unpro-
tected, would be destroyed, and our naval power crippled for
a very long time. (Hear.) The hon, member for Liskeard
• says that the navy is our real defence, and that in time of
war that country which has the largest number of iron-
clads would have the cummand of the shoes of the other.
H we we a superior iron-clad fl ?—(hear, hear)—or are
we likely to have one? (Hear, hear.) So far from that
tais house has opposed our building any more wooden
ships to be covered with iron, similar to those used by
other countries, and has decided that we shall wait until
we can ascertain the best construction for iron ships.
When, however, we again come to this house for money
to construct such ships, I hope the hon. member and the
house generally will not object to vote the money, (Hear.)
It has also been said, and I quite agree in :,he opinion, that
the navy, as a means of defence, cannot be overrated; but

how can we maintain the efficiency of that navy in time of
war if our arsenals have been destroyed by the enemy ?
(Hear, hear.) The opinions of naval and military men have
been quoted Ole ainst the scheme ; but it was very easy to get
opposite opinions in all matters, whether connected with
arts or sciences. Her Ivlaj.sty's Government, however, have
taken the advice of those whom we consider competent men,
anti in whom we have the m most confidence ; and upon the
advice contained in the report of the Royal Commission we
have acted; and we consider, notwithstanding what has
been said to the contrary, that the series of fortifications we
propose are essential for the defence of the country. (Hear.)
I therefore hope the house will not be led away by the mo •
tion of the hon. and gallant member, and reverse a formal
decision already come to, and upon which we have acted.
So far from this proposition being a disgrace to the Liberals,
I feel confident that the people are with us, and I should
have no fears for the result of an appeal to the country on
the question, The people of this country insist on being
kept secure from attack. We know we have seen constant
revulaions of opinion from panics, and the hon, member for
Rochdale, who has written a pamphlet on panics, ought
to be the last man to oppose that which is likely to prevent
their recurrence. The country depends upon being de-
fended, and it was for the sake of seem ity that 150,000 men
volunteered to take up arms, and from a feeling that inva-
sion was not a bugbear. (Hear.) I hope the house will
resist the motion of the hon. and gallant member. (Hear.)
The house divided—

Ayes 132
Noes 6l
Majority —7l
The result was received with some manifestations of ap-
plause.

The bill was then read a second time.
AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL.

Lord PALMERSTON moved the second reading of this
bill,

Mr. BARNES moved that the bill be read a second time
that day two months.

The house divided. The tumbers were—

For the second reading 179
Against
Majority for -150
The bill was read a second time.
The Alkali Works Regulation Bill, as amended, was
considered and agreed to.
The Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, as amended, was
considered and agreed to.
The Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange, the Rail-
way Clauses, and the Sydney Branch Mint Bills were read
a second time.
The Greenwich Hospital (Provision for Widows) and
the Court of Session (Scotland) Bills were pissed through
committee.

The Companies' Clauses Bill was withdrawn.
The Misappropriation by Servants Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Other bills were advanced a stage, and the house was
counted out at ten minutes to two o'clock.