The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-01 00:00:00

FORTIFICATION BILL.

On the order for reading the Fortifications (Provisions
for Expenses) Bill a second time.
Sir F. SMITH moved as an amendment—That there be
laid before this house a return showing the original and
every subsequent estimate for each work recommended by
the defences commissioners—the amount of any contract
for each work—what proportion of each work was com-
pleted—and what inconvenience or injury, if any, to the
public service would result from the postponement of any
of the projected works. In doing so the non. and gallant
member stated that, whilst he did not undervalue fortifica-
tions in themselves, he considered the works contemplated
by the bill as involving an exorbitant cost, and of so exten-
sive a character as to be a cause of weakness rather than of
strength. He implored the Government to reflect whether
some change might not be made in the plans and estimates
by stopping the works proposed on the north-east side of
Plymouth, and diminishing those which were in course of
construction at Portsmouth.
The amendment was seconded by Mr. GREGORY.
Sir J. FERGUSSON spoke in support of the proposals
of the Government, and the construction and maintenance
of permanent fortifications. We wanted our dockyards and
arsenals protected—and once that object was attained, our
defence would be secure, our commerce safe, the country
be relieved from the constant recurrence of disgraceful
panics, and if war came upon us it would not come and
find us unprepared.
Lord V. TEMPEST argued that all experience of
modern sieges, whether in the Crimea, at Sebastopol, or in
America at Manasses, went to show the inutility of those
large and costly fortifications ; and that the proposed ex-
penditure would not strengthen the national defences, but
be, in feet, so much waste.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE said that a large part of the in-
formation required by the amendment was already in pos-
session of the house, and that the remainder might better
be given in committee .on the bill. He thought, however,
that the proposed works at Portsmouth, covering as they
did 15 miles of latitude and 16 of longitude, were much too
extensive ; and that, after all, we must rely for our chief
defence on the navy. •
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY observed that the bill called
upon the house to grant £1,200,000, and the preamble de-
clared the house agreed to do so cheerfully. Well, so far
as cheerfulness was concerned, that could only arise out of
tue circumstance that they were -voting away the money of
posterity. But what he should like to know was, whether
it was true that works to the extent of £,3,139,400 had al-
ready been contracted for. If it were, then the house was
merely discussing that which it could not refuse. He could
not, however, say that it was wither fair or just to come to
the house for £1,200,000 without stating that these con-
tracts had been entered into. He suggested that the works
proposed to be constructed should be specified in the
schedule.
The debate was continued by Sir M. Seymour, Captain
Jervis, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. A. Smith, and Sir J. Hay.
Sir G. C. LEWIS, in defending the proposals of the Go-
vernment, stated that the greater portion of the information
required by the amendment was already on the table, and
that the £2,000,000 for which credit was granted two years
ago were not yet all expended. In works of this sort, where
the grants were made avowedly as instalments, it was the
practice of the Government to make contracts in the form
which was most advantageous to the public service,though
they might somewhat exceed the amount actually granted.
The terms of the bill were such that the house would have
the same opportunity for consideration as was afforded in
committee of supply.
Col. SYKES opposed the bill, considering that it would
be digraceful to the British character to fight behind stone
walls, that the new fortifications would require an enermtohusr
I force to man them, and that, in short, they were alioge e

unnecessary. doubt in
Col. DUNNE suggested that, in the stateh best course
which the effects of a vertical fire now stood,
ttoethe general
Composed
would be to appoint a committee to inquire n
of such
of
question of the defence of the country, Sir J. Burgoyne,
Sir H. Rose, and Major-Gen. Brereatoe
bill as a measure for
Mr. HUBBARD objecte
high military authorities as Lord Seaton,
Bo
ney in the savings banks.
fortifying the country out of the mSir M. PETO and Lord C.
o
d t
PAGET, fehr reminded the house of its having
After some observations from
Lord PALMERSdTthe
necessity of fortifying the dock-
deliberately affirsinage
0.
It was not intended to defend the
those vulnerable points, the dockyards,
yards two y
existence of our navy and • •
maritime supe-
rioritymetand
• depended. He also
riority
, country,
icbhu-ttehoarenly
that there was no reason to apprehend the possibility of an
invasion,
by referring to well-known facts recorded in our
history. He hoped the house would not be so far forgetful
of the public interest or of its duty to the nation as to refuse
the second reading of the bill.
Mr. OSBORNE condemned the plan of fortifications
contemplated by the bill as bad and ineffective. It was the
plan of the noble lord at the head of the Government rather
than of the defence commissioners, and he had no reliance
upon him as a peace minister, though if the country were at
war his pugnacity was such that it might be necessary to
keep him in power. The hon. member also quoted a speech
of Lord John Russell, who characterised the idea of invasion
as being dictated by ignorant panic rather than by sound
calculations. The proper defence of the country was its
navy ; and If the navy were not on a par with that of France,
he was ready to support the Government in not only raising
it to a level with, but doubling the French navy,
Gen. PEEL deprecated the constant reference to France
whenever the question of the national defences was discussed
in this house. The suspicion and distrust thus expressed
were groundless, and in his opinion calculated to create the
very evil it was desirable to avoid. Surely this was not
necessary in order to justify the Government of the day
tine
adopting means for the security of the country, and .
could see no stronger proof of a want of confidence in !PT
Government than refusing to them the means of carrg_
out their plans for this purpose. It would be wise to
pates
aria dockyards into a state of defeiiiirb,in
super.
araensals
main line*defence ought to be the naTY. /,za the orn-
tgreed, and also that we must ""
sons viitit,
If invasion
roeand;:or the seas. The necessity for
defende must depend upon the failure effete
was
necessary ;
were impossible, no internal line of de
lens for that second
but in this he could not agree. Teh,e Lin, however, were
a:ssectond line of
line of defence, and the executionverni
went responsible.
matters for which he held the
hi stone ; the former against,
Sir J. Duke, and Sir J. Vp a bill.
and the
yTddressed by Mr. Monsell,
The house was subsequenrtlo
and the two latter in favoona,
that with our magnificent
population, our admirably
our immense .. .
Captain JO
and volunteers, the only thing
navy, ur militia
disciplined army, policy of defence. If the proposed
to fear was an were erected they would remain but imperish-
able menum
r existed— of its weakness, its folly, and its
that eve
power ,
extravagance.
The amendment having been withdrawn by Sir F. Smith,
the house divided on the original motion, and the second
reading was agreed to by 158 to 56.
The Transfer of Land Bill, from the Lords, was paesea
through committee.
The Lunatics Law Amendment Bill was passed through
committee.
d passed.
The Coal Mines Bill was read a third time en sod ofs
The other business on the paper was also die°
R4CI the WAN adjourned,