The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-24 00:00:00

-

~~

-

1/4. ! %,...„,..,...--Cri:E;ft4L4t's, • 441*: •
111111 h
- 4
)7:11 • \ 4011141 r. .11
•
• •
- ••••*411" (9°
.44 / / <8,4141, ?,! '‘ 11._ AP,
e , 7,73 AO' 14", - t
-00• A )11: -., _ 1,•1 •• R •OTT `,A 4,1 k
•• . .....

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 24, 1862.

bound to receive authentic information in support of state-
ments made by persons liq.ble to the income-tax.
THE POOR LAW (IRELAND).
In reply to Mr. MAGUIRE,
Sir. R. PEEL said that he would lay on the table the
correspondence relative to some of the Poor Law Commis-
sion in the south of Ireland, of which the Government
were in possession, and for the production of which the
hon. member had moved on a former occasion.

the Government had announced their intention of not pro-
ceeding with the works at Spithead and with the central
arsenal; and it seemed to him that under those circum-
stances it would be better that the amendment should not
be pressed, but that theyshould consent to the introduction
of a bill which would afford them an opportunity of consi-
dering in detail the proposals to which the Government still
adhered.

between these methods as shown in translations of
the same passage in the Odysses by Chapraln,Pope,
Cowper, and himself, and we regret our space pre-
cludes our giving those examples. In the preface
to the Iliad will be found some very pertinent re-
marks on the distinction between. the real and the
artificial Epic, and the author thus speaks of

Sir F. SMITH recommended the hon. member for
Liskeard not to press the amendment.
Mr. OSBORNE replied. He would not press the
amendment to a division.

FAIRS AND MARKETS (IRELAND) BILL.
In reply to Mr. VANCE,
Sir R. PEEL said that it was the intention of Govern-
ment to proceed with this bill, and they hoped to be able to
get a morning sitting next week for that purpose.
WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.

The amendment was acccrdingly withdrawn ; the origi•
nal resclution was agreed to; and leave was given to intro-
duce a bill founded thereon.

Mr. SCULLY gave notice that he would ask a question
of the Government, as to whether it would not be desirable
to increase the height of the balustrades of the new "West-
minster Bridge, in order to diminish the facilities which it
now presented for the commission of suicide. (Laughter.)
• TRADE MARKS BILL.
In reply to Mr. ROEBUCK,
Mr. M. GIBSON said he hoped to be able to obtain a
day next week for going into committee on this bill.
FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS.

The remaining business was then disposed of, and the
house adjouincd.

Sir G. C. LEWIS, in a committee of the whole house
on fortifications and works, moved the following resolu-
tion :—" That, towards providing a further sum for defray-
ing the expenses of the construction of works for the defence
of the Royal dockyards and arsenals and of the ports of
Dover and Portland, and for the creation of a .central
arsenal, a sum not exceeding £1,200,000 be charged upon
the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and that
the commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury be authorised
and empowered to raise the said sum by annuities for a
term not exceeding 30 years; and that such annuities shall
be charged upon and be payable out of the said Consoli-
dated Fund." The right hou. baronet observed that mea-
sures of national defence necessarily partook of the charac-
ter of an insurance, and such measures might be quite pro-
per, although subsequent information might prove that the
precaution in which they had their origin was unnecessary.
The experience which we had acquired during the progress
of the Crimean war created a general conviction through-
out the country of the expediency of increasing the efficiency
of our armaments, and increased efficiency was but another
word for increased expenditure. The additions which we
had of late years made to the strength of our military estab-
lishment had originated exclusively, or almost exclusively,
with the political heads of the War Department, who had
themselves only acted in conformity with the wishes and
opinions of their colleagues, of that house, and of the coun-
try. The right hon. gentleman, after having expressed his
belief that our armaments had not attained any extravagant
dimensions, and, after having stated a variety of details in
reference to the number of men, of guns, and of other ele-
ments of our military power, passed to a consideration of the
special question of fortifications. The total cost of all the
works of this description which had already been constructed
or for which the Government had actually entered into con-
tracts, was £3,385,000 ; and the estimated charge for comple-
ting our present plan of fortifications was £6,700,000. Im-
mediately after the naval action in America, in which the
Merrimac had been engaged, the house had expressed a
wish that the works at Spithead should be suspended; and
the Government had yielded to that wish, and had deter-
mined on not renewing the consideration of that subject
until the spring of next year. But they did not therefore
think it desirable that the progress of all our proposed new
fortifications should be arrested ; and as those undertakings
had already received the sanction of Parliament, he trusted
that the house would not by their vote on the present oc-
casion give the enemies of constitutional government any
excuse for saying that the conduct of the principal legisla-
tive assembly in the world had been marked by inconsis-
tency and vacillation.
In reply to a question from Mr. Buxom;

Sir G. C. LEWIS afterwards stated that he did not
mean upon that occasion to raise any money for the con-
struction of a central arsenal.

Mr. OSBORNE moved as an amendment to the resolu-

tion the omission of all the words after " that," in order to
add the following words :—" Considering the changes and
improvements now in progress affecting the science of at-
tack and defence, it is not now expedient to proceed with
the construction of the proposed forts on the shoals at Spit-
head, or the additional defences at Portsmouth, Plymouth,
and Dover, recommended by the commissioners appointed
to consider the defences of the United Kingdom ; and that
in any general system of national defence this house is of
opinion that the navy should be regarded as the arm on
which the country must mainly depend." The hon. gen-
tleman said he entirely agreed with the right hon. baronet
that works of national doeonoo rrcio a..caouroa of I,
insurance ; but he believed, at the same time, that the
Royal Marine Insurance Office afforded the best element
of security to this country; and if the house should be
of that opinion they would, no doubt, be prepared to
adopt his amendment. He entirely dissented from the
statewent of the right hon. gentleman that " increased effi-
ciency" translated into Treasury English meant nothing
more than " increased expenditure." But his special
duty upon that occasion was to oppose the con-
struction of the proposed fortifications at various points of
our coast. The hon. gentleman then proceeded at consider-
able length to argue against those works, founding his ob-
jection to them on their indefinite but necessarily enormous
cost, on the very questioaablo character of their advantage
to this country, and on the impossibility of our manning
them even if they were completed. The number of men re-
quired to garrison them would amount altogether to 95,000,
and we could never expect to have an army available for
such a service. The command of the Channel was our real
security ; we were not to assume that it would be lost ; and
if we should cease to retain it no forts could materially help
to place us beyond the reach of foreign invasion.
Sir G. LEWIS replied to various statements in the ad-
dress of Mr, Osborne, and contended that it would be ex-
tremely‘impolitic to leave our great dockyards and arsenals
undefended.

Sir F. SMITH supported the amendment, and expressed
his decided disapproval of the proposed system of fortifica-
tions, which would involve a vast outlay, and which could
only be manned by throwing into them an immense force
that could be much more usefully employed in the field.
Mr. H. A. BRUCE hoped the committee would adopt

the original resolution ; and would not abandon those works
at the instance of gentlemen who had opposed them from
the commencement.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR spoke in favour of the amendment.
Capt. VIVIAN thought the Government acted wisely in
determining to continue those works.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE objected to the mode in which
the question was brought by the Government under the
notice of the committee. They had no security that if
they were to agree to the resolution the money would not
be devoted to the commencement of new works which
had not received the previous sanction of Parliament. He
trusted that the Government would afford them some ex-
planation upon that subject; and the vote which he would
give would very much depend on the contingency of his
receiving an assurance that they should not be involved in
any unexpected outlay for works of that description.
Mr. BENTINCK said that under all the circumstances
of the case he should vote for the resolution, but he 'would
remind the Government that they could not pursue any

more fatal policy than by neglecting our maritime defences.
Sir M. PETO recommended the Government to institute
a more careful inquiry before they committed themselves
any further to that enormous and very questionable ex-
penditure. There was nothing that could have been done
which was left undone by the Government of France during
the last few years to show the most cordial friendship to-
wards this country, and that circumstance ought to diminish
the apprehension in which those works had originated.
The debate was continued by Sir John Walsh, Mr.
Monsell, and Lord C. Paget.
Lord PALMERSTON defended the course adopted by
the Government in that matter. They proposed to extend
the expenditure over a series of years because the works
were to be of a permanent character, and would naturally .1
be advantageous to distant generations. They readily ad • 1
mitted that the navy was the great arm of defence in this
country ; and it was because they recognised that principle
that they were anxious for the construction of fortifications
which had for their object the protection of those great
naval stations or arsenals without which we could have no
navy whatever. The Emperor of the French had un-
doubtedly manifested the most friendly feeling towards this
country. That was a fact which was willingly acknow-
ledged by her Majesty's Government and by every man in
the United liingdom. But that was not a ground of
security on which a great nation could tranquilly repose in 1
a matter of such vital interest as its means of defence
against the possibility of attack. The most certain source
of union between two great and civilised states was an
equality of strength, whizit would leave each of them the
master of its own destiny.
Mr. DISRAELI said he could not help thinking that
the Government had displayed great vacillation in dealing
with that question. Their estimates of the cost of those
works had undergone some very considerable variations,
and they were still unable to decide what were the portions
of their original scheme to which they should adhere, and
wha!,- were the portions which they should relinquish. The
nobleother lordm
members
changing of the h
t Government,eitheir
opinions
upon who
that
sub charged.
j ect had
himself used very different language in the year
1860 in reference to our relations with France, from that
which ho employed upon the present occasion. He had
then held out
to the house the danger of an immediate inva-
sion of •
th's country by France ; but ho now spoke in per-
fectly conciliatory and
dbeeito becoming
sigot
no sb. termsbe hoped
0 oi :et
dhthe r
respect
pil edenetdl
continuey
to
the feel-
ing which subsisted,
subsist between the and
two
amendment proposed by the hon. member for Liskeard, he
, , could not b t 1414 that it wis no longer applicable after

LZ

~1