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

return to his own country. Now he was not going to dis-
cuss with the hon. gentleman what would be the number of
men with which it would be possible to invade this country,
because upon that his opinion would be worth no more than
that of any other member who was not an authority on mi-
litary matters—he would only say that the views of the hon.
gentleman were not those more than once expressed by a
great master of the art of invasion, who had long contem-
plated the possibility of an invasion of England. M. Thiers
told them that the Emperor Napoleon said in reference to
this subject, "If I made an attack on England I should
have to throw 60,000 men upon the English coast ; to con-
quer England, and subject the English people would be a
chimerical idea ; but with such a force I wovdd make a de-
scent upon her coasts, occasion her great nal schief, destroy
an enormous mass of property, and strike a panic through
a country which depends upon its safety aril security as the
means of carrying on its industrial pursuits;, and for such an
object it might be worth while to make the: attempt." What
might be the ultimate fate of the 60,01)0 men who com-
posed the invading army he did not knot v ; but the opinion
of Napoleon was that the attempt, if rop.do, would succeed
in causing so much mischief and loss to this country that
under certain circumstances an enemy would be justified in
making it. But, said the hon. gentlem an, " we should in the
meanwhile be revolutionising France,." He (Mr. S. Her-
bert) would not go into the question how far it might be
possible to succeed in that object; he would only remind
the hon. gentleman that the pres ent Emperor of France
was firmly seated upon his throne ; that he perfectly under-
stood the people he ruled—few sovereigns indeed so well ;
and he would also remind the blon. gentleman that we tried
in the last war to revolutionis o France when it was dis-
turbed by hostile factions and conflicting chains, and that
we miserably failed in the attem pt. (Hear.) Then the hon.
gentleman said the navy was the true defence of England.
Who doubted it ? Was it proposed in supplementing it by
defences on land to abandon that main and chief line of de-
fence ? Not at all. Every man of sense knew that we had
an hereditary prestige on the seas, and we kept up an enor-
mous and powerful navy to maintain that prestige, mad that
naval superiority which must always be our chief and first
line of defence ; but that was no reason why it should not
be supported by defences on shore. The hon. gentleman
gave it as his opinion that the introduction of steam, and
its application to the purposes of navigation, was rather an
advantage to the invaded than the invader. In opposition
to that view he took the opinion of naval officers of high
authority with whom he had conversed, and they told him
that the introduction of steam had to a great extent deprived
us of the power of blockade. In former ti sokumes,ew w
lon:f
might
sigthhet
wind blew from a particular quarter, we
sleep safe in our beds, for the enemy's fleet could not come
out, while a blockading squadron could always be main-
tained to keep their ships in port, but now all that was
changed. The steam might be got np in the night, and the
invading fleet be off our coasts, and perhaps a lan ding ef-
fected, before the blockading squadron knew that they had
sailed. The hon. gentleman, alluding to a document which
within the last few days had appeared in the public prints,
said, " but the Emperor of France has written a letter ex-
pressing anxiety to maintain the most friendly relations
with this country, and speaking of his army and navy as
not being of a size calculated to create alarm on the part of
any foreign nation;" and the hon. gentleman added that
he firmly believed the Emperor of France was in earnest in
wishing to maintain peace with this country. He (Mr. S.
Herbert) was not prepared to offer any denial to that state-
ment; but the hon. gentleman should remember that cir-
cumstances were someti mes stronger than men. (Hear,
hear.) But if the Emperor of France was anxious for
peace, he had almost got peace in his own hands. No
nation would attack France, least of all England. (Hear,
bear.) England would engage in no European war unless
she was herself attacked. The whole of our prosperity de-
pended upon the maintenance of peace; and ho believed
there existed generally in this country a feeling that war,
unless forced upon us and in self-defence, was a crying sin.
(Hear.) He did not believe that in the whole of England
there was a man who wished for war, and that there were
very few who did not pray that such a terrible calamity
might be averted. Then what was the conduct of the Em-
peror of the French, with which, under the circumstances
he described, he (Mr. S. Herbert) had no cause of com-
plaint ? He was at this moment, and had been for a long
time past, strengthening the fortifications of Cherbourg,
L' Orient, Rochefort, and Brest. Of that we had no right
to complain. We had no right to complain of any sove-
reign putting his 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.) But
we had even a batter right to do so than France in this re-
spect, that the fortifications 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 hon. gentleman had quoted
the authority of a French officer. He (Mr. S. Herbert) re-
membered a great French authority, whom he saw
some years ago 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 ar-
senals, yet you make no effort to protect it from attack."
Since then no doubt great improvements had been made,
and there had been considerable progress during the last
ten years, especially in strengthening the works and forti-
fications of the dockyards and on our coasts. Let it not,
then, be said, as had been two or three times repeated,
"Have nothing to do with this newfangled idea of fortifi-
cations—Portsmouth was fortified, Chatham was fortified,
and Plymouth was fortified."
Mr. H. BERKELEY—I said fortifications to stand a
siege.
Mr, S. 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.)
But that was precisely what they wanted to prevent. (Hear,
hear.) 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 and ships by
a regular siege. (Hear.) He need hardly quote authorities
at this time of day to show that fortifications were useful.
This was sufficiently proved in the last great continental
war—when frequently small bodies of troops operating
behind fortifications were enabled to resist powerful armies.
It was the same at Silistria and at Kars. But it had
been said fortifying your coasts is needless, your fleet is
your defence ; and if by 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 1796, notwithstanding our blockade of
the French ports, a French fleet of seven sail of the line,
with transports 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 Ire-
land, but was defeated by Sir J. Warren. In the same
year there was another expedition reached Killain Bay.
Again, in 1797 four French frigates entered Bristol, and
destroyed several ships and much merchandise, afterwards
landing a body of troops at Fishguard, which was, in the
end, compelled, it was true, to capitulate. But the troops
arrived, and landed on our coast, and had they been more
numerous would have dole 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 a hostile fleet to assail our coasts under circum-
stances of greater difficulty than now existed. The value of
earthworks was mentioned the other night in connexion
with the siege of Sebastopol ; but it was a mistake to suppose
that more 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 important
defences in the north had not existed ? Napoleon 1., in
reply to the question, what was the use of fortifying a
camp ? asked, how was it possible for troops to manoeuvre
without such protection ? Then, what did they see on all
sides ? Not only France, but Russia, Prussia, Austria, and
all continental nations were strengthening their defences by
fortifying their coasts and frontiers. If there was any
country which more than another was dependent on fortifi-
cations whenever her sea 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. S. Herbert) believed that
raw levies of Englishmen had performed great achievments.
The objection, don't adopt fortifications because it was a
new-fangled idea, might be urged with far more force against
the Armstrong gun, the Enfield rifle, or any modern im-
provement. He (Mr. S. Herbert) would ask, taking the
question in the lowest point of view—that of pounds, shil-
lings, and pence—what was the cost of fortifications as com-
pared with the cost of soldiers and the sacrifice of human
life f But was it any reason that they should sacrifice their
men because some hon. gentlemen had a contempt for what
they called such " new-fangled things" as fortifications,
which, by the way, we had had for upwards of 300 years
(Hear.) He supposed he was not quite justified in alluding
to the motion on the table of the hon. member for Birming•
ham, which differed in some respects from that of the hon.
gentleman who moved another resolution, but it seemeetto
him (Mr. S. Herbert) that, always supposing they were not
acting like lunatics, which the hon. member for Birming-
ham seemed to think, they could not-accede to his motion.
The hon. member for Birmingham was a great believer in
the " Vox populi vox Dei" 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 that therefore the Government ought to deal
with the whole of this question as soon as they could. He
(Mr. S. 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 so great, and powerful, and rich a
nation ought to be. (Hear, hear.) One great means of
maintaining peace, no doubt, was a prudent and pacific
policy. (Hear.) We ought, in our foreign relations, to
show an appreciation for the rights and feelings of other
people. If all nations did that, there would be no danger
of war ; but at the same time, knowing that we must com-
port ourselves pacifically to other nations, we must also
deprive other nations of the temptation of attacking us
(Hear, hear.) With that view the Government had ap-
pointed a commission, whose report now lay on the table.
He remembered that last year a motion was made by an
hon. member to the effect, that they should no longer deal
with this question by voting year after year small sums,
but that they should by some well-eousider94 and compre.