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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 11 3, -1860.

were certainly better authorities than the hon. member for
Birmingham. What had taken place before the invasion
of Lombardy ? Up to the middle of April France declared
that she had not begun to arm, that the army was on a
peace footing; and before the end of the month 15,000 men
were on the march towards Italy. Why should they be-
lieve the Emperor's letter now, any more than his declara-
tions of last year ? Shortly after his celebrated declaration
at: Bordeaux, " L'Empire c'est la paix," the Emperor of
France had taken up the question of the holy places, and
had gone to war with Russia. There was nothing torender
an invasion impossible. Suppose that it took place, and
that we were compelled to accept a dishonourable treaty, or
that the French were beaten back, how would the noble
lord meet Parliament after that if proper, precautions had
not been taken ? The hon. member for Birmingham had
rested his whole argument on the question of expenditure,
and the effect upon commerce ; but there were more impor-
teat questions than the pecuniary one. We had a church
to protect, a state to protect, and had our liberties to pro-
tect—objects of far more importance than those to which
the hon. member and his friends regarded as those alone
worth caring for.
Mr. WHITE admitted the necessity of preserving our
dockyards and arsenals from sudden attacks, but suggested,
before they committed themselves to this vast expense,
they ought to have a preliminary inquiry as to what pro-
portion of the national property deposited in those ar-
senals and dockyards ought to be kept. near the coasts.
Those large public establishments had now become but
little better than patronage preserves; and he believed
that for every pound expended upon them the
country did not get fifteen shillings in value.
He believed that the gunboats and other vessels of war
might be built better and cheaper in private yards, and if
they were built at the private establishments of the Hum-
ber, the Clyde, the Thames, and other rivers far removed
from the seaboard, they would be free from all risk of sud-
den attacks. He was inclined to think that it would not be
an unmitigated evil if we had an invasion, for it would unite
all classes together in a spirit of union and harmony in a
manner we bad never yet witnessed, and would afford the
working classes an opportunity of exhibiting that true cou-
rage, that loyalty to the throne, and that love of country
with which he knew they were animated, and which once
displayed, it would be impossible for any Government to
deny them the suffrage they had so long demanded in vain.
He might say he had just come from taking a bath of liberty
at Brighton—(a laugh)—where he saw with great gratifi-
cation that while at one time you might have brought down
a cheer from the working classes by speaking against the
House of Lords, such a sentiment would now be received
with contempt, while expressions of loyalty and attachment
to the Queen and the institutions of the country invariably
commanded the warmest approbation. He mentioned this
as a symptom of the times. A considerable change appeared
to have come over the noble lord's opinion of late in regard
to the Emperor of the' French, but really he (Mr. White)
could 850 nothing extraordinary in the efforts his Imperial
Majesty was making to place his navy on a more efficient
footing. What was the history of that navy? Every-
body knew that ever since the drawn battle off CapeUshant
—7O years ago—it had been a history of disaster. Was it
not natural, then, that an Emperor who cared for the honour
of his country should, uuder such circumstances, endea-
vour, to use a French phrase, to rehabilitate his navy ?
Lord Dundonald in his book showed what was the state of
the French navy during the late war, when he stated that
he was able to anchor within half a mile of Marseilles, and
land upon the coast when he pleased in order to supply
himself with water and provisions. Not only was it natural
but the duty of the Sovereign of France to take means, if
possible, to avoid such an indignity in the event of another
war. But then, said the noble lord, he Emperor of the
French knows very well that we are not going to war with
hire. But it was net very long ago, viz., when Lord Malmes-
bury was at the head of the Foreign-office, that the Emperor
of the French had every reason to believe that England was
about to go to war with him, and it was his (Mr. White's)
conviction that had Lord Derby's Government remained in
power three weeks longer we should have been involved in a
war with France. He reminded the house that in the last
great war the fortifications of Coblentz and Rastadt did not
prevent France conquering Germany, nor did the fortifica-
tions of Posen and Konigsberg prevent the conquest of
Prussia after the battle of Jena. In fact, all experience
proved that the best reliance in case of invasion was on the
public spirit of the country, and not on armed works. It
was well known that after the affair at Leipsic the First
Napoleon was compelled to have large garrisons locked up
at Dantzig, Konigsberg, and the other fortresses, but had
those troops been upon the soil of France to strengthen his
armies his fate might, have been different. He entirely ap-
proved of the volunteer movement, and was a volunteer
himself. (Hear.) All experience showed that where a pro-
per feeling animated the people they were not mean. anta -
gonists in case of invasion, although they were not enrolled
in the regular army. Let them remember what had been
done by volunteers in Switzerland and in America, and
doubt not that a people never was so strong as when fight-
ing for their homes and their institutions. The large arms
that bad been expended in building forts on the south coast
were regarded by the people of that district as so much
money wasted, and he believed the present proposal was an
error in the same direction, but on a much larger scale.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER said, when he entered Parliament in 1811
he had but just returned from the Mediterranean, where he
had an opportunity of seeing a very fine French fleet. That
fleet presented a wonderful change to what he had been
accustomed to witness of the state of the French navy.
The ships were well manned and well officered, and in
every respect efficient. He could not help contrasting with
that fleet the British fleet in which he was serving, and
he found it inferior in numbers, inferior in size, and infe-
rior in manning ; and he felt that should the two come into
collision, we should not be so certain as we had been in
times past of maintaining our superiority. He pointed
this out to the Admiralty when he came home. The gal-
lant admiral complained of the reduction of the fleet in the
Mediterranean, and asserted that our naval force within
the last twenty years had frequently been in such a state
that it would have been unable to resist a well-organised
attack from the fleet of France. An impression prevailed
abroad that the introduction of steam into the navy ren-
dered a blockade impossible, but his own opinion was that
it rendered it far more perfect, and that there had never
been such a thing as an effective blockade until the pre-
sent moment. With the fine ships we now possessed it
would be very easy to blockade the ports of France and
prevent an invasion ; and under such circumstances he
was at a loss to imagine why Parliament should for a mo-
ment entertain a proposal for expending such enormous
sums upon fortifications. (Hear.) It was perfectly right
to fortify our sea ports gradually, but to depend upon any
fortifications that could be erected for our security from
invasion was simply absurd. The experience of the Govern-
ment in the erection of fortifications was not of so satisfac-
tory a character as to justify a further experiment. At
Portsmouth they erected forts to defend the port, and they
were then obliged to fortify Portsdown-hill in order to de
fend the forts. (Hear.) Then again with regard to Dover.
The fort fications of Dover was a whim of the Duke of
Wellingtcn, and every man of common sense would say
that the money which had been expended was entirely
thrown away. No one would deny that the late Napoleon
contemplated the, invasion of this country. He assembled
at Boulogne about 3,000 vessels of various descriptions
and between 200,000 and 300,000 men, and all he wanted to
render his scheme successful was forty-eight hours'
command of the Channel. That command he never ob-
tained, and so long as our fleet was maintained in a
proper state of efficiency it never would be obtained
Without a naval force to protect them such fortifi.
cations as those which the noble lord at the head 01

the Government proposed would be wholly useless; for
stronger works were erected by Russia at Sweaborg, and
yet they were inadequate to resist a naval attack, being
utterly destroyed without the loss of a man on the part of
the attaching fleet. If our ships were properly manned all
the talk about fortifications might be set aside. What was
wanted was not fortifications, but such an increase in the
numbers of our ships of war'as would enable us to retain
our position as mistress of the seas.

Mr. CORRY said it was his lot to be a member of a
committee appointed by Lord Derby to inquire into the re-
lative cost and expenditure of the navies of England and
France from 1852 down to 1858, whenthey discovered that,
while the French navy cost £19,800,000, the expenditure
in building ships was £21,600,000; and although the navy
of England in the Mlle period cost X 60,500,000, the expen-
diture was only £59,000,000. Then as to the dockyards,
the cost of England, in her dockyards, for the same period
of five years was £16,000,000, while her expenditure was
£17,500,000 ; and that of France £7,600,000, although the
expenditure for new improvements and alterations was
£13,200,000. The hon. gentleman the member for Bir-
mingham said they were the cause of the arming going on
all over Europa, and that the right hon. gentleman the
member for Droitwich was guilty of a criminal act in aug-
menting the navy last year. For his part he believed he
did great service in so doing, and that the navy ought to
be still more augmented. The noble lord the Secretary for
the Admiralty, in bringing :forward the naval estimates,
said that England ought to have three ships where France
had two, but looking at her colonies he thought it should
at least be four-fifths. France had scarcely any colonies

except Algiers, which was on the shores of a narrow sea,

- ,
and opposite Toulon, while their colonies were scattered all
over the world. With respect to the plan of fortifications,
he entirely approved of the recommendation to fortify our
dockyards and arsenals, and he should therefore give his
vote for the resolution.

Mr. B. OSBORNE regretted that the house seemed to
have prejudged this question, and to vote for the resolutions
without considering the various questions connected with
it. But he would ask, if it was necessary to carry out the
recommendations of tho commission, why had it been left

aver till the fag end of the session ? What was the reason ?
In February last two millions of terminable annuities fell

into the doNernmeni,—butinstead of applying these two
millions to the defence of the country the Chancellor of the
TAxchequer proposed to apply them to the repeal of the paper
duty. Why did he deal with the matter in that way ? Did
the right hon. gentleman know that such an expenditure

would be required? T 1; report of the commissioners was
dated Feb. 7, and tho budget was brought in on the lOtit.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman must therefore
have been aware of the necessity for the money, and 40

thought the house had been entrapped into a false position
by the course pursued, and into money votes which they
otherwise would not have granted. He was also surprised
that the noble lord should have asked for only two millions.
If the danger were as great as the noble lord had stated it
to be in his speech, why did he not ask for the whole
money at once ? If there were any real necessity for the
works, which he did not admit, they ought to be erected at
once. But the noble lord had acted most inconsistently in
this matter—he had, on the one hand, negotiated a treaty
of commerce, and now he asked for nine millions to shut
out our customers. He denied that there was any ground
for thaw fortifications in consequence of the armed prepa-
rations in France. The army there had been reduced since
the last war in and as to the navy, it was not greater
than was required by the pos,Z.fen of the country. But the
Secretary for War said that we ought have these arma-
ments and defences because we must keep up oZ influence
as a great Power. Well, but that was the very thing wr.jch
was objected to, as in France, where the enormous increase
in both their army and navy within the last three years has
been held as a proof of danger to Europe. He felt, however,
some difficulty in voting on this matter, because he did not
quite agree with the motion of the hon. member for Sun-
derland ; nor did he concur in the opinions, though he re-
spected those of the hon. member for Birmingham. He
had no objections to defences for our dockyards. He did
object to rem.ving our great arsenal to Cannock Chase, be-
cause he thought better and more easily defensible positions
could be found on the Mersey, He objected also to all these
land defences—great fortresses, which would become in the
course of time practically useless. The fortifications of
Paris, the works at Cherbourg, the inland fortresses in dif-
ferent countries that had been referred to as an example to
follow, ought rather to warn us to avoid committing the same
error. With respect to the composition of the Defence
Committee, he said that, with the exception of one member,
there was not one engineer officer of any eminence in the ser-
vice on that committee. Why was not Sir J. Burgoyne on
the committee ? He was the engineer in the Crimean war,
and pointed out the only weak spot of the defences at Sebas-
topol. Why were no artillery officers examined? Why
was Sir Howard Douglas, the greatest artillerist in the
world, not examined ? The only witness examined as to the
range of the new ordnance was Sir W. Armstrong, and he
was bound to say there were great doubts in the minds of
artillery officers as to the range and power of those guns.
He could not imagine anything more absurd than for a com-
mittee of seven military men calling Lord 0 verstone to give
evidence as to what would be the effect on the money mar-
ket if the French army was in London. (Laughter.) But
he objected to the report of this commission, first, because
its recommendations were fragmentary and incomplete ; and
second, because the calculations as to the cost of the works
were so loose and so vague that no reliance whatever
could be placed upon them. An eminent engineering
officer had lately addressed a letter to the Secretary for War
on the subject which well deserved most careful attention.
That officer saw that this country did not want fortifica-
tions. What they wanted was brain and muscle, and he
believed so too. The hon. member for Birmingham re-
ferred to Captain Brialmont's work, but ho did not dwell
sufficiently upon it. That gallant captain went at great
length into the report of the commissioners, and objected to
it on many grounds, observing that the fortifications could
not be manned without a conscription. If they were afraid
of an invasion, why let them take Captain Brialmont's
plan instead of the plan of fortification proposed by the
commissioners, and which would cost not nine millions,
but nineteen millions. The commissioners recommended
fortifications at. Portsdown-hill. Sir John Burgoyne, in
his examination before the commissioners said he would not
recommend the fortifying of Portsdown-hill at present, for
' it would take an army to support it. The hon. gentleman
then objected to the dockyard at Sheerness, which he said
was originally a job. • Sheerness was known to be at the
wrong side of the river, and yet for the improvement of
Sheerness they proposed £lOO,OOO. (Mr. Herbert said the
money was to be expended in defending the mouth of the
River Medway.) He contended that the number of men to
man the fortifications would not be 68,000 or 70,000, as
proposed. It would be necessary to have at least 100,000
men, and to fire the Armstrong gun they would require
trained gunners. The hon. gentleman again quoted the
work of Captain Brialmont and Sir John Burgoyne against
fortifications, on the ground that they would not have
sufficient men to man the fortifications continually. He
should have been glad if the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S.
Herbert) had laid before thorn a plan by which railways
could be made available in the case of an invasion. The
hon. gentleman then quoted the opinions of Admiral Dun-
das, Sir Baldwin Walker, and other naval officers, given'
before the commission, who all said that the defences of
the coast ought to rest upon gunboats, and such like
measures, and not be assigned to fortifications. The
Duke of Wellington did not, in his famous letter, ask
for fortifications to defend this country. He asked
for 100,000 militia men and an increase of 4,000 to
the regular army. (Hear, hear.) But the increase of our
military power now was far greater than it was when the
Duke of Wellington wrote his letters in 1847, and the army
and navy estimates in that year were only £11,230,000, but
now they exceed £24,000,000. (Hear, hoar.) This being so,
he must declare that he had no confidence in the report of
the commissioners, which he considered was loose and in-
conclusive, and that it did not warrant the expenditure pro-
posed by the Government on account of these fortifications.
He must observe that he was sorry to hear the speech of
the noble lord at the head of the Government on this sub-
ject. He looked upon the letter of the Emperor of the
French to be an answer to that speech. (Oh, oh, from the
Conservatives.) He knew it was the fashion in that house
to look with suspicion on all the actions of the Emperor of
the French. But for this, amongst ether reasons, he must
say that the Emperor of the French did not want to quarrel
with England—namely, that it was not his interest to do so.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Well, what had France done
of late ? Why, she inaugurated the present movement in
Italy, which Italians and philanthropists so much desired.
(Hear, hear.) He contended that they were not justified
in thus throwing suspicions on all the acts and expressions
of the French Emperor. What did France do even in our
case? Why, when the Indian mutiny was at its highest
point, France, instead of glorifying in our difficulties,
offered to assist us by sending men through her own pos-
sessions, the more effectually to put down the mutiny.
(Hear, hear.) We also fought together in the Crimea,
and he would say that the proposed construction of fortifi-
cations was in the teeth of the treaty which we had entered
into with France. He concluded by observing that it was
not advisable to go into any great expenditure on the autho-
rity of a report disputed by such high authorities.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that Sir Howard Douglas
was the first officer he asked to sit on this Commission-
-(hear, hear) —but he declined, on the ground that his great
age prevented his visiting the various localities. But he
promised to examine carefully and to report freely upon
every portion of the report, and he had done so. (Hear,
hear.) He had examined the report and evidence with far
greater attention than his noble friend had done—(hear,
hear, and laughter)—and the Government had been guided
very much by the advice which he had given.
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Where is it?
Mr. S. HERBERT—I presume the hon. gentleman does
not dispute the fact of its having been given. (Hear, and
cheers.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE—We ought to have it.
Mr. S. lIERBERT said it was by the advice of Sir H.
Douglas that the Government had turned its attention to

the sea defences particularly7and diminished the extent of
the land defences. As to Sir J. Burgoyne not being placed
on the commission, he was the official adviser of the Go-
vernment—(hear, hear)—and had they selected him it
would have been said that he was one of their own men.

(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) preferred having Sir J.
Burgoyne's unbiassed opinion as to what to accept and
what to reject, without putting him on the commission. It
was said that so long as our gunboats were kept efficient at
Ports mouth, that was our best defence ; but we wanted our
gunboats somewhere else than at Portsmouth. (Hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Where would you put them?
(Ordeir, order.)
Mr. S. HERBERT—,The use of a navy is not to stay at
home. Your navy may not always be master of the Chan-
nel. 'We have an enormous colonial empire, and our fleet
must be scattered everywhere.
Mr. 33. OSBORNE said the right hon. gentleman had
still or, le of his own men on the commission, namely, Col.
Lefroy...

Mr. HORSMAN said the first question we had to ask
was, a rhether this country was in a state of security or not ?
and if not, the expenditure was but a mere secondary consi-
derati, (Hear, hear.) As to the absence of Sir J. Burgoyne
from t he commission, it was agreed that there should be, as
far as possible, an elimination of the official element; and
that the Government should certainly take action on the re-
port wh: ich it made. He believed his right hon. friend (Mr.
S. Herb ert) had faithfully fulfilled the promises which he
. had mai le. (Hear.) A commission was never more care-
fully eel octed, and never reflected more honour on those
who hai I made the appointments, and no inquiry had been
more ho neatly carried out. But the recommendations were
limited -to an inquiry in our arsenals and dockyards. The
noble lead came down to the house :with the greatest so-
lemnity ant' made his question of fortifications an imperial
questic tn. He showed the inadequacy of our defences, the
perils a rising from a hostile invasion, and a march on Lon-
don; aud he male a speech, one of the most serious and
alarmin g nature which ever in a time of peace was de-
livered 15y the first minister of the Crown. The noble lord's
speech' 3191 V had been contrasted with the speech of last
year, and; he (Mr. Horsraan) was glad to mark the favour-
able asp( sots of that contrast—(hear)—for the noble lord
now used, the language of truth and justice, whereas be had
formerly used the language merely of conventional oomph •
ment. 'N'ith the public feeling of the population in favour
of those defences, the population was nevertheless said to
be struck with insanity. Now, upon military matters he
was disposed to defer to the opinions of military men ; on
naval matters to the opinions of naval men, and on politics
to those of experienced and wise politicians ; but he must I
say that there was nothing of which some people seemed to
think so lightly as the possibility of invasion ; and there
were some gentlemen near him
,who affected to treat with
indifference the warning of the noble lord, and that they
were in the neighbourhood of a powerful and ambitious

neighbour. (Hear.) He (Mr. norsman) felt that if Eng-
land were invaded and overrun, there would be no security

for the rights, the liberties, and the judepeildence of any

other country. (Hear, hear.) Her commerce and her
civilisation. were carried to every part of the world, and if
she wero extinguished to-morrow, the independence, the
freedom of Italy and other nations would be nothing but a
dream. Every man who desired to see peoples independent
and b168,c,4 with free institutions looked to England as
their great anehOt: of hope, and he felt that those interests
would be best secured IV the maintenance of England as a
great naval, commercial, tradjng) and civilised power.
(Hear, hear.)

Sir F. SMITH agreed with the report of the commis-
sioners, so far as fortifying the seaboard, but Le differed
from them on many other points. He wished to 607 in
what manner the five millions, about to te voted, wore to
be expended.
Mr. S. HERBERT said the five millions were intended
for the works now in progress ; and, if any mote were
wanted next year, it would come before Parliament.
Sir F. SMITH continued—He also desired to be in-
io:vned whether they were to carry out all the recommenda-
tions of Ommissioners.

Mr. S. HERBERT replied that only a portion of them
would be carried out, of which a return was laid en the cable.
Sir F. SMITH resumed—Re was glad of that, and that
answer disarmed many of his object;ons to the report. In
addition to their fortifications they must Lave 100,000 men
in the field, and he believed that in the face of such a force
no enemy could invade England. As to the defence of
London by fortifications it was all nonsense, and could not
be effected. They must however keep their army always in
the field, and he believed that if the occasion should ever
arise, the volunteers would nobly do their duty and render
the most effective service. The right hon. gentleman the
member for Stroud said the commission was composed of
non-official persons, but they were all official. One was the
Governor of Sandhurst, another was the Governor of Addis-
combe ; a third was the Director of Military Education; a
fourth an admiral of the Channel Fleet, and the fifth a
civilian. He thought that Chatham should be strongly
fortified, and he remembered his lamented friend the late
Sir Wm. Peel pointing out to him some years ago the princi -
pal points on which he thought those defences should be
erected.
Lord PALMERSTON—Before the discussion closes I am
anxious to make a few remarks upon the statements which
have been made by various hon. members in the course of
the debate. My hon. friend behind me, the member for
Bristol (Mr. Berkeley) has been exceedingly eloquent in
denouncing the un-English notion of fortifications, but if I
recollect rightly when we have objected to the ballot as un-
English he has commented strongly upon the low ground
we have taken. (Laughter.) Now, I cannot see what there
is un-English in fortifications. At one time the whole coun-
try was studded with fortresses, and every country residence
was fortified. I suppose my hon. friend has heard of Berke-
ley Castle—(laughter)—which I believe was at one time a
place of strength. In point of fact, the whole of England,
Scotland, and Ireland is full of places which at a time of in-
ternal disorder were fortified against attack. (Hear, hear.)
Now, our danger is not from within, but from without ; and
all we ask is that the principle that was formerly applied
for our security within shall be applied for our security from
attack from abroad. (Hear. hoar.) In point of fact, the
advantage of fortification is so apparent that the hon. mem-
ber for Brighton, when he informed the house that if he
had intended to take part in the debate he would have come
better prepared, naturally said that he would have fortified
himself. (Laughter.) I think the hon. member lamented
or intimated that it would be a better arrangement if our
dockyards were placed in a more inland situation. (Laugh-
ter.)

Mr. WHITE said the noble lord's joke was a very good
one, but no such remark had been made.
Lord PALMERSTON—The hon. member for Liskeard
certainly suggested that the store for naval timber should be
more inland. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Osborne.) I think
the arguments of my hon. friend who began the debate are
not likely to sway the decision of the house. The hon.
member for Birmingham wax exceedingly eloquent in sup-
porting the motion of my hon. friend, but, so far as I could
collect the course of the argument of the hon. member, he
dwelt more upon a variety of schemes which we have not
adopicd than he endeavoured to show that the plan we have
adopted was' one undeserving the attention of the house. The
hon. member eni2morated a great number of the schemes,
which he pronounced absurb and totally unfit for adoption.
I perfectly agree with him izt his criticism, but it so happens
that the plans to which he has Oferred have nothing to do
with the proposal of the Governmei: t. The hon. member
denounces as insane all those who differ from him in opi-
nion, and in so doing he reminds me of the anecdote of a
man who had a difference with the rest of the world. He
thought them all mad, and they voted him mad, and as
there happened to be a majority against him they shut him
up. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Birmingham will,
I trust, find himself in regard to this vote in a similar situa-
tion. (Laughter.) He thinks everybody wrong except
himself—that the whole nation had gone wild on the sub-
ject—and I trust the result will bo that the-majority will
be as great against him as it was against the unfortunate
individual to whom I have just referred. (Laughter.) It
has been said that it is wrong to attempt to fortify, and some
allusion has been made to the fortifications of Paris. Now,
the fortifications of Paris are not undeserving of considera-
tion, because I believe that if those fortifications had existed
in 1814 or 1315 Paris would not have been so easily occu-
pied as it was. (Hear.) It is very true that the Emperor
Napoleon was deprived of the co-operation of a large body
of troops be bad left behind him in different positions, but
that is the very reason why the fortification of Paris would
have placed him in a better position. There was aNational
Guard belonging to the city, and with fortifications a stand
might have been made sufficient to have enabled new troops
to have arrived. (Hear.) My hon. friend the member for
Liskeard complains of any attempt to defend the entire
coast or London by means of fortifications. Our proposal
is not to defend the entire coast, but to protect certain
points of great importance, which form the cradles of our
navy, and without which we should lose our maritime
power—a power which everybody who has spoken to• night
admits to be essential as our first line of defence. (Hear.)
My hon. and gallant friend the member for Southwark (Sir
C. Napier) says, " Give me a fleet, double it or treble
it, and I will undertake that no enemy shall land." I
am not surprised that my hon. friend should deal lightly with
fortifications, inasmuch as he has a way of his own in deal-
ing with fortifications. A military friend of mine once met
my hon. and gallant friend on the northern frontier of Por-
tugal. He was mounted on a mule, and was followed by a
marine with a musket on each sihoulder, looking very much
like Robinson Crusoe. (Laughter.) Re stopped my military
friend, and said, " You are a military maa—tell me how you
would take a fortress." My friend began to explain how to
make breaches and zigzags, and so on, when tine gallant
admiral interrupted him with, " That's all very well for you,
but it won't do for me. lam going to take the fortress of
Valencia, but I mean to take it with a letter. (Laughter.)
And the gallant admiral kept his word. He wrote a letter
to the governor, telling him that if ho did not surrender at
discretion he would make him do so, and the fame of the gal-
lant admiral was so great that the governor surrendered.
(Laughter.) Now, fortifications would enable an inferior
force to hold out for a certain time against a superior force,
and time in war is a great deal, and sometimes everything.
What we want to do is to protect our dockyards and certain
other important points from being taken by a Coup de main.
The hon. member for Liskeard has objected to the fortifi-
cation of Portsdown Hill. Well, that is a matter for con-
sideration, but it is an unquestionable fact that with the
modern improvements in artillery whoever had possession
of Portsdown Hill would have no difficulty whatever in de-
stroying the royal dockyards. I deny again that these works
would involve any great increase to the army in time of
peace, whilst they would effect a considerable saving in the
matter of barracks, and in war time you would have the militia
and other auxiliaries, which would give you moans of man-
ning the different works. The gallant officer says you cannot
make gunners in a month, and I know there is generally an
impression amongst military men that it takes a long time
to make a soldier. But we have seen that the contrary has
been the case with the militia and the volunteers, and I
know ono instance, that of the Devonshire artillery, which
was equal to the practice of the line. Besides, there are
but two gunners wanted for each gun. The rest aro all
handspike men, and have nothing to do with the direction
of the piece. You must not, therefore, multiply the num-
ber of gunners at the same rate as the guns. I say, then,
that in peace these works will not require an increased army;
and that in war they may be filled with troops of a less
trained description, who will be perfectly competent to de-
fend them. I say that if you had not these works, and
having dockyards to defend, you would be obliged to have
a larger number of men, and there is this great difference
between laying the money out in works and laying it out
on men, that if like Lycurgus and the Spartans you call
for men, not stone walls, and maintain these men for a whole
year, they will be no use the following year unless you still
maintain the same number at the same expense, whereas
if you lay it out in works, you are so much stronger by all
the money you lay out. I have been accused of varying my
opinion in this matter. I deny that I have done so, and
assert that on the contrary I have laboured for ten years in
furtherance of the object which we are discussing to-night.
But that is no proof that we do not hope for improved
friendly relations with France through the means of the
commercial treaty. Why, this commission was appointed
twelve months ago, long before the commercial treaty was
proposed, and therefore totally unconnected with it ; and
although we trust that the treaty may lead to a continuance
of more friendly relations between the two countries, that
forms no ground, in our opinion, for abandoning plans which
on careful deliberation we believed to be necessary. I hope
and trust that the present peaceful relations between France
and England may remain uninterrupted ; but I am con..
vinced—and this is common sense, independent of military
or naval knowledge—that the only way to secure yourself
against attack is always to be ready to defend yourself, and
that when you are strong enough for that purpose you are most
likely to remain at peace with foreign nations. On these
grounds I claim the vote of the hon. member for Birming-
ham, for if anything would be more than another likely to
endanger. the continuance of peace, it would be that a
country wealthy like England should remain exposed to the
risk of attack or assault without having any means of re-
pelling the attack or resenting the insult. The country
looks to us to do our duty, and for that we have only to
look at the great force which has been enrolled as volun-
teers. The country desires that Parliament should act in
unison with that feeling which the people have displayed.

To reject a motion which will at a moderate expense lay the
foundation for making a great accession to our means of
defence will be a misfortune which I hope will not happen.
(Cheers, and cries of Divide.)
Sir M. PETO rose amidst cries of "Divide." He would
only detain the house for a short while. He felt that the
committee was not in a position to deal with this question.
He objected altogether to the land defences recommended in
the report of the commissioners. The hon. gentleman then
said that, referring to Sebastopol, it was clear that the
earthworks kept the enemy at bay for a long time. Now,
were the Governmevt justified in coming to the country to
erect fortifications to oppose an invasii,n which could not
take place without notice to us.

-.The question was then put, and the committee divided,
when ti: ere appeared :

For the motion
Against: it
Majority ..-229
The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution.

Mr. BRIGHT said that in looking over the report of the
commission he found no reasonable excuse for the fortifica-
tions at Dover and Portland. He hoped the money in-
tended for these places would be saved to the country.
There were some other points upon which the house should
have fuller information. Nothing was said as to what wa
to be done at Cannock Chase, or how much money was to
be expended there. Two or three noble families were to be
benefited, and the house should look upon the whole pro-
ceeding with a vigilant eye. He hoped the Government
would be as economical as possible.
Lord :PALMERSTON said that Dover was the nearest
point to the coast of France, and having a harbour there,

it was necessary' to prevent an enemy seizing it and using

it for his own advantage. As to Portland, nothing would
be done except to cemplete works already sanctioned by
Parliament. As to Cam2ock Chase, that was only one of six
or seven places that had been mentioned. It was desirable
to have in a central position a quantity of stores in the event
of Woolwich being taken.
Mr. BRIUHT wished to know whether this central depot
was to be an entirely new establishment, or merely to hold
a portion of stores from Woolwich. They ought to know
what sum the proposed new depot would cost them. It
might run up to millions, and they ought to have informa-
tion fairly laid before them.
Mr. MONSELL said although he believed it would not
be proper to move an amendment to the resolution in its
present stage, it would not be out of order to move an addi-
tion. From what he had heard, he believed that although
the majority of the commission were of opinion that it was
most desirable to construct works for the defence of their
seaboard, they had not said one word on the subject of
their land defences in the interior of the country, and, as
far as he recollected, there was not even a suggestion from
the commission to put those inland places in a state of de
fence. Now, so far as he knew anything of the question, the
artillery was the branch of the service which was best ac-
quainted with that part of their defences ; and yet, strange
to say, there was but one artillery officer upon the commie'
sion ; and although there were experienced artillery officers
present during the inquiry, not one question had been put
to them on the subject of their inland defences. Floating
batteries formed a part of the subject in the consideration
of their defences, and upon then the opinion of experienced
naval officers was taken. The addition which he proposed
to move to be made to the resolution was, that, " In the
absence of all engineering and artillery information, it Wall
not expedient to incur any extraordinary expenditure in the
permanent construction of works on Portsdown-hill."
Sir MORTON PETO was desirous to know whether it
was the intention of Government, before they proceeded
to establish a central arsenal at Cannock Chase, to give the
house and country their opinion what the amount of the esti•
mate for such a work would be.
Mr. NEWDE GATE thought it of great importance that
the fortifications of their seaboard should be carried outwith
the least possible delay. With respect to the defence of their
seaboard, there was no doubt they should not neglect that;
but with regard to the establishment of a great eentsl
arsenal in England, that did not appear to him to be neer
sary. If invasion were to take place, he thought London
would be the first place to be attacked, and that should net
be lost sight of.
Mr. V. SCULLY very much coincided in what had been
expressed by the hon. member (Mr. Mengel!). He (Pir.
Scully) had given an honest and independent vote in or
port of the resolution of the noble lord, and his only difficulti
in makbg up his mind was as to the establishment of a great
central arsenal. Their best means of reliance in case of hi'

vasion would, in his opinion, be upon their railway meg°
of communication and their telegraphic means, and /TO,
regard to the former, if hon. members would do as he Sa
done, furnish themsOves with Bradshaw's map—(laughter)
—they would there fit,:d the beat and most valuable infer'
mation on the subject.
Mr. S. HERBERT said the Government could not OX'
cept the proposal to exclude from the list the works at
Portsdown-hill, which were supported by high military
thorities, including Sir J. Burgoyne himself, all of who'
especially recommended that Portsdown-hill should be for'
tified. With respect to Cannock Chase, the site was not
yet decided, but it was important that we should not have
all our eggs in one basket, as now at Woolwich ; but be
thought that Woolwich would be an arsenal of Woof and
Cannock Chase of reserve stores.
Mr. BRIGHT said the right hon. gentleman had not
answered one question—what was to be the cost and what
the size of these works ? It might not be necessary to have
any fortifications at all in the heart of a manufacturing dis •
trict. Was the fortress there to be a defence against foreign
enemies, or against the political liberties of the country f
If he had not that information, he should move that lam''
Massey leave the chair until the information was given.
Lord PALMERSTON said that nothing could be further
from the intention of the Government than wishing for
such a purpose as that supposed by the hon. member. -it,
reserve for military stores was most desirable, but as Ye;
the Government had not decided upon the place, and could
not give the information required at present.
Mr. OSBORNE supported the addition to the resolution
which had been moved by the right hon. member for Lime'
rick. Sir F. Smith had told them that night that the work°
at Portsdown-hill were totally unnecessary, and he pro"
tested against any expenditure on these works.
After some further discussion the committee' divided on
the amendment declaring it inexpedient to proceed with'
out further information, with the works at Portsdowir
hill.

Ayes
Noes
Majority OOOOOO -128
Mr. BRIGHT again urged upon the Government the
necessity for showing the house that the Government knot
the own mind on the subject. If not, let the.matter be
posponed until next session.
Lord PALMERSTON was desirous of giving all the in-
formation in his power, but as yet no site had been decided
upon, though several had been suggested, and it was there-
fore premature to state anything further on the subject.
Afterwards, when the plans were more matured, the 00
vernment would give all the information required as far as
in their power. The great object was to have a great de-
posit of stores at some point less accessable than
Wool-
wich. (Hear, hear.)

The resolution was then agreed to and reported.
BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS BILL.
The Lords' amendments on this bill were considered and
agreed to.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (SCOTLAND)