The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-10 00:00:00

TEE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 10, iB6O.

-

would be impossible to prevent a ship running eight
or nine knots from passing all the batteries. If that
were so, the enemy's vessels could anchor in the Solent out
of the reach of your guns. (Hear.) An enemy daring
enough to do this would land in the Isle of Wight, and
from the Isle of Wight they could command, not only
Portsmouth Harbour, but the batteries which commanded
Portsmouth Harbour. He had the map of the commissioners
in'his hand—a very pretty one it was—and any member on
either side of the house could look and learn that what he
said was correct. (Hear.) With the Armstrong or Whit-
worth guns it was difficult to strike a ship, but it would
not be difficult to strike Portsmouth or Plymouth. When
Sir Francis Baring was First Lord of the Admiralty, at
a time when the British fleet had been get up at great ex-
pense, he wrote to say, " Come home as fast as you can—
we don't want a fleet ;" and then the fleet was well officered
and manned ; it was reduced to a mere nonentity. But
the Government soon saw the mistake they had made, and
they again got up a small Channel fleet. At that time he
(Sir C. Napier) thought it his imperious duty to wait on
Lord Derby in order to point out to him the weak state of
our fleet. The consequence was, a better fleet was got up,
and a lucky thing it was we did get it up, for we were over-
taken by the Russian war. But in an evil hour Sir C. Wood,
when he .was First Lord of the Admiralty, came down and
told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that fleet must
be paid off. That was done and a fine fleet was sent to the
winds. Well, the Whigs were turned out and the Tories
came in. Sir 3. Pakington, who was then First Lord of the
Admiralty, said, "This won't do—we must get up our fleet
again," and the very self-same ships which had been com-
missioned before had to be again put into commission, at a
cost of something like £lOO,OOO. Sir J. Pakington deserved
great credit; he was obliged to get up a fleet with a great
deal of trouble and to give a bounty. We had now a fleet
respectable in every point except as regarded petty officers.
We had ten sail of the line at the present moment, which
were about making a show at Portland. But he wanted to
know what we were going to fortify against? It was impossi-
ble this country could be invaded except by France and
Russia combined, but so long as we kept up a superior fleet,
France would not have a proper force to invade this coun-
try. It might be possible to suppose that France would
make a dash at Portsmouth or any other of our harbours;
but France must have a fleet concentrated at Cherbourg or
some other point. But supposing that to be possible, had
we not better go to Portsmouth and launch 250 gunboats
and 10 blockships we had there; let them be anchored
where we were now going to erect stone batteries. That
would be only ship against ship, and France would have to
come with a fleet of gunboats and blockships, and we should
be just as well able to defend our shores by this means,
which we had already at hand, as by building stone
batteries. France had an army of 500,000 or 600,000
men. We had no such army, and probably never would,
so we must trust our defences, as we did before, to our
fleet. We had abundance of ships; why not take them
out, and then we should have our country in a perfect
state of defence. Suppose an enemy had command of
the sea, he must bring over with him a number of mor-
tars and Whitworth guns. He must not come to attack us
as we did in the Baltic, where we had no mortars. Let the
French fleet assemble at Cherbourg, with transports to
bring over troops to this country ; let us send our fleet to
attack them, and every man would tell us that with Arm-
strong and Whitworth guns we should be able to destroy
every ship in the harbour of Cherbourg. At Cronstadt
they had 2,000 guns which were protected by a want of
water, for there was not so much water in that harbour as
those large ships would draw, and with our Whitworth and
Armstrong guns we could sweep the whole harbour of
Cronstadt from one side to the other. But as to the works
we were going to execute, they were the most absurd things
that ever were known, If the French chose they could land
their troops on any part of our coast they liked ; but we
might depend upon it they would fight for London only,
and our fortifications at Portsmouth or elsewhere would be
of no use. Mr. Tierney once said in the House of Com-
mons, "With a full exchequer and a well-manned
navy, I would defy the world." (Hear, hear.) He (Sir
C. Napier) said the same. If Louis Napoleon was
serious, did they think he would wait for three years till
those fortifications were ready ? He (Sir C. Napier) did,
then, humbly beg the House of Commons and the country
to think well before they went to this absurd expense—an
expense which no one in his senses would think of incur-
ring. Ho counselled the Government to turn their attention
to the mannintr of the fleet as the best and only safe means
of putting the country in a proper state of defence. (Hear.)
Mr. S. HERBERT expressed his gratitude to his hon.
and learned friend the member for Marylebone for the
brevity ho used in introducing the question. The hon. and
learned member wished to know what sum was proposed to
be taken for land defences as contrasted with sea defences.
The works proposed to be constructed at once would cost
from first to last about 5 millions, of which sum 2f millions
would be required for land, and 2f millions for sea defences,
but at the same time it was questionable whether some of
the land defences, such as those at Dover, ought not more
properly to be included as soa defences. With regard to
the maintenance of the works, he might state that the cost
of maintaining the works at present erected amounted to
about a quarter per cent. per annum of the original outlay.
Of course the new works would involve an addition to the
standing army of the country, but the addition would not
be very considerable. With regard to the remarks of the
hon. and gallant member for Southwark, it was unneces-
sary to attempt an elaborate reply, as the assertions of the
gallant admiral were so contradictory that one entirely
answered another. The whole idea of his hon. and gallant
friend appeared to be that the fleet was never to be used as
a means of offence, but was to remain a purely defensive
force, and that the whole power of our navy was to be
wasted in defending the arsenals and dockyards. (Hear.)
As to the expense of the fortifications at Portsmouth, he
believed that £1,120,000 would be required for the coast
defences, and £BOO,OOO for those on land. The estimates of
the commission had, however, been purposely made large
to cover contingencies.
Colonel DICKSON objected to the expenditure for land
defences, on the ground that they were entirely unneces-
sary, except in case of a successful invasion, which he
thought was perfectly illusory. The subject was not one
upon which they ought to pay regard to expense, but their
object should be to place at the service of the country the
largest available army and artillery. He deprecated the
mode in which theyoyal commissioners had conducted their
inquiry, and expressed a strong opinion that too great pro-
minence had been given to the sea defences of the country.
It was ridiculous to suppose that a sum of £2,000,000
would adequately provide for the defence of the country
as suggested by the commissioners, and he was afraid that
even £20,000,000 would be short of the mark. He ap-
pealed to the noble lord at the head of the Government
not to mislead the house, and wished to know whether
any reliance was to be placed on the peaceful pro-
fessions of the Emperor of the French; and if so, why
at this particular period the defence of the country
became a question of Buell extreme urgency. The
political position of Europe was ♦ery different now from
what it was in the time of the first Napoleon. No one
master mind swayed the destinies of the continent ; but, on
the contrary, it was generally admitted that the first man
who wantonly disturbed the peace of Europe, would render
himself the common enemy of mankind. (Hear, hear.) His
own opinion was that the best way to provide for the de-
fence of the country was to increase the standing army.
As they increased in wealth, and their colonies became
more itnportant, and looking at the state of the world, it
would be necessary for them to increase their army, and
therefore it was .to be expected that their estimates would
be proportionately, increased, but the fortifications in ques-
tion ought not to make any very large addition to their
estimates. An addition of £600,000 would be sulleient to
provide for 20,000 men, but he thought 10,000 or 15,000
men additional, with a small quantity of militia regularly
trained, together with the militia reserve and the volun-
teers, would enable them to bring a large and powerful
army into the field at a moment's notice. (Hear.) The
hon. and gallant member reminded the house that an in-
vasion could not take place without some intimation of that
kind being immediately known to the Government, when
there would bo ample time for preventing it and of throw-
ing up hasty Part hworks on those points of the coast which
might be hafaded. (Hear.) Ho thought it would have been
better to have had half a dozen entrenched camps at diffe-
rent parts of the country, instead of one, as at present, at
Aldershot. (Hear.)

Lord ELCHO said he wished to tender his best thanks
to the noble lord at the head of the Government for the
course he had thought it right to pursue in reference to this
question, and he hoped the noble lord would not be induced
to relax in his purpose of putting the country in a thorough
state of defence by the carping criticisms which the measure
now before the house had undergone. (Hear.) The inhabi-
tants of this peace-loving land had for the last 12 months
been organising and drilling themselves till a volunteer
army of 138,000 men had sprung into existence. (Hear.)
That movement had met with the approval of the Queen
and of all classes of her subjects. (Hear.) The hon. and gal-
lant gentleman opposite (Col. Dickson) seemed to imply
that it was the result of a panic, but he (Lord Elcho) utterly
fepudiated any such idea.

Col. DICKSON said he wished to explain that what he
stated was not that it had arisen from a panic, but that the
feeling had grown up from the injudicious fostering by high
authorities of that idea.

Lord ELCHO continued. Ha could assure the hon. and
gallant gentleman that the volunteer movement was not
the result of a panic—(hear, hear)—but it arose from a
deep sense of shame that a country like this should be liable
to panics. (Haar, hear.) Not that there was any immi-
nent danger of an invasion by France, or Russia, or any
other continental power, but from a belief that in the event
of such being attempted this country was not in that state
of preparedness that it ought to be in. They had been liv-
ing in what he might term a "fool's paradise,' and so far
from being able to repel, the state of the country was calcu •
lated to invite, invasion. (Hear.) The volunteer movement
was, therefore, the result of a feeling that prompted many
to distrxst an alliance as a means of protection to this coun-
try, and theidetermined that England should rest in secu-
rity not on the forbearance of any foreign potentate, but on
her own inherent strength alone. (Hear.) He believed the
volunteers were determined to go on and persevere in the
movement till the country should be placed in a thorough
state of defence. (Hear; hear.) The cause which had led to
the organisation of the volunteer force and the feeling iu

reference to it, bore strongly on the question under discus-
sion, and the same feeling wMch had led the people to vo-
lunteer ought to lead the horse to support the Government,
and induce them to pursue that course which competent
authorities had decided was necessary to give this country
that feeling of security whici all so much desired. (Hear,
hear.) The objection to the measure had come from pro-
fessional and amateur professional men—the hon, and gal-
lant admiral the member for Southwark had urged the
house to decide that nothin; would be so good as an effi.
cient navy, but the hon. and gallant member opposite (Col.
Dickson) had advocated a standing army. The hon. and
learned member for Marylohme had come out in a new cha-
racter, viz., that of engineer, and had stated to the house
that these defences were unnecessary.
Mr. E. JAMES said he had done nothing of the sort.
He had only asked for information relative to these pro-
posed works, and the expense of them.
Lord ELCHO said if the hon. and learned gentleman's
motion did not imply it, there was not much point in it.
He (Lord Elcho) hoped the Government would persevere
with the measure. He believed the Emperor of the French
wished to be on good term with this country, and the
best way for him to support the letter which he had lately
written was to express his readiness to join this country in
any course that humaiity and justice might point out with
regard to Syria, and in endeavouring to build up a strong
power in Italy. (Hear, hear.) He wished to see England
so strong that she could say that no one should interfere
with Italy, and that the Italians should manage their own
affairs. (Hear, hear.) If the Emperor of the French in-
tended to pursue that course, it would be the duty of Eng-
land to join him, but they must not forget the aggressive
tendency of the French people, and they should be on their
guard. The empire that commenced with peace had been
engaged in bloody wars, and they must not forget the recent
absorption of Savoy and Nice. (Hear.) He considered the
measure before the house, if carried out, would give strength
to the country, and therefore he should cordially support it.
Capt. JERVIS wished to ask the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Marylebone what was the meaning of his resolution.
The simple question for the consideration of the house was
whether or not they would keep up with the progress of
science in reference to engineering and defence. If the hon.
and learned member wanted to know the sum total of each
work he would find it in the report, or if he wanted the sum
total of all the works he would see it in the report, which
gave fully all the details required. (Hear.)
Mr. MONSELL was surprised to hear the noble lord be-
low him spook of the former debate as one of carping criti-
cism. of the measure before the house. Every hon. member
wished to see the country placed in a proper state ofdefence,
but at the same time they wished to know whether the sys-
tem proposed had been brought forward on sufficient autho
rity or not. (Hear.) That he maintained was the real ques-
tion, and which the hence was capable of deciding. The
hon. and gallant member for Harwich on a former occasion
expressed his dissent to the fortifications at Portsmouth,
yet voted for the motion.
Captain JERVIS said he did not vote at all.
Mr. MONSELL said every military man of experience in
the house had spoken against the land defences. The hon.
and gallant member for Chathara (Sir F. Smith) had spoken
serengly against the Portsmouth defences, but he had not
the courage to support his opinions by his vote. All the dis-
tinguished, men connected with the engineers and artillery
were opposed to the proposed plan of the Government, and
that ought to have considerable weight with the Go-
vernment before they proceeded further with it. He con-
tended that there was no injustice in their ask*. the
Government to take a little more military evidence before
they proceeded to act upon the report of the commission.
Let the Government show that their proposals were really
for the defence of the country, and the house would no
doubt be ready to vote double the money that was now
asked. But the commissioners had evidently not paid that
attention to the details which artillery officers would have
done. For instance, they contented themselves with merely
giving an estimate for the 2,500 guns which they proposed
to mount, and which they thought would cost £500,000 ; but
they said nothing about ammunition ; whereas 300 rounds of
ammunition for each gun (and the proper number would be
500) would cost not less than £1,250,000. (Hear, hear.)
Great stress had been laid upon the report of the military
committee ; but he believed every one would agree that the
aggregate opinion of a number of military officers collected
together under the presidency of his Royal Highness the
Commander-in-Chief was of less value than the independent
evidence of any one of them examined separately would have
been. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the Government would not
expend any money upon the land fortifications without at
least further investigation. (Hear, hear. )
Sir DE L. EVANS should not have addressed the house
but for a remark which had fallen from his right lion. friend
who had just sat down. His right hon. friend said that
every military man in the house was opposed to the measure.
Mr. MONSELL—Every military man that had spoken.
Sir DE L. EVANS—WeII, it came to pretty much the
same thing. (A laugh.) Now as he (the gallant general)
was the humble individual who had proposed the commis-
sion, it would be extraordinary if he did not to a certain
extent support its recommendations. On the day that
the present Government came into office he went into
the War-office in Pall-mall, and stated that he had
two motions which he intended to propose. He was
told that the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State
would not return from Wiltshire till the Ist of
July. Accordingly, on that day he went again and
told the right hon. gentleman what his two motions were
—namely, a motion for the abolition of purchase in the
army (lo which he certainly looked for the right hon. gen-
tleman's support), and a motion for the appointment of a
commission to examine into the whole subject of national
defences. Tho right hon. gentleman requested him to put
both of them off until he had had an opportunity of consult-
ing his noble friend at the head of the Government. That
request was repeated several times, until at last, on the
25th, he (the gallant general) would wait no longer. The
right hon. gentleman then told him that the Government
were entirely of the same opinion as to the national de-
fences, and that they would recommend her Majesty to
appoint the commission. With regard to the appointment
of the commissioners he agreed to a certain extent with his
right hon. friend (Mr. Monsen) ; and thought that though
there were some excellent men upon it, there were others
who might have been replaced by men of more authority.
He agreed that-the artillery portion of the question seemed
to have been almost entirely forgotten, and indeed he might
remark that on many other occasions the valuable assistance
that artillery officers would be able to afford had been
overlooked. There was indeed one very clever officer on
the commission—a very able man and a great astronomer,
too, but then that gallant gentleman had never seen an
enemy. In a word he (Sir De L. Evans) could not but feel
that a great mistake had been committed in not placing
upon the commission some eminent artillerists who had had
experience of actual warfare. (Hear, hear.) Looking over
the report, however, he must say that it seemed to him
to be the product;on of men of senses and to be entitled to
the support of the house. The Secretary for War hod
stated that though the Government intended to carry out
its general features they would deviate from some of its
details, as they had done, for instance, in substituting five
towers or works for the eight proposed by the commis-
sioners to be constructed on Portsdown-hill. Under all the
circumstances of the case he (the hon. and gallant member)
should give his support to the second reading of the bill,
and he must say that he did not see any great advantage
in the house proceeding to criticise the minute details of
the scheme. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. SMITH said the hon. and learned gentleman who
had proposed the amendment had in the papers on the
table all the information for which he asked. If, however,
he had framed the resolution differently, and had proposed
to omit for the present the land fortifications, he had no
doubt that the hon. gentleman would have obtained the
support of the house. (Hear, hear.) For his own part he
could not imagine any greater absurdity than the works
on Portsdown Hill. In the event of a war,
works could be thrown up in a fortnight sufficient to de-
fend the heights against an enemy, and at a tenth of the
expense now proposed. (Hear, hear.) Let the Govern-
ment spend the money for which they had obtained the
vote of the house upon the sea fortifications, and let them,
at all events, take further evidence before they proceeded
with those on the land side of Portsmouth. Let them ask
the opinion of men like Lord Seaton—men who had com-
manded armies, and he was quite sure that they would
give up fur the present the works on Portsdown Hill. As
for the sea defences, they could not be begun too soon, or
carried on too rapidly. (Hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought the noble lord the founder of
the volunteers—(cheers)—he meant the term as a compli •
ment—(hear, hear)—had been rather unfair to his hon. and
learned friend the mover of the amendment. The report
of the commissioners was obviously imperfect, and the evi-
dence upon which the house was called upon to act was
excessively scanty. He (Mr. Osborne) had asked the noble
lord the other night why this important subject had been
only introduced at the end of the session; and the noble
lord, while he managed to choke off the question, had se-
dulously evaded any attempt to give it an answer. Why
was this scheme not brought forward till August, the
Government having had the report of the commission in
their hands since February ? Another question ho should
like to ask was, why, when this question was brought for-
ward, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer always absent?
There was his right hon. friend the member for Ashton
(Mr. M. Gibson), who in 1858 brought forward a plan for
cutting down, the estimates altogether, when this question
of national defence was brought forward always cut his
stick. (Laughter.) The noble lord opposite had tendered histhanks to the noble lord at the head of the Government tor
proposing the expenditure of these nine millions. He (Mr.
Osborne) was inclined to tender hint his thanks also, but for
a different reason, for in the present temper of the house, he
believed that if the noble lord were to propose to erect a China
-wall round London the house would agree to it. It was
easy to see how these panics were created. Cabinet
ministers got up and made speeches: calculated to create
panics. In the course of the day aps mphlet had been put
into his hands by a general officer of distinction—Sir Diu,
can Macdougal—on the French plan of invasion and the de-
fences of Great Britain, from which the house would see the
way M which panics were created. Sir D. Macdougal said,
"The revelations I am about to make will show the neces-
sity of no time being lost in calling i:ato operation the ele-
ments of our national defences. A committee of French
officers have worked out a special plan. for the attack of Lon-

don, a copy of extracts from which was placed in the hands
of one of our ministers in October." He should like to ask if
this were true, because if it were that would make a mate-
rial difference in his vote. The pamphlet went on to say
the plan was to take London in 1863, and to stop in it for
three days. But what did the gallant general say of the
plan of the commission? He said, " Instead of expending
enormous sums of money on fortifications of dockyards and
arsenals, I maintain that all that is necessary is to place
them in a state of security against a coup de main." The
Government, however, were going to build forts en Ports-
down Hill. Now, after the speech of the gallant member
opposite (Sir F. Smith), who was one of the most distin-
guished engineering officers in the country, he thought they
ought not to hear anything more about carping criticism.
But they were talking about estimates. Let the
house remember what estimates were. The estimate
for erecting that building was £750,000; it had
cost three millions. The estimate of the China war at the
beginning of this session was £850,000. It was now three
millions. Sir John Burgoyne, before the commission, gave
an opinion decidedly hostile to these land fortifications, and
every criticism that had been written by either foreign or
English generals had been given against the plan of the
commission. He thought the house ought to pause before
they involved themselves in a ruinous expenditure in land
fortifications which the evidence given before the commis-
sion told them were of no avail, and which engineering offi-
cers in the house told them were not called for ; and he did
not think the house ought to be satisfied with the Prime Mini-
ster getting up and joking away the objections. They were a
House of Commons sitting there to control the expendi-
ture. It was all very well talking about the responsibility
of Government. What would be done with the Government
if at the end of five years it was found that the money had
all been wasted ? Why just nothing at all. Engineering
officers recommended the erection of the martello towers,
and the house supported the Minister who proposed them.
Some millions were spent on them, and they were found to
be utterly useless. He had always drawn a distinction be-
tween land fortifications and fortifications of the seaboard,
and he thought the house and Government ought to pause
before they committed themselves to the expenditure of
millions of money for land fortifications.
Sir M. PETO said they had heard from no person who
was competent te give an opinion any approval of this
scheme of the Government ; and the hon. and gallant mem-
ber for Chatham, than whom no one was more capable of
giving an opinion, said that the defences at Portsdown Hill
might be constructed in fourteen days, which had always
been his (Sir M. Peto's) opinion. He thought the course
Government should have pursued in this matter should not
have been simply that of taking such a report as that of
the defence commission, but they should have had the evi-
dence of all the first men in the country, and upon that
evidence they should have presented a complete scheme
for the fortification of all the arsenals and all the other
points which demanded attention at their hands. They
should not have asked for a sum of money for defences
which were acknowledged to be incomplete. While he
had been in the house he had seen the greatest evils
produced from their voting sums of money with-
out their having proper estimates and plans. Wherever
fortifications had been attempted, nothing had been
executed worthy of the confidence of the country or of the
engineering profession. The house would readily vote
any sum that might be shown te be necessary, but there
was no reason for haste. Let the Government prepare a
matured plan before next session, and it would be cheerfully
-voted. It was agreed both by military and civil engineers
that a sufficient defence of earthworks might be constructed
in a few days. We were now spending a million and a half
in ships that were to be shot-proof. If they were found to
answer, there would be a large expenditure on that class of
ships; and this was another reason for not incurring this
large outlay on land fortifications. A sum of £155,000 was
asked for a great central arsenal. Such a sum ought not
to be voted without a proper estimate. There was no oc-
casion whatever for precipitancy. He was told that the
only thing now doing in Cherbourg dockyard was the re-
pair of Prince Napoleon's yacht ; and he believed that in
our dockyards there were three times the number of men
that were employed in all the French dockyards.
,Mr. WHITE said the impression out of doors was that
this matter had been brought forward to divert the atten-
tion of the people from the infringements of their rights in
another place, and to cloak the pusillanimous conduit of
the Government in regard to that infringement. (Hear.)
The most wasteful expenditure had been going on at Dover,
Alderney, and elsewhere, especially on the south coast. An
artillery officer expressed the opinion that £lOO,OOO had
been wasted on the Sussex coast. At Littlehampton a fort
had been built on a boggy soil. At Shoreham and New-
haven the batteries were so built that the guns would not
work; and every one knew that hey were of no use. The
Secretary for 'War had misquoted the opinion of Napoleon as
to fortifications ; what he really alluded to was field works,
in which he said there had been no improvement for 2,000
years. The measure of the strength of any fortification was
only that of its weakest part, which was sure to be found
out and assailed by an enemy. He had such confidence
in the people that ke believed no evil result would follow
from an invasion. Noble lords appeared to fear the people
more than they did French invaders. He did not believe
that our institutions would be imperilled by putting arms
in the hands of the people. They would be prepared to
defend everything that was valuable in the constitution.
Before voting this sum for fortifications, the Government
ought to have fully developed the militia force and given
greater encouragement to the volunteers. In the last war
we had as many as 470,000 volunteers. Till these mea-
sures were taken he certainly should object to the vote now
proposed. There had been a dominant party in this coun-
try known for their anti-Gallican and absolutist tendencies.
That party might again come into power, and by furnish-
ing them with these fortifications the present Government
would only give theta tke means of indulging their aggres-
sive propensities.
Lord PALMERSTON—I had hoped that after so de-
cided a manifestation of opinion on this subject as was
given on a recent occasion, we should not have been led
into a renewed discussion. 'We have heard the greatest
possible diversity of sentiment on the present occasion, and
if it be the fact that " Truth is one and error is infinite," I
might compare the settled opinions of the Government in
this matter with the diversity of the views entertained by
the various members who have addressed the house.
(Laughter.) The hon. member for Liskeard complained of
delay on this subject, and he also complained of me for
having brought the matter forward myself ; but I thought
this was an imperial and not a departmental question, and
that, as such, it was one which the head of the Government
ought to submit to the house. The member for Finsbury
took a different line, and complained of the precipitation
with which we had brought this matter forward— (laugh-
ter)—and that we had no definite plan. But so far from
having brought it forward precipitately, we did so only
after repeated examinations, and, so far from not being .a
definite plan, we have brought forward that which is a de-
finite plan—a plan of great detail. It is curious to see the
different views which the different members take in this
matter. All, however, think defences necessary. (Hear,
hear.) The member for Limerick-, although he began
by saying that we might trust the friendship of
foreign Powers, and that there was no possible
danger of a hostile attack upon this country, yet,
towards the conclusion of his observations he admitted that
some additional force was necessary, only he preferred ad-
ditional troops rather than fortifications. It is curious to
see the diferent views which members take according to
their various lines of thought. Military men would have
us to add to the regular army, forgetting that that would
be, perhaps, as expensive as these fortifications ; and it
would have to be renewed year after year. (Hear.) It
would compel us, moreover, to keep up an unnecessarily
large military establishment in the time of peace. My hon.
and learned friend the member for Southwark is for ships.
He says that, if we will give him ships enough, he will an-
chor off Portsmouth and off Plymouth, and that, whatever
may happen, our interests in these parts of the world shall
be safe. Then come the lawyers. (Laughter.) They have
been modest. (Laughter.) They have not stated their
recipe. (Hear, heals.) But I suppose they would meet
the enemy with an injunction—(laughter)—or issue against
him a writ of ye exeat regiso—that is, not go out of
his own leingdom. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now,
these may be mighty good notions ; but I think that the
majority of those who listened to the debate of the other
evening will be inclined to think that after all permanent
defences are the cheapest and the most effectual for the
purpose. We have been told that we :might as well at-
tempt to surround the island with a Chinese wall.
(Hear, hear.) But we do not pretend to fortify the whole
of the coasts of our island ; it would be absurd to think
of it; but only those vulnerable points—those dockyards
and arsenals which are the cradle of thelnaval power
of this country, and which, if destroyed, would place u
at the mercy of any power which has the means of arm
ing a feet for sea. It is said that we might defend them
against the sea, but it was not necessary to defend them
on the land side. But they must be defended at
whatever point they could be attacked upon. (Hear,
hear.) My hon. friend has told us that nothing is
stronger than its weakest part. I thank the hcri. gentle-
man for teaching me that word. (Laughter.) If you protect
them by sea, we must protect them by land also. Every-
body admits that it is impossible to prevent a landing being
effected on our shores, three or four hundred miles of our
coast being available for that purpose. One of the argu-
ments against these fortifications was their inefficiency, and
we were told that we ought to fortify London. But what
does this imply? Does it not involve the admission that a
landing is possible ? The member for Pillsbury tells us
that the requisite earthworks could be constructed in a fort-
night. But these fieldworks must have a sufficient force
behind them before they can be made available, and nothing
could prevent a large force in such a case from overpower•
ing a small fctrce. What we want, however, is works of
that permanent nature which will enable a small body of
men to hold out against a larger body of men at least for
some time. (Hear, hear.) No man who understands the
history of war, and who has a knowledge of fortifications,
will tell me that our defences, as they now exist, are cap-
able of resisting a superior force. But the great objections
which have been raised to-night to the proposal of the Go-
veanment, was to the works which it is proposed to con-
struct for the defence of Portsmouth. Well, now, I would
ask any man who understands the destructive power of
shells whether they could not be thrown from Portsdown-