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

hensive effort attempt to do that which would put them in
a state of security at once. That metion was discussed in
that house, and he was certain that if the Government had
not given it to be understood that they intended
seriously to consider this matter, that motion would
have been carried. Well, that commission had brought for-
ward a very masterly report, which declared that it was our
duty to defend ourselves by the best means which science
and art could afford us. (Hear, hear.) That report was now
before the house, and he would not, therefore, go into any
details upon it ; but if the house should be of opinion that
the whole of this supposed weakness of our dockyards and
arsenals was purely imaginary, and that fortifications was
not the way to defend them, but, on the Spartan principle,
that we should trust to flesh and blood, that house would
reject the resolution of the noble lord, and it would be for
the Government to say what they would do under the pres-
sure of a responsibility so heavy. But his belief was that
that house fully represented the feelings of the country on
this subject. (Hear, hear.) They might have discussions as
to the how and the when and the where, but ho believed it
was the unanimous opinion of the country that they ought
not to allow those great depositories of their naval strength
to lie at the mercy of any one. (blear, hear.) He had
heard it said by some we ought to increase our standing
army ; but there were 15 battalions now due to us—three
on the sea coming from India, three more promised by
India and nine in China. But with a large force of volun-
teers they must take measures to release from garrison duty
as large an amount of the regular army as they could spare
for duty in the field. His hon. friend (Mr. H. Berkeley)
quoted a gallant officer, Sir M. Berkeley, who told them not
to spend anything on fortifications. He (Mr. S. Herbert)
had been told by seamen to trust to ships, and ships alone ;
he was told by artillerymen to trust to trained gunners ; he
had been told by officers of the line to trust to the military
only—in fact it was the old story of " Nothing like leather."
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Government had appointed
a commission which surveyed the whole of the neighbour-
hood of London, and the whole coasts of England, Ireland,
and Scotland, and by means of that commission the house
had got together an enormous amount of informationwhich
in case of hostilities would be invaluable to officers in. com-
mand. (Hear.) He believed the amount of stores collected
was very great. He heard a gallant officer say that our great
fortresses had only 150 rounds of artillery ; but he (Mr. S.
Herbert) had got a return which showed that those fortresses
had got, some of them 350 rounds, and some of them as much
as 1,000 rounds, and he did not believe those fortresses were
ever better stocked than they were at present. He had
stated now to the house that he believed the country saw
the necessity and believed in the wisdom of the measure
which Government proposed. The Government had not put
themselves blindfold into the hands of engineers, or of ar-
tillery or naval officers—they had taken counsel from all as
to the best means of putting the country in a proper state
of defence. The Government did not pretend to say that
those works would prevent invasion. No works, no navy,
no army would do that. Invasion—meaning thereby the
landing of troops—would be always a possibility ; but let
them make these chief points invulnerable, and when
they had made Portsmouth and Plymouth safe, they
might concentrate their forces elsewhere. He believed
that years hence, if these works were executed, gentlemen
would be found who would say that they always predicted
nobody would ever land at these places, and woad exclaim
" See how you have wasted our money." But he (Mr. S.
Herbert) would not be disturbed by those predictions. He
should look upon an investment of money in defending those
places as the best safeguard against the landing of an enemy.
(Hear.) He hoped therefore the house would agree with
him in thinking that the Government were only asking to
hasten the completion of that system of works which the
house had already one by one sanctioned. With these opi-
nions, and with the greatest confidence as to the result, he
left the measure in the hands of the house, trusting to that
patriotism which they had always disidayed in every mat-
? ter in which the national safety and the national honour
I were involved. (Loud cheers from both sides of the house.)
Mr, BRIGHT said he had given notice of an amendment
to the resolution of the noble lord, but his hon. friend the
member for Sunderland was before him with an amendment
not exactly of the same character, but which still, if earned,
would have the same effect upon the resolution of the noble
lord. It was not therefore his (Mr. Bright's) intention to
move the amendment of which he had given notice, but lie
would take that opportunity of making some observations
upon the preseft stage at which they now found themselves.
He wished to point out to the committee that the resolution
of the noble lord, though it was of a simple character, and
merely asked the house to vote a sum of money towards
the defences of our dockyards and arsenals, and Dover and
Portland, besides a central arsenal, of nearly £2,000,000,
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) said it was
something like £5,000,000 they were going to divide upon.
Ho thought the committee would deceive themselves if
they imagined they were now discussing a question of
£2,000,000 only, or £5,000,000 only; because they knew
that the noble lord at the head of the Government had
adopted almost in their entirety the propositions contained in
the report of the Defence Commission, and he (Mr. Bright)
thought he was warranted in saying from experience that
whenever the Government undertook any great work or any
small work the estimates were never adhered to, but, on
the contrary, in some cases were doubled before the works
were completed. He had no doubt, judging from the past,
that if they voted what the noble lord asked them to do,
they would vote what would turn out to be an expenditure
of at least £20,000,000 sterling. (Tlear.) Let the com-
mittee remember that what the noble lord asked for did not
include a central arsenal at Cannock Chase at all. But
even that was not all, because there were countless
millions more involved in the report of the Defence Com-
mission, and they expressed almost an unanimous opinion
that we should have to largely increase our standing army,
and that those very works which the noble lord asked
them to vote for would be valueless unless they had some
70,000 mon to man and defend them. (Hear, hear.) Now
he thought the noble lord at the head of the Government
did the committee great injustice the other night when he
brought forward this motion skithout any notice, or without
giving an opportunity for discussing it. He (Mr. Bright)
should like to ask the gentlemen who sat on that front
bench (the Treasury bench) whether they were unanimous
as to this expenditure, and whether they came before the
house as a united Cabinet—(hear)—or whether this was a
compromise to get over a quicksand which was in their
midst. He did not believe that the Government did come
before the house with unanimity on this great question.
The late Sir R. Peel in 1851 discussed the value of military
evidence. (The hon. member here read a passage in which
Sir R. Peel warned the house against embarking in enor-
mous expense, on the authority of military officers). He
(Mr. Bright) said the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Her-
bert) admitted he had taken the advice of naval and mili-
tary officers in this matter, and he (Mr. Bright) believed if
the house adopted these resolutions they would absorb
the whole industry of the country. (Hear, hear.) He had
no doubt that many members of the house had had showers
of military opinions brought to them by every post
for some months past. He had not expected the discussion to
come on this session, or he would have made a collection of
them, and have extracted a few passages to show the house
what kind of things were recommended for their adoption.
One, and by no means an irrational man, proposed that as
we had a standing army we should have also a standing navy
—that we should have a force of 30,000 always on board the
ships, and some 30,000 always in the marine barracks—that
they should all be in a position to march on board at five
minutes' notice; and he added, that then we should have the
country admirably defended. (A laugh.) Another gentle-
man, Lieut.-Colonel Valentine Baker, of the 10th Hussars,
had published a pamphlet, in which he recommended the
establishment of a militia of 180,000 framed on the census
and chosen by ballot, and the formation of a sort of national
guard consisting of 500,000 men, who should be mustered for
one day each year. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Bright) was not one
of those who thought that, considering our means of defence.
it might not be very advantageous to have a large volunteer
force instead of an enormous standing army. Ho found that
in Switzerland and in the United States—countries one of
which was surrounded or partly encompassed by a perilous
enemy, and the other a nation which marched with a high
hand among the powers of the globe—there was no standing
army, but the whole defence was committed to a volunteer
force. if the house would only have the common sense to
get rid of the noble lord the member for the City—not as
member for the City, but as Foreign Minister—together
with the Foreign-office and its delusions, policy, supersti-
tions, and absurdities, he thought it not at all unlikely that
we might save three-fourths of all the expenditure now
involved in the maintenance of that foreign policy, and
whatever was required for the defence of a country, united
and populous like this, might be had at comparatively no
expense by the volunteer service of young men below
middle age. (Hear, hear.) But Colonel Valentino Baker
said that we must have contracts for earthworks
all round London capable of being completed in a fort-
night, and that a small annual sum should be paid to the
contractor as a compensation for his holding the contract,.
so that whenever the enemies, who had been so long ex-
pected but had never come, were fairly on their way, in a
single fortnight the contractors were to build earthwork
fortifications all round London. Colonel Baker also recom-
mended that 20,000 metropolitan police should be armed
and equipped, that there should be a volunteer force of
200,000, that there should be an entrenched camp at Alder-
shott and on Epsom Downs for 40,000 men each. Accord-
ing to Colonel Baker's scheme there would be a force of
1,072,000, the whole of which would not cost so much as the
present plan of the Government. Then, again, proposals
had been made by Colonel Jebb—a gentleman whom 20
years ago he (Mr. Bright) considered a very sensible man.
(Laughter.) Colonel Jebb had published a pamphlet from
which it appeared that he was in a state of great alarm
as to the necessity of defending London. He proposed
to begin at Tunbridge-Wells, to go on to Reigate,
Guildford, Reading, and Henley, and probably he also
included Colchester in his line of defence. Yet the gallant
officer quoted with apparent approbation an expression of
Gen. Lewis, "It may be considered an axiom that no land-
ing could successfully be effected in the presence of 2,000
men well prepared." If he (Mr. Bright) had said anything
of that kind he would have been treated as a person utterly
ignorant and foolish in the matter. Surely, with railways
all around the coast and telegraphs as frequent as railways
it would not be difficult at any time to assemble 2,000 men
at any given point. Next came Lieut. Gen. Mackintosh,
who referred to a pamphlet recently published iu Paris, ala