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

were certainly better authorities than the hon. member for thought the house had been entrapped into a false position
Birmingham. What had taken place before.the invasion by the course pursued, and into money votes which they
of Lombardy ? Up to the middle of April France declared otherwise would not have granted. He was also surprised
that she had not begun to arm, that the army was on a that the noble lord should have asked for only two millions.
peace footing; and before the end of the month 15,000 men If the danger were as great as the noble lord had stated it
were on the march towards Italy. ' Why should they be- to be in his speech, why did he not ask for the whole
Hove the Emperor's letter now, any more than his declare- money at once ? If there were any real necessity for the
tions of last year ? Shortly after his celebrated declaration works, which ho did not admit, they ought to be erected at
at: Bordeaux, " L'Empire c'est la paix," the Emperor of once. But the noble lord had acted most inconsistently in
France had taken up the question of the holy places, and this matter—he had, on the one hand, negotiated a treaty
had gone to war with Russia. There was nothing torender of commerce, and now he asked for nine millions to shut
an invasion impossible. Suppose that it took place, and out our customers. He denied that there was any ground
that we were compelled to accept a dishonourable treaty, or for these fortifications in consequence of the armed prepa-
that the French were beaten back, how would the noble rations in France. The army there had been reduced since
lord meet Parliament after that if proper precautions had the last war in Italy, and as to the navy, it was not greater
not been taken? The hon. member for Birmingham had than was required by the position of the country. But the
rested his whale argument on the question of expenditure, Secretary for War said that we ought to have these arma-
and the effect upon commerce ; but there were more impor- meets and defences because we must keep up our influence
tart questions than the pecuniary one. We had a church as a great Power. Well, but that was the very thing which
to protect, a state to protect, and had our liberties to pro- was objected to, as in France, where the enormous increase
tect—objects of far more importance than those to which in both their army and navy within the last three years has
the hon. member and his friends regarded as those alone been held as a proof of danger to Europe. He felt, however,
worth caring for. some difficulty in voting on this matter, because he did not
Mr. WHITE admitted the necessity of preserving our quite agree with the motion of the hon. member for Sun-
dockyards and arsenals from sudden attacks, but suggested, derland ; nor did he concur in the opinions, though he re-
before they committed themselves to this vast expense, spected those of the hon. member for Birmingham. He
they ought to have a preliminary inquiry as to what pro- had no objections to defences for our dockyards. He did
portion of the national property deposited in those ar- object to removing our great arsenal to Cannock Chase, be-
senals and dockyards ought to be kept near the coasts. cause he thought better and more easily defensible positions
Those large public establishments had now become but could be found on the Mersey. He objected also to all these
little better than patronage preserves ; and he believed land defences—great fortresses, which would become in the
that for every pound expended upon them the course of time practically useless. The fortifications of
country did net get fifteen shillings in value. Paris, the works at Cherbourg, the inlandfortresses in dif-
He believed that the gunboats and other vessels of war ferent countries that had been referred to as an example to
might be built better and cheaper in private yards, and if follow, ought rather to warn us to avoid committing the same
they were built at the private establishments of the Hum- error. With respect to the composition of the Defence
ber, the Clyde, the Thames, and other rivers far removed Committee, he said that, with the exception of one member,
from the seaboard, they would be free from all risk of end- there was not one engineer officer of any eminence in the ser-
den attacks. He was inclined to think that it would not be vice on that committee. Why was not Sir J. Burgoyne on
an unmitigated evil if we had an invasion, for it would unite the committee ? He was the engineer in the Crimean war,
all classes together in a spirit of union and harmony in a and pointed out the only weak spot of the defences at Sebas-
manner we had never yet witnessed, and would afford the topol.. Why were no artillery officers examined ? Why
working classes an opportunity of exhibiting that true con- was Sir Howard Douglas, the greatest artillerist in the
rage, that loyalty to the throne, and that love of country world, not examined ? The only witness examined as to the
with which he knew they were animated, and which once range of the new ordnance was Sir W. Armstrong, and he
displayed, it would be impossible for any Government to was bound to say there were great doubts in the minds of
deny them the suffrage they had so long demanded in vain. artillery officers as to the range and power of those guns.
He might say he had just come from taking a bath of liberty He could not imagine anything more absurd than for a com-
et Brighton—(a laugh)—where he saw with great gratifi- mittee of seven military men calling Lord Overstone to give
cation that while at one time you might have brought down evidence as to what would be the effect on the money mar-
a cheer from the working classes by speaking against the ket if the French army was in London. (Laughter.) But
House of Lords, such a sentiment would now be received he objected to the report of this commission, first, because
with contempt, while expressions of loyalty and attachment its recommendations were fragmentary and incomplete ; and
to the Queen and the institutions of the country invariably second, because the calculations as to the cost of the works
commanded the warmest approbation. He mentioned this were so loose and so vague that no reliance whatever
as a symptom of the times. A considerable change appeared could be placed upon them. An eminent engineering
to have come over the noble lord's opinion of late in regard officer had lately addressed a letter to the Secretary for War
to the Emperor of the French, but really he (Mr. White) on the subject which well deserved most careful attention.
could see nothing extraordinary in the efforts his Imperial That officer saw that this country did not want fortifica-
Majesty was making to place his navy on a more efficient tions. What they wanted was brain and muscle, and he
footing. What was the history of that navy? Every- believed so too. The hon. member for Birmingham re-
body knew that ever since the drawn battle off Cape Ushant ferred to Captain Brialmont's work, but he did not dwell
—7O years ago—it had been a history of disaster. Was it sufficiently upon it. That gallant captain went at great
not natural, then, that an Emperor who cared for the honour length into the report of the commissioners, and objected to
of his country should, uuder such circumstances, endea- it on many grounds, observing that the fortifications could
, your, to 'use a French phrase, to rehabilitate his navy ? not be manned without a conscription. If they were afraid
Lord Dundonald in his book showed what was the state of of an invasion, why let them take Captain Brialmont's
the French navy during the late war, when he stated that plan instead of the plan of fortification proposed by the
he was able to anchor within half a mile of Marseilles, and commissioners, and which would cost not nine millions,
land upon the coast when he pleased in order to supply but nineteen millions. The commissioners recommended
himself with water and provisions. Not only was it natural fortifications at Portsdown-hill. Sir John Burgoyne, in
but the duty of the Sovereign of France to:take means, if his examination before the commissioners said he would not
possible, to avoid such an indignity in the event of another recommend the fortifying of Portsdown-hill at present, for
war. But then, said the noble lord, the Emperor of the it would take an army to support it. The hon. gentleman
' French knows very well that we are not going to war with then objected to the dockyard at Sheerness, which he said
him. But it was net very long ago, viz., when Lord Malmes- was originally a job. Sheerness was known to be at the
bury was at the head of the Foreign-office, that the Emperor wrong side of the river, and yet for the improvement of
of the French had every reason to believe that England was Sheerness they proposed £lOO,OOO. (Mr. Herbert said the
about to go to war with him, and it was his (Mr. White's) money was to be expended in defending the mouth of the
conviction that had Ldrd Derby's Government remained in River Medway.) He contended that the number of men to
power three weeks longer we should have been involved in a man the fortifications would not be 68,000 or 70,000, as
war with France. He reminded the house that in the last proposed. It would be necessary to have at least 100,000
great war the fortifications of Coblentz and Rastadt did not men, and to fire the Armstrong gun they would require
prevent France conquering Germany, nor did the fortifica- trained gunners. The hon. gentleman again quoted the
tions of Posen and Konigsberg prevent the conquest of work of Captain Brialmont and Sir John Burgoyne against
Prussia after the battle of Jena. In fact, all experience fortifications, on the grcund that they would not have
proved that the best reliance in case of invasion was on the sufficient men to man the fortifications continually. He
' public spirit of the country, and not on armed works. It should have been glad if the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S.
was well known that after the affair at Leipsic the First Herbert) had laid before them a plan by which railways
Napoleon was compelled to have large garrisons looked up could be made available in the case of an invasion. The
at Dantzig, Konigsberg, and the other fortresses, but had hon. gentleman then quoted the opinions of Admiral Dun-
those troops been upon the soil of France to strengthen his das, Sir Baldwin Walker, and other naval officers, given
armies his fate might have been different.. He entirely ap- before the commission, who all said that the defences of
proved of the volunteer movement, and was a volunteer the coast ought to rest upon gunboats, and such like
himself. (Hear.) All experience showed that where a pro- measures, and not be assigned to fortifications. The
per feeling animated the people they were not mean anta- Duke of Wellington did not, in his famous letter, ask
gonists in case of invasion, although they were not enrolled for fortifications to defend this country. He asked
in the regular army. Let them remember what had been for 100,000' militia men and an increase of 4,000 to
done by volunteers in Switzerland and in America, and the regular army. (Hear, hear.) But the increase of our
doubt not that a people never was so strong as when fight- military power now was far greater than it was when the
ing for their homes and their institutions. The large sums Duke of Wellington wrote his letters in 1847, and the army
that had been expended in building forts on the south coast and navy estimates in that year were only £11,230,000, but
were regarded by the people of that district as so much now they exceed £24,000,000. (Hear, hear.) This being so,
money wasted, and he believed the present proposal was an he must declare that he had no confidence in the ratu--4-
vmn-In tiro 15 en. o but on a 'nue''l laigut cfc m.. which ite vw.kmloo9o and in-
(Hear, hear.) conclusive, and that it did not warrant the expenditure pro-
Sir C. NAPIER said, when he entered Parliament in 1841 posed by the Government on account of these fortifications.
he had but just returned from the Mediterranean, where he He must observe that he was sorry to hear the speech of
had an opportunityof seeing a very fine French fleet. That the noble lord at the head of the Government on this sub-
fleet presented a wonderful change to what he had been ject. He looked upon the letter of the Emperor of the
accustomed to witness of the state of the French navy. French to be an answer to that speech. (Oh; oh, from the
The ships were well manned and well officered, and in Conservatives.) He knew it was the fashion in that house
every respect efficient. He could not help contrasting with to look with suspicion on all the actions of the Emperor of
that fleet the British fleet in which he was serving, and the French. But for this, amongst ether reasons, he must
he found it inferior in numbers, inferior in size, and infe- say that the Emperor of the French did not want to quarrel
rior in manning ; and he felt that should the two come into
with England—namely, that it was not his interest to do so.
collision, we should not be so certain as we had been in (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Well, what had France done
times past of maintaining our superiority. He pointed of late ? Why, she inaugurated the present movement in
this out to the Admiralty when he came home. The gal- Italy, which Italians and philanthropists so much desired.
lent admiral complained of the reduction of the fleet in the (Hear, hear.) He contended teat they were not justified
Mediterranean, and asserted that our naval force within in thus throwing suspicions on all the acts and expressions
the last twenty years had frequently been in such a state of the French Emperor. What did France do even in our
that it would have been unable to resist a well-organised case ? Why, when the Indian mutiny was at its highest
attack from the fleet of France. An impression prevailed point, France, instead of glorifying in our difficulties,
abroad that the introduction of steam into the navy ren- offered to assist us by sending men through her own pon-
dered a blockade impossible, but his own opinion was that sessions, the more effectually to put down the mutiny.
it rendered it far more perfect, and that there had never (Hear, hear.) We also fought together in the Crimea,
been such a thing as an effective blockade until the pre- and he would say thatethe proposed construction of fortifi-
sent moment. With the fine ships we new possessed it cations was in the teeth of the treaty which we had entered
would be very easy to blockade the ports of France and into with France. He concluded by observing that it was
prevent an invasion ; and under such circumstances he not advisable to go into any great expenditure on the authoe
was at a loss to imagine why Parliament should for a mo- rity of a report disputed by such high authorities.
ment entertain a proposal for expending such enormous - Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that Sir Howard Douglas
sums upon fortifications. (Hear.) It was perfectly right was the first officer he asked to sit on this Commission—
to fortify our sea ports gradually, but to depend upon any —(hear, hear)—but he declined, on the ground that his great
fortifications that could be erected for our security from age prevented his visiting the various localities. But he
invasion was simply absurd. The experience of the Govern- promised to examine carefully and to report freely upon
ment in the erection of fortifications was not of so satisfac- every portion of the report, and he had done so. (Hear,
tory a character as to justify a further experiment. At hear.) He had examined the report and evidence with far
Portsmouth they erected forts to defend the port, and they greater attention than his noble friend had done--(hear,
were then obliged to fortify Portsdown-hill in order to de • hear, and laughter)—and the Government had been guided
fend the forts. (Hear.) Then again with regard to Dover. very much by the advice which he had given.
The fort fications of Dover was a whim of the Duke of Mr. B. OSBORNE—Where is it ?
Wellingtcn, and every man of common sense would say Mr. S. HERBERT—I presume the hon. gentleman does
that the money which had been expended was entirely not dispute the fact of its haying been given. (Hear, and
thrown away. No one would deny that the late Napoleon cheers.)
contemplated the invasion of this country. He assembled Mr. B. OSBORNE—We ought to have it.
at Boulogne about 3,000 vessels of various descriptions Mr. S. HERBERT said it was by the advice of Sir H.
and between 200,000 and 300,000 men, and all he wanted to Douglas that the Government had turned its attention to
render his scheme successful was forty-eight hours' the sea defences particularly, and diminished the extent of
command of the Channel. That command he never ob- the land defences. As to Sir J. Burgoyne not being placed
tamed, and so long as our fleet was maintained in a on the commission, he was the official adviser of the Go-
proper state of efficiency it never would be obtained. vernment—(hear, hear)—and had they selected him it
Without a naval force to protect them such fortifi- would have been said that he was one of their own men.
cations as those which the noble lord at the head of (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) preferred having Sir J.
the Government proposed would be wholly useless; for Burgoyne's unbiassed opinion as to what to accept and
stronger works were erected by Russia at Sweaborg, and what to reject, without putting him on the commission. It
yet they were inadequate to resist a naval attack, being was said that so long as our gunboats were kept efficient at
utterly destroyed without the loss of a man on the part of Portsmouth, that was our best defence ; but we wanted our
the attaching fleet. If our ships were properly manned all gunboats somewhere else than at Portsmouth. (Hear.)
the talk about fortifications might be set aside. What was Mr. B. OSBORNE—Where would you put them?
wanted was not fortifications, but such an increase in the (Order, order.)
numbers of our ships of war as would enable us to retain Mr. S. HERBERT—,The use of a navy is not to stay at
our position as mistress of the seas. home. Your navy may not always be master of the Chan-
Mr. CORRY said it was his lot to be a member of a nel. We have an enormous colonial empire, and our fleet
committee appointed by Lord Derby to inquire into the re- must be scattered everywhere.
lative cost and expenditure of the navies of England and Mr. B. OSBORNE said the right hon. gentleman had
France from 1852 down to 1858, whenthey discovered that, still one of his own men on the commission, namely, Col.
while the French navy cost £19,800,000, the expenditure Lefroy.
in building ships was £21,600,000; and although the navy Mr. HORSMAN said the first question we had to ask
of England in the fame period cost £60,500,000, the expen- was, whether this country was in a state of security or not ?
diture was only £59,000,000. Then as to the dockyards, and if not, the expenditure was but a mere secondary consi-
the cost of England, in her dockyards, for the same period deration. (Hear, hear.) As to the absence of Sir J. Burgoyne
of five years was £16,060,000, while her expenditure was from the commission, it was agreed that there should be, as
£17,500,000; and that of France £7,600,000, although the far as possible, an elimination of the official element; and
expenditure for new improvements and alterations was that the Government should certainly take action on the re-
£13,200,000. The hon. gentleman the member for Bir - port which it made. He believed his right hon. friend (err.
mingham said they were the cause of the arming going on S. Herbert) had faithfully fulfilled the promises which he
all over Europe, and that the right hon. gentleman the had made. (Hear.) A commission was never more care_
member for Droitwich was guilty of a criminal act in aug- fully selected, and never reflected more honour on those
menting the navy last year. For his part he believed he who had made the appointments, and no inquiry had been
did great service in so doing, and that the navy ought to more honestly carried out. But the recommendations were
be still more augmented. The noble lord the Secretary for limited to an inquiry in our arsenals and dockyards. The
the Admiralty, in bringing :forward the naval estimates, noble lord came down to the house :with the
greatest so-
said that England ought to have three ships where France 'enmity and made his question of fortifications an imperial
had two, but looking at her colonies he thought it should question. lie showed the inadequacy of our defences, the
at least be four-fifths. France had scarcely any colonies perils arising from a hostile invasion, and a march on Len-
except Algiers, which was on the shores of a narrow sea, don; and he male.a speech, one of the most serious and
and opposite Toulon, while their, colonies were scattered all alarming nature which ever in a time of peace was de-
over the world. With respect to the plan of fortifications, livered by the first minister of the Crown. The noble lord's
he entirely approved of the recommendation to fortify our speech new had been contrasted with the speech of last
dockyards and arsenals, and he should therefore give his year, and he (Mr. Horsman) was glad to mark the favour-
vote for the resolution, able aspects of that contrast—(hear)—fer the noble lord
Mr. B. OSBORNE regretted that the house seemed to now used the language of truth and justice, whereas he had
have prejudged this question, and to, vote for the resolutions formerly used the language merely of conventional compli •
without considering the various questions connected with ment. With the public feeling of the population in favour
it. But he would ask, if it was necessary to carry out the . of those defences, the population was nevertheless said to
recommendations of the commission, why had it been left be struck with insanity. Now, upon military matters he
over till the fag eud of the session ? What was the reason ? was disposed to defer to the opinions of military men ; on
In February last two millions of terminable annuities fell naval matters to the opinions of naval men, and on politics
into the Government, but instead of applying these two to those of experienced and wise politicians ; but he must
millions to the defence of the country the Chancellor of the say that there was nothing of which some people seemed to
Exchequer proposed to apply them to the repeal of the paper think so lightly, as the possibility of invasion ; and there
duty. Why did ho deal with the matter in that way ? Did were some gentlemen near him who affected to treat with
the right hon. gentleman know that such an expenditure indifference the warning of the noble lord, and that they
would be required ? The report of the commissioners was were in the neighbourhood of a powerful and ambitious
dated Feb. 7, and the budget was brought in on the 10th. neighbour. (Hear.) He (Mr. Horatian) felt that if Eng-
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman must therefore 'land were invaded and overrun, there would bo no security
have been aware of the necessity for the money, and for the rights, the liberties, and the independence of any

- -••
other country. (Hear, hear.) Her commerce and her
civilisation were carried to every part of the world, and if
she were 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 blessed with free institutions ,looked to England as
their great anchor of hope, and he felt that those interests
would be best secured by the maintenance of England as a
great naval, commercial, trading, and civilised power.
(Hear, hear.)

Sir F. SMITH agreed with the report of the commis-
sioners, so far as fortifying the seaboard, but he differed
from them on many other points. He wished to know in
what manner the five millions, about to be voted, were to
be expended.

Mr. S. HERBERT sail the five millions were intended
for the works now in progress; and, if any more were
wanted next year, it would come before Parliament.
Sir F. SMITH continued—He also desired to be in-
formed whether they were to carry out all the recommenda-
tions of the commissioners.

Mr. S. HERBERT replied that only a portion of them ,
would be carried out, of which a return was laid on the cable.
Sir F. SMITH resumed—He was glad of that, and that
answer disarmed many of his objections to the report. In
addition to their fortifications they must have 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 ho 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 ono 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. hear.) 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 was 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
adopted than he endeavoured to show that the plan we have
adopted was one undeserving the attention of the house. The
hon. member enumerated a great number of the schemes,
which he pronounced absurb and totally unfit for adoption.
I perfectly agree with him in his criticism, but it so happens
that the plans to which he has referred have nothing to do
with the proposal of the Government. The hon. member
denounces as insane all those who differ from him in opi-
nion, and iu 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 be 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 oeliwve mat it muse rortitications had existea
in 1814 or 1815 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 he had 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 a National
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 shoulder, looking very much
like Robinson Crusoe. (Laughter.) He stopped my military
friend, and said, " You are a military man—tell me how you
would take a fortress." My friend began to explain how to
make breaches and zigzags, and so on, when the 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 he 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 •f
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 means 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 one 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 are 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 dony 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
and
proposed, and therefore totally unconnected with it;
although we trust that the treaty may lead to a continuance
that
forms more friendly relations between the two countries,
forms no ground, in our opinion, for abandoning plans:Whie h
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 veto of the hon. member for Binning_
ham, for if anything would be more than another likely to
endanger the continuance of peace, it would bo that a
country wealthy like England should remain exposrAl to the
risk of attack or assault without having any tne?us 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 mph) have displayed.