The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-30 00:00:00

But I do not thine he caught up the spirit and scope of the
motion of my right hon. friend (Mr. Horsman), 'nor did I
understand him to give the house any information as to
the policy of the Government on this question for the
following year. (Hear, hear.) I am sorry that the Sec-
retary for War did not state more distinctly than he did
how far he concurred In the scope and spirit of the right
hon. gentleman's proposal—viz., that a large sum should be
devoted to the speedy construction of our fortifications, and
that we should not go on year after year, spending driblets
of money, and taking as long as 20 years to complete the
most important of them. (Hear, hear.) I should like to
hear the Government tell us whether they think the spirit
of my right hon. friend's motion is wise and prudent or
not. (Hear, hear.) I confess that. I agree with him in
thinking that it is not prudent to go on spending our money
in driblets for these important objects, and that the sooner
the great objects we have in view are accomplished the
better. (Hear, hear.) I would in some degree apply the
same prinoioe to the improvement and strengthening of
our navy, Before Parliament meets again after the proro-
gation, the Government will have to prepare their estimates
for the coming year, and I must be allowed to exprees my
anxious hope that on this subject of strengthening the navy
they will not be content to rest where we are. (Hear.)
The hon. ceember far Rochdale is mistaken if he thinks
the navy of England is now what it ought to be. (Hear,
hear.) When I brought forward the navy estimates for
this year, though I made large
.proposals to the house, I
distinctly stated that in the opinion of the late Government
those proposals ware not sufficient ; that they should be
extended over at least another year. The opinion of the late
Government was, that to place the navy of England in the
state in which it ought to be would require an expenditure
of from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000. (Hear hear.) The pro-
posal which I made on behalf of the Government was, that
for the current year there should be an extra expenditure
for ship building of £1,300,000. I afterwards brought for-
ward a supplementary estimate, which had been proposed
by the present Government, of £400,000 more for the con-
struction of sloops and other small vessels—so that the ex-
tra expenditure for shipbuilding purposes I proposed for
the present year amounted to from £1,700,000 to £1,800,000.
(Hear, hear.) No doubt that will effect a great deal, but
I believe that in the following year the present Government
ought to propose extra estimates of not less than another
million. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET would not have troubled the house if it
had not been for the topics touched upon by the hon. mem-
ber for Rochdale. He (Lord C. Paget) thought he had
better show the house what the French had in line-of-
battle shipa. They had in commission 20 line-of.bable
ships), and they had in reserve 12 line-of-battle ships which
might be put' to sea in a few days. From the last infor-
mation received from Brest, it appeared that there were no
less than 3,000 sailors in barracks inside the main fort at
Brest, Those ships, therefore, though not in commission,
were perfectly ready for war if required. The French,
therefore, had 32 line-of-battle ships. We had 26 sail of
the line in commission and nine blockships, so that we were
nearly equal. But, in addition to the French fleet, there
was Russia, which was also making great progress. Russia
had now 8 screw line-of-battle ships, 6 frigates, 4 paddle-
frigates, 9 corvettes, 75 gunboats, 1 transport, and 18 small
steamers. That was a very respectable force, and therefore,
without agreeing to the proposition of adding a million or
two to our estimates every year, or, on the other hand,-to
that of the hon. member for Rochdale—of cutting our navy
estimates down to £5,000,000, we might safely follow an
intermediate course.

Mr. BENTINCK observed that the real difficulty under
which we laboured was the manning of our ships, and not
so much the number of the ships themselves. That was
the great point to which attention should be directed, for,
without success in that, all our vast naval expenditure was
useless. His anticipations as to the result of his question
had been fully realised, for he had elicited very little infor-
mation, and he hoped the house would support the motion
of the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud. It was
nothing short of national insanity to leave our navy in an
ineffective state ; and he hoped no opportunity would be
lost of urging a vigorous policy upon the Government,
without which we may one day have to witness the tread
of a hostile force upon our shores. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the only policy for Eng-
land to follow was to be prepared for attack, for, without
attributing any ill-faith to the Emperor of the French, it
was impossible to feel secure against a nation so fond of
military glory, and in which changes were so frequently
occurring.

Lord H. VANE] hoped that his right hon. friend the
member for Stroud would not go to a division, for he had
elicited an opinion on the part of the house in accordance
with his views. tie thought it would not be necessary to
show distrust of France, but it was evidently necessary that
we should place our country in an efficient state of defence,
and that without regard to the armaments of France.

Lord PALMERSTON—I imagine that my right hon.
friend must have accomplished in the course of this debate
the purpose which he had, which I suppose to have been a
desire to impress on the house by his own remarks the great
necessity of speed in completing those fortifications which are
essential for the safety and defence of our naval establish-
ments, our:dockyards ; and also to impress on the house the
fact that the measures requisite for the permanent defence
of the country, whether connected with our naval er mili-
tary establishments, are measures which indicate no desire
on the part of the country for war, and measures which can
give no umbrage to any foreign power whatever—measures
which indioate no jealousy of any particular power, but are
founded on the common sense principle that a nation which
is desirous of peace must be able to show the world that it
is able to defend itself against any attack. (Hear, hear.)
Well, I think the unanimity that has been expressed from
every part of the house must be exceedingly gratifying and
satisfactory to my right hon. friend, and I hope that, con-
sidering the particular nature of his motion, and con-
sidering also the particular working of it, that he will be
satisfied with the result which he has now obtained, and
will not press his motion to a division, which would
imply, perhaps, differences of opinion which do not exist
as to the matter of the motion. The motion goes to ex-
press an opinion of the house that some fund should
be provided for the completion of their fortified places,
and that that fund should be independent of any vote
of Parliament. Now it would not, I think, be very expe-
dient for the house to affirm in the abstract that some fund
should be provided unless they point out in what way the
fund is to be raised. It would be a more fitting and more
usual course to wait until the occasion arose when some,
specific proposal was suggested for the consideration of the
house, and whatever arrangements might be deemed fitting
I think the house would, be of opinion that this expendi
ture, in whatever manner it might be provided, should not
be wholly withdrawn from the annual. and periodical super-
vision of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) In the course of the
debate two great branches of our defensive system havebeen
adverted to, to which my right hon. friend has more pointedly
directed the attention of the house. The first is the comple-
tion of those works which are for the permanent defence of
our naval establishments. There cannot be two opinions on
that point. (Hear.) It is quite obvious that our maritime
power depends on these great dockyards, which are the cra-
dles of our naval power, remaining safe from all attack, and
there are certain fortifications which are necessary. My hon.
and gallant friend the member for Southwark seemed to think
thae it was wholly unnecessary to defend either Ports-
mouth or Plymouth, that it was sufficient to secure them
from an irruption of ships from the sea, and that land de-
fences were totally unnecessary. My hon. and gallant
friend, according to the old theory, thinks there is nothing
like leather. (A laugh.) He thinks that everything turns
upon naval attack and naval defence. But those who had
considered the matter without suchprofessional views, must
see it is necessary to provide against land attacks, that a com-
paratively small force might land in the neighbourhood, and
might by shelling, or by rapid assault, deprive us of the
elements of our naval power. Now, it is quite clear that it is
an object of the very first importance to complete these de-
fences. My noble friend :the Secretary for the Admiralty
has told the house that soon after our taking office it was
resolved that a commission should be appointed to consider
what were the works requisite to make those defences
efficient. That commission will proceed with its examina-
tion, and I have no doubt that these works will not be very
long in being completed. When we know what are the
works which are necessary and best calculated for the defence
of these various establishments, the expenditure that will be
required for completing them, and what is the shortest period
within which, if ample funds were provided, the work might
be completed, we shall then be in a condition to make parlia-.
went such proposals as we consider are best adapted to the
security of the country. I should hope that my right hon.
friend will be disposed to leave to the Government any pro-
posal which they may think fit to submit to the considera-
tion of the house. I entirely differ from what fell from my
hon. and gallant friend the member for Southwark, who said
the safety of this country depended entirely on our naval
defences. I estimate as highly as any man can do the great
importance of our naval defences. It is manifest, looking
at our insular position, looking at our various colonies and
foreign possessions which we have to defend—looking at,.
the vast amount of commercial property which we have'
continually floating on the ocean—it is plain that we must
have a large naval force, and that without it possibly great
injury might be sustained. But I protest against the doc-
trine that if by any accident we sustained a naval reverse
—that if by any accident the fleets of any other nation had
for a time the command of the Channel, by which they were
enabled to land troops in this country, I protest against the
doctrine that this country would then be lost. (Cheers.) I
admit it is necessary to provide the best and most complete
naval defence the science and resources of the country can
supply ; but I feel satisfied that, if by any accident a landing
should be effected on our coasts by a hostile force, there are
on land in this country ample means of repelling the inva-
sion and causing the invaders to rue the hour they sent the
force. Sir, the works we propose are not intended, as some
gentlemen suppose, to prevent any landing on the coast ;
no man would dream of fortifying our coasts so as to
prevent the possibility of an enemy's force making a de-
scent. We know from what we ourselves have accom-
plished, at Alexandria and elsewhere, that a determined
force will always effect a landing in spite of any opposition.
The works, sir, which we propose and which form the sub-
ject of this discussion, are simply for the defence of particu-
lar points and particular dockyards, and for their defence in
case of the descent of a military force we will have at our
command the regiments of the line, the militia regiments, and
the population of the country ; because, although I think
the rifle corps fever in some parts of the country was a sort
of epidemic not likely at the present moment to lead to any
particular result, yet, when we look to what occurred in the
great war, when hundreds and thousands of men were ready
in arms to defend their country, when the population was
much less, we must feel that, if the country was again in
peril of invasion, hundreds of thousands of men would enrol
themselves in her defence; and if by possibility any enemy's
force landed, it would find itself far inferior to the force
which attacked it, and must meet a reverse. But however
earnest we are to afford the country the best possible naval
defences, and however essential it may be for the country
to have an adequate naval defence, I hope neither the house
nor the country will be led away by the notion put forward
by my hon. and gallant friend the member for Southwark,
that the country depends solely and entirely on her naval
resources, and if that defence was forced or eluded, we
should have nothing to do but go like lambs to the butcher.
I should hope my right hon. friend will be satisfied with the
result—he has obtained a very useful result—he has elicited
the general determination of the house to support the Go-
vernment, whatever it may be, in all measures necessary
r the de fence of the count. When the roer time ar-
rives, and when the Secretaryry for War has received the re-
port of the commission as to the works necessary for the
protection of the dockyards, what the cost will be and what
the shortest time in which they Dail be completed, then it
will be the duty of the Government to consider what pro-
posal to make to find the money, and then I will call on my
right hon. friend& and I am quite sure we shall have his