Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

at a dinner party or a club, but it was unworthy of a sensible man in that House. Nothing was more easy than an invasion, unless there was on the spot a large fleet, or an army as strong as the invading force, and this we could not be sure of. It would be worth while for an enemy to sacrifice a great number of men for the destruction of our dockyards.

Mr. Cobden, after referring to a former debate, in which he said he had been flatly contradicted by Lord Palmerston in a matter of fact, observed, with regard to these fortifications, that all of them were simply the work of that noble lord. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had ostentatiously abstained from giving his support to the scheme; he was not present at this discussion. Yet Lord Palmerston knew no more about fortifications than he (Mr. Cobden) did; he took up opinions at secondhand. Mr. Osborne had quoted authorities, the opinions of naval and military men; who were to be believed? These authorities or Lord Palmerston? There were two questions in this case; the fortifications, under certain circumstances, might be very desirable, but the expense might not be very desirable, and engineers honestly confessed that they did not consider the question of expense, which was not their business. Why, then, should the public money be wasted by millions when there was at least a discordance between authorities?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the observation of Mr. Cobden, that he had, in a marked manner, shown disapprobation of these fortifications by absenting himself from the House during the discussion, said

it was not competent to any member of the Government, when he had given his consent to a measure, to exempt himself from responsibility by absenting himself from the House. He had been committed to this plan as a member of the Government; his absence from the House had been accidental, and in no degree owing to the motive suggested.

After some further debate, Mr. Osborne's amendment was negatived on a division by 110 to 62.

Sir S. Northcote moved to insert in the Bill the following proviso:—“That it shall not be lawful to apply any of such sums to any work not specifically named in the schedule, nor to apply to any work any greater sum than is set down as the total estimated cost, nor to make any contract involving the expenditure in any district of a greater sum than is set down to be expended on the works in that district within the period ending on the 1st of August, 1863, unless such contract has been previously approved by a resolution of the House in Committee of Supply." He explained what he considered would be the effect of this proviso, and his object in proposing it, which was to endeavour to keep this scheme under the control of the House. He objected strongly to the raising of money for such purposes by Bill and annuities, instead of by a vote upon Estimate in a Committee of Supply.

Sir G. Lewis, premising that the Government had no wish to withdraw the scheme from the control of the House, said he was prepared to assent to the earlier portion of the proviso, but there would be difficulties in adopting that portion relating to contracts.

The proviso, as amended by Sir G. Lewis's suggestion, was agreed

to.

Mr. Bentinck moved that the proposed works in Plymouth Sound should be postponed, until a decision had been come to by the Government, respecting the forts at Spithead. This motion, being resisted by the Government, was rejected by 149 to 89.

Mr. Monsell contended that the forts on Portsdown-hill, were useless, and a waste of public money, inasmuch as it had been stated that an enemy could, without being touched by the forts, approach near enough to Portsmouth harbour to bombard the dockyards, and he moved to reduce the vote for those forts from 110,000l. to 40,0007.

The amendment was supported by Sir F. Smith.

Sir G. Lewis, in replying to Mr. Monsell, observed that, assuming that Portsmouth would be attacked only by sea, the forts would be superfluous; but the question was whether Portsmouth was not liable to an attack by land, and it was to defend it from a land attack that the forts were intended.

Upon a division the amendment was rejected by 132 to 50.

After the rejection of some other amendments, the Bill passed through the House of Commons, but with an emphatic protest by Mr. B. Osborne, against the lavish expenditure of public money upon the fortifications.

The second reading of this important measure was moved in the House of Lords on the 25th July, by Lord de Grey and Ripon, who, in a short speech, explained that the object was to raise

1,200,000l. to carry out a portion of the scheme of National Defences which had been sanctioned by Parliament in 1860.

A debate of considerable interest took place on the proposition of the Government.

The Earl of Ellenborough said he was not content with the mode in which the works for the defence of the country had been carried out. He complained of the distribution of these works over a series of years, especially now that the powers of artillery and of iron-cased ships had so much increased. Immediate steps ought, in his opinion, to be taken to render England superior to France, in the number of ironclad ships, as on our superiority at sea our existence as an independent Power depended. the repair of these iron ships new and more extensive docks and basins ought to be provided. At present we were in this position -we had lost the protection of our forts without having the loss compensated by a powerful ironclad fleet. In case of a war with France, England would stand alone.

For

France had an ample

army, which could be used for invading this country, while we had only 43,000 regular troops, and about 200,000 irregulars to defend ourselves. Such was not the position we ought to occupy, and the Government were much to blame for their expenditure of money in unimportant matters, and for their parsimony whenever the object sought to be attained was the efficient protection of the nation.

The Duke of Somerset defended the economy of the Admiralty, both in regard to iron ships and the payment of the navy. He

had not applied for a supplementary vote for iron ships for the simple reason that the vote taken for that purpose last year had not yet been expended. The Government shipwrights were devoting all their energies to the construction of iron-cased ships on various principles, for, as the whole system was a new one, it was necessary to derive from experiments that knowledge which no theory could give.

The Duke of Cambridge as serted that every economy consistent with efficiency had been practised in the army; and that, although the expenses for the service had increased, they had been rendered necessary by reforms for the comfort of the soldier called for by the public themselves. Such expenses could be at once diminished if necessary, but, if they were, the corresponding advantages would be lost. We had not sufficient infantry at home, and, although he had endeavoured always to keep onethird of our force, he could never succeed in so doing. Under such circumstances, in case of invasion, our main force would consist of irregulars, who, while the regular army kept the field, would be most useful, and most serviceably protected by fortifications. The Government had decided to postpone completing these works, but he hoped that no economy would prevent our defences being made efficient.

Lord Malmesbury rejoiced that Her Majesty's Government had brought forward this Bill, as it provided for the safety of the country in cases of invasion. He proceeded to refute the opinions of those who derided the idea of an invasion by France, and showed VOL. CIV.

from various authorities how intently the invasion of this country had been meditated by the First Napoleon, and how that invasion had only been frustrated by the victory of Trafalgar. Arguing from the example of France, who was increasing her fortresses in every direction, he insisted on the necessity of having a proper system of forts for the defences of the country.

Earl Grey wished to know whence the men to man these fortifications were to come, if an army was at the same time to be maintained in the field. If these men were not forthcoming, these fortifications would be an encumbrance rather than assistance, and he believed that it would be impossible to find sufficient men to man them. What we ought to have was an efficient navy and a small army, but so arranged that it could be thrown in a few hours on any given spot. Our policy, therefore, was, by means of railroads and electric telegraphs, to direct a large force in a short time against any place attacked. These arguments seemed to him conclusive against fortifications, for it was certain that we could not spare men sufficient to hold possession of such extensive works. Although he did not intend to divide the House on the Bill, he was entirely opposed to the principle on which it was based.

Earl Russell agreed that our first reliance ought to be on the navy, but insisted that it was our duty to have fortifications to protect those docks and arsenals where the navy was equipped and repaired. He refuted the attacks made on French policy, and pointed out [1]

that the Emperor of the French was not antagonistic to this country, or, like Louis XIV. or the First Napoleon, an enemy to the liberties of mankind. In his opinion the Government had wisely adopted a medium course on this subject, by neither increasing our forces so as to excite

alarm abroad and discontent at home, nor by allowing the defences of the country to fall below their proper standard.

The Bill was then read a second time, and having shortly afterwards passed through its remaining stages, received the Royal Assent.

CHAPTER VI.

COLONIAL AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS-Military Expenditure for the Colonies—Mr. Arthur Mills moves a Resolution in the House of Commons, affirming the obligation of Colonies enjoying self-government to contribute to their own defence-Mr. C. Fortescue, on behalf of the Government, assents to the Resolution, with some modifications suggested by Mr. Baxter-The Motion is agreed to-Mr. Adderley calls attention to the duty of Canada to provide for her own security against invasion-Remarks of Mr. A. Mills and Mr. Roebuck-Sir George Lewis states the views of the Government with respect to the protection of Canada and the employment of the British force there-Speeches of Mr. T. Baring, Lord Bury, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord PalmerstonThe Earl of Carnarvon, in the House of Lords, enters at large into the subject of Colonial Expenditure in general-Observations of the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Ellenborough, Lord Wodehouse, Lord Lyveden, and other Peers. Foreign Affairs-The State of Poland-The Earl of Carnarvon addresses the House of Lords upon the condition in which that country is placed, and the policy pursued towards it by Russia-Earl Russell's Speech in answer. The New Kingdom of Italy-State of opinion in England upon Italian AffairsThe Marquis of Normanby takes a conspicuous part in denouncing the new régime-He charges the King's Government with unconstitu tional and tyrannical conduct-Earl Russell controverts the facts alleged, and vindicates the King of Italy's policy - The Earl of Malmesbury justifies the policy pursued towards that country by the Government under which he acted as Foreign Secretary-Lord Wodehouse arraigns the correctness of Lord Normandy's representationsThe Marquis of Normandy a second time brings forward accusations against the Government of Italy-His statements are controverted by the Earls of Russell, Ellenborough, and Harrowby, and by Lord Brougham-Sir George Bowyer makes a vehement attack upon the policy of the English Government towards Italy in the House of Commons-He is answered by Mr. Layard-Mr. Pope Hennessy defends the Papal Government from the imputation of misgovernment-The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a very effective speech, confutes Sir George Bowyer's arguments-Speeches of Mr. M. Milnes, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Maguire, Lord Palmerston, and other Members. Operations in China-Employment of the British force against the Rebels in that

« ForrigeFortsett »