§
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th July],
That the words 'Provided always, 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 that which is set down in the Schedule as the total estimated cost of the work, nor for Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department to enter into any contract involving the expenditure in any district of a greater sum than is hereby and by the Act of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of Victoria, chapter one hundred and nine, authorized to be expended during the period ending on the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, without inserting in such contract a condition that the same shall not be binding on the said Principal Secretary until it has lain for one month upon the Table of the House of Commons without disapproval; and the said contract shall have no force or validity until it shall have lain for one month upon the Table of the House of Commons without disapproval, unless previous to the lapse of that period such contract shall have been approved by a Resolution of the said House,' be added instead of the Proviso to Clause 2.
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§
SIR GEORGE LEWIS moved the addition of the following proviso at the end of Clause 2:—
Provided always, 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 that which is set down in the Schedule as the total estimated cost of the work; nor for Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department to enter into any contract involving the expenditure in any district of a greater sum than is hereby and by the Act of the 23rd and 24th years of Victoria, chap. 109, authorized to be expended during the period ending on the 1st day of August, 1863, without inserting in such contract a condition that the same shall not be binding on the said Principal Secretary until it has lain for
636
one month upon the table of the House of Commons without disapproval; and the said contract shall have no force or validity until it shall have lain for one month upon the table of the House of Commons without disapproval, unless previous to the lapse of that period such contract shall have been approved by a resolution of the said House.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYopposed the Amendment, as it was of a very arbitrary character. It would give the Government power to appropriate the amount of the entire annual Vote for fortifications to any single work which formed an item of it. It would nullify the Schedule.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), was responsible for the proviso. It appeared in the form in which the hon. Baronet assented to it during a recent debate, some ambiguities only being removed. If it appeared to be unsatisfactory, he had no wish to insist upon it. He had agreed to it merely because he believed the Committee desired to have it.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause 20 (Accounts to be laid before Parliament).
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY moved, that "April" should be substituted for "July."
§ SIR GEORGE LEWIS moved, that "August" should be substituted for "July."
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYcould not consent to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. It was notorious that accounts rendered in July or August were perfectly useless. They were of no service unless supplied in the early part of the Session.
§ Amendment agreed to. The word "April" substituted instead of "July."
§ Schedule disagreed to.
SIR GEORGE LEWISproposed an amended Schedule, which he said was substantially the same as the one in the Bill.
§ Amended Schedule brought up, and read 1°; 2°.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, that many items did not now stand at the amount at which they stood before; this showed the loose manner in which these Estimates were made. Some of the items 637 he must object to. The Puckpool and St Helen's batteries, in the Isle of Wight, were put down for an expenditure of £12,000 during the present year; but that expenditure involved the laying-out of £75,000 more to complete the works. These were to be mortar batteries, to be used against vessels passing at a considerable distance at the rate of fifteen or sixteen knots the hour. They could be of little or no use in such a position, and the money would be thrown away. The same might be said of the works on Portsdown Hill and at Plymouth. He believed that fire from mortars on ships in motion, except under special circumstances, would produce no great result; and, with regard to the batteries now in question, he did not think that they would have the least effect in deterring an enemy's fleet from forcing their way through Spithead. He proposed, as an Amendment, to strike out of the Schedule the sum of £12,000 for Puckpool and St. Helen's batteries.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£12,000" (being the amount of proposed works, 1862–3, at Puckpool and St. Helen's Batteries, Isle of Wight).
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that not being an artillery officer, he could offer no opinion on the probable effect of these batteries; but, having had practical experience of mortar fire, he could state that it was so disagreeable that no person, who had once been exposed to it, could avoid feeling a wholesome dread of it for the future. He believed the evidence before the Commission proved that by means of the improved fusees these batteries would be able to produce a most important effect on any squadron approaching Spit-head.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that it was well known that at Sebastopol the effect of bombardment by mortars was very trifling indeed. He believed that mortar firing was ineffectual at the distance of 1,000 yards.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcomplained of the Government commencing so many works at once. Those commenced ought to be completed before new works were begun.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it might be very easy to find fault with any one particular work taken by itself; but it should be remembered that all these works formed a connected system, which had been 638 arranged by competent authority, so that one work should bear upon and support another. The entire plan had been carefully considered, and, taken as a whole, was worthy of the support of the House.
§ Question put, "That '£12,000' stand part of the amended Schedule."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 44: Majority 29.
§ MR. C. BERKELEYsaid, there was an arithmetical discrepancy in the schedule. The Government had either taken £70,000 too much or £80,000 too little. In two columns two sums were given of £3,200,000 and £3,580,000, together £6,780,000; and the sum which should correspond in the fourth column was £6,860,000. He did not know whether the difference arose upon the sum for the central arsenal. Another apparent error was in the amounts stated for land. In one place there appeared £430,000, and in another £670,000, together £1,100,000; but in the column which should correspond it was stated at £1,030,000. The sum for Cork, recommended by the Commission, was £120,000, but the sum in the schedule was £ 159,000. What was the cause of the increase?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that what the hon. Gentleman called a discrepancy was explained by the fact that the Estimates of the Commissioners were not followed. This was a distinct estimate, and therefore there could be no inconsistency. Although alterations had been made in the schedule by stating £50,000 separately which had before been mixed up in different items, there was no substantial change. The columns were correctly stated. They added up, and they added across. He was unable to follow the hon. Gentleman's computation, by which he seemed to think that they were either too large or too small.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEasked whether there was no one on the Treasury Bench who could give them an explanation. They had heard the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and they were much in the same position as before. The right hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told a meeting in Willis's Rooms on Wednesday last that there never was a time when peace was upon a more solid foundation. The evening passed very pleasantly in consequence of those assurances from two Cabinet Ministers; yet the Government came to the House for 639 enormous sums of money for fortifications, and could give no explanation of a very confused account.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthought the confusion was that of the hon. Member for Gloucester. The hon. Gentleman had utterly failed to explain what he called the discrepancy. The hon. Gentleman paused, hesitated, and did not know whether it was an increase or a diminution. The statement was so perfectly confused that he defied any man to know what it was about. His right hon. Friend had given the true account, that the amount was just right. Therefore the observations of the hon. Member entirely fell to the ground. As to his hon. Friend who spoke last, he had a sort of monomania on this subject, and did not seem any more satisfied after repeated defeats than before he entered the lists in this matter; but he thought the House, and he was sure the country, would justly appreciate the force of his hon. Friend's argument. Sincerely anxious that the country should have a powerful fleet, and feeling—because he presumed he must feel so after having reflected—that they could not have a fleet without dockyards, his hon. Friend came to the strange conclusion that the best way to have a strong fleet and to secure its possession was to leave the dockyards totally undefended. He left his hon. Friend to settle that argument with the country.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYdid not think that this was a question to be got rid of entirely by jokes. There were, so far as he could see, nineteen palpable errors in the schedule. A doubt was, therefore, thrown upon all the calculations of the Government, which ought, he thought, to be, as far as possible, explained.
SIR GEORGE LEWIScontended that those hon. Members who argued that the schedule contained particular errors were bound to point out in what those errors consisted, and also the manner in which they proposed that they should be rectified. It was impossible for him to explain away difficulties which he was incapable of apprehending. There never was such a schedule as that under discussion annexed to a Bill before. It was so annexed in obedience to the wish of hon. Members on both sides, and now that they had got it they did not seem to understand it. With respect to the site of the central arsenal, it was asked why the sum 640 taken for it was not repeated? It was voted under the original Act; the money was still in the power of the Government, and no new sum having been taken for the purpose in the present year, it did not re-appear in the schedule.
§ SIR FREDERIC SMITHwas ready to point out the numerous errors in the schedule; in fact, there was hardly a single item that was not palpably wrong. There was, for instance, in the first column a sum of £6,860,000, in the second column one of £3,200,000; and if the latter were deducted from the former sum, it ought to give the exact amount in the last column, which was not the case. The first sum represented the total estimated cost; the second sum the amount required for the present year, and the sum in the last column was the further amount which would have to be voted. But some blunder had been committed, so that the figures given in the last column were almost all erroneous. He had, upon a late occasion, found fault with the War Office clerks, who, according to ordinary practice, should have made out the estimates; but he now felt bound to apologize to them, inasmuch as he was informed they had not made out the accounts. He thought, however, the right hon. Baronet was bound to see that those accounts were correct. He might add, that inasmuch as he believed the expense for the construction of the proposed forts at Hilsea could be spared, seeing the number of forts that were to be constructed at Portsdown Hill, he should move a reduction of £20,000 in connection with the outlay for the former.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£20,000" (being the amount proposed for works for 1862–3 at Hilsea Lines, Portsmouth).
§ MR. AYRTONmaintained that the schedule as it stood was palpably erroneous. The total in the first column was £6,860,000. In the second column the sum set down was £2,000,000, in the third column £1,200,000, and in the fourth column £3,580,000, the total of which was £6,780,000—leaving a discrepancy of £80,000. The discrepancy, he believed, arose in this way. The right hon. Baronet had introduced an item of £150,000 for the site of a central arsenal, which must be taken as an abandoned estimate, and which formed no part of the present calculation. But then there was 641 a further error. The estimated cost of land was put down at £1,030,000; but the actual expenditure for land was put down at £1,100,000. This left an excess of £70,000; and if that were subtracted from the £150,000, it would give the sum of £80,000, and thus, by a compensation of errors, the discrepancy which had been pointed out was accounted for.
§ Question, "That '£20,000' stand part of the amended Schedule," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHnext moved the omission of the item of £50,000 for the north-east defences at Plymouth—works which, he contended, were not considered of first-rate importance by Sir John Burgoyne and other high military authorities.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£50,000" (being the amount proposed for works for 1862–3 at the North Eastern Defences, Plymouth).
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the course which had been adopted was very inconvenient—first to discuss all these items in Committee, and then to re-discuss them all over again on bringing up the Report.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the works at Plymouth had not been discussed in Committee.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that certainly there had been a great deal of discussion about the works at Portsmouth, and he thought at Plymouth also. He was not able to discuss the scheme critically, and he must leave the question to the decision of the Committee. It certainly had happened that in some instances the estimate for the purchase of lands by Government had been exceeded.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, that the right hon. Baronet himself had urged that the details of this Bill might be considered in Committee. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government did not treat those who opposed these fortifications with fairness when he said they did not want a navy. What they said was that they ought to have an efficient navy, and not to expend the money on useless fortifications.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONopposed the Amendment, believing that it was necessary to protect our arsenals, and that the 642 proposed forts would enable a small military force to do the work of a larger one. He had no doubt that the country would appreciate the motives of the House in supporting the Government on the fortification question.
§ Question, "That '£50,000' stand part of the amended Schedule," put, and agreed to.
§ Amended Schedule added.
§ Bill to be read 3° To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.