§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he proposed to negative the schedule as it then stood, and to substitute, with some slight alterations, the Return which he had laid upon the table. He moved that Amendment in accordance with an understanding which he came to with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and to adapt the schedule to the proviso which 291 was moved by him when the subject was last before the House.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, that in consequence of the alteration, the right hon. Baronet would not, he supposed, ask the Committee to proceed further with the Bill that evening. It introduced a new matter, and the House ought to have further time to consider it. The right hon. Gentleman, it appeared, had condemned his old schedule.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the schedule of the Bill was not condemned by him, but the substitution had been proposed with a view to give effect to a proposition made by the hon. Baronet, in which he thought the House generally concurred. The schedule he now proposed was already in the hands of Members in the form of a Return; but he should have no objection to reprint the Bill with it.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEobserved, that the schedule had not been before the House in its true form; and without wanting unduly to interfere between the majority of the House and the Report upon the Bill, it was by no means a proper way of proceeding with the business of that House, if they accepted a schedule which was not before them. Every day converts were coming over to his opinion with regard to the construction of these forts; and he doubted whether, if the measure had been brought forward in May instead of July, it would have had a majority in its favour.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there were two more stages through which the Bill would have to pass—the report and the third reading; and the report would be the proper occasion for any further discussion upon the point. The House would have been perfectly ready to have passed the Bill through Committee the other night, had he not agreed to the alternative proposed, which he found could not be made upon the report. After all, the step he asked the Committee to take was of a merely formal nature.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHhoped that the Bill would be brought forward at such a time of the evening as would afford an ample discussion of its merits.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the proposed proceeding was a mere matter of form. He for one was very anxious to see to what extent the power was limited of entering into contracts for sums of money exceeding the grants of 292 that House. Nothing could be more absurd than to come to the House after the contracts had been entered into and the money spent. He also understood that the Secretary for War had entered into an engagement to assent to a proviso to the effect that no contract should be made without the sanction of Parliament.
SIR GEORGE LEWISstated, that such a proviso had already been added to the second clause of the Bill; but the thing was done in a hurried manner, and the phraseology of the proviso was not quite clear. However, in order to remove the obscurity, he had given notice of an amended proviso, which the hon. Baronet would find on the paper.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, that many points of detail remained to be discussed, but he thought they might be dealt with on the bringing up of the report, provided that stage of the Bill were taken at a convenient time.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, he hoped hon. Members would be permitted to see the amended schedule before being called upon to discuss its details.
SIR GEORGE LEWISremarked, that the amended schedule was substantially the same as that in the hands of the Committee. It contained nothing additional, nor had anything been abstracted.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he thought that the discussions upon that Bill should not be terminated until hon. Members had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the different forts. He was prepared to recommend a reduction in the number of forts at Portsmouth, and he desired some further information relative to those to be erected at Plymouth. It was essential that the House should be allowed to discuss the details.
§ SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, it would be far more convenient to discuss the details in Committee than on the bringing up of the report. He felt sure that some of the proposed forts were a complete mistake; and having visited Spithead on the two previous days, he had no hesitation in saying that the Secretary for War had exercised a wise discretion in abandoning the works there. He objected to the works on Portsdown Hill, to some of those on the west side of Portsmouth, to many at Plymouth; in fact, there was scarcely a single district with respect to which he did not propose to bring forward some Amendment. He wished to know whether, if a better gun than any they then possessed should be 293 produced shortly, the proposed works should be proceeded with or not during the recess.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the complaint that these forts had not been sufficiently discussed came with singularly bad grace from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne). He doubted, for his own part, whether any question had ever been more fully debated. To revive the general discussion upon each fort as it appeared in the schedule would be an excellent way of defeating the Bill, which, perhaps, was the object of the hon. Member for Liskeard. The main question had been decided again and again by the House, which was of opinion that they ought to build forts for the purpose of enabling their smaller forces to encounter the larger fire of an enemy in the defence of Her Majesty's arsenals and the protection of the anchorage. The House having declared itself in favour of the scheme as a whole, some responsibility and discretion he thought should be left to the Government in carrying out the details. The House was sot qualified to discuss scientific points.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, his only object was, that they should treat the question as they did the Estimates, and instead of discussing the matter in a lump they should take each individual item. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last seemed to think that the minority on the question had no authority in their favour, although the gallant Member behind him (Sir F. Smith), who had fifty years' experience as an officer of engineers—and the gallant General the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) were both in favour of further time being taken for consideration. The postponement of the discussion was the more important, as every day's experience was tending to show more and more the uselessness of the proposed forts. There were three points of the late discussion which had been slurred over. First, the forts at Portsdown Hill. Two of those forts had given way at the foundation. Forts Elson had given way; and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War explained that the water had percolated through the scarp. The foundations of Fort Rowner were in a defective state, which the right hon. Member admitted was caused by a settlement of the masonry; and Captain Galton in a letter to the paper had disclaimed all responsibility in the matter by stating that he was not the Inspector General of fortifications. He had also called atten- 294 tion to the position of the guns at Fort Redcliffe, in the Isle of Wight, which it was said would not sweep the beach; and he begged for a distinct answer from the Secretary at War upon these points.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if it were the wish of the House to enter into a detailed discussion of the different forts, he should be ready to give the Committee all the information in his power; and though that course might have the effect of prolonging the Session, and prove somewhat inconvenient to hon. Members, he supposed the House would be prepared to concede the time which would be necessary for that discussion. But, at the same time, he wished to point out that it was competent to any hon. Gentleman to bring the subject forward on the report; because, although the Votes could not be augmented on that occasion, it was open to the House to omit or reduce the amount of any item. Therefore, if the Bill were reprinted with the new schedule and placed as the first order for Friday next—the earliest day possible, seeing that the Indian Budget was fixed for Thursday—every practical object would be obtained without unnecessary delay. With reference to the forts mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, he could only repeat what he had before stated. In the case of Fort Elson, as sometimes happened in earthworks, there was a projection of earth after the face had been cut down; but whatever defect was thus created had been cured. With regard to Fort Rowner, a settlement had taken place, but it did not generally affect the strength of the fort. As to the other case, he had no information, but he would make inquiry.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, the objection to taking the discussion on the report was that hon. Members could only speak once.
§ SIR FREDERIC SMITHobserved that the statement of the right hon. Baronet was substantially quite correct with regard to the forts named by the hon. Member for Liskeard. The defect at Fort Elson was easily remedied; and at Rowner fort the damage fell on the contractor. He would have to make it good at his own expense. There would be no cost occasioned to the Government. He submitted that they would only be losing time by adopting the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and that they could only properly discuss the subject upon the re-commitment of the Bill.
§ MR. MONSELLobserved, that as there would, in all probability, be a long discussion on Friday on the affairs of America, that day would not be a very convenient one to fix for the discussion of the Bill.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he thought it would be better to take the discussion on the re-committal of the Bill than on the report. The non-advisability of the fortifications was becoming every day more obvious; and the question, which many hon. Members wished to discuss, should not be pooh-poohed by the right hon Baronet.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not think it was quite reasonable to accuse him of stifling discussion because he declined to re-commit the Bill. He proposed to negative the schedule as it stood, and to substitute another, which he held in his hand. It was quite competent for any hon. Member to move that any fort mentioned in the schedule should be omitted. If the Bill were re-committed, it would enable them to go through the whole clauses from the beginning, which certainly was not the intention. It was quite competent to discuss the schedule at present.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobjected that they really did not know what that document was.
§ Question, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the Committee were now called on to discuss a document they had never seen.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Baronet for his information. He had not received a copy of the schedule; and he therefore objected to going into a discussion of it. He should move that the Chairman report progress.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought the offer he had made was a very fair one—that they should now discuss what, though not formally, was practically in the hands of Members. The schedule was nothing but a Return which he had laid on the table, and which he had consented, on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote,) to annex to the Bill. The hon. Baronet first proposed to put it in the form of an instruction to the Committee, but was informed by the Speaker that he could not formally make that Motion, it being competent to the 296 Committee to insert that schedule without any instruction. The hon. Baronet therefore moved it as a proviso. A division was taken on the subject, and the House decided by a small majority that they would not agree to the exact words, but assented substantially to the proviso; and on an appeal from the hon. Baronet he afterwards adopted the proviso and inserted it at the end of the clause. If the House had any wish now to go in detail through the schedule, he was ready to discuss it; if they preferred to go through it on the report, he would take care that the Bill was reprinted before the report. He would reprint the Bill before the report, and take care that the report should be brought on at an hour of the night when it could be fully discussed. Under these circumstances he hoped the Committee would not sanction any additional loss of time by agreeing to the Motion to report progress.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman had inserted the schedule on Thursday night, the Committee would have known what it was about. He trusted that the Motion for reporting progress would be persevered with.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would willingly have inserted the schedule on Thursday night, but it was impossible for him to do so, as the schedule was not then ready. The agreement was made during the discussion on that night, and therefore it was not possible that the schedule should have been ready. He had intended to insert it on Friday, but was prevented by the unfortunate accident which abruptly terminated the sitting of the House.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would save time by acceding to the reasonable request for a short postponement. There had evidently been some misunderstanding as to the manner in which the schedule was to be added to the Bill; and as that schedule embraced the expenditure upon no less than fifty or sixty different works, it was only right that the House should have an opportunity of considering it in detail.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 105: Majority 27.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to propose that the gum for Portsdown Hill— 297 namely, £110,000—should be reduced by £70,000. Her Majesty's Government had not called on the House to vote that sum simply on their own responsibility, but had submitted to them the Report of the Commissioners, together with the evidence taken before them. He maintained, therefore, that it was the duty of every hon. Member to take into account the reasons assigned by the witnesses examined by the Commissioners, and to give their verdict accordingly. Since the last meeting of the House the circumstances of that case, which appeared to him to be very grave before, had assumed even a graver character. A pamphlet had been recently published by Admiral Denman, in which that gallant officer pointed out that they must depend simply upon their iron-clad ships for the supremacy at sea and for the defence of their dockyards. Admiral Denman said, "We are sinking fast, through mismanagement, into a state of naval inferiority;" and, after quoting Mr. Cobden's opinion that no one could expect the French Minister of Marine to descend with his eyes open to the level of the wasteful mismanagement of our Admiralty, he added, "I do not hesitate to affirm that this statement will meet the concurrence of the great bulk of those who are conversant with the subject there treated of." Admiral Denman was an officer of great authority, and one who was not likely to find fault lightly with the present Board of Admiralty; and those who wished to put the country into a proper state of defence, but who objected to the means proposed by the Government, were entitled to quote that authority. The object of the forts at Portsdown Hill was stated by the Commissioners and the noble Lord at the head of the Government to be to prevent an enemy from bringing his guns within 8,000 yards of Portsmouth dockyard to bombard it. But the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), who was a very high authority upon the subject, had told them that an enemy's fleet could be brought within less than 8,000 yards of Portsmouth; and therefore if an enemy obtained the supremacy of the Channel, there would be no necessity for any force to be landed in order to bombard the dockyard. Did hon. Members really understand what an invasion meant? The last time an invasion of this country was projected was in 1803; but the position of England was very different from what it was in 1803. They possessed numerous railroads, 298 by means of which they could concentrate all their force upon any point of the coast; they had an increased population, and increased means of defence. But even in 1803 Napoleon considered it necessary to have for his projected invasion no less than 150,000 men, 10,000 horses, 400 field-guns, and several siege trains. At the present time an invasion could only take place when the enemy had obtained, and England had wholly lost, the command of the Channel. Four or five iron-clad ships alone would be sufficient to crush the wooden transports, on which such a force must be embarked, like eggshells, and prevent invasion. He would ask the Secretary for War to answer two questions—first, whether he agreed with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), that, supposing even all the forts to be built, an enemy could, without being touched by any of those forts, approach within 8,000 yards of the dockyard, and consequently could bombard it from the sea; and next, whether, if that were the case, it would be necessary for an enemy to land 150,000, or any force, to attack Portsmouth? Much stress had been laid upon the duty of bowing to authority, but upon that question authorities were divided. A French officer—Admiral Paris—in an able pamphlet, had declared that floating batteries were the best means of defence, and after referring to the projected invasion of 1803, said that coups de main had ceased to be practicable, and that to land an army the command of the sea was necessary. Considering, then, that if an enemy had the command of the sea, he could destroy the dockyard without landing any force, he would ask of what possible use could the forts on Portsdown Hill be? If the premises were granted, the conclusion was obvious that the expenditure upon forts was a lavish waste of money, which was wanted for other means of defence. Surely the Members of that House ought to use their common sense upon this subject, without being carried away by authorities who, like the Commissioners, had frequently contradicted themselves. Many authorities had been quoted against the scheme, but many others could not be referred to, and he was informed that one able opponent of the scheme—a captain in the navy on full pay—had been told, that while on full pay, he must keep his mouth shut; and although he, feeling the importance of this question to the country, requested 299 to be placed upon half pay, his request was refused. When such pressure was put upon officers who were competent to give opinions, it became the duty of that House not to rely implicitly upon the authorities adduced by the Government. There was an instinct in the breast of every man that the proper way to defend this country was to increase her naval force by every means in our power. Napoleon relied for an opportunity of invasion upon the calms which at certain times prevail in the Channel; but, according to a distinguished French authority, there were no calms practically now, for steam had placed the English cruiser in a position of direct advantage. The words of Sir Nicholas Throgmorton, addressed to Lord Burleigh, were as true now as they were then, when he recommended Lord Burleigh to increase the navy by all the means he could, and to animate as many as possible to join it, as it was the best and most cheap defence of England. He would venture to say that the Committee would do well to turn its attention to the grave matters which had been raised by Admiral Denman's pamphlet, and to see whether the money could not be spent in a better way than was now proposed. Considering the circumstances of the country and the distress which all must see looming before them in the approaching winter, it was their duty to take care that they did not spend money uselessly. He hoped the Committee would require, before they granted the money, a plain and simple answer to the questions which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman. He should conclude by moving that the Vote for the Portsdown Hill works be reduced by £70,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the aggregate amount of £110,000, for the works at Portsdown, be reduced by £70,000.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman for the name of the officer on full pay who was forbidden to express certain opinions as the right hon. Gentleman had stated.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, the statement which he made was, that there was an officer on full pay who was anxious to express in newspapers or pamphlets his opinions upon the matters now under debate; but he found that, by some regulation which had been issued, he was not allowed to do so. He applied for leave to go upon half pay, but he was refused. The officer was Captain Coles.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend had no intention of misrepresenting facts, but he had entirely misstated the facts of the case relative to Captain Coles. Captain Coles had been employed to construct a shield of his own invention, being an officer on full pay, and employed upon very important matters. Captain Coles, unfortunately, published a letter in The Times, which he hoped Captain Coles, afterwards regretted, as the statements which he made in it were not accurate. Captain Coles applied to be put on half pay, and the Admiralty told him that there would be no objection, but that whilst he was on full pay it was not competent for him to be writing to the newspapers with regard to cupola shields which he was constructing.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to corroborate in the most distinct manner the statement made by his right hon. Friend, and to give the most positive contradiction to the explanation given by the noble Lord. Captain Coles distinctly told him (Mr. Osborne) that he had applied to be put on half pay, in order that he might publicly express his dissent from the scheme of Her Majesty's Government, and the Admiralty distinctly refused to put him on half pay.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETAll I can say is that I have heard nothing of it.
§ SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, the schedule of the Bill gave but very meagre information, nor was it possible for any hon. Member properly to argue the point upon which they were now debating. What the right hon. Baronet asked the House to do was blindly to vote a large some of money on the assurance that on bringing up the report they would know for what objects they had granted the money. He would venture to say that not two out of every ten hon. Members then present were masters of the details which the right hon. Baronet called upon them to discuss. It was quite true that they would be allowed to discuss the matter afresh upon the report, but they would then be under a great disadvantage; for then a Member could only once address the House, whereas in Committee a reply could be given to the answers of the Government and the discussion could be complete. The Secretary of State said he wished to get the Votes now to save time. It would lose time, for he would hove not only a debate now, but another on the 301 report. A small force defending a town might be greatly assisted by a few forts; but still, if forts were multiplied beyond the power of giving them sufficient garrisons, they might become sources of peril and weakness. It had been urged by the Government that untrained troops would be suitable for the defence of the proposed works; but the circumstances were peculiar and exceptional in which a successful defence had been made by untrained soldiers. If this county were invaded, it would be by some of the best-trained soldiers in the world, and they should not be met by half-trained troops. It was to the extent of the works at Portsmouth that he objected. He would suppose this case. Suppose that a well-trained army landed, and captured one or two of these forts on Portsdown Hill; what would be the position then? The enemy would have a complete point d'appui for his attack on Portsmouth. He thought works in front of Gosport were necessary, but he never thought it wise to place forts on the hill at 8,000 yards distance, seeing that there is to be a strong line of defence at Hilsea. It would be much wiser to have one or two places d'armes at Portsdown instead of five great forts. He was aware that Sir John Burgoyne felt the value of this position; every military man must do so; but that distinguished officer maintained that it should be occupied by fieldworks thrown up at the moment when wanted. To encircle all the arsenals with strong fortifications upon the mere chance of an enemy landing on the shores of England, would be a most wasteful extravagance, and all the soldiers necessarily placed in the forts would be so many men lost to the army in the field, which, if sufficiently numerous, would be the best defence for the country. Why should public money be lavished on works with respect to which doubts were entertained? What did Captain Sulivan say before the Commission? That gallant officer stated that he was for the Spithead Forts if there was money for the purpose, but he thought the inner line of defence the most important. And what was being done for that inner line? Really nothing. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, for it constituted the wiser, the more economical, and more prudent course. Let the works which had been commenced and were far advanced be finished, but let not others be commenced when it was 302 notorious they could not find garrisons for their defence. He urged the Government to diminish the number of the works both at Portsdown and at Plymouth. Day by day improvements in attack and defence were taking place. It would therefore be much wiser, instead of beginning all the works at once, to commence a limited number, and to complete them upon the best system now known; and when completed, then to commence the remainder of those which formed their programme, provided they obstinately persevered in their error of forming works which, he maintained, they would not have troops to defend, except by an increase of the Army and Militia. When the works now in course of construction were completed, very probably some improved means of defence might be available, which would be more economical than the present, and it was not improbable that iron parapets throughout would be adopted.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSwas understood to say, that he thought the Government had shown judgment in reducing the number of these forts below the number recommended by the Commissioners. He himself thought there ought at most to be only two fortified forts on Portsdown Hill. He thought the questions raised by his right hon. Friend behind him, as to whether fortifications were useful as a means of defence, or there was any danger of invasion, were rather beside the point which the Committee had on that occasion to consider. Upon these questions the House had recorded its opinion by a large majority; but, while he thought it desirable that the country should be properly fortified, it might be matter for doubt whether the Commissioners, in the recommendations which they had made on the subject, had not gone somewhat beyond the mark. As to the mode of fortifying the kingdom, every one would remember the old fable in which the carpenter recommended wood, the mason stone, and the currier leather; and he could not help thinking that some of the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses might be accounted for on the principle which that fable illustrated, that a prejudice, if not interest, warped the judgment to some extent. The question of the cost was, no doubt, a secondary question, but still it was one which ought to be considered. The chief point, however, for consideration was the number of troops which would be required to garrison 303 the Portsdown Forts—and that they must be occupied by a large force was obvious—but this was not the time for going into that matter.
SIR GEORGE LEWISMy right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), in addressing the Committee this evening, divided his remarks into two parts, the one consisting of a general argument against land fortifications or rather against all fortifications, and being in fact merely a fragment of his speech on the second reading of the Bill before us; the other dealing more with details. The right hon. Gentleman, I may add, in the first instance, tried to create a prejudice against the scheme which we proposed, by alluding to the case of Captain Coles, to whom I understood him to say the Admiralty refused leave to give evidence on the subject of fortifications.
§ MR. MONSELLI do not wish to repeat again what I so distinctly stated before; but I may perhaps be allowed to say that I did not at the outset mention Captain Coles's name at all. The name of the gallant officer was subsequently elicited from me by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty. The statement which I in the first instance made was that an officer on full pay was, by some regulation of the Admiralty, prevented from taking the part he wished with regard to this matter, and that the Admiralty refused to allow him to go on half pay.
SIR GEORGE LEWISJust so. "This matter" means the question of fortifications, and I may inform the Committee there never was any communication between the Admiralty and Captain Coles with respect to any evidence, writing, or publication, through the medium of a pamphlet or in the newspapers, of his opinions on the question. All the communications between them referred to the cupola which Captain Coles was to manufacture for that Department. I therefore now repeat that the right hon. Gentleman tried to create a prejudice in the minds of the Committee on this subject of fortifications by allusion to a case which has no bearing upon it, while I may also state that Captain Coles was called as a witness by the Commissioners who were appointed to institute an inquiry with respect to the Spithead Forts; nay, more, that he did appear before them, that he did give evidence on that subject, and that he is still on full pay; so that it is quite clear the 304 Admiralty have not exercised any influence to prevent him from recording his opinions in this matter of fortifications. The case of Captain Coles, therefore, has no bearing upon the point at present under discussion. But my right hon. Friend went on to say that he had the high authority on his side of Colonel Boxer, who, he tells us, has detected the Commissioners in making some scientific error which greatly detracts from the authority of their Report. Now, I am quite aware that Colonel Boxer has printed a memorandum or a pamphlet, which I believe he regarded as confidential, but which has got into circulation, and in which he criticises some of the scientific views of the Commissioners; but I think it at the same time but right to state to the Committee that the Commissioners do not all admit the justice of his criticism, and maintain that the views which he impugns are correct. If this House should be of opinion that it is competent to decide upon a question involving mechanical considerations based on some of the higher branches of analytical mathematics, they can, of course, at once proceed to adjudicate in the case; but the matter, I confess, appears to me to be one on which the House of Commons is scarcely the proper tribunal to arrive at a just conclusion. Another general argument to which my right hon. Friend had recourse related altogether to the question whether, if Portsmouth were attacked from the sea, land forts would be of any use. Now, I at once admit, that if you construct forts with the view of defending Portsmouth from an attack made by land, they will probably be of very little use if the attack should be made by sea. That is my reply to the very difficult question which my right hon. Friend has propounded on this head. The object of the forts which we propose is to defend Portsmouth from a land attack; and if it could be proved demonstrably that no such attack could be made, then, of course, I should at once say that these fortifications at Portsdown Hill, with others in their vicinity, would be almost, if not altogether, superfluous. The question, then, is, is Portsmouth not liable to be attacked by land? That it is, is the opinion of eminent scientific and professional men by whom this scheme was propounded. The opinion of Sir John Burgoyne has, indeed, been quoted as hostile to the construction of these forts at Portsdown Hill; but I would, in dealing with the point, just beg to call the attention of the Committee 305 to a passage from the Appendix to the Report of the Commission, page 7, attached to which are the names, among others, of the Duke of Cambridge, Sir John Burgoyne, and Colonel Dixon. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: What is the date?] The 22nd of February, 1859. The passage to which I allude is as follows:—
Of the two positions of which they consist, that in front of Gosport still precludes the enemy from occupying ground on that front, whence he could see the dockyard; not so on the Hilsea side, in advance of which is the range of Portsdown Hill, from the whole of which the dockyard could be bombarded at a perfectly effective range from the new guns.6. Here, then, it would be desirable to occupy an advanced position to cover it from that evil; and, at the same time, some of the accessory works of Hilsea might be dispensed with. The ground presents a certain amount of favourable features, being commanding and peculiarly uninterrupted by irregularities or obstructions; it is, however, very extensive, comprising, with the height and two connecting flanks, from Chichester Harbour to Fareham Creek, not less than eight miles.7. We are of opinion that this line would be occupied to most advantage by a series of detached works, enclosed at the gorge, at about 1,500 yards from centre to centre; the spaces between them might subsequently have connecting lines, or other works of a slighter character, added by the troops. Nine or ten such works, then, would be necessary, to which, probably two or three, between that and the Gosport Lines, must be added to cover ground there, on which bombarding batteries might otherwise be erected.The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) has recommended delay simply on the ground of waiting for some possible change in the art of fortification. I did not understand the hon. and gallant Gentlemen to recommend delay the other night when he pressed the Chatham fortifications on the attention of the Government. On the contrary, he asked the Government why it was that no sum was inserted for the Chatham fortifications in the present year, and he said we were guilty of an omission and dereliction of duty in not demanding a vote for that purpose. With respect to the Portsdown Hill forts, I must again refer to the argument I have formerly used—namely, the argument from authority. The plan of these forts has been carefully considered by a variety of professional persons, and, as approved by them, it has been acted upon by the Government. Engagements have been entered into, land has been purchased, and works have to a considerable extent been executed. I may likewise mention that, inconsequence of there being a fair held on the Hill at Portsdown which 306 would interfere with the use of the forts, I myself this Session brought in a Bill for the discontinuance of the fair, for which compensation had been agreed to be paid. That Bill has been passed through both branches of the Legislature, and has received the Royal assent. I must say, therefore, that unless this Committee is entirely to reverse its view with respect to these plans; unless—Quod petiit, spernit; repetit quod nuper omisit;Æstuat, et vitæ disconvenit ordine toto;Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis;unless it is prepared entirely to box the compass upon the important subject of these forts, it is bound to reject the Motion of my right hon. Friend. I hardly know what my right hon. Friend aims to accomplish. If he were to move to disallow the entire sum to be assigned for the continuation of the Portsdown Hill forts, then I could understand the connection between his Motion and his speech; but what he moves is to disallow £70,000 out of £110,000, leaving £40,000, I suppose, for compensation to contractors and for the demolition of the half-finished works. For that, I can tell my right hon. Friend he has not left enough, because I apprehend the compensation we should be called upon to pay would exceed £40,000. Land has been purchased to the amount of £250,000, contracts have been entered into to the extent of £250,000, and nearly £65,000 has been paid on account of the works. Under these circumstances I trust the Committee will not agree to the proposed reduction.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, it seemed to be the fate of all who opposed these fortifications to have their statements misunderstood and misrepresented. It had never entered his head to say, as the right hon. Baronet had represented, that the works on Portsdown Hill would be of no use in resisting a sea attack. What he had said was, that in case of invasion it would be possible for an enemy's fleet to approach within less than 8,000 yards of the dockyards of Portsmouth; and as it would be easier for an enemy to send a fleet to the mouth of Portsmouth harbour than to land 150,000 troops on the coast, he presumed that an enemy would take the easiest course and would destroy the dockyard, not by means of an invading force, but by means of ships which he would send into Portsmouth harbour.
§ Question put, "That the aggregate amount of £110,000 stand part of the Schedule."
307§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 50: Majority 82.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he did not intend to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but he wished to take a fresh opportunity of entering his protest against the measure. In the whole course of the discussion which had taken place upon the subject, he had heard no valid arguments in proof of the necessity of these forts. He did not presume to prophesy, but he should say that the day would come when the country would be alive to the ridiculous folly of the structures upon which their money had been expended. Such had been the case with regard to the old forts at Gosport. There was a celebrated epigram of Gibbon's, which, alluding to the fact that they were built by convicts, said—
To raise this fortress of enormous priceThe head of Folly used the hand of Vice.The present forts were not to be built by convicts; but although vice was not to be employed on this, there could be no doubt of the folly of spending at such a time millions on these works, when it was acknowledged that the fleet of the country was not in a satisfactory state. Some things had come out in the course of the discussions which he had been astonished to hear. They had been told by the Secretary for War that a Bill which had been on the paper from the beginning of the Session, and which had attracted very little attention—the Portsdown Fair Bill—was really an important matter. They were, in regard to that Bill, "a day behind the fair;" for the right hon. Gentleman had only recently explained its provisions, under which, as it appeared, £40,000 was to be expended in commuting the right of holding the fair, with a view of putting fortifications in its place. He had also heard, with some surprise, the attack made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War upon the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham—who was, unfortunately, not in his place—for being prejudiced in favour of the fortifications at Chatham, which were not to be proceeded with. All that the hon. and gallant Officer said was, that if the Government proceeded upon the principle of defending the arsenals, it was of prime importance to defend Chatham and Woolwich. He would not now enter into the subject of Captain Coles's invention, because it was impossible to make the Secretary for War see the arguments which 308 were adduced on all sides against the fortifications. What was clearly made out was, that to give an enemy the opportunity of landing an army to besiege Portsdown, this country must first have lost the command of the sea; and if she had lost the command of the sea, what use would fortifications be on Portsdown Hill? There were various other items in the schedule on which a division ought to be taken; but the state of feeling in the House was evidently against it; he was satisfied to test that feeling. He should very much like to go to a general election with the cry of fortifications raised by the Government. He was very much mistaken if they did not hear more on this subject before long. As to the case of Dover, he must say, in the words of the great public instructor, The Times, there never was a more wanton and profligate waste of money. Before resuming his seat, he begged to protest against the lavish waste of public money—293 millions sterling having been spent on naval and military matters during the last twelve years, sanctioned by the House of Commons. He did not join in the present wasteful scheme, and he should ever look back with pride and satisfaction upon being one of the minority who had resisted it.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not rise to prolong the discussion, but to explain. He had not endeavoured to prejudice the question by stating that the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir P. Smith) had urged the erection of forts at Chatham, and recommended delay with regard to those at Portsmouth. He repeated what he said—the gallant Officer complained of the want of energy on the part of the Government in the case of Chatham, and put to him a question whether it was intended to rectify the error which had been committed by not providing for works at Chatham in the present year; to which he replied that the works had not been abandoned, but it was not thought desirable to proceed with them this year, and he gave his reasons for that course.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he certainly thought that the language of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Lewis) had been calculated to throw the imputation of interested motives upon the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham, by imputing to him an advocacy of the Chatham works while opposing others, whereas his gallant Friend the Member for Chatham had only advocated the greater necessity of the Chatham works than the 309 Plymouth ones, and had opposed the large outlay generally till the navy was put on an efficient footing. He (Lord Adolphus Vane Tempest) agreed with the hon. Member for Liskeard, that the hon. and gallant Officer had not brought forward the case of Chatham in the manner in which he had been represented to have done. The hon. Member for Liskeard had taken the right course in no longer attempting to fight the question against the large majority which the Government had at its command. He knew not whether there was not some magnetism going on between the front benches on both sides of the House, but the feeling in favour of any heavy expenditure seemed to be contagious. There appeared to be a sort of official crib-biting in this matter. Certainly, the unanimity displayed on such occasions was wonderful. He believed the time would come when the country would regret this outlay. He might take that opportunity of stating, that he thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not dealt quite candidly the other night with the evidence of the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth (Sir M. Seymour), when he quoted him in favour of the Plymouth forts. He would have shown a little more honesty if he had also quoted the latter part of the gallant Admiral's remarks, in which he had expressed his disbelief in the production of this new gun, that we were told was to accomplish such marvellous things. Why, it was for this unborn big gun that we were told we must make these costly land fortifications, as it could not, it was said, be worked on a foating battery; and now one of the advocates of the fortifications disbelieved in the future big gun. For his (Lord Adolphus Vane Tempest's) part, he considered, while their navy was inferior to that of France, it was most unwise to vote away the public money in these brick and mortar schemes.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he doubted whether, if the £12,000,000 voted upon fortifications had been asked for in Committee of Supply out of the taxation of the current year, the Government would have found itself in so large a majority, or in a majority at all. He felt that they were on an inclined plane with regard to expenditure—that every step they took made it more difficult to pull up—and that they stood in danger of becoming committed to the whole scheme of the Commissioners. The plan originally proposed by 310 the Government had already been increased by the sum of five or six hundred thousand pounds; but he hoped that the Government would take a hint from the discussions that had taken place, and, as far as possible, make each year's outlay independent of any future sums of money which the House might be called upon to vote.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday, and to be printed [Bill 207].