COMMISSION MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 17 June 1862)

SIR FREDEEIC SMITH
said, he rose to move the Address of which he had given notice. He could assure the House that he felt the responsibility he incurred in bringing so important a subject before it. Every year they had a debate raised upon the propriety of holding Alderney as a military station, and forming a harbour of refuge there. If that was a fit subject for discussion, how much more fit for it was the question whether they should hold those two larger Channel Islands, which were far more difficult to defend, and of much less value than Alderney— namely, Jersey and Guernsey. On what ground did they attempt to hold them? He did not believe they were under any moral obligation to do so; and still less did he believe in the possibility of their defending them with the small military force they possessed. He understood that the Duke of Wellington had suggested that 10,000 men would be required for the Channel Islands. Of that number Alderney would take 3,000; but what could be said in favour of locking up the remaining 7,000 in the other two islands? With 694 a properly organized militia Jersey and Guernsey could defend themselves. Some years ago the people of Guernsey maintained their own fortifications, but the works had been transferred to the War Department, and were maintained at the expense of this country. At Jersey England had always constructed the works. She built Fort Regent, placing it, however, in a wrong position, where the troops would be trapped instead of being sheltered; and it afforded no protection to the town of St. Helier's or the surrounding country. When the Duke of Wellington recommended 10,000 men for the Channel Islands, England had not the gigantic works now in progress at Portsmouth and elsewhere. The seventeen miles of fortifications proposed for Portsmouth would require a garrison of 25,000 men. Plymouth would require another 25,000, Chatham 15,000, Dover 6,000, Pembroke 8,000, the Isle of Wight 6,000, Sheerness 5,000, Ireland 10,000, and Scotland 10,000, making an aggregate of between 100,000 and 110,000 men. The Militia and the Volunteers, however valuable, could not defend their great arsenals against the best regular troops in Europe except their own; and they could not possibly spare 10,000 men of their regular army for the Channel Islands. Previous Commissions had inquired into the subject of the defence of these islands, but the Commissioners were mostly naval and military men who, though very able in their respective professions, required to have been associated with statesmen, so that the financial and political bearings of the question might be duly considered. Great blunders had been committed. In 1845 the Government determined, on the Report of a professional Commission, to construct the harbour of St. Catherine's, in Jersey, at a cost of £300,000. The work was stopped in 1862. That money had been entirely thrown away, and the work would be more useful to an enemy than it would be to England. It was worth nothing at present except to an enemy, and therefore the Government should either complete it, or remove what had been constructed. The militia of the islands should be put upon a proper footing, which certainly was not the case at present; for, if the inhabitants of Jersey could not in a great degree defend themselves, the 2,000 or 3,000 men we could send there would be thrown away. The points of landing upon the island were not numerous, and if—us would be the case 695 in the event of war—an English fleet occupied the Channel, no Imperial troops ought to be necessary. With respect to Alderney the case was different, and he did not object to expenditure of money in forming a harbour there. In former times England blockaded the enemy's ports; and doubtless that would be attempted in future wars, though some experienced officers doubted the practicability of effectually doing so with steam fleets; but in any event Alderney would act as a check upon Cherbourg; and if a harbour were formed there, vessels would not have to run to Portsmouth to coal and for repairs, as at present they were obliged to do. It was known that the Emperor of the French was constructing a port for gunboats on the coast of France immediately opposite to Jersey, and in the unhappy event of war between England and France we should require a force prepared to attack that port. The navy of England had always been in the habit of seeking its foes and not waiting to be attacked, and it was not likely to introduce a new practice now. It must be admitted that the inhabitants of the Channel Islands had ever been loyal to this country, and any protection that they required, and that England could afford, they seemed well entitled to, but the question was one demanding inquiry, and he therefore proposed that it should be undertaken by a Royal Commission, as suggested in his Motion.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the hon. and gallant Officer had expressed a confident hope that he would be able to accede to the Motion. He therefore lost no time in undeceiving him, and in declaring his inability to support the terms of the Motion. He collected from the speech of the hon. and gallant Officer that the conclusion at which he wished the intended Commission to arrive was, to negative both the propositions contained in the Motion. The Channel Islands had belonged to the Crown of England since the Norman Conquest, and, though inhabited by a population which, to a considerable extent, spoke French, and formerly formed part of the 696 duchy of Normandy, the population were sincerely attached to the British Crown.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
moved, that the name of the hon. Member making the Motion be taken down.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, it having been stated that there were not forty hon. Members present, he must first ascertain whether there was a House before he could entertain any Motion.