§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI rise substantially to move for leave to bring in a Bill, in continuation of the Bill of last year and the year before, for the purpose of authorising a further issue of terminable annuities, with the view of carrying on those works which have been sanctioned by Parliament for the defence of our dockyards and other stations. The sum which was authorized to be issued last year has not been entirely expended. A sum of about £600,000 is still available, but it will not be sufficient to pay for the amount of work which we may reckon on being done between this time and the month of July in next year. We therefore propose to ask for a further issue of £650,000, which amount, together with the balance now on hand, will enable us to prosecute these works till the end of July 1864, by which time we shall have an opportunity of coming to Parliament for further authority to continue them. I am happy to say that the works in progress have been exceedingly well conducted as far as they go, and will, I think, be found very useful for the defence of the country. Generally speaking, the works which will be found mentioned in the schedule of the Bill are all that have been already sanctioned. But 331 last year the construction of the forts at Spithead was suspended in consequence of some doubts which then prevailed as to the relative merits of forts and ships. We think, however, that the experience we have derived from the War which is going on in America tends to prove that forts are formidable antagonists to ships; while the progress of the improvements made in cannon in this country also shows that at 600 or 800 yards solid shot and even a shell will pierce Vessels constructed like the Warrior. The same thing could, I have no doubt, be done at 1,000 yards, and the only reason why it has not been done hitherto is that at Shoeburyness there is not a range of that extent. Arrangements have, however, been recently made to have a range of 1,000 yards, and I feel assured that the progress of improvements will prove that we can penetrate at that distance ships constructed on the principle of the Warrior. The proper time to enter into details will come when the Bill and Schedule have been placed in the hands of hon. Members. The Motion which I am about to make being substantially one for leave to bring in a Bill, I should propose that that Bill be read a second time on Thursday next, and we can then take the Committee on the first convenient day. The noble Lord concluded by moving the following Resolution:—
That, towards providing a further sum for defraying the Expenses of the Construction of Works for the defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dover and Portland, and for the creation of a Central Arsenal, a sum not exceeding £650,000 be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities, for a term not exceeding thirty years; and that such Annuities shall be charged upon, and be payable out of, the said Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to know whether it was proposed this year to make provision for the construction of a central arsenal which had formed part of the original place?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONWe ask for no sum this year for a central arsenal. We are going to pursue the same course as last year.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he did not think that the actions which had taken place in America had at all altered the question of the Spithead forts as it Stood last year. In an engagement between forts and ships, if the ships were anchored at a moderate distance, and sup- 332 posing the forts to be well constructed and heavily armed, and the ships to be well built and heavily armed also, he maintained that the result would always be in favour of the forts. But the proposed forts at Spithead would never prevent a determined officer of the navy from passing them even by daylight; while nobody Would contend that ships of war would not pass those forts at night, and take up an anchorage in the Solent, from which they could bombard the dockyard. We had the same power to prevent vessels remaining in the Solent from the shore that we could have from the forts. The forts would add nothing to the strength of the position. They would cost a large sum of money, and only create disappointment. He protested, therefore, against the Vote, and trusted the Government would not press it upon the House. No gun had yet been found which could pierce the Warrior's side at 3,000 yards, as they had been told would be the case. He would not oppose those works which were already advanced; but the Committee ought to be distinctly informed which of the works Were in a state of progress and which were not.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he did not intend to oppose the introduction of the Bill; but he hoped they would be furnished with ample details of the different works with which the Government proposed to proceed, in the form of a schedule. He could not agree with the noble Lord that the events of the American war had changed the position of the question in regard to the Spithead forts, as it had been shown on several occasions in America that forts were powerless to stop the passage of vessels of war. In the Mississippi ships had been able to pass forts, and at Spithead they would do the same. He trusted the House would assemble on Thursday in sufficient numbers to insure a fair and full discussion of that important subject.
§ MR. AYTOUNsaid, he would ask the noble Lord what was the meaning of putting a central arsenal among the objects for which the Resolution was to provide, if in the Committee no Vote was to be taken for the prosecution of that very object?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONAll I meant to say was, that we do not intend to propose any Vote for it this year.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he knew something of Charleston Harbour, having been there sixty-two years ago. 333 He was also acquainted with Spithead; and, speaking simply as a representative of the commercial interest, he must say, he believed that forts were a material means of stopping ships from ascending rivers, and that it was very desirable that our harbours should be well protected by forts.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he did not intend to oppose the introduction of the Bill, not, however, because he had been convinced by the statement of the noble Lord, but because he despaired, with the elements then composing the House, of being able to resist with success. He was the more confirmed in that opinion by the observations of the hon. Member for Greenwich, who sought to oil the machinery for the proposals of the Government. The worthy Alderman, who had gained his knowledge of Charleston sixty-two years ago, forgot that across that harbour it was possible to lay a boom. With all his knowledge of Portsmouth, would the worthy Alderman tell him that it was possible to lay a boom across Spithead? There was no similarity between Charleston and Portsmouth. He rejoiced to see the noble Lord once more amongst them—[Cheers]—and he should be ready on Thursday to move the same Amendment as was moved last year. There was nothing new to warrant the building of these forts on the Spit; and if the House was at all prepared to maintain its consistency, it could not rescind the decision which it came to last year.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that although not offering opposition to the measure at this stage, hon. Gentlemen had sought to discredit it in advance. The hon. Member for Liskeard had made a very broad statement, but one, he imagined, without the slightest foundation—namely, that there was no similarity between the harbour of Charleston and Spithead. There was a remarkable similarity between Spithead, as it would be made by the proposals of the Government, and Charleston Harbour, as it existed when it repelled the immense force of the Northern fleet. The report of the Defence Commission recommended, and he presumed the proposals of the Government would follow their suggestion, that the distance between the three chief forts at Spithead should be about 2,000 yards, so that the fire would cross at a distance of about 1,000 yards from each fort. Now, Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter were just 1,900 yards asunder, and the vessels of the Fe- 334 deral fleet did not approach so near the forts as to be in a line between them. There had been an extraordinary advance in gunnery since last year. The Warrior target had been set on fire in its backing by a Whitworth shell at 800 yards, and artillery officers were of opinion that the same result might be produced at 1,000 yards, whereas last year nothing of the kind had been done at a greater range than 200 yards. It was utterly at variance with the experience of the naval action at Charleston to suppose that no determined officer would be deterred from taking his ship past the Spithead forts when armed with such artillery. The Federal vessels were not, perhaps, as powerful as the vessels of a European power, but they were the best which the Northern arsenals could produce, and in point of guns they were vastly superior to the guns of the forts to which they were opposed, those guns being also very inferior to the guns which would be placed in our forts. There never was an attack upon which a greater stake depended than the attack on Charleston; and the officers conducting it had every motive to do all they could to obtain success.
MR. LYGONsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government had any information to give the Committee with regard to the material of which the American ironclad vessels were formed, as it was reported that the plates were only nominally of the same thickness as the plates used in our navy, and instead of being composed of solid iron were made up of several sheets bolted together?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was true that the ships which attacked Charleston were not coated with the same quality of iron as the vessels which would be brought against the forts at Spithead. It was perfectly true they were coated with iron five inches or six inches thick, but formed of plates bolted together, and not solid plates. The difference was immense between the ships of America and the ships which would be brought against the forts of Spithead. At the same time, the artillery brought to bear against the ships at Charleston was very different from that which we could now place in the Spithead forts, and still more inferior to what we might hope to place there in two or three years, fie could state from his own personal knowledge that no boom could be placed across Charleston Harbour. Piles were driven in the shoal water, and across 335 the deep water was carried an obstruction of cordage and net, the object of which was not to present an insuperable bar, but to foul the screws of the vessels and impede their progress. The same floating obstruction could be placed at Portsmouth. The Federal vessels were not stopped by the obstruction, for they never ventured to approach the forts. He did not wish the statement to go forth uncontradicted, that there was a boom at Charleston, as he knew no boom was in existence shortly before, and none could have been in existence at the time of the attack.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, there was this difference between Charleston and Portsmouth—Portsmouth dockyard could be bombarded by guns outside the forts altogether, whereas at Charleston the place must first be captured. He had the same objection as last year against forts. They were not movable, and could be of no use against movable ships, unless the ships ran their heads against them. The object of an enemy would be to bombard Portsmouth dockyard, and that could be done easily by vessels at a distance sufficient to prevent their suffering from the fire of the forts. The ships at Charleston were not the best which the Northern arsenals could send out, but only the best which the Northern contractors chose to build, and would bear no comparison with the ships of any European Power. He had no doubt that with guns of long range a ship, remaining at a comparatively safe distance, could throw shells into the dockyard, and he should therefore oppose the second reading of the Bill.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he had voted all through for the forts, and he intended to vote for them again. They were not pleasant things for an enemy's ship to pass, and with the addition of floating batteries would make a good defence for Portsmouth harbour.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that notwithstanding what had been said, he should maintain that there was no parallel between the harbour of Charleston and Spithead. It would, for instance, be impossible to drive any piles near Spithead.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONobserved, that, as a matter of fact, the forts proposed to be built outside Portsmouth were 2,000 yards further out than were the forts out-side Charleston.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he should vote in favour of the proposition of the National Defence Commissioners. Nothing 336 could be stronger than the opinion of the naval and military officers appointed to consider the subject in favour of the erection of the forts; and he thought that the House did very wrong last year in neglecting the sea defences of Portsmouth, and securing it from attack on the land side, the effect of which would be to arm Portsmouth against ourselves in case of its being entered by an enemy.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he had always been of opinion that Spithead should be defended by forts, and thought it might be made impregnable by the forts being connected by a line of chains with iron-plated vessels. A slack and taut chain would effectually stop any hostile vessel, because the first would check and the second would stop any vessel that attempted to force its way.
§
Resolved,
That, towards providing a further sum for defraying the Expenses of the Construction of Works for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dover and Portland, and for the creation of a Central Arsenal, a sum, not exceeding £650,000, be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities, for a term not exceeding thirty years; and that such Annuities shall be charged upon, and be payable out of, the said Consolidated Fund.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolution to be reported Tomorrow, at Twelve of the clock.