COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 30 July 1869 vol 198 cc1003-14

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

said, there were some parts of this Bill which had taken him by surprise, as he believed they would also surprise the House. It certainly was remarkable that a Government, which from its highest to its lowest Members was pledged to strict economy, should propose to throw away £1,500,000 On the previous day a hard struggle was made to effect a saving of £10,000, which failed because there were a great many Members who did not understand the details of ambassadorial expenditure. But there was no Member of the House, whether his seat were on the Treasury or Opposition Benches, or whether he sat below the Gangway at either side, who did not know and recognize the fact that this was simply a waste of money. In a country with so many hundred miles of frontier the attempt to render impregnable any one spot was a very doubtful undertaking, even if the progress of artillery science did not threaten to render impracticable this idea of impregnability. Mr. Whitworth had stated several years ago that he would undertake to throw 70-lb. shells, filled with molten iron, a distance of six miles. And his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bright) — he wished he were now in his place—had spoken strongly on this very question of fortifications. Of the military authorities, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that "they would walk blindly into any expenditure;" and that on looking into the recommendations which had been made as to fortifications he was "amazed at the absolute stupidity — or, if a milder word were wanted, he would say the absolute lunacy—of the military authorities on this subject." The right hon. Gentleman also urged on the House upon the same occasion that public opinion was misled and apprehensions unnecessarily excited by the language of Cabinet Ministers. It was not a wise commercial practice to throw good money after bad, and therefore he moved that the House do go into Committee that day month.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day month, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Taylor,) —instead thereof.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that if the question were now whether fortifications should be built or not. the opportunity would be a suitable one for the objections of his hon. Friend. But the question was not whether they should begin to build fortifications by means of loans or not; the question was whether, having completed four-fifths of those fortifications, they should, or should not, complete the remainder, or should be like the man in Scripture who began to build a tower without counting the cost of finishing it? The Bill was founded on these principles—That the loan works should be brought to a final close; that they should not exceed the estimate contained in the last Act of Parliament; that all works not already commenced, so far as the loan was concerned, should be abandoned; and that the works which had been begun should be utilized as much as possible, and completed as economically as possible. He would not enter into any controversy upon the general question of fortifications; but thought that by going into Committee a most useful solution of the question would be arrived at.

COLONEL SYKES

said, that nine years ago, when this matter first came before the House, he resisted the proposed fortification scheme, and pointed out the absurdity of the panic on which the proposal was founded, and which arose from certain colonels in the French army telling the Emperor that they were ready to invade England. As soon as the story reached this country a panic was created in this House, emanating from the Treasury Bench; and it was stated that we were to be invaded and defeated by the French, and that it was necessary to defend ourselves with brick and mortar fortifications. He then declared that we could best resist invasion by the strong arms and bold hearts of our population without the help of brick and mortar. He was ridiculed for that opinion, but the result had shown that the fortifications were unnecessary, and he had annually protested against the waste of the public money upon them. In a Return which he had moved for in 1867, a list was given of no less than seventy-two fortifications in progress in different parts of England, some of them of very considerable size, and others mere batteries. The estimate for the fortifications was £6,905,000; but then those fortifications would require 1,104 guns to arm them, 9,841 artillerymen to work the guns, and 22,441 infantry to support the artillerymen, and that would involve a cost of £2,000,000 more, making the total cost more than £9,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that some of the proposed fortifications were to be abandoned; but he would like to know how many of the seventy-two were to be abandoned, and whether the sum now asked for would suffice for the entire completion of those works which were unfinished? It was the old unjustifiable story to say that because so much had already been laid out unprofitably, the works must be finished; but, unhappily, it seemed as though John Bull's purse was regarded as inexhaustible. Under the circumstances he should second the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor).

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

said, that some of the works had been built by contract, and they were already beginning to crumble to pieces. The fortifications at Dover were in a disgraceful condition. The stones did not join, and the works were beginning already to fall out of repair. He hoped that in the case of those fortifications which had to be finished the work would be done by the engineers in the army, or at all events under their immediate supervision. He hoped that the £1,500,000 now asked for would be all that would be spent; but he feared that as it was, it would take a considerable annual sum to keep the fortifications in anything like proper repair.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN

said, he would refer the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes) to a Return presented during the present Session, showing the whole of the forts which were to be finished, together with those which were to be abandoned.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that however absurd the original Vote was, he thought it would be better now to go into Committee on the Bill and see if any reduction could be made in the amount. Under the influence of panics we were apt to rush into every sort of expenditure, and generally into the wrong expenditure. If, when this particular panic arose, we had organized an effective militia— which at present we did not possess—we might have saved this non- sensical expenditure on bricks and mortar. As though, forsooth, an enemy would choose to land just opposite a large fortification when he had the choice of going thirty or forty miles off.

CAPTAIN BEAUMONT

said, he hoped to be able, in making the Motion that stood in his name in Committee, to give a satisfactory answer as to the utility of these fortifications. It would be most injudicious for the House to offer any obstruction to the completion of the fortification scheme indicated by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, which would give us the greatest amount of efficiency at the minimum of expense.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester. He regretted that the Government should not introduce Bills of this character at an earlier period of the Session. In 1860, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had delivered a powerful speech condemning the whole of this fortification scheme, and since that period events abroad had shown that fortifications were more useless than ever.

MR. COLLINS

said, he had originally opposed the fortification scheme; but as we had spent so much money in carrying it out he thought we had better not grudge the small sum necessary to complete the works which had been begun. We had already spent 17s. or 18s. in the pound.

MR. BAZLEY

observed that when the fortifications were completed, the country would have to bear the cost of keeping them in repair.

COLONEL STEPNEY

said, he thought that the country need not fear being led into undue extravagance under the present Administration.

MR. WHITE

said, he must protest against the enormous and useless outlay which it was proposed to make upon these fortifications.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 32: Majority 68.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (The sum of l,510,000l. to be issued out of the Consolidated. Fund towards expenses after mentioned).

CAPTAIN BEAUMONT

said, he rose to move a reduction in the amount asked for on account of the fortifications. Being an Engineer officer standing in the somewhat anomalous position of moving the reduction of a Vote for fortifications, in the construction of which he had himself been engaged, he wished briefly to explain his view. The object to be attained by fortifications was two-fold— first, strategical positions for the defence of the country; and, secondly, the protection of our dockyards from bombardment or attack by sea. It had been said that forts were useless unless they were continuous; but that was not the ease, because no general dared to leave a fort in his rear without detaching a force to watch it; but the question of the Spit-head Forts had always been considered as distinct from the general question of fortifications; first, on account of the enormous cost of mounting guns in such a position; and next, on account of their not being absolutely necessary to the vitality of the dockyard, but only tending to prevent the possibility of a bombardment. Sir John Burgoyne stated that an important distinction was to be drawn between protecting the Portsmouth Dockyard from bombardment, and protecting it against occupation by an enemy. By bombardment the dockyard would suffer injury which might be repaired; whereas its occupation by an enemy would involve total destruction. He (Captain Beaumont) admitted that the anchorage might be made more secure; but he thought that the vessels of the fleet ought to be able to take care of themselves. The position he wanted to make out was this—that the utility of these forts, although considerable, would still be incommensurate with the amount of money proposed to be spent on them. The whole question of fortifications was essentially a matter of economy. The duty of the Engineer officer was to give the greatest amount of defence for the lowest amount of money. With respect to the expense of the fortifications, the original estimate was £8,000,000. The Government proposed a reduction of £500,000, This left £7,500,000; £6,000,000 had been voted, and they were now asked for £1,500,000. What he proposed was that the two Spithead Forts should be constructed with one tier of guns instead of two. That would effect a reduction of £114,000 on each, or on the two forts in round numbers of £225,000. The circumstances in which those two forts would be completed were somewhat different from what they were when they were designed. The use of torpedoes or marine mines could not be neglected. This made the necessity for establishing the two tiers of guns on the Spithead Ports less apparent than formerly. Supposing they could retrace their steps he doubted whether these forts would be constructed as they had been. He certainly should have voted against them. The wisest course would be to complete them in as economical a way as possible; and if circumstances should arise to make it desirable to complete the forts according to the original design, it would be quite competent hereafter to furnish them with two tiers of guns. His own impression was that the work when completed would be creditable to the War Office; but if the Spithead Forts were now completed as designed, he felt confident in ten years they would be in a somewhat similar position to that in which they now stood. He moved that the sum of £1,510,000 be reduced by £225,000, representing the saving which would be effected by completing the Horse Sand and Noman's Land Forts at Spithead with one tier of guns in place of two.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, to leave out the words "one million five hundred and ten thousand," in order to insert the words ''one million two hundred and eighty-five thousand,"— (Captain Beaumont,)—instead thereof.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that the question which the Committee had to consider was which was the wisest and most economical arrangement to make with regard to the forts. He had carefully avoided all controversy upon the general question of fortifications. He had been anxious to prepare a Bill which those who were favourable to fortifications would approve, and which need not be objected to by those who were opposed to fortifications. It was to be borne in mind with regard to these fortifications that four-fifths of the whole expenditure had already been incurred, and that the Committee had determined by a large division to complete the work as economically as possible. If economy consisted in avoiding all expenditure of money, there would be no doubt as to the course to be pursued; but the real question was how to get the largest amount of money's worth for their money. Was it wiser to complete the Spithead Forts according to the original design with two tiers of guns, or to save £225,000 by substituting one for two tiers of guns? He had been desirous in this Bill of saving money wherever he could, and he should not differ from his hon. Friend in attaching great importance to the saving of £225,000. He was, nevertheless, strongly in favour of completing the forts according to the original design. It was natural to attach some weight to authority, and, in the first place, he might appeal to the name of Sir John Burgoyne, not as an individual, but as a member of the Defence Committee. He could appeal also to the Fortifications Committee, presided over by a distinguished sailor, Sir Frederick Grey. In 1867, when the late Government were in Office, the Fortifications Committee considered the question whether the plan of giving the Portsmouth forts two tiers of guns should be abandoned and one tier substituted. They came to the conclusion that in the case of three of the forts one tier should be substituted for two; but in the case of the two principal forts, to which the Motion had reference, they said that, having in view the great importance of the position as commanding the entrance to the Channel, they were unable to agree to this change in the original design. The inquiry did not end there. The late Government thought it right to consider whether it was not desirable to retain two tiers on the deep-sea side, and to have only one on the shoal side. The combined Committees examined this proposal also. Still, looking to the great importance of the position, they determined that it was not desirable to effect that reduction, and they gave what appeared to him to be strong and adequate reasons why it was desirable to retain two tiers all round—both on the shoal side and the deep-sea side. His hon. Friend had himself pointed out that, if those forts were made as they were de- signed, they would not only deny the entrance to an assailing force, but would prevent the bombardment of the great naval arsenal, secure an anchorage for the Navy, and a refuge for merchant shipping. These were very great advantages. His hon. Friend said they might leave the Navy to take care of itself. He had no doubt it would take care of itself, but they wanted to take care not of the Navy, but of that great arsenal, the mother of the Navy. It had been truly said that the place of our naval force in time of war was not on our own coast, but off the enemy's coast, and no one would expect the British Navy to be lying at Spithead in the time of the country's greatest need. But after a gallant and even a victorious encounter in the Channel some vessels might be disabled, and obliged to go back to Portsmouth to re-fit, and a safe anchorage would be invaluable to them. His hon. and gallant Friend had spoken of two or three shells being thrown on Portsmouth Dockyard. But did any one suppose that all this expense had been incurred to prevent the throwing of two or three shells? Portsmouth was our principal dockyard, now in course of being very greatly extended, and the object of this expenditure was to deny an entrance to a hostile fleet. It was proposed to authorize an expenditure of £648,000, which would bring up the total amount to £1,056,000. From this his hon. Friend proposed to deduct £225,000. But for this reduction of one-fifth of the whole expense of defending Spithead they would lose one-half of the total power of preventing an enemy from bringing his force to bear in a hostile attack. The question did not end there. The anchorage at Portsmouth had not one, but two entrances. They had incurred a large expenditure in arming the entrance at the Needles, and this sum of £225,000 would be very little more than one-tenth of the whole expenditure at Portsmouth, which was between £1,800,000 and £1,900,000. The entrance by the Needles had been effectually barred, and if the anchorage of Spithead were also made safe they would practically render an attack impossible. He would ask, then, whether it was economical after having spent nine-tenths of the sums required, for the sake of saving one-tenth, to leave one entrance still open to a gallant enemy? To illus- trate it in another way. With two tiers of guns on these forts there would be ten guns bearing on each hostile ship as it approached, and the shot of the higher tier descending on the deck would be more destructive than the guns of the lower tier, seeing that the deck of a vessel was not plated with iron of the same thickness as the sides. For each of the guns of the two tiers they would have to pay £8,663 at one of the forts, and £9,438 at the other, whereas if they had only one tier, and if they divided the cost of the foundation and the construction of the fort among the smaller number of guns, they would have to pay £12,500 in one case and £14,062 in the other. True economy then would direct that the forts should be finished upon the plan originally contemplated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that these forts were to be assisted by torpedoes. The hon. and gallant Member could not attach more importance than he did to those wonderful inventions, which, he agreed, would play a very important part in the future defence of our harbours. There were, however, two classes of torpedoes—the first were mechanical and denied the channel not only to our enemies but to ourselves also; while the second were electric, and denied the channel to our enemies alone, leaving free access to ourselves. It was necessary, however, in using the latter that they should be protected by forts. The hon. and gallant Member further said that if we were to build the forts with only one tier of guns at first, we could add the second tier, if necessary, at any future time; but when the Committee were recommended to adopt that course on the ground of economy, they would first have to calculate the difference between the cost of completing the forts at once and re-commencing the works at some future time, and judge whether it would be worth while for the sake of a small temporary saving to connect ourselves to a greatly increased expenditure at some future time. He did not intend to enter into the controversy with reference to the necessity of the fortifications at all, but would content himself with referring the Committee to the report of the distinguished engineer Colonel Brialmont of the Belgian Army, speaking in the highest terms of the professional ability which had been displayed in the construction of these forts, and to the Report of the Committee recently laid before the House. Under these circumstances, he trusted the Committee would support the Bill as it stood, and would reject the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.

MR. MUNTZ

said., the right hon. Gentleman had failed to convince him of the utility of completing these forts on the original model. Sometime after the fortifications were commenced, and the necessity arose for more money, the ad misericordiam plea was advanced that as so great an undertaking had been commenced it ought to be finished. Believing there was some justice in the plea he voted for going on with the works; but as there was now a definite proposal to reduce the outlay by £225,000, merely by substituting one tier for two tiers, he thought it should be taken advantage of, as it was both wise and economical. He contended that to expend such a vast sum of money as was intended upon these forts was very impolitic, and that for a very simple reason. He quite admitted the value of the forts as a protection for our arsenals, but the science of artillery was in a state of rapid transition. Year after year important improvements were being effected in the manufacture of guns; and those which were last produced entirely superseded those which were made immediately before. It was, therefore, not a very outrageous thing to believe that in the course even of a short time such further improvements would be effected as would render these forts altogether useless. This reason alone was sufficient to make him support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 73: Majority 9.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

On Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill,"

SIR DAVID WEDDERBUEN

asked whether the iron shields, for fixing which a sum of £190,000 was proposed to be taken, were to be employed solely for sea defence or partly for land defence; and whether any of them were to be used in connection with the Moncrieff gun?

MR. CARDWELL

said, that in the statement which he had caused to be circulated it was set forth that for the purposes of retrenchment the shields would be confined to the outer sea defences. Where the Moncrieff gun was used there was no necessity for shields at all.

House resumed.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.