Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Mr. E. James remarked, that there was this distinction between the flogging of civilians and soldiers -the latter suffered the penalty for comparatively venial crimes. He supported the motion; but suggested that it would be unfair to require the names of individual officers.

Sir C. Napier was of opinion that corporal punishment could not be wholly dispensed with; but that it should be inflicted only after trial by a court-martial.

Captain L. Vernon observed, that a soldier when he entered the service put himself in a different position from another man, and could only be controlled, when he had arms in his hands, by discipline, the infliction of which, in our army punished by flogging, in other armies was visited with death.

After some further discussion, the motion was amended as suggested by Lord C. Paget, so as to omit the names of commanding officers.

A motion made by Sir John Pakington near the close of the Session, for the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the present system of promotions and retirement in Her Majesty's Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of Naval officers, was resisted by Lord Clarence Paget, on behalf of the Government, as an inexpedient proceeding, calculated to excite delusive hopes and to encourage discontent, and was rejected by a majority of 89 to 56.

One of the most important measures of the year, though deferred to a late period of the Session, still remained to be carried through. A Royal Commission had been appointed in the preceding autumn, to inquire into the VOL. CII.

means of defence of the dockyards and arsenals, and to report upon the measures required to secure the kingdom against invasion. The Commission, composed of officers of eminence in different branches of the army, together with some civilians, after a full investigation of the subject committed to them, presented, early in this year, an elaborate Report, setting forth the means and capabilities of defence, as well as the actual defects in our system, and recommending the execution of works on an extensive scale for the purpose of protecting the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards against a hostile inroad. On the 23rd of July, the Prime Minister brought this important national question before the House of Commons. In proposing the Resolution, the object of which was to carry into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission, Lord Palmerston observed that, after the conclusion of the great war, in which our supremacy at sea had been established, a long continuance of peace was calculated upon, and the Government had thought it unnecessary to call upon the country to secure our dockyards against the distant contingency of a war; and as long as our fleet depended upon the wind and the weather alone, we did right to rest upon the strength we pos sessed. Gradually, however, steam became the moving power, which altered the character of naval war fare, and impaired the advantages of our insular position by bridging over the Channel. Referring to the well-known warning given by Sir John Burgoyne in his letter to the Duke of Wellington, he observed that this appeal fell upon deaf ears; but when Lord Derby came into power, his Government took [L]

an important step to repair our means of defence, and that was followed up by the succeeding Government, though some of our most important establishments still remained imperfectly defended. A Commission was at length appointed to inquire into the facts, and the results had been laid upon the table of the House. The Commissioners' recommendations would require a total outlay of 11,000,000l., including about 1,500,000l. for armaments; and he proposed, for the safety of the country, that these recommendations should substantially be carried out. To supply the funds two courses were available: either to vote annually such portions of the sum as the country would like to spend upon this object, or, as he felt it his duty to recommend, to endeavour to complete the works at the earliest possible period, without laying on the country a larger burden than was absolutely necessary, by raising by means of terminable annuities a sum sufficient to effect the object in three or four years. His opinion was, that if these works were necessary, they were necessary as soon as they could be got. The course he proposed was a departure from principle; but Parliament had encouraged the raising of money by loan for the improvement of landed estates, and that policy which was good for individuals could not be unwise for the country. By raising the money by means of terminable annuities there would not be a permanent burden upon the country. It was impossible for any one to say that the future, charged as the horizon was with clouds, was free from danger. We had recently contracted with our immediate neighbour across the Channel a commer

cial treaty, and experience had proved that commercial intercourse between nations contributed to the preservation of peace, and he hoped much from this treaty. But the treaty alone would be a frail security for a great nation like this, so open to attack. France had an army of 600,000 men, 400,000 actually in arms, a far greater force than France required for the purpose of defence. He did not mean to say that her army was raised for the deliberate purpose of aggression, but we ought not to rely upon the forbearance of any Power, and France was not strengthening herself upon land alone; the utmost exertions had been made, and were making, to create a navy almost equal to our own, which could not be required for the defence of France, but which furnished the means of transporting in a few hours a large military force to our shores. He pointed out the dangers to which this country would be exposed by such an attempt; large contributions might be levied upon the metropolis, or a sudden attack by sea and land upon our naval arsenals might destroy the very cradle of our naval power, and the operation most likely to be attempted would be the landing a considerable force for the destruction of our dockyards. If London should be in danger, what would be wanted was the means of fighting a battle with the greatest possible amount of military force; for this purpose we must provide such arrangements as would make the smallest number of troops necessary to defend the dockyards, and the effect of these fortifications would be to set free a larger amount of force in the field for the defence of London. Many thought that the sum estimated by

the Commissioners was excessive for the purpose, but their estimates included armaments, which would come out of the annual votes. The Government were of opinion that 9,000,000l. would be sufficient for the purpose; out of this about 1,850,000l. would be for the purchase of land, a considerable portion of which would be profitably let, reducing the actual sum for the works to 7,150,000l. He compared this sum with the large expenditure of France and other continental States for the same objects, suggesting that, with such examples, it would be criminal in this country to neglect its defence, and that, when the proposed works should be completed, the country would be placed in a condition, humanly speaking, of comparative safety. He then read the Resolution he intended to move, granting for constructing the works 2,000,000l. for the present year, charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and authorizing the Commissioners of the Treasury to raise this sum by annuities for the term of thirty years, to be charged upon the Fund. The Government, he observed, did not ask the whole sum at once, but proposed to spread it over three or four years, and 2.000,000l. was as much as could be advantageously spent between the present month and the same time next year. Application would be made annually for such portions of the 9,000,000l. as were required. He reminded the House, in conclusion, that annuities to the amount of 580,000l. would expire in the year 1867, which would more than cover the interest upon this loan.

Mr. Hubbard thought it was unadvisable to raise the money by the mode of terminable annuities,

which would be a disadvantageous operation.

Mr. Bright said, during his seventeen years' experience in that House, he had never known an instance of a question of such magnitude and importance brought before the House without notice, and of such a Resolution being proposed for adoption on the same evening. In all probability, the proposition would involve an expenditure of twice 12,000,000l. He protested against being entrapped or cajoled into such a Resolution, and, saying nothing of the tone and manner in which it had been proposed, he should move that the Chairman report progress.

Mr. S. Herbert, observing that it was but fair that the House should be put in possession of the plans which the Government proposed to execute, proceeded to explain the nature and extent of the works at the different places, and their respective cost. The 2,000,000l. to be raised, he said, was not the whole sum to be spent during the year. There was a sum of 450,000l. in the Estimates to carry on works in progress included in the proposition, so that the whole amount would be about 2,500,000l. He had a firm conviction, he added, that the country would support the Government in their proposal, and he expressed an earnest hope that the House would look at this as a national question.

After some remarks by General Peel, who considered the Government, however composed, responsible, not in a mere nominal sense, for the safety of the country, Mr. B. Osborne said that Lord Palmerston's speech had suggested very alarming considerations, and

he objected to coming to a vote upon this question under the influence of a panic. He recommended that the Resolution should be postponed.

Lord Palmerston, remarking that he was convinced the more the House reflected on the proposals which he had made, the more inclined they would be to support the Resolution, acceded to the wish expressed for further time, and the discussion was adjourned to the following week.

Upon its being resumed, an amendment was moved by Mr. Lindsay as follows:-"That, as the main defence of Great Britain against aggression depends on an efficient navy, it is not now expedient to enter into a large expenditure on permanent land fortifications." He warned the House of the very large expendituremuch larger than had been sug. gested by the Government-in which the proposed works would involve the country, and ridiculed the notion of an invasion from France. He had faith in the professions contained in the letter of the Emperor of the French, who had, he said, given proof of his sincerity, and who had more interest than we had in maintaining peace; and, above all, it was his interest to be at peace with this country. Would the projected works, he asked, make us safe? He denied that they would, and insisted that the House must go on with this expenditure, fortifying every part of the coast, and incur an outlay not of 9,000,000l., but at least 59,000,000l. We had now a powerful navy; we had a volunteer force, in addition to our army, of 130,000 men, which could be augmented to 1,000,000; and if the French should succeed

(which he doubted) in throwing 100,000 upon our shores, not one of these 100,000 would ever return to their native country.

Mr. H. Berkeley, in seconding this amendment, said he differed from Mr. Lindsay in some points. He admitted that there was a necessity for defending the country, but he did not think the best mode of defence was by constructing stone walls and placing cannon upon them. With Lycurgus, he preferred walls of men to walls of stone, and thought that Lord Palmerston had made out no case why we should skulk behind fortifications rather than take to our usual defences, and resort to stone walls instead of wooden walls. Our volunteers, he contended, were like other volunteers and raw levies, if well led, would beat the best regular troops.

Mr. S. Herbert, after correcting some of Mr. Berkeley's facts, in reply to Mr. Lindsay, acknowledged that our navy was our first and great line of defence; but its effect, he remarked, had been seriously impaired by steam. Adverting to the anxiety expressed in the recent letter of the Emperor of the French for peace, he observed that no nation would attack France, and England was least inclined of all. Our prosperity depended upon the maintenance of peace; no man in England wished for war; yet what was the Emperor doing? He (Mr. Herbert) made no complaint of his proceedings. He was strengthening the fortifications at Cherbourg, L'Orient, Rochfort, and Brest, and he had no ground to complain of us for protecting our dockyards and arsenals, which were in a far weaker condition. He showed from examples, when we had the command of the sea, that foreign

fleets had done much damage upon our shores, proving that a navy was no perfect security. If any country, when once the sea line was broken through, depended upon fortifications, it was England; and the public opinion was, that we were not in that fit state of defence in which so rich a nation ought to be. If the House thought all the fears as to the insecurity of our dockyards and arsenals were imaginary, and that we should trust to the Spartan principle of defence, that of flesh and blood, let them refuse the Resolution; but he believed that the House, faithfully representing the feeling of the country, would be of opinion that the great depositories of our naval strength, and the points most liable to attack, should be made, as far as possible, invulnerable.

Mr. Bright said the House would deceive itself if it supposed that the estimate of the Government as to the cost of these works could be relied upon. Whenever the Government undertook any work, the estimate was never adhered to; the expenditure was doubled before the work was completed, and he had no doubt that, if the House voted the carrying out of these works to completion, the expenditure would be at least 20,000,000l. Millions more would be involved; there must be an increase of the standing army, and the works would be useless without soldiers to man them. He wanted to know by whom this expenditure was urged; was it by an united Cabinet? He believed that if the follies and superstitions of the Foreign-office could be got rid of, we might save three-fourths of our military expenditure, and that whatever was necessary for inter

nal defence might be had, at little expense, from our volunteers. After a review of the opinions and suggestions of the military authorities upon this question, accompanied by a sarcastic running commentary, he asked the Committee whether there was any other thing they would consent to undertake upon such counsel, than which nothing, he declared, could be more confused. He proceeded to argue that the representations as to the naval augmentations and coast fortifications in France were gross exaggerations; but they acted, he said, upon the people, and if the people believed them, he charged this to the contemptible cowardice of the Cabinet Ministers of this country. He arraigned in severe terms the policy of the present Administration towards France, characterizing it as grossly inconsistent, and in one particular insulting at once to the people of England and of France. The Emperor of the French had made efforts to meet the wishes of the English Government, and we should act as if we thought him sincere and amicable towards this country. But the speech of Lord Palmerston the other night in bringing forward this Resolution was calculated to encourage the panic in England, and to create excitement and distrust in France. France might be our enemy (he did not believe she was), but he could point out an enemy at home in the insane and wicked policy by which this enormous amount of taxation was abstracted from the labour of the people. With all his heart he opposed the Resolution.

Mr. Newdegate commented with some severity on the speech of Mr. Bright, which, he said, was either

« EdellinenJatka »