an idle display, or else it indicated that the speaker was jealous of the independent position of this country.

Lord R. Montague supported the Resolution of the Govern

ment.

Sir F. Goldsmid thought the views of the Commissioners indicated an undue alarm of invasion.

Mr. White thought it would be better to place reliance upon the public spirit of the country than upon fortifications.

Sir C. Napier regarded fortifications as of little value, and urged that our safety consisted in keeping up a more powerful navy than any other country. As long as our naval strength was properly maintained, he believed that France would never attempt to invade this country.

Mr. Corry gave details in refutation of statements made by Mr. Bright respecting the naval expenditure of France and England. In comparing the naval force of the two countries, he showed that that of France had greatly increased in proportion to our navy; and that, whereas many of our vessels of war were sent upon foreign stations, France could retain her fleets at home. With regard to the fortifications, he entirely approved the policy of the Govern

ment.

Mr. Osborne observed that the House of Commons had a right to ask why the Report and recommendations of the Commissioners had been brought forward at the fag end of the Session. If it was true, as Lord Palmerston had stated, that, to put the country in an ample state of security, it was absolutely necessary to carry out those recommendations, why was

the Report suffered to lie dormant for six months? The Report was dated the 7th of February; on the 10th the Budget was brought forward, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say why he suppressed the fact of this Report, and of 2,000,000l. being required for these fortifications, he having 2,000,000l. of terminable annuities which would fall in, and which he had applied to the repeal of the Paper Duties. He did not object to seaboard defences, but he objected to the enormous outlay upon land fortifications, and to the constitution of the Commission which had recommended them, but which had not examined any artillery officer, though they had examined Lord Overstone. He objected to the Report on two grounds. First, that the plan of defence recommended was vague, fragmentary, and incomplete; secondly, that the estimate of the expense was utterly loose and very inaccurate. He read the evidence of distinguished officers adverse to the scheme of land fortifications, which, if completed, he observed, must have men to garrison them, and he believed that they would require at least 100,000, and that they must be trained artillerymen. In the face of the evidence taken by the Commission, the House, he thought, was not justified in sanctioning the expenditure proposed by the Government. He condemned the policy inaugurated in the speech of Lord Palmerston, to which he thought the letter of the Emperor of the French was a sufficient answer. He could not vote for the amendment, because he thought some expenditure necessary for our seaboard defences; but if an amendment were moved requiring

further information before more money was expended on land fortifications, he would support it.

Mr. Horsman said it appeared to him that the first question was, whether the country was in a state of security, and, if not, how that security could be obtained. The speech of Lord Palmerston in bringing forward this subject was of more importance, and was deserving of the more consideration, because it was to be remembered that he could not be supposed unfriendly to the Government of France, and, upon his responsibility as a Minister, he had made this an Imperial and an European question. Could he have made the statements he did make to the House, unless under imperious necessity? The mere question of defending ourselves was not all the House had to consider. Moral considerations were involved in our security. England was not a mere geographical expression. The safety of England, in the opinion of every friend to freedom of thought and free institutions, was essential to the preservation of all that was valuable to the peace and happiness of mankind.

Sir Frederick Smith objected to a system of land fortifications. With a regular army of 100,000 men in the field, well provided with artillery, and a large force of volunteers, land fortifications would not be needed, nor should we have sufficient soldiers to furnish garrisons to hold them.

Sir S. M. Peto supported the amendment, believing that the House had not yet sufficient information to act upon, and that the Report of the Commissioners did not treat the subject in all its bearings.

Lord Palmerston made a general

reply to objections, and succeeded in surrounding an unpromising subject with an atmosphere of humour. He reminded the Committee that the object of the Government was not, as pretended, to line the coast with defences and fortify London, but to protect our dockyards and certain other important points essential to the maintenance of our first line of defence. He had never, he said, varied his opinion that it was necessary to defend those vulnerable points, and he denied that the report of the Commission implied any distrust of a power with which we had concluded a Commercial Treaty. This Commission was appointed more than twelve months ago, before the treaty was thought of. He trusted that the peaceful relations between this country and France would continue for a long time; but he was convinced that the only security was to be strong enough to defend ourselves, and those who were so were the most likely to remain at peace with the world.

A division then took place, when the amendment was negatived by a very large majority-268 to 39,and after a further division on an amendment moved by Mr. Monsell, which only obtained thirty-seven votes, the original Resolution was agreed to.

A Bill being brought in, founded upon the Resolution, and the second reading being proposed on the 9th of August,

Mr. E. James moved, as an amendment, the following Resolution:-"That, before proceeding further with this Bill, it is desirable that this House should be in possession of further information as to the entire cost of the construction and efficient maintenance

of the sea defences and the proposed land fortifications, distinguishing the expenses necessary to be incurred by the country in respect of such proposed sea defences and land fortifications." He observed that the House was asked to vote 2,000,000l. as an instalment of an indefinite sum, for it was left in the dark as to the ultimate cost of these works. The 11,000,000l. was only for the construction of the proposed fortifications and sea defences and their armament; but their maintenance and manning were to be provided for, which would probably cost 3,000,000l. or more annually, and the House, he thought, should have something like a definite estimate of the limit of the expenditure.

Sir C. Napier, in seconding the amendment, reiterated his opinion that fortifications were superfluous if we retained our maritime superiority. We had now, he said, a respectable fleet, and it was impossible that France could invade this country unless she had the command of the sea. We must trust to our fleet, and keep it in high order, well-manned, and there would be no necessity to spend money upon batteries and fortifications.

Mr. Sidney Herbert, in reply, referred very briefly to the details he had given on a former occasion, stating the proportionate cost of the sea and land defences, and added that he was satisfied that the Estimates could be relied upon.

Colonel Dickson supported the amendment. He ridiculed the idea of invasion, and objected to spending a large sum on land defences. An increase of the regular army, and the formation of

Lord Elcho tendered his thanks to the Government for the course they had taken to provide for the national defence. We had now a Volunteer force of 138,000 men, and it was from no panic that the people were arming themselves, but from a calm and deliberate determination to place this country in a thorough state of defence, and not to trust to the forbearance of other States. The construction of defences of our dockyards contributed to the sense of security, and there was nothing in the aspect of affairs in Europe to induce us to relax our efforts.

Mr. Monsell was in favour of the amendment, remarking that the only object of it was to ascertain whether the plan of the Government was based on solid grounds. For this purpose some further evidence was needed. One of the most obvious questions, the cost of ammunition for 2500 guns, appeared to have been overlooked.

Sir D. L. Evans, though he supported the Bill, thought there had been a deficiency of artillery officers on the Commission. He declined, however, to enter into minute criticism, approving of the plan as a whole.

Sir F. Smith repeated his objections to the scheme of land fortifications. He recommended that the two millions should be laid out on sea-defences.

Mr. B. Osborne supported the amendment. He thought the Estimates unsatisfactory and the information insufficient. According to the evidence given before the Commissioners, the land defences

would be of no avail, and engineer officers had pronounced that they were not called for.

Sir M. Peto did not object to the expenditure, but he thought the Government should present a well-matured plan and perfect estimates. It was the opinion of professional men, in which he concurred, that expensive land fortifications were unnecessary- that earthworks would suffice.

Lord Palmerston noticed the diversity of opinions among those who acknowledged that measures of defence were necessary. Military men were for an addition to the regular army, forgetting that this would be almost as expensive as fortifications; naval men were for ships; lawyers had not stated their specific; he supposed they would recommend an injunction, or the issue of a writ ne exeat regno. He thought the majority of the House were right in think ing that permanent defences were the best and the cheapest. He repeated that the proposal of the Government was not founded upon distrust of any particular Sovereign or nation, but upon a deliberate conviction that we ought to be prepared to defend the vulnerable points of the country, and that the best security for the continuance of peace was to be found in the ability to defend ourselves.

The House having divided, the Amendment was rejected by 143 to 32, and the Bill was read a second time. It passed through its remaining stages in the House of Commons without difficulty, and was proposed for a second reading in the House of Lords on the 20th of August.

The Earl of Ellenborough expressed the gratification with which he regarded the measure, and said

that he had for many years endeavoured to call the attention of successive Governments to the almost defenceless state of the country, and had urged upon them the necessity of no longer permitting ourselves to remain unarmed in the midst of a world in arms. He viewed the Bill with all the more satisfaction, because he entertained that distrust of the French Emperor which Lord John Russell had predicted would be the result of his persevering with the annexation of Nice and Savoy. Before that event, about 30,000 men had formed themselves into rifle corps; but the movement had since acquired increased force, and 70,000 men had been added to the Volunteer ranks. That was the commentary which the people of Eng. land had chosen to pass upon the policy of the Emperor of the French. He regretted, however, that the Government had stopped short in regard to the fortifications at Sandown, in the Isle of Wight; and he himself would have gone further than they proposed to go in adding to the defence of the dockyards. The state of Woolwich would materially affect the results of any expedition that might have for its object an attack upon the metropolis. In his opinion, Woolwich ought to be made the citadel of London, upon which, if properly fortified, it would render an attack nearly impossible. Referring again to the Rifle Volunteers in eulogistic terms, Lord Ellenborough observed that, however admirable and useful as an arm of defence they might be, it would be unreasonable to expect them to act as a regular army against disciplined troops in the field, and he thought the Government would have done wisely if

they had taken steps to increase the regular forces.

Earl de Grey and Ripon (UnderSecretary of State for War) said, he was much gratified by Lord Ellenborough's general approval of the measure. To carry out his suggestion, however, with regard to Woolwich, would involve an enormous expenditure, and the regular army was larger at that time than it had been for many years past. Lord Ripon went on to say:

"The noble earl has alluded to the smallness of the regular force we should be able to take into the field. I entirely agree with the noble earl in thinking that we must look very much to regular troops for operations in the field. But we have made a great stride in the means of national defence by the creation of our Volunteer corps. I do not desire to exaggerate the importance of that movement; but I may be allowed to say that I entertain a strong hope that it may be found to be of great utility in the maintenance of peace by the manifestation which it affords of the spirit which animates the people of this country, and of their determination to defend their native shores. I believe, too, that when the hour of peril arrives-if, indeed, it does comethe Volunteer force will be found to be of the greatest possible advantage in occupying our various garrisons, in operating against the flank of the enemy, and even in the case of some battalions-I speak upon good authority-in

taking part in operations in the field. Whether we should maintain in this country a much larger regular army than we have hitherto kept up is of course a question for Parliament to decide. But upon that point I may observe that the regular force which we possess at the present moment is greater than that which we have had at almost any previous period of our history; that it has undergone no diminution during the last few months, and that it stands numerically at a higher point than it did in the spring of 1859. It is a force, I may add, which, in the opinion of the Government, is sufficient to meet the exigencies of the time; but whether they be right in entertaining that opinion or not, it is satisfactory to know that the tendency of this Bill is to utilize that force to a greater extent than independent of its operation would be possible. I cannot, under these circumstances, my lords, doubt for a moment that you will give a second reading to a measure which is purely of a defensive character, which is aimed against no country, which has reference to no Government, which the great changes which have recently taken place in military science have rendered necessary, and which is to be regarded not so much as a warlike proposition as one calculated to insure and maintain the peace of Europe."

The Bill was then read a second time without a division.