vacillation on a matter of such grave | into extravagant and unwise building proimportance as that which engages us jects, and having spent a certain sum of this evening. Yet what has been the money without any adequate result, cannot conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers on reconcile themselves to the fact that the this subject? Are they free from the money is wasted, and are so tempted into imputation of vacillation and inconsist- fresh expenditure. That is the position in ency, which the right hon. Secretary which we find ourselves; that is the hisfor War indiscreetly, unjustly, and tory of the proceedings of Her Majesty's without offence to him-I think, so un- Government, who commenced the evening truly, throws on the men among whom by charging the House of Commons with he sits? What was the origin of this vacillation and inconsistency with regard great scheme of fortification? A paper to this important question. was laid on the table that prepared the The noble Lord has criticised some of House for an expenditure of £11,500,000. the remarks made my hon. Friend the When the House was prepared for this Member for Stamford. I confess it apexpenditure by that paper, the Prime pears to me that of all the observations Minister explained the plan, and in the that have been made this evening those course of his speech the £11,500,000 remarks of my hon. Friend were the most came down to £9,000,000. In the course pertinent. They really touched the very of the same evening the then Secretary point on which we want information. We of War, following up with a more lumi- are told that certain sums are expended in nous comment the exposition of the Prime certain works; but we want to know what Minister, reduced the future liability for sums and where are they expended? It carrying on these works to £5,000,000. is only when we have this information And the present Secretary of War has to- before us that we can form any practical night informed the Committee that their opinion of these works. The noble Lord's cost will be £6,500,000. There appears, plan of defending our arsenals seaward by therefore, to have been, if not inconsistency, forts has really been demolished by the at least great vacillation in the opinions general opinion of the country. I appreof Her Majesty's Ministers on this sub- hend that the general opinion as to the ject. It is brought forward in a manner creation of inland arsenals has produced that deprives this House of its privilege the same result. But as to the third porof examining details; yet, even as to tion of the noble Lord's scheme, that of the financial part of the question, the the land defences, which has been comopinions of the Government have been thus menced, which has been carried on for varied, contrary, and vacillating. And if some time, and on which large sums have we pursue the measure, do we find want- been expended, it is utterly impossible ing that character of vacillation and in- the House of Commons can give any pracconsistency which attended the inception tical opinion, unless they have some further and introduction of this project? Why information as to the amount of the exthis scheme may be divided under three penditure and the places where it is to be heads; there is the plan for land defences incurred. These are the points we ought of our arsenals; there is the plan for the to have before us, and which we should defence of our arsenals seaward; and there have had before us if this business had is the plan for the creation of inland arse- been brought under our consideration in nals. Well, the plan for the defence of the usual Parliamentary manner. It is our arsenals seaward is, I apprehend, re- on that ground, but not on that ground linquished; the plan for the creation of alone, that my hon. Friend objected to the inland arsenals is also abandoned. And form in which this subject is introduced what has become of the third portion of to the House. He objected to it upon the plan? I would ask those Gentlemen grounds which I thought must have been who impute vacillation and inconsistency shared in by all the Members of the House, to the House what becomes of the third that the last resource we should adopt to plan on which they insist that for the defray this expenditure is a loan. land defences of our arsenals? The noble noble Lord has introduced a very stale Lord has this moment made an appeal ad story, which involves a very demoralizing misericordiam to the House, and says it doctrine in finance. He seems to think will cost more to put an end to this pro- that posterity is a pack-horse, always ready ject than to carry it into effect. Why, this to be loaded. And I think the principle is the excuse men make who have entered of finance the noble Lord promulgated to

The

night throws some light on that remarkable | the due consideration which he had not contrast between the policy of the Chancel- then, at the fag end of a Session, had an lor of the Exchequer, during the last three opportunity of giving, objects to the prinyears, and the expenditure recommended ciple on which it is proposed to raise the by the noble Lord. We have had a war public money for this purpose, he is acexpenditure in time of peace, combined, cused of having altogether departed from and erroneously combined, with a system the views which he once entertained. of finance that only a peace expenditure But has not the noble Lord himself, let could justify. The consequences of that me ask, changed his views on the subject combination may alarm us and other of this loan? Is the tone in which he Members of the House; but when those addressed the House to-night that in which consequences begin to appear-and they he recommended those fortifications to our may be nearer than we suppose-they will notice in 1860? Is the tone in which he perhaps be no source of alarm to the noble spoke of our relations with France the Lord, because when his financial embar- same to-night as it was then? Are the rassments commence, he is perfectly ready views to which he has given utterance toto draw upon posterity. To-night he is night in regard to those relations identiestablishing a precedent which, if sanc- cal in feeling or expression with those tioned by the House, will allow him to which he promulgated at the end of the engage the expenditure of the country in Session of 1860? The noble Lord has toworthless purposes of any sort with impu- night, in language of great propriety, and, nity. My hon. Friend, therefore, has so far as I can form an opinion, of great clearly put before the House the difficulty truth, described the relations which exist, in which we are placed arising from the and which I think should exist, between mode in which this subject is introduced. England and France. In the year 1860, We have not that due control over the however, the noble Lord came down to expenditure of the public money in the the House, and stating that the truth case of these fortifications which, what- could be no longer concealed, told us ever may be our opinion of the policy or that this country was in imminent danger, impolicy of their construction-for of that and that he did not know at what moment I now say nothing-the House of Com- the cloud might burst. He then gave us mons ought in my opinion to possess. It to understand that it was France we had was for that reason that my hon. Friend to fear. And what was France to domade the observations which he addressed that humane and civilized ally, by whom to the Committee to-night; and when the the noble Lord now remembers the adnoble Lord taunts him with having vantages conferred upon us during the changed his opinions on this subject Indian mutiny, to whom we are indebted since July, 1860, because then forsooth for so much courtesy in the case of the he did not enter his protest against Trent-services acknowledged, I would raising the money by way of loan, I remind the noble Lord, before to-night, would remind him that many other per- by hon. Members on both sides of the sons besides my hon. Friend may also House in speaking of the French Emperor have changed the mood in which they view and nation? But what, only two years. this question since that period. At the ago, were we led to expect from this our end of the year, after a severe financial ally and neighbour? We were asked to campaign, after having fought almost every believe that a blow might be struck sudpoint involved in a complicated Budget denly and immediately by her against us; -in which I may say in passing there the noble Lord told us, in short, that was not the slightest allusion made to France was the enemy against whom we the expenditure requisite for these forti- must prepare; and what was she to do? fications, by which omission the House To strike at the heart of the country; to of Commons was, if not intentionally, sail up the Thames, to enter London, practically and absolutely misled, and there to dictate an inglorious peace, while when even the Minister particularly re- she levied exactions on a conquered people. sponsible for the finances of the country When, then, the noble Lord taunts my had said nothing on a subject so import- hon. Friend with not having seized the ant as that now before us the noble opportunity, at the end of July, 1860, to Lord brought forward this monster pro- protest against the form in which it was position; and now, because my hon. proposed to raise this money, he ought to Friend, after having given the matter bear in mind that others have changed

their views on the subject since then, and effect. The evidence, however, of only that the calm and quiet financier is not one witness, he too being a local and always master of himself when a Prime official witness, was taken, and the result, Minister comes down to the House and under such circumstances, can scarcely, Í makes those terrible communications to an think, be regarded as satisfactory to the appalled and affrighted House of Com- House. What the Committee want is, mons. But let me now observe that we that all these points should be brought are involved in a somewhat peculiar posi- separately before them; and, now that tion with respect to the Resolution before we have proceeded so far in the construcus. The Resolution of the Government tion of the works, I think it would be asks us to sanction that which they them- more satisfactory that we should enselves say they do not wish us to adopt, deavour to obtain some more practical and this anomaly is explained by a tech- mode of pronouncing an opinion upon nical reason which I did not accurately them than can result from the Amendcollect from the speech of the Secretary of ment before us, which, after what has State, but which I will take it for granted taken place, is of an imperfect character. was sufficient and satisfactory. Then we There is, however, one observation of the come to the Amendment of the hon. Mem- noble Lord to which I cannot help reber for Liskeard, to which the great ob- ferring-I allude to his justification of jection is, that, as matters stand, it does his proposition for a loan for the construcnot offer to the House any clear issue. In tion of these works. He says that we consequence of the shiftings of the Govern- are, by means of these fortifications, imment-in consequence of the Government, proving as it were our freehold, and that before the debate commenced to-night, re- as a consequence they are works, the cost linquishing two of its three schemes, the of which we may properly and justly call Amendment is so framed that it no longer upon posterity to defray. But let me reapplies to the real state of the question, mind the noble Lord that we are every nor meets the necessities of the case. If year erecting fortifications in this country, we agree to this Amendment, we shall be and that the charge for them appears in pronouncing an opinion which practically is the annual Estimates. Is not the freehold a definite one with respect to the proposed equally improved by the works for which forts at Spithead, the allusion to which con- provision is thus made as by those which stitutes the most prominent portion of the the noble Lord now asks us to sancAmendment, but which are relinquished tion? Is not the freehold equally imby the Government. I may add, that if proved when we vote £500,000 for Keyanything was ever satisfactorily demon-ham Docks as when we vote a similar sum strated in this House, it is that the rule, for the fort at Plymouth Sound? I want the validity of which the Government to know where the line is to be drawn, if have recognised with respect to Spithead, the principle advanced by the noble Lord is also applies to Plymouth. The noble to be adopted. Every public work in this Lord, indeed, is the only person sitting on country may be looked upon as an imthe Treasury Bench who attempts to con- provement of the freehold, yet the expentrovert that proposition. He does not, diture for such works generally appears in however, at all appear to me to meet the the Estimates. The Houses of Parliament difficulties of the question. He mainly relies are an improvement of the freehold - I on the evidence taken by the Commission trust a permanent improvement, and one on the subject. But it should be borne in which posterity may enjoy and admire. mind that the Commission examined only The expenditure for the Houses of Parliaone witness, and that that witness was ment, however, appeared in the Estimates. the harbour-master. Now, one witness And what is the result of this new finanmay be, no doubt, enough when he hap- cial principle of the noble Lord? I find, pens to be of your own opinion; but those if I am not mistaken, that in this and in who have heard from persons of authority the last year the usual Vote for fortificathat the construction of this fort might tions is no longer contained in our Estiseriously injure the navigation of Ply-mates; but, in order that they may appear mouth Sound, would naturally wish, that of less amount, it is now defrayed out of the if an investigation into the matter took money raised under the Act already passed place, the evidence of some person, at on this subject. I beg, therefore, the Comleast, should be taken who was of opi-mittee to observe the new and dangerous nion that its construction would have that course into which we are now entering,