SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 02 May 1864 vol 174 cc2025-50

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £449,298, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Works, Improvements, and Repairs in the Naval Establishments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

rose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the manufacture of ropes by machinery in Her Majesty's dockyards. He had been told that neither in efficacy nor in economy was the system of rope making by machinery equal to the old hand-spun manufacture. He had been informed that the machine process of manufacture was precisely the same as that by which an old coat was turned into a new one in some of the clothmaking towns of Yorkshire. If hon. Mem- bers did not understand the process, he might be allowed to state that it consisted in putting the coat into a machine called a "devil," by means of which a material called "shoddy" was produced, which, although it bore the appearance of good cloth, yet had its fibre so damaged by the machinery that it was almost worthless, and was ready to drop to pieces after a few days' wear. Now, precisely the same effect was, he believed, produced on the hemp by the spinning machine in the manufacture of ropes, which were not at all equal in strength to those which were spun by hand. In support of that statement, he might observe that, in twenty-two trials which had taken place in Her Majesty's dockyards, while the machine-spun ropes broke at a strain of 8½ tons, it required a strain of 9½ to break the hand-spun. But, independent of that fact, there was in the machine-spun ropes the greatest irregularity in the number of strands in the same class of rope; in one sample it was stated that instead of 300 there were only 291, and in another 307 instead of 300. They were also open to objection on the score of economy, it being proved by experiments that there was in their case a loss of about 6½ per cent, which would amount to about £80,000 on the ropes used in our dockyards supposing Russian hemp to be at the price which it actually had reached, of £80 a ton. He might add that our most eminent shipowners — such, for example, as his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) and the Messrs. Green —would not use the machine-spun ropes; while the Secretary for India, on behalf of the Indian Government, declined to accept them after trial, notwithstanding that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, his Colleague, employed them for the British navy. He was not, therefore, to be told that he was behind the age when he only proposed for the Government what the great private shipbuilders found good enough for themselves. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Vote should be reduced by £1,549, the amount asked for for the provision of additional accommodation for spinning machinery at Chatham.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the item of £1,549 be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Wykeham Martin.)

MR. LINDSAY

said, it was not strictly correct to say he never used any machine made rope. It was true he had a manufactory of hand-spun rope on the banks of the Thames; but that was a very small establishment, producing not more than seventy or eighty tons in the year. Rope was largely made by machinery; yarns were still spun by hand, but to a large extent yarns also were spun by machinery. Yarns spun by machinery, he believed, were not so strong, but were more regular than those spun by hand. He could not support the Motion of his hon. Friend, because he thought the Government were only following the example of large manufacturers, who found it much more economical to spin yarn for ropes by machinery than by hand.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that the question was not one of spinning ropes by machinery, but of spinning yarn by machinery. In 1857 the House voted a sum sufficient for, establishing machinery at Chatham for spinning yarn of certain descriptions, and the result had been that not only had the cost of the machinery been paid for, but £4,000 had been saved to the country besides. Now the Government proposed to purchase new machines for £9,350; and it was demonstrable that in a very few years not only would the cost of the machines be repaid, but a saving to the country of £5,000 a year would be effected. The facts as to the expense, he thought, were conclusive; but other topics had been touched upon by his hon. Friend. He said that the hemp was bruised and crushed by the process. He hardly thought his hon. Friend could have seen the process. He (Mr. Childers) had seen it, and he could assure him that there was no bruising or crushing of any kind. It was true that the loss in weight was greater when yarn is machine-spun. The loss on hand-spun yarn was 2 per cent, and on machine-spun yarn 5 per cent, but the loss was an advantage, as it tended to the strength of the rope. Very careful experiments had been instituted to ascertain the relative strength of the two kinds of rope. At Woolwich the result of a large number of trials was 5 per cent in favour of rope made by machine-spun yarn, and at Devonport and Chatham the result was nearly the same. Then came the question of durability. Among other experiments this was tested on hoard the Ariadne. All the rope on the starboard side was made of machine-spun yarn, and all on the larboard of hand-spun yarn, and the result was that the rope made of machine-spun yarn was in every respect equal, and, in some, superior in durability to that made of the latter. On the whole, it appeared that the general result of experiments was in favour of rope manufactured from machine-spun yarn; and he might say as regarded the opinion of the trade, that two of the largest steamship companies in this country were exclusively using rope of that description.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

said, he held in his hand the result of fifty experiments, which showed that machine-spun rope was very inferior to hand-spun rope. The statement of the hon. Gentleman had, therefore, taken him by surprise. He would withdraw his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. H. ROBERTSON

said, he thought it desirable that some explanation should be given as to the item of £7,500 for "Preparations for Extending Portsmouth Dockyard." It was proposed to take 300 acres altogether for this extension, but it appeared that this item only extended to 100 acres with the possible future extension to 300 acres. Experience suggested that this item would commit us to operations of a much larger nature, and might, perhaps, prove only an instalment of £750,000. He doubted the wisdom of the Admiralty design, and thought that the employment of a competent engineer to report on the design and nature of the works would, in the end, turn out an economical expenditure.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that there were two distinct proposals for extending the dockyard accommodation at Portsmouth—one the reclaiming a part of the harbour for the purpose of making basins and docks, and the other by adapting for Government purposes a large tract, of waste land that was called the Pest House Fields, lately the property of the War Department, but which had been given up to the Admiralty. That land would require walling round, the construction of tramways, and preparations for the stacking of timber, and the sum of £7,500 asked for in these Estimates was mainly required for those purposes, though a small portion of it would he required for buying the plant for the purposes of what might be called the great sea extension of the dockyard; but as that was now under the consideration of a Committee upstairs, he need not then trouble the Committee with going into it. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman, that before they engaged in a work of that magnitude the Admiralty would consult some eminent engineers, was quite reasonable; and he could assure the Committee that such advice would be taken.

MR. LINDSAY

asked whether the; £7,500 would complete the works referred to, and whether they would be distinct and complete in themselves, or whether it was only a part and parcel of a great plan to which the House had not yet given its sanction?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, it was principally a Vote for what was required for the preparation of the Pest; House Fields.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, that last year a sum of,£8,000 was taken for the Naval Barracks at Portsmouth, but only £10 had been expended. Now the Admiralty asked for an additional £5,000., How much of this sum was intended to be spent?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the scheme of the Naval Barracks would depend very much upon the scheme now before the Committee upstairs, for if they extended the docks and basins in a northerly direction from the dockyard, it would ' be desirable to place the barracks in some place more contiguous to them.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

rose to call attention to the situation of the new Marine Artillery barracks at Eastney. It was necessary that particular attention should be paid to them in connection with the enormous sums laid out at Portsmouth for the fortifications there, and he regretted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whom he held responsible for that expenditure, was not in his place in the House. The barracks at Eastney were erected in the very eye of the Channel, in going into Portsmouth Harbour, so that: any ship attacking Portsmouth must fire into them. He feared there had been no harmony or concerted action between the I Admiralty and the Defence Committee in: carrying out those works. An enormous sum had been voted for fortifications at Portsmouth, and they had been asked to vote a large sum of money for the construction of barracks in a most untenable position. No doubt it might be said this was the only position where the Marine Artillery could practise the large guns; and that might or might not be true; but all he could say was that a far better site might have been obtained for them inland, and where the troops might have been better protected. These barracks were intended to contain the wives and children of soldiers as well as the soldiers themselves belonging to the Marine Artillery, and that being so, Her Majesty's Government ought to have selected some safe and proper place whereon they could have erected these barracks, instead of where they had been erected, close to the shore and between two small forts that had been erected on the recommendation of the Defence Commissioners. Fort Cumberland, where the Marine Artillery now are, is bomb proof; but these barracks were three stories high and were not bomb proof, and were not to be defended against shot and shell for a quarter of an hour; and yet these barracks were intended to accommodate the Marine Artillery and their wives and children. Nothing could justify the erection of barracks in such a position. Then they had allowed public-houses and other dwellings to be built close round the barracks, and those buildings would perfectly command the barracks. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had made himself responsible for the fortifications at Portsmouth, and it was his bounden duty to see that all the works for the defence of the port were in harmony and concert with each other.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the barracks were placed on the best site that the Government could procure for the purpose which they had in view. One weighty reason which had influenced the site was, that the barracks were close to the sea and had a very good range for heavy guns. It was necessary that the young Marine artillerymen, who were constantly practising at this range, should reside in the neighbourhood of their guns. Another reason which influenced the site was, that the Admiralty obtained the ground at very little expense. The barracks were close to Fort Cumberland, and formed a chain of defence from that fort to Southsea Castle, so as to occupy the whole of the beach. The barracks had a very strong breast-work in front, and all round the rear was a crenellated wall, so that they were capable of a very respectable defence. It would not be occupied by any very great number of men in time of war, as Marine artillerymen generally embarked at such times for naval service. The barracks were, in fact, to be considered principally as a place for the education of young recruits in time of peace. They were certainly exposed at present, but, when the Spithead forts were completed, the Admiralty trusted that Spithead would be pretty well defended, and that the works within Spithead would be comparatively safe. No doubt it was very desirable to find a safe place for the women and children; but they must submit to the fate of their husbands and fathers. Then the hon, and gallant Gentleman said these barracks were surrounded by public-houses. Unfortunately that was true, but all our barracks were equally surrounded by public-houses. Build them where they might, there was no escaping the evil. He wished they could put a stop to it.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

expected to hear a better defence of the Vote than had been made by the noble Lord. In the whole course of his military experience, he had never found a barrack worse situated. It was said it was a link in the defence; but it was a link of sand. A heavy weight striking that barrack would carry all before it. It could not stand for a minute before the broadside of a man-of-war, so that it could not be called a defence. His hon. and gallant Friend stated that there could have been no communication between the Admiralty and the War Department on the subject. But if that were so, and if there had been no consultation with the Defence Commission, it was a most flagrant instance of neglect. If considered as a defensive work, it was one of a most discreditable character; and if it was not a defensive work, then it was placed in the wrong position, and was a waste of public money. He believed the total amount was to be £167,801. But what he most found fault with was that those who had devised this plan had placed the officers under a bomb-proof building [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: That is only partly the case], while the troops were put into that pack-of-cards house.

MR. WHITBREAD

thought the fort on the Horse Shoe Sand had been left out of sight by the gallant Officer. Did any officer suppose it would be an agreeable position for any vessel to he near that fort for the purpose of shelling the barracks? The barracks were built, in the first place, because the site was an eligible one; and secondly, because it would afford great facilities for practice in gunnery. The gallant Officer was mistaken in supposing that the Admiralty had not com- municated with the authorities at the War Office.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the hon. and gallant Officer ought to have known better than to talk of the officers being placed in a bomb-proof building while the men were exposed in the barracks. No doubt, some officers would reside with their men in the bomb-proof; but there was the proper arrangement to leave the full complement of officers with the men in the barracks.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, he went upon the Estimate.

CAPTAIN JERVIS

asked, what was the good of having an unprotected barrack between the two forts? The noble Lord said they had got merely recruits, women, and children there. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET explained that what he meant was that, in time of war, they would probably have but a small number of Marine Artillery there. They would go on shipboard.] And leave their wives and children behind. The great object should be to have the barracks out of range of shot.

COLONEL NORTH

would ask who were to defend the forts upon which they were spending millions of money? The noble Lord the other night told them that these forts would be defended by the Volunteers and the militia. Why the Volunteers were never intended to man the forts except when the country was invaded. Now it would seem that the women and children were to be left to defend them. He could see no use in spending money on these forts if they were not to be properly defended.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the barracks were not for the Artillery, but for the Marine Artillery in time of peace. If there was a war to-morrow the probability would be that nearly every able-bodied man in the Marine Artillery would be on shipboard.

COLONEL DICKSON

asked whether they were to understand that they were to lay out these enormous sums on barracks as to which in time of war, when the Marine Artillery wore on shipboard, it did not matter a jot whether they wore to be blown in pieces or not.

CAPTAIN JERVIS

wanted to know how much money had been spent on those barracks, and how much on the officers' quarters?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

replied, that the total estimate for the work was £167,000, the amount already voted was £67,000, and the gross sum already expended on it was £56,000. The sum; taken for the present year was £30,000,; and the further estimate for completing the work was £73,000. He could not at the present moment say what were the particular sums out of that amount to be expended on the officers' quarters and on Fort Cumberland.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

inquired, in the event of the Marine Artillery now in Fort Cumberland going into ships, what; officers and men would then garrison that fort?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that in the event of such an improbable matter as the bombardment of Spithead, Fort Cumberland would probably be garrisoned, in the absence of the Marine Artillery, by the Militia or Volunteers.

In reply to Sir FREDERIC SMITH,

MR. CHILDERS

said, that it would be impossible to stop the works now, which were completed to a considerable extent, without the loss of all the money expended upon them under the sanction of the House during the last three years.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

wished to know whether, supposing it to be inexpedient to alter the plan of the officers' and men's quarters, as far as it had gone, there was not yet time to locate the women's and children's quarters in a place not so very dangerous?

MR. CHILDERS

presumed that the noble Lord would not propose that the women and children should be placed in a different spot from the place where their husbands and fathers were located.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, that he should have divided the Committee against the whole Vote if he had seen the barracks sooner. The officers' quarters were unroofed.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

noticed that the former Estimate for constructing additional barrack accommodation at Plymouth was £76,000, and in the present Estimates the sum of £80,000 was put down for their further extension and completion, He thought that some explanation was necessary on this point. It was deceiving the House to bring forward a supplementary Estimate larger than the one originally proposed.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that every day improvements were being made in the construction of barracks for the army, navy, and Marines, by means of additional ventilation and other accommoda tion for the health and comfort of the men. Again, the Marines had been increased from 15,000 to 18,000 men, and, consequently, additional barrack accommodation was required for them. At Chatham, for instance, the barracks had been increased, and in order to furnish additional barrack accommodation it was sometimes necessary to throw down existing buildings.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

thought the noble Lord's explanation satisfactory,

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he now desired to call the attention of the Committee to a matter of considerable importance—the item for deepening the north-west basin arid constructing a first-class dock at Malta. The original sum put in the Estimates for this purpose was £15,900; and he had now to move that that item be reduced by the sum of £5,000. It was right that he should state the grounds on which the Government had decided to make that reduction. The question was rather complicated, but a brief statement would explain the reasons of an agreement which the Admiralty had come to with the Maltese Government, and in which he was confident the Committee would concur. So far back as 1858 it became evident that the harbour used for Her Majesty's ships was entirely insufficient, on account of their increased size, especially as the trade of Malta had also augmented; and consequently proposals were made that a certain portion of the great harbour at Valetta, called the French Creek, should be appropriated to ships of the navy on certain conditions. The arrangement was that before Her Majesty's Government took possession of the French Creek, they should, as a preliminary condition, construct at the Marsa a harbour for merchant vessels, with quays and a basin. As originally proposed, the basin was to have had a depth of only twelve feet, and would consequently have been utterly useless for vessels of war. In the Resolution passed by the Council of Government of Malta on the 29th of May, 1859, it was distinctly laid down that — The merchant shipping shall continue in the possession of the creek, called the 'French Creek,' until all the works intended to he performed at the Marsa and in the said extensions shall have been completed. There was a very clear understanding with the Maltese Government on that point, and up to the present time they had shown themselves desirous of acting in a spirit of the utmost good faith towards the Home Government, who, on their part, were bound to take care that not a shadow of suspicion should rest on the integrity of their conduct in the matter. During the progress of the works the engineers suggested that it would be advantageous to deepen the basin to thirty feet instead of twelve feet, so as to permit vessels of war to make use of it, and to excavate the stone in that part of the harbour where it was supposed to be of a superior quality, employing the stone for the walls of the basin, and converting the quarry into a dock. Upon this the Maltese Government, after communicating with the Home Government, agreed to the following Resolution:— Resolved,—That the head of the Government of Malta he authorized and empowered to enter with the Imperial Government into an agreement to the following effect — namely, 'That if the Imperial Government will, at the charge of the Imperial Treasury, cause a repairing or graving dock capable of receiving a ship of the largest class in Her Majesty's navy to be formed in the proximity of the north-western basin referred to in the Resolution passed by this Council on the 25th of May, 1859, and to be furnished with the machinery and other appendages required to render such dock fit for use; and if, moreover, the said Imperial Government will agree to permit merchant vessels, at moderate charges, to be repaired in such dock, when the use of it may not be required for Her Majesty's ships, then the Government of Malta will consent that the work of deepening the said north-western basin to such extent, beyond the twelve feet established in the above quoted Resolution, as may be necessary for the easy passage to the said dock of a ship of the largest class in Her Majesty's navy be considered as part of the works mentioned in the said Resolution.' Accordingly the Maltese Government consented that a sum of about £10,000 should be applied to meeting any excess of expenditure in the works beyond the original estimate; but they were careful to insert a proviso to this effect— That the Government of Malta shall not be bound to pay any sum for the additional depth to he given, as aforesaid, to the said north-western basin before that depth shall have been attained, and the said dock shall have been formed and brought to a working condition, whatever may be the cause of either of those works remaining in an incomplete or insufficient state. On the 13th of December, 1862, the Secretary to the Admiralty announced to the Colonial Office that my Lords were Prepared to propose to Parliament a Vote for constructing a first-class dock out of the northwest basin and in the line of the proposed canal, and to make the necessary deep water access to it, upon the conditions set forth in the Resolution passed by the Council of the Governor of Malta at sitting No. 34, on the 9th of May, 1862, Here there was a distinct agreement between the Home Government and that of Malta originally to construct this great work, afterwards to deepen the basin to thirty feet, and to construct a first-class dock, and the whole arrangement was based on the understanding that the French Creek was not to be occupied until the other works were completed. He believed no objection was made on the other side to the deepening of the basin. That work had been proceeded with, and was now in a forward state of progress; but the dock was not yet commenced. The basin was now in the course of excavation. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: How deep is it?] He was informed that the walls were nearly complete, and that round the edges the full depth had been attained in some places. He could not, however, say exactly how far down the excavation had been carried. Two distinguished naval officers, both well acquainted with Malta (Admirals Codrington and Sir William Martin) had reiterated objections to the scheme of the Government. Neither of these officers, he was sure, would give an opinion which he did not conscientiously believe to be right. Each of these gallant Admirals, however, had a pet scheme of his own, and that must not be forgotten. They alleged that the Marsa Dock was inconvenient on account of its distant situation, that it would be very difficult to get large ships through the merchants' vessels moored there, and there were other objections which he did not deny had all some force. He believed, however, that these two officers grounded their opposition on the impression that the Government were going to rest satisfied with the Marsa Dock, and that they were not going to make use of the other site. He wished to assure the Committee that the dock at the French Creek and that at the Marsa were not to be put into comparison for a moment. In his opinion, every day proved the necessity of constructing more extensive docks; and, although he could not give a distinct answer, he believed that if the Government were in a position to effect that object they would probably do so. Upwards of 2,000,000 tons of shipping went in and out of Malta harbour annually—and among them 100 steam ships of 1,000 tons each. Malta was becoming of more and more importance to this country. We had given up the Ionian Islands. With an increasing trade going on in Malta, and the probability of the Indian reliefs going by that route instead of by the Cape of Good Hope, would it be believed that no such thing as a merchant dock existed in Malta? Anil was it not then wise and right towards the colony that the Government should contribute to a magnificent work that would be at once beneficial to the colony, to commerce, and to the navy? The Duke of Somerset had sent out to Malta two able men—Sir Frederick Grey, the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, and his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), to inquire into this matter; and, after hearing both sides, Sir Frederick Grey came to the conclusion that the Government had taken a wise course. But Her Majesty had an opposition in Malta as well as in this country, and it was very strong there as well as here. The opposition in Malta was represented by four elected Members of the Council, who wrote a letter to the Duke of Somerset, dated 8th September, 1863, in which they stated— Having been informed that it has been asserted to the Home Government that the elected Members of the Council of this Island are opposed to the plan of a dock being constructed in the French Creek, we consider it our duty to deny the truth of that assertion, so far as we, the undersigned, are concerned. There is no reason why we should wish that a naval dock should be constructed at the Marsa (the north-western extension) rather than at the French Creek, since this creek must become naval property, according to the existing agreement for the harbour extension. As to whether such a work might be commenced immediately, we only desire that the merchant shipping be not disturbed in the use of the French Creek, before the new extension shall be ready to receive it. If arrangements can therefore be made to that effect, we see no objection to the commencement of the work immediately, with a view to its being completed by the time the French Creek will become naval property. We do not see how it can have been asserted that we are opposed to the construction of a dock in the French Creek, inasmuch as we have never been consulted on this subject, nor have we ever expressed any opinion which could warrant such an assertion. They entirely repudiated the engagement that had been entered into with the Maltese Government. This caused great surprise in Malta. The other Councillors represented that they could not understand on what grounds they had come to that conclusion. The Governor, in a letter dated 29th of January, 1864, said— I am at a loss to understand what could have moved the Members of Council who signed the letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty to take that very unusual step, without previously referring to me for ascertaining whether, in what terms, and on what grounds, I had expressed my opinion in regard to any opposition that might be expected, in or out of the Council, to a grant to the Admiralty of any portion of the shore on the water of the French Creek, at the present moment; and I am still more surprised at the secresy in which those members kept that correspondence till, I might say, the eve of the opening of Parliament, to the extent even of not consulting their own colleagues, among whom are two of the wealthiest merchants in Malta.… It may also be worth noticing that that correspondence took place at a time when those four members of Council, and two of the merchants whom they consulted, were making every effort to obtain support to a petition against my administration. I cannot believe that the letter they addressed to the Duke of Somerset was unconnected with the agitation which existed at the time when that letter was written. That letter was evidently procured to contradict the statement made by myself and others acting under my direction, to the effect that strong opposition would be made to any grant to the Admiralty of any site in the French Greek. That statement was correct, and I firmly believe well founded, and I am satisfied that the very members who signed that letter (on learning the terms of the resolution of the 25th of May, 1859, which they seem to ignore, and on being informed by their predecessors of the reasons why the latter insisted on the insertion in that resolution of the clause establishing that the mercantile marine is to continue in the possession of the French Creek until the completion of the harbour works) would be the loudest in denouncing a breach of faith on the part of the Government, should any portion of the shore of that creek be now surrendered to the Naval Department for the construction of a dock. I cannot better show to your Grace what was the object of that clause than by a reference to the accompanying letters written to me on the subject by one of Her Majesty's Judges, Dr. Naudi, who, being then member of Council, moved the insertion of that clause in the resolution; and from another letter which, the next day after the publication of the correspondence in question, the other four elected members—one of whom, Dr. Randon, was also a member in 1859—thought it their duty to forward to mo; your Grace will see how that important clause continues to be understood. For myself, who know that the resolution respecting the harbour works would not have received the assent of the Council, or at least of the elected members, without the positive assurance given on the part of the Government, and then embodied in the clause above alluded to—namely, that no portion of the shore or water of the French Creek would be made over to the Admiralty before the harbour works should be completed, I feel bound to submit to your Grace my strong opinion that any such grant at the present moment would be no less than an infraction of a promise solemnly made by the Government, and required by the Council as a guarantee for the performance of those works. The letter of Judge Naudi said — The object of the clause unanimously adopted by the Council was that of keeping in the hands of the local authorities the French Creek as a security for the exact and total execution of the works contemplated in the resolution, and by that clause it was meant that no portion of the shore or of the wall of that creek, destined as it was for the use of merchant shipping, should be made over to the naval department before the works aforesaid should have been completed. He had read these passages to show to the Committee that they were really bound to the Maltese Government to fulfil their engagements. Before engaging in these works they stated they would do so, provided Parliament granted the necessary funds. Last year he had brought the subject before the Committee, and the dock and basin had been sanctioned, and he would read a passage from the Governor's letter to show what were in his opinion the reasons for the delay that had taken place— For, to speak frankly, there can be no doubt, while Admiral Codrington was in command of the dockyard (and who made no disguise that his views were adverse to the plans which had been approved by the Admiralty), that prejudices were fostered which have not yet been altogether eradicated; and although I feel under great obligations to the straightforward, honourable, and very active support of Admiral Austin, yet obviously an undercurrent has shown itself among certain of the subordinates of the department, who, unable or unwilling to conquer their prejudices, prosecute their labours with a want of spirit and energy that is not to the advantage of the public service; indeed, I cannot better characterize my meaning than by saying that 'their heart is not in the work.' He had only further to say that he believed this to be a work of great national importance. It was important to Malta and to the commerce of the Mediterranean, and, above all, he believed we were under an engagement to the Maltese Government to proceed with it. It might be asked why he proposed to reduce the Vote. He had taken upon himself the responsibility of asking the Government to allow the Vote for the dock to be deferred; but he assured the House and the Maltese Government that he had not conceived that the Vote should be expunged, but merely deferred. He had done so because there was a Committee sitting to inquire into dock and basin accommodation at home and abroad, and this was a subject that could properly be considered by them. He was quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite would not bind themselves to a proposition that the Government should be guilty of a breach of faith. With respect to the basin, the works were in progress, and a great part of the money had been expended. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen would exercise their judgment, and not, because men of great weight and experience objected to the Marsa dock, oppose the Government plan, which was not objected to upon its own merits, but simply in comparison with another plan. The Government did not say that the Marsa dock would destroy the utility of a dock at the French Creek; on the contrary, they asserted that when the French Creek came into their possession it would be worthy of consideration whether a, dock should be constructed there, and Mr. M'Clean had reported on the feasibility of constructing a dock in the French Creek by order of the Government. Under all these circumstances, he trusted the Committee would not incur the danger of anything like a breach of faith, and would allow the Vote to pass.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £15,900, for deepening the North-West Basin, and constructing a First-class Dock, be reduced by the sum of £5,000,"— (Lord Clarence Paget,) —put, and agreed to.

CAPTAIN TALBOT

said, the speech of the noble Lord had given him great pleasure, because it showed that the trouble he had taken about this matter had not been thrown away; it had put a stop to the progress of a dock which he believed was not necessary for the Imperial service, nor for the mercantile marine. So far the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory; but beyond that there were subjects for remark. He had had a map prepared of the locality, and he trusted the House would look at it while listening to what he had to say. When it was determined to extend the harbour accommodation at Malta, the estimated cost, £125,000, was to be divided equally between the two Governments, and if that amount was exceeded, then to the extent of one-fourth of a limit of £42,000 the Government of Malta would be responsible. It was also agreed that when those extensions were made, the Maltese merchant shipping should give up the French Creek to the Imperial marine upon the water of the Marsa being deepened to a depth of thirty feet at the outer portion, and the remaining portion to a depth of not less than twenty-five feet. For a considerable time the Maltese Government had been desirous of having the dock made by private enterprise; but that plan was not carried out. The want of dock accommodation in the Mediterranean for British vessels had been long known to all naval officers, while at the same time they were well acquainted with the gigantic strides which the trade of France had made of late years in those waters. That Power had lately provided three docks in the Mediterranean, capable of receiving the largest ships, while at Marseilles ten docks were nearly available, and steps were probably being taken at Algiers in the same direction. Therefore it had been urged upon the Government, that more docks were wanted in the Mediterranean. The Governor of Malta, knowing those facts, proposed to the Government to make a first-class dock at the head of the harbour extension, capable of taking in our largest iron-clad ships—to make a dock inside the north-west basin, which, according to the harbour extension agreement, was only to have a depth of twelve feet, and, as an encouragement, the local Government offered, if any surplus remained from the Supplemental Estimate that was not required for the harbour extension, it should be expended in deepening the water beyond twelve feet. That proposal was an absurd one, because more than that sum would be required for the harbour extension itself. He had thought it right to call particular attention to the point, because it was of the utmost importance for them to have correct Estimates submitted to their consideration if they had any intention of practising economy. In the Estimates, the Admiralty had specified £50,000 for the construction of a dock, and for deepening of the north-western basin; from which sum they had subtracted £10,830 as a subscription from the Maltese Government. Of this latter sum, however, not a single farthing would be forthcoming, as it was only the savings of this sum which should be left after the harbour extension should be completed that the Maltese promised, and there was no doubt that the whole of it would be swallowed up in that work. An engineer, however, who had been lately sent out by the Admiralty for the purpose of inspecting the spot, had reported that it would be necessary to line the excavation with masonry, and to face it with hard stone. His estimate for the construction of the dock alone was £50,000; for the deepening of the basin, £41,000; and for the deepening of the harbour outside—a provision which the Admiralty and Mr. Scamp had entirely forgotten — £4,000. This would bring the total cost up to £95,000. One of the arguments urged in favour of this dock was its cheapness, but he believed that the House would now perceive the fallacy of that reasoning. He regarded it as a most extraordinary circumstance that the Admiralty determined upon their plans without any reference to the opinions or advice of Admiral Sir William Martin, Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean station, or Rear Admiral Codrington, who had been the Admiral Superintendent for three or four years at Malta, and under whose attention, therefore, the question of the dock must undoubtedly have been brought during the period. Admiral Sir William: Martin had made a proposition to the Admiralty, but his communication had not been well received. It was true that the Admiralty had written to Admiral Codrington, but not with the view of obtaining advice; and the first intimation that that officer received of the plans of the Government was through the instrumentality of a Maltese paper. The first objection to the formation of the proposed dock was its distance from the dockyard. The noble Lord had assured him upon a previous occasion, that the distance did not exceed half a mile, but he had subsequently ascertained that it was very nearly — within one-twelfth of-—two miles. Not only would the conveyance of stores he a work of great labour and occasionally peril, but the difficulty of approach for the vessels themselves was very great. They would have to pass through crowds of merchant-shipping, and could hardly by any possibility reach their destination without a collision. The harbour-master looked upon the operation as a most hazardous one. Another objection was that they would have to build supplemental factories in the neighbourhood of the docks. This objection had been met on the part of the Admiralty by the supposition that the deficiency would be supplied by private enterprise, and that the factories which would necessarily be erected for the use of the mercantile marine could be made available for the necessities of Her Majesty's ships. He believed that supposition, however, to be a delusive one, for it could not be imagined that such factories (even were they erected, which was very problematical) would be of much service to our large class of vessels, or be at all capable of repairing our more powerful machinery. The two Admirals to whom he had referred had both pointed out the advantages of the French Creek, which was only 800 yards distant from the dockyard by water and 700 by land. The noble Lord had said that in consequence of the objections raised by the two Admirals, the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Frederick Grey, and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had been sent out, but he felt convinced that they had been sent on a foregone conclusion. ["No, no!"] They only remained at Malta two or three days, and he did not believe that they held any communication with the Admirals by whom the objections had been urged. The question was an important one, as affecting the efficiency and the safety of their Mediterranean fleet; and on a matter of that kind, when two Lords of the Admiralty were sent out to Malta, it was very remarkable that they should content themselves with a mere verbal report. That, he must say, appeared a very slovenly way of carrying on public business. One of his difficulties in dealing with that subject was, that he had to meet bare assertions. They had the bare assertion that the dock at the Marsa, with the approaches, was only to cost £50,000; and they were also told that the dock at the French Creek would be so expensive that they could not have it. That was entirely unsupported and erroneous. The noble Lord had conceded that the French Creek was the proper site for the dock; but it was only after toiling day after day and month after month that they had arrived at that position; because at first it was said that the distance was the same, that the expense would be much greater, and that the time occupied would also be much greater, if the French Creek were chosen instead of the Marsa. All these assertions, he was prepared to show, fell to the ground. He wished to call attention to the Report of Mr. M'Clean, the engineer lately sent out to the Mediterranean to report on that subject. The noble Lord had glanced lightly at that Report, and well he might, for it went entirely against the noble Lord's position. Mr. M'Clean entered into the different estimates, said the dock would cost so and so, the basins so and so, and he ended by very nearly doubling the estimates that had been laid on the table. Moreover, he said not one word in praise of the dock, but, on the other hand, he did say a great deal in favour of the site of the French Creek. It was true that that gentleman did not recommend the dock which Admiral Codrington recommended. That, however, was not the point; but he recommended that the dock should be made at the French Creek. The noble Lord had referred to the four elected Members of the Council at Malta, and drew a comparison between the Opposition there and the Opposition in this House. Now, the position of parties in that House was not quite the same as it was at Malta, because the Government at Malta always had a working majority of fourteen against four. The Council at Malta was composed of eighteen Members; ten of them being official Members, who always voted with the Government on pain of losing their places. The remaining eight were elected Members, who were supposed to represent the public feeling of Malta; but two of the eight were large Government contractors, who had property round the very place where the dock was intended to be constructed, and no wonder they should support the Government. Besides these gentlemen, two more of the elected members went with the contractors and the Government. Therefore, there was a standing majority of fourteen, the other four members being the representatives of the people of Malta. Some months ago, when the noble Lord said, that if the Governor of Malta allowed them to make a dock at the French Creek, the Council and people of Malta would object to what the noble Lord erroneously called "breaking faith" with them,—when that was known at Malta, the freely elected Members of the Council wrote a letter to the Duke of Somerset, stating that they were not at all opposed to the construction of the dock at the French Creek. Those gentlemen were not content with sending their own opinions, but they wrote to the Chamber of Commerce of Malta, inviting the opinion of that body, and also that of the public of Malta. The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter dated Valetta, September 1, 1863, said they were not aware of any objection on the part of the public at Malta to the construction of the dock at the French Creek, and that they did not believe it existed. They also observed that they would not suffer, but rather gain by its construction there rather than at the Marsa. He was convinced that the real feeling of the people of Malta was that they would prefer the site of the French Creek being adopted without the disturbance of their mercantile waters. He had been surprised at the noble Lord quoting a passage in the letter of the Governor of Malta, throwing doubts on the character and motives of Admiral Codrington. Admiral Codrington was actuated by a regard for the public interest, and it was entirely ridiculous to say that he had left an animus among the subordinates in the dockyard at Malta. He was astonished that the noble Lord, himself an Admiral in Her Majesty's service, should have taken upon himself to endorse that statement. The noble Lord now proposed that the Vote should be reduced, and that the question of the docks should be submitted to a Committee sitting upstairs. Now, however that Committee might be constituted, he had such confidence in the strength of his case that he believed the dock would be condemned. If the case was to be referred to a Committee, it was only right that the whole case should be considered. Last year a Vote of £10,000 was taken; this year, if the noble Lord's Motion were carried, £10,900 more would be voted; and the Admiralty said that the sum of £10,800 had been subscribed by the Maltese Government. The whole of this money ought to be spent at once in providing proper dock accommodation at Malta, and in providing it, as soon as possible, in the proper place. The Admiralty had said lately that the French Creek was far superior as a site to the Marsa, but that the dock could not be made there without upsetting the arrangement with the Maltese Government, Now, no one wanted to disturb the merchant ships in the waters of the French Creek, and he contended that there was no impediment in the arrangement referred to which need prevent the Admiralty from carrying out the work as proposed, so that when we came into possession of the waters of the French Creek we should have a dock there complete.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, that as his lion, and gallant Friend expressed his entire approval of Mr. M'Clean's plans and estimate, it must be a matter of satisfaction to him that he had not succeeded on a former occasion in carrying his Motion for the abandonment of the dock in the Marsa. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Talbot) had ignored the fact that the excess, which Mr. M'Clean's Report would lead the House to expect, upon the original estimate, had arisen from the proposal to commence new works which were for the benefit of the navy, and had to be undertaken solely at the expense of the Imperial Government. The whole question lay in a nutshell. The question had never been, which was the most desirable site, but which was the possible site? Unless the Government had been prepared to violate an agreement solemnly entered into, they had no choice but to build the dock in the Marsa. He had authority from Sir Frederick Grey to say, that when he recommended the Admiralty to go on with this dock it never entered into his head that it should be treated as a bar to the construction of a dock in the French Creek. In this opinion he entirely concurred, and it was shared by the Duke of Somerset and by the Board of Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that they had: only just found this out, but they had really stated it all along. In. their minds there was never any sort of comparison between the dock of the Marsa and that of the French Creek; what they looked to was the fact that the former was possible and that the latter was not possible. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman said they ought to have written an elaborate report of the results of their visit to Malta with respect to this question. Now, the members of the Board of Admiralty had something to do besides writing letters to themselves, and it would have been idle to do so when they could explain themselves to their colleagues much better by word of mouth. As to Admiral Martin and Admiral Codrington, their: opposition arose from a complete misapprehension. They believed all along that it; was possible to go on with the dock in the French Creek, whereas it was considered by all the local authorities, that to take the necessary steps for this would have been a violation of the agreement which had been entered into. In his opinion it was owing to the persistent opposition of the two Admirals at Malta, backed by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), and of hon. and gallant Officers opposite, all of: whom recognized the immense importance; of providing additional dock accommodation at Malta, that there was not a dock in the Marsa at this moment, and they alone] would be responsible if any inconvenience should result from the want of it. He, believed that the original estimate of the cost was a sound one, and that it would not be exceeded—at any rate by more than a few thousand pounds, and deeply regretted that the noble Lord should have thought it proper to strike out any portion: of the Vote.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

thought there were passages in the report of Mr. M'Clean which did not bear out the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman put upon it. Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House had no wish to break faith with the Maltese; on the contrary, they quite admitted the necessity of keeping faith with them; but our faith was not pledged with them for the construction of this dock. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not run away with the idea that this was a question of £5,000 or £10,000. The question was one of the greatest importance to this country. He thought the Admiralty were much to blame. We had not a dock in a good position at Malta, and we ought to hare constructed one years ago. As to the allegation of good faith in connection with the dock on the Marsa, what was the use of sending the hon. Gentleman to Malta, and of sending Mr. M'Clean there, if the Government were already pledged to the construction of that dock?

MR. WHITBREAD

I never said we were pledged to the construction of the dock.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

The hon. Gentleman implied it.

MR. WHITBREAD

Neither did I imply it.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

would not, of course, say any more on that point. But the whole subject was an important one. No time ought to be lost in constructing a dock on the French Creek, and abandoning this dock on the Marsa, which was condemned by all the authorities. [" No, no Hear, hear!"] He wished to ask the noble Lord what was their position at that moment? He did not understand from the noble Lord how they stood with regard to this Vote. What was the intention of the Admiralty in withdrawing the £5,000? Were they to understand that the construction of the dock on the Marsa was abandoned for this year?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

had said he was ready to refer the question to a Select Committee. He was quite sure that his right hon. Friend and his hon. and gallant Friends on the other side of the House would not, from any feelings of party, or any wish to criticise the acts of the Government, do anything unfair, or anything calculated to cause a breach of faith on the part of this country with Malta.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

wanted to know why the noble Lord withdrew the £5,000, and what were his intentions with regard to the Marsa dock? He wanted to know how he intended to apply the £10,000, for he should object to deepening the north-west basin beyond twelve feet. They were not pledged to deepen it beyond that depth.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

The £5,000 was withdrawn for the present on account of the dock. The £10,900 would go on towards deepening the basin and completing the side walls of the basin where it had already been deepened. Considerable progress had already been made with the work.

COLONEL SOMERSET

said, while he held the command of a regiment at Malta, he had given attention to this subject. The Government of Malta in 1858 was requested by the Admiralty to find the best harbour, and it was-, suggested that the Marsa was the only place. The merchant shipping there at the time were uneasy lest the Government should take the French Creek, which was the only place available for them. The question of this French Creek was mooted several times, but the expense was much greater. The dock at the Marsa was for the mercantile marine, and was a first-class one, on the principle of those of the Messrs. Laird. It was extraordinary that they had not a first-class dock in the Mediterranean for the navy; if they were going to war they would not have a dock there at which they could recruit.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said no sailor could have recommended the project now before the Committee. It had been stated that the scheme was that of the Governor. No doubt the Governor wished to make things easy; but two Admirals were opposed to the plan. It was time that the House of Commons took up the question. The Committee had been told that the trade of Malta was immense; if so, the dock would always be occupied to the exclusion of Government vessels. The noble Lord said it was intended to send troops to India by way of the Mediterranean. If so, it was the duty of the Government to make the necessary provision.

CAPTAIN TALBOT

wished the Committee clearly to understand the question at issue. Was the new dock not to be proceeded with before the next meeting of Parliament? He also wanted to know whether the north-west basin was to be deepened to the extent of thirty feet?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

had already stated that he proposed to withdraw the clock, referring it to the Committee now sitting upstairs. He was persuaded, in spite of what had been said, that he should have to bring forward a new Vote before the end of the present Session. All the money now asked for would be expended in deepening the basin.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

was satisfied with the statement of the noble Lord that the dock would not be commenced until Parliament was again consulted.

Question put, and agreed to.

CAPTAIN TALBOT

moved the omission of the whole item for deepening the basin and constructing the dock.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item so reduced be omitted from the proposed Vote."— (Captain Tal-bot.)

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

supported the Amendment on the ground that if the dock was not to be constructed there would be no necessity for deepening the basin.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

observed, that the importance of deepening the basin was admitted even by those who opposed the dock.

SIR JOHN HAY

denied that the importance of deepening the basin to the extent of thirty feet was admitted. He himself regarded it as a waste of public money.

MR. CHILDERS

remarked, that in the opinion of Mr. M'Clean the deepening of the basin to thirty feet was a matter of the greatest importance.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 93; Noes 111: Majority 18.

Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

£444,298, New Works, Improvements, and Repairs, also agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported on Tuesday; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

c2049
1. RIVERS POLLUTION (SCOTLAND) BILL. 36 words
c2049
2. ADMIRALTY LANDS AND WORKS BILL. 48 words
c2050
3. ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. 46 words