HC Deb 16 May 1862 vol 166 cc1849-60

House in Committee.

Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR in the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £150,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for constructing certain Harbours of Refuge.

MR. BAXTER

said, he rose to move that the Vote be reduced by £90,000, the sum asked for Alderney. It was not his intention to trespass long on the attention of the House, as he had last year stated his reasons at considerable length for objecting to the Vote for Alderney. He had not yet met a single Gentleman who in private conversation was prepared to defend this wasteful expenditure; and he felt confident that the Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury bench would rejoice at the success of his Amendment. The real difficulty in connection with the matter was, that neither the Government nor the House of Commons had yet had the moral courage to confess their original blunder by blotting the Vote out of the Estimates. The Duke of Somerset had made a remarkable statement in his place elsewhere—namely, that there were no fewer than fourteen plans for Alderney, and that not one of those plans provided it with a good harbour after all. He (Mr. Baxter) had no means of knowing what those plans were, but from the evidence taken before the Select Committee which sat in 1860 upon the miscellaneous expenditure it appeared that there were five plans, the first of which was in 1848, and was to have cost £620,000. In 1850 a second plan was proposed, at an estimated cost of £880,000. In 1854 the parties engaged in the plot against the public purse proposed an extension which was to have cost £1,300,000. In 1857 the plotters against the public purse had enlarged their scheme to acostof£l,850,000. And in 1859 their expanding views culminated in one grand scheme that was to have cost no less a sum than two millions sterling. Would the Committee believe that of all these plans—whether fourteen, as stated by the Duke of Somerset, or five as was stated in evidence before the Select Committee—only one plan, and that the smallest and the cheapest, was ever sub- mitted for the consideration of the House. They had already expended £330,000 more than the original Estimate; and whatever might be the consequence, he totally objected to spending any more money upon these useless works. But until the House of Commons indicated in a very distinct manner their opinion of that gigantic folly—namely, by refusing to vote the money—they would never adopt any proper means for putting an end to this expenditure. No doubt, they would be told, that if they did not vote the money, all the expenditure which had hitherto taken place would be thrown away; but he did not suppose that any one would object to some small Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of bringing any little necessary work to a conclusion. He was informed that they were to be told that night that there were certain rocks to be blown up, certain shoals to he removed, and breakwaters to be finished; but he put it to the Committee whether that was not the old story. It was merely the hackneyed excuse by which engineers and contractors managed continually to filch money out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the country. As he had stated before, it was entirely a misnomer to call Alderney a harbour of refuge. In point of fact no vessels took refuge there, excepting one class of vessels, and that class consisted of French revenue cruisers, the officers of which laughed at the unintentional complaisance of our Government in providing them with a harbour at a cost of a million sterling to this country. Last year the Vote was carried by a majority of only fifteen, and even that result would not have been accomplished had not the late Sir James Graham brought all his influence and rhetoric to the rescue, and yet that right hon. Gentleman could use no other argument in favour of the works at Alderney than that the scheme, when first proposed, had received the approval of the late Duke of Wellington. The Committee ought, however, to bear in mind the enormous changes which had taken place in naval and military warfare since that approval was expressed. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty admitted that last year, but, feeling bound to find some shadow of excuse for the Vote, the noble Lord contended that, in the event of war, Alderney would be of considerable value as a defensive outpost, and as a station for vessels watching the coast of France; though he wished to guard himself from being considered one of those who would have advised the original construction. Now, was there any military authority in the House prepared to defend the works at Alderney as defensive works? He was informed that successive Governments had been in possession of a report from engineer officers to the effect that the best thing that could he done, in the event of a war with France, would be to blow up the works altogether; and as for making Alderney, at a great expense, an out-station for watching the coast of France, there could be no doubt that a submarine telegraphic communication would be both cheaper and more effective. All he could say was that when he asked an eminent engineering authority whether he was not right last year in moving the rejection of the Vote, he was told that he was wrong, because he ought, at least, to allow a sum of £10,000 to be voted for the purpose of buying gunpowder to blow up the works. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £90,000.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, the outpost of Alderney, if it was required at all, was inferior in importance to many other questions in connection with the national defences. He was old enough to recollect four reconstructions of the navy; and considering the altered circumstances in which naval matters had been placed during the last few months, and with a further reconstruction of the navy staring us in the face, he could not consent to waste a single shilling in the works at Alderney. He should therefore support the Amendment.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, it would be well for the Committee to know the real amount of the Vote for which they were asked. That given in the Estimates was only the apparent amount. The apparent amount of the present Vote was £150,000 only; but there was also a very large balance in hand. He found by a Return of this year (No. 195) that, according to an account brought up to the 1st of April, 1862, there was a balance in hand, in respect to Dover, Alderney, and Portland, of £134,000. This was seen to be the case if the sums certified up to March 31, 1862, were subtracted from the sums already voted. The sum £134,000, added to the £150,000 now proposed to be voted, made a total of £284,000. For Holyhead and Portpatrick harbours, the sum of £101,221 which was voted a few days ago, together with the balance in hand, amounted to £132,622, so that the sum which would be actually placed this year in the hands of Government for harbours of refuge amounted to £416,622. Now, how was the work done? By contracts, limited to a few large firms, who had a monopoly of them, not only by the possession of large capital, but from an acquaintance with that mode of procedure familiar to those who have the advantage of Government employment. Take the works at Holyhead. There a pier had to be constructed on a foundation of rock thrown into the sea. When the road from the mountain, and the first 100 yards of the pier, and a tramway on it for the purpose of carrying the stone, had already been constructed, it would naturally be expected that the contract for the second 100 yards would be less than for the first. On the contrary, it was larger. He mentioned Holyhead as an instance of this class of works, merely because he was acquainted with the place. The rest were similar. The check on the amount of work done was unsatisfactory, and even the responsibility for the works themselves was not confined to a single department. It was divided between the Admiralty and the Board of Works. When the responsibility was thus divided, it could not be effectual. He had the other evening asked the noble Viscount two questions: first, whether he intended to transfer such undertakings to the Board of Works (to which he received no answer); and secondly, whether he would act upon the other recommendation of the Committee, and appoint a permanent Commissioner. There ought to be a permanent Commissioner of Public Works, who would be more familiar with the business of the department than the Chief Commissioner could be under the present system. To this suggestion the noble Viscount had on a former evening objected, that with a permanent Commissioner there would be no one in the House whom they could attack. But he (Lord R. Montagu) had never for a moment desired there should be no one responsible for the department in the House of Commons. One of the numerous officials in the House should be responsible to the House. He would now ask the Committee to consider what were the sums that had been already voted for these works. The total amount during the fifteen years, from 1845 till 1859–60, voted for such works, was £3,718,000; the sum voted for Holyhead was £1,188,000. From 1860 to the present year inclusive, the sums voted were £680,922; making a total voted until this present year of £5,586,922. For this enormous sum did they get value received in the actual work done? Do we pay for value received? Let the House now bear in mind the enormous sums which have been voted, and then hear the evidence of Colonel Greene, the Director of Works. He— thought himself placed in a very unsatisfactory position with reference to harbours of refuge; he did not see what check or control he could possibly have over the work in question, &c. Q. 1858. "Therefore there is no real check or control?—Not the most remote. On being asked (Q. 1860) if the Estimates are usually laid before the Board of Admiralty, he says— Not to my knowledge. I never see one; nor ever have, from first to last. Then (Q. 1911), referring to a payment of £381,000 to which the Accountant General had objected, and being asked what steps had been taken with regard to it, he said—"None that I know of." So much for the system, which applies equally to all the harbours. An enormous and growing expenditure, without the slightest detailed estimate, or even professional examination of the works executed. As to Alderney itself, it was not a harbour of refuge, for their trading ships would not take the opposite side of the Channel—that side, namely, which is furthest from our shores. Nor yet is it valuable for purposes of war. Would any one risk an engagement to save Alderney as a naval harbour? Besides, Captain Denman, the commander of the Queen's yacht, stated, in his evidence, that the works would not answer the purpose for which they were planned, and that the object for which so much money had been spent would be wholly unfulfilled; that the harbour would not hold one line-of-battle ship; and that the works, as works of defence, were decidedly not worth the money expended on them. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, that having examined the harbour of Alderney, he thought, if it was intended for large ships, that the part of the new works extending the breakwater to the point where the sea was deeper must be finished. If that was done, there would be water enough in the harbour for large ships. The foundations were laid, and if the House determined that the works should be stopped, those foundations must he blown up, otherwise no vessel could enter in rough weather. It was within twelve miles of the French, coast, and the only harbour on that side of the Channel. For military purposes they should consider whether it was not worth while to finish the works. He thought the Government should, before the Vote was taken, lay upon the table a detailed statement of plans and expenditure; and if the latter were moderate in amount, he should be disposed to grant the money.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

observed, that in the existing temper of the House it was a difficult task to defend Alderney harbour. But he wished to impress upon them the inexpediency of leaving in an unfinished state a work that would in time of war be extremely valuable for our fleets in the Channel. In 1859 the present Government, immediately after accepting office, inquired narrowly into what had been done. They found that the late Government thought so highly of Alderney, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich had proposed that a considerable extension of the breakwater should be made. The present Government, however, having ascertained to what extent the foundations of the breakwater had been laid, came to the determination to finish the breakwater to that extent, and to that extent only. There remained 1,000 feet of the breakwater to be completed. However prejudiced they might be against Alderney, the Committee should consider that over the unfinished foundations there was at low water only a depth of twelve feet, which was positively dangerous, and would lead to some great disaster to vessels which might attempt to make the harbour in a gale, if matters were not improved. The 1,000 feet must be completed, or the works should be blown up, and he thought few would hesitate to admit that the Government ought to complete the breakwater to the extent he had mentioned. That was all the Government proposed to do. If it should be the pleasure of Parliament that the eastern arm of the breakwater should not be proceeded with, the Government would not press the matter. He, for one, should not originally have advised the formation of the harbour; but he thought, that having begun it, they ought not to leave it in an unfinished state—that would be a disgrace to the country. Without entering into the value of the harbour in time of war, he would remark that our recent experience had rather tended to produce a strong opinion of the value of defensive forts. Guns of almost any size could now be made, and a few of those enormous guns would keep an enemy's fleet from entering the harbour. The money now asked was not required for fortifications, but simply to complete the breakwater. The noble Lord opposite had alluded to a large sum in hand for the purposes of Alderney harbour, but since the date of the return large sums had been paid away. There was also a sum of money payable to the contractors which was kept back to insure the satisfactory completion of the contracts. As to the absence of check supposed to be said by Colonel Greene to exist, he could only say that every waggon of stone thrown into the sea was weighed and checked; and, moreover, the engineer measured the work done periodically, so that every possible precaution was taken to protect the public interests. Bearing in mind that the sudden stoppage would entail great expense foe compensations to contractors and others, to say nothing of the waste of the money already expended, and considering the limited extent to which the Government proposed to continue the works at present, he earnestly entreated the Committee to grant the Vote.

LORD HENRY LENNOX (who was greeted with cheering from the Ministerial benches)

said, he could understand the derisive cheers which were heard from behind the Treasury bench when any independent Member rose to show that there had been wanton expenditure. The House was too accustomed to the gentle pathos of his noble and gallant relative who had just sat down to pay much attention to his pathetic appeals. It was a question of hard common sense which was before them; and the most remarkable fact was that the matter had, on different occasions, been put forward in fourteen distinct shapes, and recommended upon almost as many grounds. Last year the Government said it was not a harbour of refuge, but a harbour necessary for military purposes; and his noble and gallant relative changed the venue, spoke of it as a harbour of refuge, and now implored them to remove that dreadful sand-bank which was going to prove a most fearful instrument of destruction to unhappy ships tempest-tossed in the Channel. His noble and gallant relative said that the harbour would be most useful in the event of a war with France, because it would be a place of shelter for our ships; but whilst England remained mistress of the sea, Alderney in a strategical point of view would be of no value whatever. The report of the Defence Committee stated that fixed forts could not stop steam-ships going past wherever there was a free passage, and enemy's iron ships could pass these fortifications, leaving cooped up there 8,000 British troops who would be most useful upon the main land. It was said that the Duke of Wellington had approved of these fortifications; but when he did so, iron-plated ships and rifled guns were not in use, and Martello towers were confidently relied on as a sufficient defence. The original estimate for the works was £600,000, but already £900,000 had been spent, and £300,000 more would be required. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), carrying out a policy announced at the beginning of the Session of 1856, had recently made a speech deprecating our enormous expenditure, and breathing sentiments of peace and patriotism. That, then, would be a good opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman, if he were in earnest, to make an effort to relieve the taxpayer from some portion, at least, of the present inordinate outlay.

MR. PEEL

said, that the question before the House was not whether the construction of the harbour should be commenced. Alderney was not intended as a harbour of refuge; it was a harbour of defence—one in which, in time of war, our shipping in the Channel could be protected. The late Sir James Graham and the Duke of Wellington were both of opinion that these works would be of great service to this country in a military point of view, and he hoped that the Committee would come to a similar conclusion. The objection that the expenditure upon them was uncertain as to its amount might have had force at one time; but since 1859 the present Government had determined to what extent the harbour should be carried, and had fixed a point for the extremity of the pier, so that the estimate had never since then undergone any change. The length of the pier was a mile. The construction of the pier had been finished as far as the base was concerned, and also as regarded three-fourths of the superstructure. There only remained one quarter of the superstructure to be finished, and he contended that suddenly to abandon the undertaking, when it was so near completion, would be unwise even upon economical grounds. It was surely better to spend £200,000 in order to save nearly £1,000,000 of money, rather than abandon £1,000,000 in order to save £200,000. The harbour might not be worth the total expenditure laid out there, but it was worth the small additional sum now asked for its completion. Besides that, engagements had been incurred with Contractors; and if the works were suddenly stopped, there would probably be a large amount of claims in the shape of compensation.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he wished to say a few words as to what had fallen from the occupants of the Treasury benches. He denied that the Motion was an attack on the present Government, for it was equally an attack on former Government It was now admitted that the harbour of Alderney was not a harbour of refuge, but it was said that it was a harbour of observation; they had not, however, learnt what could be observed from it. He ventured to say nothing—certainly not Cherbourg. It was also represented as a harbour of shelter; that it was not, for no man in his senses would run into it. It seemed to him, that grave as would be the cost of the work, it was a much more serious consideration that it would lead to the establishment of a fortification which would require 5,000 men to garrison it; and he should like to know how, in the event of a war with France, that number of men could be spared?

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

was understood to defend the Vote, and to declare that the harbour was useful as a harbour of observation, more especially with regard to Cherbourg.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he wished to be informed if the £90,000 was for the purpose of completing the work, or whether any further Votes would be asked.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he thought the whole sum spent at Alderney was wasteful and useless. It was therefore time they should stop, more especially after the statement made by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that he would not have been a party to proposing the original Vote for the commencement of the works. If England remained mistress of the Channel, it would be of no additional advantage to her to have a fortress at Alderney; if not, the works would be in the possession of an enemy in twenty-four hours. With an ultimate expenditure of £2,000,000 staring them in the face, the House of Commons should now come forward and say, "Thus far shnlt thou go and no further."

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I do entreat the House to consider this question with calmness, and not only with regard to the nature of the question but the condition in which we now stand. I can quite understand a difference of opinion as to the desirability of the construction of any works at all at Alderney. For my part, I think the fortifications there and the harbour were a wise expenditure of public money. Other persons may entirely differ from that opinion. I do not mean to put my opinion as more entitled to consideration than that of my hon. Friend who made the Motion. But, on the other hand, we have the recorded opinion of the Duke of Wellington—a pretty good judge, it must be admitted, of military considerations. My hon. Friend who made this Motion says, "We are now living in the year of grace 1862; the Duke of Wellington expressed that opinion n any years ago, and things have altered since then." Well, the instruments of war vary from time to time, but the great principles on which war is carried on are pretty much the same in all periods of history. And I believe that the grounds on which the Duke of Wellington thought it advisable, in case of war, that we should have as tation on the one side of the Channel, like Alderney, to communicate with and support a station en the other, like Portland, hold just as good now as at the time when the Duke propounded them, and that the execution of that recommendation is as important now as it was then. But not only have we the deliberate and well-considered opinion of the Duke of Wellington on the subject; we have also the continued stream of action of Government after Government. The present Government are not now proposing far the first time to incur a great expense on a plan which they have originated; they are only carrying on works which were begun years ago, and have been prosecuted by preceding Governments composed of Members on both sides of the House, acting on their own responsibility, after a full consideration of its value and utility, and determined to go on more or less extensively with the undertaking now under discussion. It is said it has been admitted that this is not a harbour of refuge. Well, primarily, it is not a harbour of refuge, but a harbour of military defence combined with Portland, and intended to give us a position in the Channel of the utmost importance in time of war. But no doubt it would to a certain extent, be a harbour of refuge—not, indeed, if left in its present condition, but if completed so as to make it a safe haven for ships entering it. As my noble Friend (Lord C. Paget) has already stated, it is not the intention of the Government to carry this work beyond the point for which the foundations are now laid. Then the proposal of my hon. Friend would but leave the work in its present unfinished state, so that those foundations would remain a source of danger for a quarter of a mile under water. I can quite understand that in the case of a structure on land anybody may say, "Here you have erected a work which is either a deformity in point of taste or useless in point of application, and we think it better to leave it incomplete than to finish it." In taking such a course you would only be doing that which might possibly expose you to observation and criticism. But in dealing in that manner with a work under water you are doing infinite mischief, and perpetuating a source of danger instead of completing what might prove a source of safety to all who frequented it. The question, therefore, which the House has now to determine, is this:—Here is a work which, whether hon. Members may or may not think it expedient that it should ever have been begun, has been deliberately commenced, has been prosecuted by successive Governments, has been sanctioned by the highest military authorities, and executed to a certain extent. It is now left in a condition in which the part that is unfinished would not only be useless, but be an absolute source of danger; you are asked to provide a moderate sum to complete it to the limited extent which I have pointed out; and I really think the good sense of the House of Commons, whatever may be the opinion entertained by hon. Gentlemen on questions of economy in expenditure or of military and naval skill and science, will lead it, on calm consideration, not to refuse the Tote now required for a purpose connected with the defence of the country in the event of war.

MR. BAXTER

in reply said, the speech just delivered by the noble Lord was much the same as they had for years past listened to from every Minister who had spoken on the subject. The original estimate for the work was £620,000, whereas £950,000 had already been spent, and he had come to the conclusion that the Government themselves did not know what they are about in the matter. He trusted that the Committee would, on that occasion, have the moral courage to disregard the hackneyed excuse which had been repeated that night for a useless expenditure, which in the end would probably not fall short of £2,000,000.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the hon. Member must have been alluding to the plan of the late Government for enlarging the harbour of Alderney. The notions of the present Government were much more modest.

MR. LAIRD

said, the Committee did not really know what they were about to vote the money for; but, with the information he possessed, he was certainly inclined to support the hon. Member for Montrose. A plan of the harbour ought to be laid upon the table, showing how far the Government intended to go, and what would be its true cost.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that such a plan had been laid before Parliament over and over again.

MR. MONSELL

said, the House had had four different plans presented to it, each of them accompanied by a different estimate of the expense. The real question before them was this—Was there any Minister in his senses who, in the event of a war with France, would take the responsibility of leaving 5,000 or 6,000 men in Alderney, with the certainty that any fleet there could be destroyed by the enemy, if he had the command of the Channel?

Motion made, and Question put, That the Item of £90,000, for the Harbour of Alderney, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 138: Majority 8.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday. next.

House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.