HC Deb 22 May 1862 vol 166 cc2082-9

Resolution reported, 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. AYRTON

rose to move an Amendment which he thought had been rendered necessary by what had occurred on Friday night. In moving the reduction of the Vote for Alderney Harbour, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) asserted that the works could not be completed for less than £1,850,000, and the lion. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), who spoke with great practical knowledge of such matters, estimated the cost at £2,000,000; while three Members of the Government in succession stated that, in addition to the sum expended and to be voted this year, only £230,000 would be required to complete the harbour. There was a great discrepancy between these estimates, and he had searched through all the papers on the subject to see which of them was likely to be correct. The result of his investigation had been to satisfy him that there was no Paper on the table of the House that could satisfy any Member that this great work could be completed at the estimate named by the Government; but, on the contrary, the only conclusion that any reasonable man could draw was, that a sum like that stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose must be expended before the harbour was completed. If that were so, he appealed to the Government to give the House some distinct information which might be placed upon record what this work at Alderney really was, and what sum would be required for its completion. In 1848 the harbour was projected, and in 1850 it was brought under the notice of Parliament as a work that would be completed for £650,000. In 1852 the plan was modified, and reported as capable of being completed for £880,000. In 1855 it was again reported to Parliament in these terms—"An extended scheme having been approved by the Admiralty, the estimate has been increased accordingly." It was now £1,300,000. In 1857 it was again considered, and stated at £1,850,000. The following year the subject was again considered, and the estimate now amounted to £2,000,000. A Committee was appointed to investigate the civil expenditure, and in the Report was found a remarkable document respecting Alderney. It concluded with this remark—" Part only of the 1858 design has been sanctioned by the Admiralty, the whole scheme being at present undecided." The total estimate of the works to certain points indicated was £1,300,000; the only plan of the harbour made public was that of 1848 —namely, £620,000. That report was signed by the engineers of the work, and they sent with it no plan. The harbour was to be inclosed within two piers starting from two points on shore extending indefinitely. They had never been told precisely where those points were to end; the harbour was therefore one of indefinite extension and expense until the other termini of the piers should be settled. The House was not in a position to say what was the true character of this work, or how much it would cost. The Government should pause before they allowed the House to confirm a Vote come to on the understanding that the harbour would be completed for the sum of £230,000. He had no doubt there was an error made at the moment by the First Lord of the Treasury; but if, having the fact distinctly brought to his notice, the noble Lord allowed them to proceed, he would incur the full responsibility of that statement, and bind himself to the House that no further sum would be required for the completion of these works. The only estimate they now had before them was one for £90,000. If it turned out that the Government was right, there would be no difficulty in confirming this Vote; but if, on the other hand, the noble Lord had fallen into error, he was sure he would be the first to offer the House an opportunity of reconsidering the subject. He hoped the noble Lord would assent to the Motion he now made, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the amount for which the harbour and fortifications at Alderney will be completed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the said Resolution be now read a second time."

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the amount for which the Harbour and Fortifications at Alderney will be completed. —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. BENTINCK

said, he would second the Motion. The hon. Gentleman had said a great deal about the ultimate cost of these works, but he did not touch upon what he (Mr. Bentinck) considered the most important part of the question—namely, what would be the utility of these works to the country when completed? It was impossible to separate the two questions of the harbour and the fortifications; but assuming they were both completed, and that this country should find itself unfortunately engaged in a war with France, the smallest number of men required to garrison Alderney was stated at 2,000 and the largest 8,000. Taking it at 5,000, he would ask the House whether the incarceration of such a force on a barren rock at a distance from our own coast would ever be tolerated? The question whether this port was of any utility as a port of refuge or observation was unimportant; for him self, he believed it would be neither the one nor the other. So long as we had command of the Channel, these fortifications were useless; and he did not believe we could retain them a day if we lost that command. The result would be that these strong works would fall into the hands of the enemy. On the other hand, supposing our troops occupied them, could we afford the necessary number to maintain an effective garrison?

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

should be glad to know how far the Government were already implicated in respect of these fortifications.

MR. PEEL

could only repeat what he said the other evening, when the question was before the Committee, that the plan on which the Government was now proceeding had been before Parliament for the last three years, and had undergone, as far as he knew, no alteration either as to design or estimated cost. The late Government contemplated an extension of the plan which would have cost as much as £2,000,000; and he believed the engineers of the works were directed to prepare plans and specifications for the purpose. Before the matter went further, however, the late Government was succeeded by the present Government, who, on inquiry, decided that it was desirable that the works should not be extended beyond the point to which they had now been carried. He had every reason to believe that the works would be completed at a cost within the estimated amount of £1,300,000. They included a western breakwater and also a short eastern one, which would cost £100,000. The base of the west breakwater had been laid down as far as its extreme point, and it only remained to construct a wall of masonry upon it, A quarter of that wall was still unbuilt, and was estimated at £290,000 or £300,000. As he believed the total estimate would not be exceeded, he saw no use for a Committee of inquiry,

MR. MONSELL

thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was unsatisfactory. What was Government doing? At Plymouth and other points they were constructing fortifications on the system made necessary by the late improvements in artillery. At Alderney they were constructing fortifications as though the new artillery had never been invented. Either, therefore, they were wrong in continuing these works at all, or, if they did continue them, they were wrong in continuing them on the old system.

MR. LIDDELL

inquired why no specific plan of the works was shown in the engineer's report as in other cases? Was it because the Government had none for the completion of the fortifications? This was no new matter, but had been brought before the House year after year, and the Government had always assured the House that the work was in process of completion. Though there were constitutional objections to relieving Ministers of responsibility by handing matters over to a Committee, yet, on the whole, he thought this ought to be an exception, and that the Committee should be granted.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that owing to the exposed position of Alderney, it was impossible for any Government to state precisely at what date the works there would be completed; but his belief was, that if the House of Commons voted the money required at the rate at which it was asked for this year, they would be finished in about three years. Owing to the form of the harbour—a narrow strip in a line parallel with the coast—the fortifications would be as available for its protection as extended as they were for the defence of the works according to the original plan.

COLONEL KNOX

said, that the House was not dealing fairly with the Government in this matter, inasmuch as they were all parties to the original arrangement. Although the House might blink the question as to the original design in fortifying Alderney, he would not blink it. If a war broke out between this country and France, Alderney was of the utmost importance for the command of the Channel. The change of armaments, and the invulnerability of iron ships, made it still more necessary in a naval point of view that these fortifications should be completed, and that we should have this as an advanced point of observation and defence in the Channel; for depend upon it. if ever an attack was made upon us by France, it would be from that direction. Alderney was most important as an advanced post for the Channel cruisers to run to, and he thought it would be perfectly suicidal if we stopped short in making this point as defensible as possible.

MR. BAXTER

admired the caution which the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) had displayed in refusing to pledge himself to the time at which these works would be completed. For his own part, he saw no probability, that if the House voted the money asked for, these works would be brought to a conclusion within three years. There had been no plan submitted to the House since the year 1848, when the estimate was for only £620,000. Parliament had never been consulted upon the subsequent extensions of the works; the House was entirely in the dark upon the matter, and the Government did not seem to know what they were about. He trusted, therefore, that the House would never commit itself to an enormous and unknown expenditure, and would refer the matter to a Committee.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

; The hon. Member says that we do not know what we are about. If I might make a retort, I should say that he and those who vote with him do not know what they are about. We know perfectly well that we are asking the House to give us the moans of completing a work which we think will be of great national advantage. My hon. Friend says we are working in the dark. I say that those who oppose this vote are working in the dark—that they are not aware of the mischief they are attempting to do. They are endeavouring to prevent us from doing that which would be useful to the nation, and from completing works which, if left as they wished to leave them, would be a mischief instead of an advantage. The plan has been before the House. The plan is before the House. The House has only to look at the plan in the Report of the Committee. Does my hon. Friend say that a Report laid before Parliament is not a document in the possession of the House? There is the plan marked D and K, showing precisely the limited extent to which we propose that the works should be carried out. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) stated that it would cost £1,300,000, and then objection is taken because my noble Friend (Lord C. Paget) says, very properly, that no man can foretell precisely the time at which work to be carried on in a situation very much exposed to the sea and the weather will be completed. But in all human probability these works will be finished before the expiration of three years. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) asked a question which I might almost omit to reply to, because it has been completely answered by his own hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Knox), who spoke from the bench behind him. The hon. Member for West Norfolk has asked what is the use of the fortifications at Alderney. He has already been told, upon good authority, and I concur in the statement, that these works will be of the utmost importance in war with reference to our operations in the Channel. Alderney on the one hand, and Portland on the other, will give us the means of watching all operations in the Channel, which I think will be of great importance to the safety and interest of the country. The hon. Member says the fortifications will require 5,000 men to defend them, and he asks who would lock up 5,000 men on a barren rock? But, as has been stated, the object is not to defend a barren rock, but to occupy a position bearing upon naval and military operations. Moreover, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that so far from 5,000 men being required, in the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne and Lord Hardinge, with whom I have often conversed on the subject, between 2,000 and 3,000 men would hold these works against any force that could be brought against them. Again, if you have these forts, you must have a harbour, because you cannot throw troops upon an insulated position of that kind without the means of communicating with them by sea in order to supply them with provisions, besides having a certain amount of naval force to co-operate with them. Well, the forts are complete, the harbour is nearly finished, and all we ask the House is to give us the means of completing the harbour to the extent which has already been fully explained—an extent which may be carried out for the sum of £1,300,000. I therefore hope the House will not rescind the Vote which has been passed in Committee. The matter has been fully discussed, and I trust the House will agree to the Report now be fore it.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, that if the works at Alderney were finished only to the extent stated by the noble Lord, he pledged his own practical knowledge and reputation that the harbour would be perfectly useless, inasmuch as it would simply have an open mouth towards the sea with out the slightest protection. It was true that the late Government proposed a plan which might ultimately have cost about £2,000,000; but if we were to have a harbour at Alderney at all, the only one which could be of any value would be one constructed according to such a plan. He believed that all the money which had already been spent at Alderney had been thrown away, and therefore he should give his hearty support to the Amendment. The noble Lord had asked the House not to rescind the Vote of the Committee. The House was not asked to rescind that Vote, but merely to institute an inquiry, and he thought that the Government could not regard that as an unreasonable request. The opponents of the Vote had no desire to blame either the present or the late Government for what they had done, although he for one had always protested against the expenditure at Alderney; but what they did complain of was that the Government had not the moral courage to look the matter fairly in the face, and to say, that as a great mistake had been made by some one, no more money should be wasted upon these works.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, the real question before the House was whether they would throw away £900,000 already spent, or spend £300,000 more to turn the whole expenditure to good purpose, The most distinguished military and naval men had pronounced in favour of these works; and we might be certain, that if we abandoned Alderney, and went to war with Prance, our neighbours would soon take it and spend double the money on it, if necessary. He believed that Alderney and Portland did really give us the command of the Channel, and be hoped that no English Minister would be guilty of the poltroonery of abandoning the island.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 118:Majority 56.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution read 2°, and agreed to.