§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he could not but complain of the inconvenient site chosen for the new dock at Malta, which was to be nearly two miles distant from the dockyard. The site had been condemned by Sir W. Martin, Admiral Codrington, and almost every naval officer, who all recommended the French creek in preference. He had been commissioned to report on the sea defences of Malta, and could confirm the statements of Sir W. Martin and Admiral Codrington on this subject. The dock also would be much more costly than was supposed. He begged to move for any further papers which might have reached the Admiralty with regard to this dock, especially a paper written by Admiral Codrington, who, on resigning his command at Malta, thought it his duty to state anew the reasons why he thought the French Creek preferable.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET, said, he had no objection to the production of the papers if his hon. and gallant Friend would specify which he wanted. The Admiralty had obtained the best opinion they could on the subject of the dock, and were acting on it. The estimate 1430 made by Mr. Churchward for a dock at French Creek was double the cost of the computed expense of the one selected; and Mr. Churchward admitted that that estimate was made on an uncertain basis. There was no reason to suppose that the calculation of the cost of the new dock would be exceeded. He did not deny that French Creek was a very good site for docks, and probably at some future time it would be taken advantage of for that purpose. It could not, however, come into the hands of the Admiralty for at least three years, whereas they were able to begin the proposed dock at once. The authorities who had been referred to disagreed with one another in their plans, and they all agreed to disagree with her Majesty's Government. He would like to know whether the opinion of Sir F. Grey and Mr. Whitbread was not quite as much entitled to confidence as that of Sir William Martin and Admiral Codrington. It was quite easy for hon. Gentlemen to come down here at the end of the Session, and advocate schemes put forward by various parties; but the Government were responsible, and they had acted for the best, and with full consideration. We required a dock at once, and the plan adopted was the readiest and best method of meeting the necessity.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the noble Lord had no right to reproach the hon. and gallant Baronet with coming down at that period of the Session to raise a discussion on this subject. The Papers were moved for six weeks ago, and when they were produced the most important of them was omitted.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETNo Paper, that he was aware of, which bore on the subject, was omitted. If any one were omitted, it must probably have come after the Papers were moved for.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it ought to have been produced. It was important, because it contained the opinion of a competent judge. Before they embarked in that large expenditure they ought to adopt the best plan, and having regard to the conflict of opinion on the subject, he wanted to know whether the Government would give a pledge that they would not incur any expenditure during the recess which would bind them to proceed with the works until the opinion of the House could be taken upon the matter next Session.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, it would be 1431 impossible for the Government to give any such pledge. The Government had taken the very best advice upon the matter, and felt bound to proceed with the works. It would, of course, be open to the right hon. Gentleman to raise the question in the next Session, when the Admiralty would state the reasons for the course they had taken.
Copy ordered, "of any further Papers relating to the proposed New Dock at Malta."—(Sir John Hay.)
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.