HC Deb 05 June 1863 vol 171 cc450-72

Supply considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £165,000, 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 1864, for constructing certain Harbours of Refuge.

MR. LINDSAY

asked, whether the foundations of the works for the harbour at Dover were laid to the whole extent?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

stated, that what was being done with respect to Dover Harbour was the completion of the structure on the foundations already laid down. The Government were not extending the foundations of the harbour beyond the point which would allow two ships to lie alongside the new pier.

MR. PEEL

observed, that a contract had been made, and the total estimate of £650,000 for Dover Harbour was not likely to be exceeded.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that under these circumstances he would exclude Dover from the remarks he was about to make; but he should simply move that the Vote be reduced by £80,000—the amount required for Aldemey Harbour. That could not in any way be described as a harbour of refuge, though the money was asked for under that head. Alderney was entirely out of the way of ships entering or leaving the Channel, and no sane man would attempt to run for that harbour in a gale of wind, because it was surrounded by dangers. But then it was said to be a good military station. He was not able to deliver an opinion on that point, but he understood that some competent professional authorities declared that it would require from 3,000 to 8,000 men to garrison it in the event of war. Since the Vote was taken last Session a plan of the works had been laid before the House, and from that plan he had no hesitation in saying, that if the Government consulted their engineers, they would learn from them that the harbour could not be made safe and efficient for less than £2,000,000. The original Estimate was £620,000. Already that estimate had been exceeded by £427,000, and at least £750,000 more would be required to make a safe harbour of it. The late Government were very candid in the matter; the report of their officers distinctly stated that the work would require £2,000,000: but the present Government, when they came into office, set that estimate aside, and came down to the House stating that they could make an efficient harbour for £1,300,000. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the omission from the Vote of the sum of £80,000 required for Alderney Harbour.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £80,000, for the Harbour at Alderney, be omitted from the proposed Vote."

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he thought it would be very unwise in the Committee to consent to his hon. Friend's Amendment. Though he did not mean to go into the military merits of Alderney, there was no doubt that in the judgment of naval and military officers the harbour was of the highest value as a look-out station, and he protested strongly against his hon. Friend's assumption that it was entirely useless. He would frankly and freely state what had been done by Her Majesty's Government in the matter. Almost the first act of the Government, when they came into office in July 1859, was to inquire how far it would be advisable to extend the harbour. They found that the substructure of the great breakwater had been laid down to a certain point, and they sent for the engineers employed by the Admiralty to ask them whether it would be possible to limit the completion of the breakwater up to that point. The engineers told them that the contractors had been led to expect that the work would be extended to a considerable distance beyond that point, and likewise that it was intended to erect an arm of the breakwater on the eastern side of the harbour. The Government then asked whether it would be possible to make an arrangement with the contractors, so that the breakwater should not be carried beyond the foundations already existing. A great deal of correspondence took place with the contractors, who said, that having been led to believe that the work was to be carried much further, they had procured plant for that purpose, and had gone to considerable expense in making other preparations; and that they could not agree to stop the breakwater without a large compensation. After many communications an arbitration was proposed, and he was glad to be able to inform the Committee that an arrangement had been made with the contractors by which they would receive a fair and reasonable compensation for their plant and any expenses which they had incurred. The Government had stopped the eastern arm of the breakwater, and they had also stopped the extension of the breakwater beyond the point to which the substructure had been laid down. All they were doing was to complete the superstructure as far as the foundations had already been laid. Up to that point a great mass of stones had been thrown down for a foundation, which, being during the spring tides only eleven feet from the surface, constituted a great danger to vessels of a moderate draught which took the harbour in a gale of wind. The present Government had not caused a single stone to be thrown in beyond the foundations which they found there when they came into office; so that, in fact, all they were doing was to complete what had previously been commenced; and he besought the Committee to consider what a disgrace it would be to the country if they left underneath the water a shoal which must he a snare to vessels taking the harbour in bad weather. Such was the simple statement of the case. The Government had come to a fair arrangement with the contractors, and had given up the construction of the eastern arm. It was impossible to say exactly, when dealing with works below the water, but he trusted that the sum of £1,300,000 would not be exceeded; and after communications with the engineers, and after visiting the harbour in company with the Duke of Somerset, he had every reason to believe that the breakwater would be completed to the point which he had mentioned for that sum, which would likewise include the cost of blasting some sunken rocks inside the breakwater. The Government were really only doing that which would give, if not a good, at least a fair harbour of refuge. The Committee would be deceived if they supposed that it was unsafe for vessels. A man-of-war was lying there during the winter months, and it did afford shelter to small vessels, of which class were the vessels which would be employed in watching an enemy's coast. The Government was not going to extend the works. On the contrary, they had made such arrangements as would render it very difficult indeed for any Government to extend them. Under these circumstances, he did hope the Committee would allow them to complete a work which, if left unfinished, would be an everlasting disgrace to England.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, that it appeared from the statement of the noble Lord that after spending a million of money they had succeeded in creating a shoal so dangerous that the Government had to apply to lay out a large sum of money in order to raise it above the water, whereby ships might avoid it. He would recommend the Government to buoy it, and leave it as it was. His noble Friend had said that the harbour would be available to small vessels, and from his (Sir James Elphinstone's) experience of the navigation of the Channel, he should say that none but very email vessels would ever venture near the Race of Alderney. He conceived there were few events more remote than a war with France; and as that possibility seemed the only argument for this expenditure, he thought it would be much better to apply this £80,000 to the commencement of a harbour of refuge at Filey Bay, for which the President of the Board of Trade admitted that a good case had been made out. The Government was not always very merciful to contractors; but on this occasion no harshness appeared to have been used towards them. He would like to know, however, why the alteration of the contract had not been brought under the notice of the House? The works at Cherbourg were commenced in 1750, and they were discontinued from time to time whenever there was a pressure on the funds of the French Government. No detriment could occur by letting the works at Alderney lie in abeyance for a few years. He should certainly vote for the reduction of the Vote to nil.

MR. EVANS

said, that after a severe gale he and some friends had visited Alderney in a yacht, and found that two vessels had shortly before been wrecked within the harbour itself, so completely that not a vestige was to be seen. Still he did not see how things could be left as they were. He thought the works must be completed, and should therefore support the Vote.

In reply to Mr. BAXTER,

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the compensation to the contractors wag included in the sum which he had named.

In reply to Mr. W. WILLIAMS.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he thought the works at Portland would be finished next year by a Vote of a very small sum—under £20,000.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, that as the pier marked K on the plans was stopped, there was not an engineer with the slightest regard for his character who would say that the works which were to be completed would be of the slightest use. If there was to be a harbour at all, £750,000 more must be expended. The Government had better adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet and buoy the place where the débris was deposited. The disgrace to the country was that they had ever been such fools as to spend their money at all at Alderney, and they would be greater fools to spend any more money in the same way. There was something like a million of money which the noble Lord admitted was entirely thrown away. ["No, no!"] He understood the noble Lord to say, that unless the Vote under discussion were passed, the harbour would be entirely useless. But, passing from Alderney, he should wish to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of the Government to carry the works at Dover further than the foundations were at present laid? He put that question because he was of opinion, that although carried to that extent, they would be of considerable value as a pier, it would serve no good purpose to prosecute them beyond it.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that the present Government had nothing to do with the harbour at Alderney, for that it was begun by the Government of the Earl of Derby. He (Lord Robert Montagu) denied that. The Earl of Derby's Government had as little do with the matter as the present Government, for the harbour was begun in 1848; and when the fifth extension of the works was proposed in 1858, the Government of the Earl of Derby refused to sanction that extension. If, therefore, the noble Lord opposite and the present Government were ashamed of Alderney, and repudiated it altogether, he (Lord Robert Montagu), on the part of the Opposition, likewise repudiated it.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the noble Lord was mistaken in supposing he meant to convey the idea that the Earl of Derby's Government had commenced the works at Alderney. Those works were commenced about fifteen years ago, and what he had stated was, that the present Government found the harbour there in a certain condition when they came into office, and that one of their earliest acts was to make arrangements with a view of limiting its extent. In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), he might observe that the expediency of constructing the eastern arm of the breakwater was a point very much in dispute. The Government had, at all events, determined to give up the eastern arm, and the expense of blasting the rock was, however, included in the Vote, which, when completed, would form a great improvement in the harbour. With regard to Dover, a contract had been entered into to construct there a pier of a given length—1,800 feet, and it would, in his opinion, be extremely unadvisable to break that contract, and enter into all the disputes which might follow the adoption of such a course. The works at Dover, he believed he might say, would be completed by November in next year, and would, when finished, be found most useful.

MR. BAXTER

said, he hoped the Committee would have the moral courage to support the Amendment. He had, he confessed, listened with the greatest possible astonishment to the statements which had been made by the noble Lord. The noble Lord had, in the first instance, stated that Alderney harbour had, in his opinion, great merit as a naval station; but it was only two years ago that he had heard the noble Lord observe in that House, with evident dislike as to the position in which he was placed, that he thought Alderney would be of some value as a look-out station. But the noble Lord, with his increased experience of office, had become bolder, and now told the Committee that the harbour would be a great naval station. But in the case of a war with France the harbour would require a garrison of 5,000 men, whom they would not be able to spare for such a purpose. The second assertion made by the noble Lord had, however, surprised him still more than the first. He wished the Committee to suppose that Alderney was of great advantage as a harbour of refuge. That might be so; but if he were correctly informed, the only vessels which ever took advantage of it were the revenue cruisers of the Emperor of the French. The noble Lord, however, spoke of difficulties which would arise between the Government and the contractors if the Committee should refuse to assent to the Vote; but he, for one, had not the slightest sympathy with the engineers or contractors in the case. They had, he believed, in constructing the harbour in question, been simply filching money out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country, and he thought it was quite time Parliament should take the matter in hand and refuse to grant any more money. His hon. Friend behind him bore testimony to the unsafe state of the harbour. He must remind the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), who had referred to contracts being sanctioned by that House, that no contracts for the works had ever been laid before them, nor any plan, except the original one, which involved an expenditure of only £600,000. Under these circumstances, he thought that the House would do well to adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Rather than complete the piers, as proposed, he would act upon the suggestion which, he believed, had been made to the Government by an eminent engineer officer, and blow up the works which were likely to prove obstructive to shipping.

MR. PEEL

said, that the question as to the propriety of the Vote did not depend entirely upon the commercial or military value of the harbour, but upon a comparison of the sum voted with the sum asked for. The argument that they were on the eve of the completion of the work, which was used by the Government with effect last year and the year before, must now have additional force. He himself believed that one more Vote after that before the Committee would be sufficient for the completion of the works. The Government had done their best to carry-out the wishes expressed by the Committee last year. They had abandoned the construction of the eastern arm; and as they only desired to complete the western breakwater, which would otherwise become a sunken reef dangerous to vessels approaching the harbour, he trusted that the Committee would take the same view of the matter as they had previously adopted, and vote the sum which was asked for.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he was willing to accept the promise of the noble Lord that the pier at Dover should not be extended beyond the length of 1,800 feet. What he had said with regard to the pier marked K was that it would give no protection to the harbour, and that to give security from easterly gales they would have to construct a protecting pier across the harbour, at an expense of £700,000, in addition to the £1,300,000.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Nothing is more easy than to say that a work is of no use and of no value. I can quite understand, that if we were beginning de novo, hon. Gentlemen might entertain a different opinion as to whether it was or was not expedient to make a harbour at Alderney. I think it would be expedient, other people may entertain a contrary opinion: but I cannot understand the reasoning upon which hon. Gentlemen ask that, great progress having been made, a harbour having been nearly constructed, and there being the foundation of part of a pier within a certain distance of high water, we should leave things as they are, and make that a source of danger which ought to be a means of safety. It is stated that the harbour is insecure, and that some yachts were damaged in the late storm; but if the pier, the foundations of which have been already carried about to the point D, were raised, that would give the safety which is now wanting. Then it is said that there are rocks in the harbour; but my noble Friend has stated that they are to be blasted, and that will remove that objection. My noble Friend has told the Committee that the naval Lords of the Admiralty who were at Alderney with him and inspected the harbour, are of opinion that the harbour, when completed, as we propose to complete it, will in case of war be a valuable look-out station. I really do think that under these circumstances it would be trifling with the national interests if the Committee were to determine to refuse the sum which is now asked to complete the harbour, not to the extent originally contemplated, but to the extent fixed last year, and up to point D upon the plan.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, that the argument of the Secretary of the Treasury would justify any absurdity under the sun.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that although the eastern arm had been abandoned, the Estimate remained the same as last year—£1,300,000. If any hon. Member would look at the Chart, he would see that during a gale of wind from the eastward nothing would hold the shipping in the harbour. It was not £80,000 but £1,000,000 which would be required to make the harbour secure. If hon. Members were prepared to spend that sum, let them vote with the Government; if not, he hoped they would support the Amendment.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the sum of £1,300,000 was not fixed as that which the harbour would actually cost. He believed, but considering the uncertainty of works in deep water he could not of course affirm, that the expenditure would be considerably less than that, because the Government had knocked off £100,000 for the eastern arm.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 76: Majority 14.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £48,339, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Works and Expenses at the New Packet Harbour and Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, for Portpatrick Harbour, and for Works at Spurn Point.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of the item which had reference to Portpatrick Harbour. He understood it was proposed to Vote this year for the improvement of the harbour the sum of £5,000. Nothing would be more interesting than a Return of the money spent on the harbour during this century. It would startle the Committee if they could see the figures; and, for all the good that has been done, the money might just as well have been dropped into the sea that flowed into the harbour. If the Committee could see the harbour, they would unanimously conclude, that if they were to spend half a million upon it, they could not make it a harbour fit for a vessel worthy the name of a packet ship. What was the item of £5,000 for? Was it part of a larger sum? If so, what was the amount of the larger sum? He had heard rumours of an engagement or undertaking that had been given by the Treasury to expend £25,000 in the course of the next year or two, and he hoped that some explanation would, be given. There was a railway to Portpatrick on the one side and to Donaghadee on the other side, and they hoped to see steamers going from one port to the other. He had heard a rumour that a subsidy had been, promised for a mail service to carry mails between Scotland and Ireland by way of Portpatrick and Donaghadee, and he wished to know whether the expenditure on account of the harbour had anything to do with a project of that kind, and whether any payment on account of the mails had been promised. At present the mails between Scotland and Ireland were carried between Glasgow, Greenock, and Belfast, by boats, which performed the service well; and they knew what had been expended to improve the communication between England and Ireland. Would it not be better to give up spending money on the harbour of Portpatrick until some definite scheme was proposed by which they might be assured of a useful result?

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that about twelve years ago, there was a stop to the expenditure of large sums on Portpatrick harbour, because it was thought perfectly impossible to make anything of it, in consequence of the foundation being solid rock. Was it intended to recommence an expenditure that had been discontinued under such circumstances?

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, Portpatrick harbour was one of those which, by an act of last Session, was transferred to the Board of Trade. He could not tell how much had been spent on it during the century, but he could say what was going on at that time. So far as he could inform, himself by reading the correspondence that related to the works in progress, and for which the Vote was asked, there had been a contract for which the Govern- ment to which he had the honour to belong, was not responsible—he took it as it stood, as one that must be performed. It was made in 1856, and the House had sanctioned it by voting the money to give effect to an engagement between the Treasury on the one hand and certain railway companies on the other. The engagement on the part of the Government was that they would make the harbours of Donaghadee and Portpatrick suitable for vessels adapted to carry on a mail service between those ports. The railway companies undertook to bring their lines down to the harbours, and also to establish a mail service; but there was never any promise of what had been called a subsidy for the mail service. All that was undertaken was that a fair and proper remuneration should be given for the actual freight and carriage of such letters as might be sent by the Post Office between Portpatrick and Donaghadee. He believed he was within the mark in stating that something like £700,000 or £800,000 had been spent by these companies in bringing their railways down to these respective ports in pursuance of that agreement, and the Government had also expended considerable sums in carrying out their part of the contract. It was originally suggested that the Govern went should expend £20,000; but unfortunately it was found that that estimate was not sufficient to complete entirely the deepening of the harbour, and those improvements that were considered necessary for carrying on the mail service. The matter could not be said to be entirely decided between the companies and the Government in reference to the mail service. The had been a reference to the Post Office as to what amount of payment they would be prepared to recommend for the carriage of the letters, and the Vote would be subject to the arrangements that were under consideration, and with the view on the part of the Government that they were bound honestly, and in good faith to those companies, to fulfil their share of the undertaking which had been entered into. Whether it was a provident or improvident contract, it was not for him to say; he found it in existence; he found the companies had so far carried out their portion of the engagement; and the precise condition of the remainder of it on the part of the Government, in consequence of the reference to the Post Office, was under consideration. It was not to be supposed that any new matter had been introduced; the Committee must not imagine that anything was now proposed by the Government except in continuation of what had been already begun, and in fulfilment of those engagements that were undertaken in the year 1856

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, that after the explanation given by the right hon Gentleman, the subject assumed a magnitude and a grandeur which he had not anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee was bound by a contract which was communicated to the House some years ago, and that the Government were doing nothing more than carrying it into effect. What was the contract? If Parliament were bound band and foot, they ought at least to know the nature of their engagements. The right hon. Gentleman did not presume to say that there was any writing to which they could appeal.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

could not recite from memory the words of the instrument or document which embodied the contract, but it had been laid on the table of the House, he believed, more than once. The full particulars of the engagement under which the money was originally voted had been laid on the table of the House, and it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to that instrument.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of an "instrument." What was the instrument? The only thing, so far as he was aware, which had ever been laid before the House, was an Estimate of £20,000 for contemplated improvements in Portpatrick harbour.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he wished to explain. Perhaps "instrument" was a wrong word to use. But the correspondence constituting the engagement or agreement between the companies and the Government, under which the original Votes were asked, had been laid on the table of the House over and over again.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, the contract referred to was growing rather vague in its terms. It had ceased to be an "instrument," and had become "an engagement, an agreement, or a correspondence." Whatever its nature might have been, the Government were only pledged to an expenditure of £20,000, and that sum, with the exception of £1,000, had already been laid out; and he ventured to say that the improvement of Portpatrick harbour was not the least nearer completion than it was before. If the Vote was approved of by the Committee, they would he bound perpetually to the expenditure. They were told that the effect of the agreement entered into was this—that the Government had agreed with the railway companies to make Portpatrick harbour available for mail vessels carrying the mail service between Portpatrick and Donaghadee. He ventured to say, upon his own opinion and his own knowledge of the district, that it was not £5,000, £20,000, or £200,000 that would secure the result desired. But they had heard something more. He had asked if they were under any agreement with regard to the letters and mails; and the President of the Board of Trade had replied that there was no positive contract for the conveyance of the mails, but there had been an agreement to remunerate the companies for carrying letters. Would some Member of the Government be good enough to explain the difference? The item of £5,000 was stated to form portion of the general arrangement which had been referred to the consideration of the postal authorities. Surely it was not unreasonable to suggest, that until the House had the entire subject before it, the money ought to be withheld. He was quite prepared to vote £1,000, being the balance of the £20,000 formerly sanctioned; but, for the reasons he had given, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £43,339, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Works and Expenses at the New Packet Harbour and Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, for Portpatrick Harbour, and for Works at Spurn Point.

MR. COX

said, his official duties frequently called him over to the north of Ireland, and all the information he had gathered led him to support the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast. He thought, however, that it was necessary that they should know what was the amount the Government proposed to expend upon the harbour at Portpatrick, because be was free to admit that he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in thinking, that when contracts were entered into by one Government, they ought honestly to be carried out by another. He congratulated the President of the Board of Trade upon the change which had taken place in his opinion since the recent discussion on a contract entered into by the predecessors in office of the existing Administration. He quite concurred that they ought to supply, by a Vote of that House, the money for the performance of any contract which had been heretofore made; and as it only required £1,000 to do that, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast. As to Portpatrick harbour, it was useless to throw away money upon what residents in the locality believed to be an impossibility; for, according to them, no vessel could leave Portpatrick harbour during three months of every year. There was already a perfectly successful connection between Larne and Stranraer, which rendered the Portpatrick and Donaghadee route wholly unnecessary.

MR. MACKIE

said, that it was the original intention of the railway company to have a route from Stranraer to Lame, and that the other route was adopted only because the Government insisted on it. At that moment Portpatrick harbour was unfit for the accommodation of first-class steamers. A manifest injustice would obviously be done to the railway company if, after having been compelled, at great expense, to go to Portpatrick, the Government failed to put the harbour in a proper condition for traffic.

MR. DAWSON

said, that probably no hon. Member in the House was better acquainted with the locality than himself; and the real truth was, that not-withstanding the admirable way in which the President of the Board of Trade stood up for existing contracts, the proposed Vote was a downright useless expenditure of money. He thought it was the duty of every Member, notwithstanding that the expenditure might prove useful to his particular locality, to protest against such waste of the public money. The route which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) was far better; and although it was being carried on under struggling circumstances, there was no doubt it would ultimately be successful and meet the general convenience.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that as a naval man, an inhabitant of the district, and with some knowledge of Portpatrick harbour, he differed considerably from the last speaker. For a considerable time steamers ran all the year round from Portpatrick to Dona- ghadee, and they were taken off not because the harbour was a bad one, but for other reasons; for instance, that the steam traffic was not supplied sufficiently with railway traffic to make it available for postal communication with Ireland. At very great trouble and expense a railway had been constructed there. The Government compelled the company to continue the railway from Stranraer to Portpatrick, at an expense of £70,000 or £80,000, which they would never have entered into unless the Government had promised that they would accommodate them with a harbour fit for traffic. He should certainly support the Vote.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, it was evident a contract in good faith had been entered into, and they were bound to see it carried out. If the President of the Board of Trade would undertake to say that the work would be satisfactorily completed for the amount proposed, and the House would not be asked for a further Vote, he would support the proposal.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, it was quite a misapprehension to suppose that the Government were entering on a large and indefinite expenditure—£200,000 or £500,000—in connection with the proposed object. According to the engineer's report, the sum of £10,000 at the outside would be sufficient to complete all that it was necessary for Government to do in order to fulfil their engagement. After carefully examining the correspondence on the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the Government would not be acting in good faith if they did not ask Parliament for a further sum for the improvement of Portpatrick harbour. For the present, £5,000 was proposed; and he believed a small addition would render the harbour capable of accommodating steamers. If the Committee refused to vote any more money, then all the expenditure which had already been incurred would be thrown, away.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he would support the Government, upon the distinct understanding that the expenditure should not exceed £5,000 during the present year, and £5,000 next year.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

observed, that the vessels which had formerly used Portpatrick harbour were no better than the worst of the Thames steamers. At that moment that harbour was not in such a condition that passengers could go that way. The distance from Stranraer to Portpatrick was only seven or eight miles, and it would be infinitely cheaper to pay every shilling of the outlay on the line between these two places, than to attempt to improve Portpatrick harbour. If there was a contract, he should be the last man to ask the Government to depart from it; but where was it to be found? He could nut help again asking the question what the contract with the Government really was? Would the Government produce it? Where was the estimate of the sum required to give effect to the contract? The President of the Board of Trade said, that the amount was "something like £10,000." He knew what £5,000 meant, and £10,000; but what "something like £10,000" was, he could not guess. He was glad to find that the Government had improved within the lust few days in their opinion of the advisability of adhering to contracts. Well, if there were a contract, let the Committee see it; but until then let them put a stop to the expenditure by postponing the Vote.

MR. DAWSON

said, that the Government had shown no sensitiveness or squeam-ishness in doing away with the Dover contract, and he was therefore surprised that they should lay so much stress on the existence of a contract in the case under consideration.

MR. HASSARD

said, that the route from Portpatiick to Donaghadee was one of the best routes between England and Ireland; and he trusted that no money necessary for maintaining the service would be denied.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would again remind the Committee that an enormous amount of public money had been expended on the harbour of Portpatrick.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, he felt compelled to differ from his hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Cairns). He should support the Vote, not on the ground of a contract alone, but because the route between Portpatrick and Douaghadee was the most convenient route between this country and Ireland.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he would support the vote as proposed by the Government, on the ground of the absolute necessity of upholding the public faith in all cases of contract.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he fully agreed, that if a contract existed, the Government were bound to sustain it. But was there or was there not a contract? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had given two or three explanations to the Committee. He said he had read the whole of the correspondence, and that the Government were hound to vote the money. Would the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Government were bound to go on expending a definite or indefinite sum on the harbour, and whether their obligations would be fulfilled by the expenditure of £20,000, which had already taken place? If the engagement, whatever it was, had been fulfilled, he should feel at perfect liberty to reject the Vote.

MR. LAIRD

said, that he wished to know whether the contract was to spend £10,000 to encourage the railways, or was it to make a harbour that would be accessible to vessels of such a size as would be able to carry on a passenger traffic. If the latter, he thought £200,000 would be nearer the real cost.

MR. COX

said, he considered that the Committee ought to know what the contract was. From what he had seen of the port, and from what he was informed, he believed the cost would certainly be nearer £200,000 than £10,000.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that perhaps he had been in error in using the term contract, which implied a legal instrument; but there was such a thing as an engagement. He found there was a Treasury Minute of July 26, 1858, during the Government of the Earl of Derby, which, referring to a Minute of the preceding Government undertaking to effect certain improvements in the ports, so as to render them suitable for the packet service, upon the faith of which undertaking the railway companies had expended certain sums, confirmed the preceding Minute. The Vote was simply intended honourably to carry out and complete that engagement.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, he thought it was right, in matters of the sort, that the Committee should leave out of sight whether the contract or engagement was entered into by one Government or by another. The right hon. Gentleman had at last given the information that was desired, lie would only remark that the contract was so undefined that he hoped in future some more definite arrangements would be entered into, and that the Government would not, year after year, be able to appeal to the Minute as sanctioning a Vote of £10,000 or £20,000 as necessary to keep faith. He admitted that by that Minute they were bound to assent to the Vote, and therefore would withdraw his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he objected to the Vote of £1,000 for Spurn Point.

MR. PEEL

said, it was only a re-Vote.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he thought that the owners of the shores, who derived benefit from: the works, ought to defray the cost, and therefore he should move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £47,339, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Works and Expenses at the New Packet Harbour and Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, for Portpatrick Harbour, and for Works at Spurn Point.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £89,618, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Erecting, Repairing, and Maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

objected to the form in which the Vote was submitted to the Committee.

MR. SCULLY

said, he wished to call attention to a few of the items in connection with Dublin Castle. A very liberal salary was granted to the satrap or proconsul, who was acceptable, no doubt, to the citizens and hon. Members for Dublin, though not very acceptable to the people of the provinces. Any hon. Member who should say that the Lord Lieutenant was not the greatest ornament of Ireland would expose himself to all sorts of misrepresentation from the Dublin newspapers, as he himself did once when he placed on the paper merely a notice for inquiry into the utility of the Lord Lieutenant. There were more; patronage, more pickings, more corruption of every sort, and more absolute authority, in the officials of Dublin Castle than the Queen herself possessed. The first item to, which he would call attention was—for general repairs and alterations in the state rooms, public offices, and official residences in Dublin Castle, £3,686; and for furniture and fittings, £2,619; in all £6,305; and at page 34 were items of a similar description for the Phœnix Park residences of the same officials—the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the Under Secretary, all Englishmen: some of those official paupers forced upon Ireland and sustained at the expense of the State; men of great wealth, no doubt, but who had come over to quarter themselves upon the Irish establishments. Well, repairs, alterations, furniture, and fittings for the Phœnix Park residences of those gentlemen were set down at £5,646, in addition to the £6,305 for Dublin Castle; making in all nearly £12,000. Then there was another item for the Phœnix Park itself, which was their playground, where they played cricket and croquet; in which they spent most of their time. In short, the entire Vote amounted almost to £20,000, which no doubt would meet with the entire approval of the hon. Member for Dublin.

MR. VANCE

said, though he had the honour of representing Dublin, he had nothing to do with the Castle, the politics of its present occupants being very different from his. However, it was an Irish institution, and he thought it his duty to defend it. The observations of the hon. Member would have been much more to the purpose had they been applied to the Votes for the parks, palaces, and buildings of this metropolis, instead of to the trifling sum asked for the Castle and park of Dublin.

MR. PEEL

explained that the estimate might be framed in two ways; either the cost for buildings might be brought under view of the Committee at one time, or might be distributed among all the various services. The plan by which the Committee could see the total cost at once was the better.

MR. HENNESSY

said, there was an item of £3,000 for rebuilding a portion of Queen's College, Cork, which had been burnt down. He wished to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland had any reason to suppose that the burning was accidental or by design; and, if the latter, what steps had been taken to punish the miscreant who had committed the outrage.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the Government, having had strong reasons to suppose that it was an act of an incendiary, had taken steps to discover him, but had not been successful, as his hon. Friend was aware. The Vote was merely to repair the damage, and he thought it moderate.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, it had been repre- sented that the college had been burned by persons who objected to the teaching there, but a more unfounded charge was never made against a community than that which was involved in the application made to the corporation of Cork by the Government to levy on the citizens the cost of the burning. The charge against the citizens of Cork was most unfounded and wanton. He had no objection that the burden should fall on the country generally.

MR. PEEL

said, he must altogether deny that any charge of complicity had been brought against the citizens of Cork. Proceedings had been taken against the corporation for the recovery of the amount of damage done, but they had failed, and the only resort was then to come to Parliament.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, the charge had been disseminated all over Europe, and he most emphatically repudiated it.

MR. HENNESSY

said, he had visited the ruins, when he was told by a Professor that the very man who set fire to the college was discharging his official duties on the spot. He hoped all the information in possession of the right hon. Gentleman would be given to the House, as he understood that some of the Professors had transmitted some very interesting reports on the subject.

MR. VANCE

said, he wished to know when the works in the Queen's Park, for which £8,400 was to be taken, would be proceeded with?

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the works had been already commenced.

MR. LYGON

inquired, how the Vote of £41,000 proposed for twenty-six new Coastguard stations in Ireland was to be expended? Three stations had been completed for £1,000, and he thought there was some discrepancy in the sum to be allotted for the remainder.

MR. PEEL

said, the greater part of the sum proposed was a re-Vote of what had taken place last year, but returned as unexpended. It was absolutely necessary to provide improved accommodation for the Coastguard on the coast of Ireland. On thirteen stations contracts had been entered into for six cottages at each. The work was expensive—the sites being very much out of the way.

MR. SCULLY

said, he wanted some detailed explanation of the charge of £12,900 for a constabulary depôt at Phoenix Park, of which it was proposed to vote £6,000 on account. He thought there was already sufficient accommodation for the constables stationed there. Was the force to be doubled, or was a military barrack to be erected for the constabulary? There was also an item of £2,000 for a model school at Cork to which he objected. The Votes for model schools in Ireland were intended to carry out English hobbies. The mass of the Irish people objected to those institutions, which were mere nests of proselytism.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, that Phœnix Park was the central depôt of the constabulary, and there had been great complaints for years past of the very inadequate accommodation existing there for that force.

MR. CORRY

said, he wished to ask what Department of the Government was responsible for the expenditure upon buildings for the Coastguard in Ireland?

MR. PEEL

The Board of Works.

MR. MORE O'FERRALL

condemned the model schools in Ireland for teaching farming as perfectly useless, and characterized the expenditure upon them as a wanton waste of public money.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he understood that the model schools were mere jobs, and of no benefit whatever to the agriculture of Ireland.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, that the Vote for these institutions had been reduced by the sum of £700, in accordance with a pledge given last year; and next year it would undergo further reduction. At the same time, the schools were intimately connected with the national system of education in Ireland, and did a great deal of good in Dublin, Belfast, and other large towns, by bringing together and training young people of all sects.

MR. MORE O'FERRALL

said, he denied that the model schools were any part of the national system of education; they were an after-growth and a great abuse.

MR. MONSELL

said, he objected to the items for additions and alterations in the agricultural schools, which he could state, from his own experience of their working, conferred no benefit of any kind upon the country. The farming practised in them was carried on in the most expensive way, and was no example whatever to anybody outside of them.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he could only reiterate his belief that the schools had done, and were doing, a great amount of good among the poorer classes. At the same time, if hon. Gentlemen insisted that the Vote should be cut down, of course they might be gratified.

MR. BAGWELL

thought it would be a pity to abolish these institutions, which had done some good already, and might be expected to do much more. The model farms were admirably managed, and the young men educated on them made very excellent stewards.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he had no wish to oppose the existing model schools, but he objected to any extension of the system; and bethought they might strike out the item for a new model school at Cork. The schools did little good beyond educating stewards and bailiffs for gentlemen.

MR. BUTT

said, he wished to ask whether any obligations had been incurred with respect to the school in question?

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the land had been purchased. It was not, strictly speaking, a new school, but one projected some years ago.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, it was the revival of a proposal which the people of Cork compelled the Government to abandon in a former year. He would not vote against the agricultural schools, although it was little to say in their favour that they produced stewards for landowners, and although he thought that a system which taught high farming was rather injurious than otherwise to the country. Still, if these schools really did any kind of service, he should be jealous of having them interfered with. As, however, the Government were trying to force the model school at Cork on the district in opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants, he would move that the Vote should be reduced by £3,000, the amount proposed to be taken for that building.

MR. SCULLY

said, that as a Member for the County of Cork, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the Mayor of the City of Cork. It was a mistake to suppose that this and similar Votes to which reference had been made were Irish Votes. They were English hobbies. The model school at Dublin was neither more nor less than a nest for a Scotch family.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £86,618, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Erecting, Repairing, and Maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

thought that by reducing the Vote for agricultural schools to the extent of £700 the Chief Secretary had fairly carried out his promise of last Session. With respect to the model schools, the opinion in the North of Ireland was that they were of incalculable benefit. They were regarded, in fact, as among the best parts of the national system of education.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 84: Majority 65.

MR. HENNESSY

said, that the proposed Vote was to carry out an attempt to force money upon the South of Ireland against the wishes of the people, and he regretted to see hon. and right hon. Friends of his who in England supported religious education now voting to establish in Ireland purely secular schools.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

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