CAPTAIN TALBOT, who had given notice on Navy Estimates, to move, "That the project of constructing a Dock at the head of the Marsa at Malta be abandoned, and that the site at the head of the French Creek, recommended by Admiral Sir William Martin and Vice Admiral Codrington, be selected for that purpose," rose to bring the subject of his Notice before the House. The hon. and gallant Member said, that before the Navy Estimates were proceeded with last Session he had received information of the great blunder the Admiralty were about to commit in constructing a first-class dock two miles from their establishments. He was assured that such a dock would neither answer the purposes of the naval service nor of the commercial shipping of the island. He was further informed that the whole scheme was in direct opposition to the opinion of Admiral Sir William Martin and Vice Admiral Codrington, who, if there were any persons capable of forming a correct judgment on the subject were the men, an opinion embraced unanimously by the whole naval service. The two Admirals had, he was informed, written strong letters of remonstrance to the Admiralty, trying to dissuade them from their scheme. He was also informed that the Government had incurred great expense to get possession of the French Creek—he might say unlimited expense, for the Government were as yet unaware of the precise cost which the possession of the Creek would entail. French Creek was of the very greatest importance, for it was available for the reception of the very largest ships; yet the Government having been at such vast expense in obtaining possession of it were now about to abandon it, and had selected a place which presented many disadvantages, and would be two miles off from the rest of their establishments. Considering such conduct on the part of the Admiralty nothing short of infatuation, he had felt it his duty to call attention to the subject last year when the Navy Estimates came on. The case appeared so strong against the Admiralty that he felt very diffident of the information he had received. He asked several questions of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, and the answers he received were very satisfactory. Had the statements made by the noble Lord been supported 890 by the facts of the case, they would have tended very much to remove his apprehensions; but, on a subsequent occasion, he found that not one of them was accurate. This was a very grave charge to make against the noble Lord. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty proposed a large Vote to carry out the scheme, and in doing so made statements entirely unsupported by the facts of the case. To say the least of it, this showed gross ignorance on the part of the Secretary of the Admiralty. He should leave it to the House to judge whether he was not correct in the statements he had made. He had said his information was that the distance of the place where the Admiralty proposed to make this dock was very nearly two miles from the dockyard. The noble Lord said it was nothing of the sort; he believed it to be about half a mile. Another statement of the noble Lord was equally inaccurate—that the Maltese Government were prepared to subscribe a sum of money towards the expense of this dock. The Maltese Government did not contribute one penny for that purpose. He hoped the noble Lord would give some further explanation on this subject to-night. The noble Lord said that it would be unadvisable to adopt the French Creek plan, on account of the shallowness of the water; but, in point of fact, that was a magnificent natural basin, which would receive the largest men-of-war in Her Majesty's service, and had never required dredging within the memory of man. Had he possessed more full information, he should have taken a vote of the House on this subject, but he felt reluctant to do so, and on the earliest opportunity he had asked the noble Lord to lay the papers on the table. He was told it would be highly inconvenient to the public service to produce the papers. This was very unsatisfactory. A large sum of money was involved, yet when they asked for papers they were debarred from information by the Secretary of the Admiralty. He then moved for the papers; the noble Lord opposed their production; but the noble Viscount at the head of the Government rose in his place, and with his usual tact saw the feeling of the House, and said there was no reasonable ground for withholding information. This was on the 12th of May last year. The papers thus promised were not produced till very nearly the last day of the Session, and when produced it was discovered by his 891 hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), with his usual diligence, that some very important papers had been, he would not say suppressed, hut, at all events, omitted. One of the papers was a letter written by Vice Admiral Codrington, not long before he gave up the command. In this letter, the gallant Admiral dealt with the whole subject, and pointed out the value of a dock at French Creek, and showed that if a dock were made at Marsa it would be of little or no use to the commercial shipping of the island. He thought, therefore, that the House had ground of complaint against the Admiralty, and especially because in the papers laid before the House there was no detailed plan or estimate for the dock they proposed. Either the Admiralty had adopted the scheme without any proper and detailed estimate, or else having such estimate they had withheld it from the House. The excuses offered by the Board of Admiralty for refusing to carry out the plan recommended by the two Admirals were most extraordinary; and it was very much to be regretted that they should have adopted a plan without previously consulting the two Admirals who were on the spot, and best qualified to give an opinion upon the subject. The Admiralty, no doubt, had been governed very much by the report of the director of works at Malta, Mr. Scamp, who curiously enough objected to a dock at French Creek, because its distance from the existing dockyard would render it necessary to erect new buildings, and would also entail the necessity of supplementary estimates. It was difficult to understand how Mr. Scamp could have arrived at the conclusion, that if a supplementary estimate would be necessary for the formation of a dock at French Creek, which was 800 yards distant from the dockyard, it would not also be required for the formation of a dock at Marsa, which was two miles distant. The blunder in this case Was to him inconceivable; for if the Admiralty had simply made upon the chart a measurement of the distances, they must have seen how great a mistake they were committing. Not having done so, it was a piece of neglect which, when they had discovered their error, they ought to have rectified. The blunder did, indeed, at last become so obvious, that the Board of Admiralty gave up their plans, and, in reply to a letter from Admiral Martin, said they concurred with him in thinking that French Creek would be the best position for a dock when it 892 could be obtained. They thus implied that a dock could not be made immediately at French Creek; but that was erroneous, for it was competent for them at once to set about making a dock there. The last letter from Admiral Codrington referred to a correspondence with Sir John Le Mar-chant, Governor of Malta, the effect of which was to show that in 1860 the Governor was contemplating the construction of a dock at French Creek; but that correspondence was not given in the papers before the House. When he found such blundering, he could not have any confidence in the Board of Admiralty, who had been bamboozled by colonial advisers and the local director of works, and, when made aware of their mistake, refused to rectify it. They had been for months in possession of all the facts, and yet had done nothing to supply the want of a first-class dock at Malta; but when he put a question a few nights ago upon this subject—there having been no change in the facts—the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty said, that as there was a conflict of opinion, it had been determined to send out an eminent engineer to make a report. But, why, with all the facts in their possession for many months, was not an eminent engineer sent out long ago? In the correspondence he found, that so far back as January of last year, Admiral Martin wrote a strong letter, and forwarded a letter from Admiral Codrington, pointing out the objectionable nature of the Admiralty scheme, and suggesting that an eminent engineer should be sent out to report upon the subject. The reply was, that the Board had decided upon the Marsa scheme, and saw no reason to send out an engineer. Why, with the same facts, was a different course now taken? Admiral Martin had previously suggested that Admiral Codrington should be allowed to come home, in order that he might place his views before the Board; but the answer was, in effect, the same as that he had just referred to. He thought the Admiralty deserved great censure for their neglect, and waste of valuable time in this matter. The subject was of great importance, because we had in the Mediterranean only two small docks capable of receiving ships drawing twenty-two feet, whereas most of our line-of-battle ships drew, at least, twenty-seven, and, therefore, to allow them to enter the existing docks, the guns, stores, men, and sometimes machinery, had to be removed. There would, consequently, be a delay of some 893 days in entering the dock, and the same delay in getting out again. Docking a vessel at any time was a delicate operation, but in the case of an iron-clad ship it was, of course, still more so, for she could not remove her armour for the purpose; and at this moment we had no place in the Mediterranean where a vessel of that class could he taken in. Admiral Codrington, writing as far back as the 2nd of December, 1861, called attention to the subject, and dwelt upon the consequences which might ensue if a delay of six weeks were incurred in sending home British vessels, while foreign nations could have theirs at sea again perhaps in six days. The gallant Admiral stated that, practically, the iron-sided ships could not be docked at all, although it was absolutely necessary that there should be the greatest facilities for their doing so. The Admiralty, notwithstanding their attention was thus directed to the point, had done nothing in the interval to supply this vital want. By an arrangement, entered into in 1860, with the civil authorities of Malta, an exchange of water was agreed upon, the Government acquiring a large creek of great depth in the vicinity of the dockyard, agreeing, in return, to deepen the Marsa for the use of the commercial shipping. The first estimate for that purpose was £125,000, of which cost the civil Government agreed to give half, and if there should be an excess of 30 per cent, to pay a fourth of that excess; but beyond that they refused to bind themselves. It also formed part of the arrangement, that what was called the north-west basin, should be constructed with a depth of twelve feet, for the use of the commercial shipping. The sum named was manifestly inadequate; but, in fairness to the Admiralty, he did not deny that the possession of French Creek was an object worth almost any sacrifice to obtain. Subsequently the Admiralty were led, he had no doubt, by allowing proposals on the part of the Maltese Government, to adopt a scheme which he regretted for the credit of the Admiralty and for the interests of the navy. This was that a first-class dock capable of accommodating the Warrior, or others of our largest class of vessels, should be constructed on the inner side of the north-west basin. But to get access to the dock it became necessary to deepen the basin from twelve feet to thirty feet, which, of course, entailed great additional expense. Moreover, a ship in 894 entering would have to turn round or nearly round, the dock being at right angles with the basin, and he need not enlarge upon the confusion and accidents which must occur when a heavy ship 400 feet in length was put into a basin 500 feet long by 600 feet wide, crowded with merchant shipping. In the Estimates for the last and the present year, the Admiralty proposed to deepen the basin and to construct this north-west dock for a sum of £50,000. He did not pretend to have any special engineering knowledge; but he would ask, were the Admiralty in earnest in making this proposal? Such an Estimate he looked upon as preposterous. The Admiralty, no doubt, hoped that the site they had settled upon would prove soft but perfect rock, and that they would have nothing to make but a rectangular excavation. The fact, however, was, that as soon as they cut down fifteen feet below the sea line the water came in quite rapidly; the rock, instead of being perfect, was full of fissures and flaws, and the dock would therefore have to be constructed in the ordinary way and faced with masonry, which was a most costly operation. He would, in the next place, call the attention of the House to the French Creek, where the Admiral—and, indeed, he might say, almost everybody else—thought the dock in question ought to be constructed. That creek was at the end of a natural basin, in which ships could move in any weather, and which could be made available at all times. The Admiralty, he might add, admitted that it was the best site for the new dock, but then they contended there would be great difficulty in commencing the works there at once. He defied, however, anybody who had carefully read the papers to prove that there was in them one iota of argument to establish the justice of that view. The Admiralty, moreover, maintained that the elective members of the Council at Malta were opposed to the construction of a dock at the French Creek, and that the inhabitants generally of that island would think we were breaking faith with them if we were to adopt any such plan. From a letter, however, which had been written by the members of the Council to the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty it would be seen, that those statements were entirely fallacious, inasmuch as in that letter they said that they had no wish that a naval dock should be constructed at the Marsa in preference to the 895 French Creek, and that if arrangements could be made so as that the merchant shipping should not be disturbed, they had no objection to the works being commenced at the latter place without delay. The people of Malta, in reply to a letter which had been addressed by the Council to the members of the Chamber of Commerce there, gave expression to a similar opinion. But beyond that the disadvantages of the Marsa were very great. It was difficult of access to the commercial shipping, while the difficulty of vessels turning round in the basin was so great, that there would be constant danger of collision. The French Creek, on the other hand, was always easily accessible, and was free from those dangers which existed in the case of the Marsa, as was clearly pointed out by Admiral Codrington. He regretted that the forms of the House prevented him from submitting a formal Motion on this subject, because he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he thought the hon. and gallant Member had used very intemperate and unjust terms towards him. He had accused him of deliberate mis-statements, of mutilating printed papers, and of suppressing important documents. (Captain TALBOT: No, no!] He (Lord Clarence Paget) begged pardon—he had taken down the words used by the hon. Gentleman. It was true that there were one or two letters from Admiral Codrington which were not in the papers produced; but the fact was he was not 'aware of their arrival, and his hon. Friend beside him (Mr. Stansfeld) informed him they had accidentally been mislaid. There was no desire whatever to keep them from the House. The hon. and gallant Member also accused him of a deliberate mis-statement with regard to the distance between the harbour and the dock. He certainly was not prepared at the time to state the exact distance. The hon. and gallant Member said it was two miles. [Captain TALBOT: Nearly two miles.] He admitted that he had been mistaken as to the distance; but there was no deliberate mis-statement on his (Lord Clarence Paget's) part. In fact, the proposed dock at the Marsa was much nearer to the anchorage of ships of war than the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the House believe. The principal object the Admiralty had in view in agreeing to the con- 896 struction of the proposed dock, was that it was extremely handy to the place where ships usually lay, and that large iron-cased vessels could easily go in there and have their bottoms cleaned, and come out without loss of time. He did not believe that any Member of that House was capable of making a deliberate mis-statement, but the hon. and gallant Member had made a very gross mis-statement when he said that the dock was unfit for our iron ships. Now, they had two large iron ships, the Royal Oak and the Resistance, which could be docked in the present dock. [Captain TALBOT: Can first class iron ships go in with their stores on board?] He did not know what the hon. and gallant Member called first-class iron ships. He should call the Royal Oak a first-class iron ship, and the Resistance a very large and powerful ship. However, that was nothing to the purpose. The Government of Malta agreed to give us a certain portion of Malta harbour for our men-of-war, provided we would make another portion of that harbour available for merchant ships, and they told us that if the Government would assist them in deepening the Marsa, they would give us the so-called French Creek. The statement of the Governor of Malta in Council was this— "that the merchant ships should continue in possession of French Creek until all the works of the Marsa should be completed." Would it not, therefore, be breaking faith with the Maltese Government if we were to attempt to occupy French Creek before that part appropriated to the merchant service should be completed? He really thought this was not the proper time to discuss this question. The Government had had reports undoubtedly from two very distinguished officers, Admiral Codrington and Sir William Martin, to the effect, first of all, that the dock could not be constructed for the sum stated in the first estimate, and secondly, that it would be better to adopt the French Creek. Admiral Martin put forward a plan of his own, which the Government considered utterly unfeasible. This was a proof that they could not accept his views as altogether without bias. Last year the Duke of Somerset sent out Sir Frederick Grey and a civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Whit-bread) to report their views on the subject. They reported that they believed this Marsa would be a very valuable dock. They did not deny that French. Creek might ultimately be very available for a 897 commercial dock, but it appeared to them this dock in the Marsa could be more easily constructed. The Government had no desire to build in the Marsa more than in French Creek. All they had to do was to be guided by their engineers, and to a certain extent by the report of Sir Frederick Grey and the hon. Member for Bedford. Should they have been justified in the face of the report in breaking faith with the Maltese Government by commencing operations in the French Creek, and in upsetting all the arrangements which had been made? Since then the Government had sent out Mr. Maclean, one of the first civil engineers in this country, who would make a report, and the Admiralty would give it due consideration before they came to a decision on the matter. The Government had taken the best means to ascertain which place would be the best for the public service. He would therefore ask the House not to bind itself to this or that scheme. He denied that the Admiralty, in the course they were taking, were doing a foolish thing. There was an immense increase in the merchant shipping at Malta, and the new dock would be of great utility to the large steam navigation companies who at present had no dock accommodation for their vessels at Malta; so that the money would be far from being thrown away even if it did not answer for men-of-war. He hoped the House would excuse him going into details until they had received the report referred to.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord that the present was not the time to discuss the question brought before them. He thought it was the time. From all he had learned he believed that the Admiralty were doing a very foolish thing, and he hoped that on consideration they would be induced to take a wiser course. He regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford (Captain Talbot), owing to a division having already been taken on another subject, was prevented taking the sense of the House upon this Question. He hoped he would do so on another occasion, and that the noble Lord opposite would not shrink from giving those explanations which the House had a right to receive before voting the large sum asked for, and which he feared would be wasted and thrown away. He was sure his hon. and gallant Friend had no intention of making a personal attack on the 898 noble Lord opposite; but he begged to remind the noble Lord that the Question was between an intentional misstatement and a misstatement that was not intentional. The noble Lord did not deny that he had made a misstatement. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I do deny any misstatement.] The noble Lord had just admitted he had made a most important misstatement. He (Sir John Pakington) wished to impress on the House that when they were dealing with a large expenditure of public money they had a right to expect that those who represent the Government should be accurate in their statements. Last year the noble Lord told them that it was only half a mile from the dockyard to the site of the proposed new dock. Now the noble Lord said it was two miles. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: It is not two miles.] He believed it was about one-twelfth part of a mile short of two miles, and that the measured distance was one mile and eleven-twelfths. He need not point out the inconvenience that must arise from so great a distance. The distance of the French Creek from the dockyard was only 800 yards. But there was another grave consideration. He had been told that if they laid out a large sum in the construction of the dock it would be the joint property of the commercial body of Malta and of Her Majesty's Government —so that when a ship of war arrived for repairs it might be that the dock would be occupied by other vessels. They would have to dredge one mile and eleven-twelfths. There was another mistake of the noble Lord. He told them last year that the expense was to be divided, and that the Maltese authorities were to contribute £10,000 towards the construction of the dock. He had been informed that that was not the case, and that the money would be expended in dredging and clearing out the Marsa; and that anything left over would be expended on the dock. But it was notorious to any one who knew anything about the matter that not a farthing would be left. But the concluding part of the noble Lord's statement was the most unsatisfactory of all. The noble Lord had told them that he had sent out an engineer to give them another opinion. They did not want another opinion. They had had opinions enough. It was a question which related to the convenience of the fleet. It was not a question for engineers, but for the Admiralty, and they ought not to depute it to any engineer. He hoped the 899 Admiralty would, before they came to the House for a vote on the subject, consider well the opinion of men who must be regarded as authorities on the subject. Sir William Martin had been Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean for the last three years. They had also the authority of Admiral Codrington, whose letter on the subject his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford had thought had been suppressed. When his hon. and gallant Friend accused the noble Lord of having suppressed documents, he was certain he did not intend to speak offensively; but the paper was in existence, they did not get it, and when misstatements were made and papers withheld, he thought the noble Lord ought not to show himself so sensitive. That paper contained the opinion of Admiral Codrington, who had been for four years the Admiral Superintendent of this very dockyard. Who was to be a judge of the question if Admiral Codrington was not? In favour of the dock was Colonel Greene, Director of Engineering Works in England, and a very excellent officer, but not to be compared as an authority with Admiral Codrington. But the Admiralty, not satisfied with the unbiassed judgment of two of the best authorities that could be found, had sent out two Lords of the Admiralty in order to decide the question—Sir Frederick Grey and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). They were all very sorry for the cause which had obliged that hon. Member to resign his office, for no one could have filled it more creditably; but it was no discredit to those gentlemen not to take their opinion when in opposition to such authorities as he had quoted. He was satisfied that to spend money as the Government proposed would be so unwise that the House would not sanction it, and he hoped the Admiralty would abandon the scheme.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEwished to say one word as to the agreement of 1839, between the colonial Government and the Admiralty respecting the position and the use to be made of French Creek. The Governor of Malta wrote home to inform them that the resolution of the Council of Malta, and the whole arrangement for sharing the expense, rested upon the proviso that the merchant shipping should continue in possession of French Creek until all the works intended to be performed at Marsa should have been completed. The Council of Malta would not 900 have entered into the arrangement, except for the positive assurance that no portion of the shores or water of the French Creek should be used for Admiralty purposes until the entire works were completed, and any departure from this assurance must be considered a breach of the engagement.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to say that he had counselled no breach of the engagement.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he considered the Government proposition to be altogether of a most extraordinary character. The only money they proposed to ask Parliament for in respect of the plan was a sum of £50,000, and with that they proposed to build a second class dock in Malta. They did not ask for a sixpence for the erection of shops and buildings for machinery, and the providing of those appliances for the benefit of the merchant shipping on account of which the Maltese Government were willing to share the expenses.
§ SIR JOHN HAYthought that there were one or two points which it was desirable should be in the possession of the House; and first he would refer to the assertion of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the present dock at Malta was capable of receiving first-class iron-clad ships. The fact was that the Agincourt, Minotaur, Northumberland, Warrior, and Black Prince, drew 28 feet of water; the Prince Consort, Royal Oak, and Royal Albert, 26; the Defence, 23; and Resistance, 22 or 23; and not one of these ships could go into the dock without being lightened. He had himself commanded a line-of-battle ship which drew twenty-six feet of water, and having to put into Malta for repairs, which could have been done in a day, it took nearly a fortnight to lighten her and to get her in and out again. In the case of iron ships, their great weight being in their plates, they could not thus be lightened, and therefore the dock at the Marsa was inaccessible to them. It was proposed only to deepen the harbour to twenty-five feet, and the dock was to be inside the harbour; that was, though the dock itself was to have thirty feet of water on the sill, yet no ship drawing more than twenty-five feet could get through the harbour to it. Ships of war also would have to go to the dockyard to unship stores, and then go to the dock at the Marsa. Something had been said about the uncertainty of the 901 opinion of Sir William. Martin; but he (Sir John Hay) could state that Sir William Martin's opinion was that the dock should be in the French Creek, and that to have a dock at the Marsa would be an expensive waste of public money. The question was not whether £50,000 should be spent, but whether the money to be spent at the Marsa would not be wasted. What they wanted was an efficient dock in Malta harbour, and the whole maritime power of the country might be brought to a standstill in time of war if the Admiralty constructed the dock in an improper position. He did not wish to say that any document had been suppressed; but still the Report which had been acted upon was not among the documents which had been printed. All the documents were in direct opposition to the Admiralty, except the Report of Colonel Greene, and this Report was not produced. The Government, however, did not seem to rely much upon the Report, for they said that they were going to send out a distinguished engineer—of whom he did not know whether any hon. Member had heard before—to report upon their own officers. The Government, therefore, seemed to have no trust in the Report which they refused to give to the House. The two Governments, the English Government and the Malta Government, were to make themselves joint-stock owners of the docks, and the Admiralty had agreed that in case the docks should be unfit for use, and the naval authorities should decline to put them into a proper condition, the Malta Government might take possession, and they were to become from that moment the property of the Malta Government. If at any time the necessary machinery was not in a fit state, the Malta Government might raise the question whether the docks did not belong to them for the use of the mercantile community of Malta. He could only say, in conclusion, that he hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Talbot) would, on some future occasion, take the sense of the House upon this waste of public money and gross neglect of Imperial interests.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, that nobody doubted the necessity of a new dock at Malta—one that should be able to take in the largest vessel in the navy—and the only question was, in what way such dock should be formed. With all deference for the opinion of Admiral Codrington and Sir William Martin, he must in preference take the authority of the Governor and 902 Council of Malta as to when possession of the French Creek could be got. He had been on the spot, and was assured there that it would be regarded as a flagrant breach, of the agreement if the Admiralty-took possession of the upper part of French Creek before the arrangements which had been detailed were carried out. He himself also believed that such a course would be a flagrant violation of the engagements of the country. Any dock constructed at the head of the French Creek, or by the north-west basin at Marsa, would require floating factories or factories on shore; whereas, if a dock were constructed in the mercantile water at the Marsa, it appeared probable that private factories would be established by the side of it. The many large steam vessels which navigated the Mediterranean had now to go to Marseilles for repairs, whereas if there were a dock under English management and of sufficient capacity at Malta, they would infinitely prefer using it. The gallant Officer who had just sat down had stated that when the new dock was constructed it would be impossible for any vessel drawing twenty-five feet to enter it. It was quite true that the mercantile water was all over twenty-five feet; but it was clear from the correspondence that it was intended to construct a channel of width and depth sufficient to give access to any vessel in Her Majesty's service at present afloat. It was said that the new dock would be two miles from the present dock; but it was not two miles from the anchorage, and measured in a line from the present anchorage the two docks would be about equidistant. He did not deny that French Creek was the best situation for a purely naval establishment, but there could then be no private workshops and no assistance from the trade of the harbour. Every argument which had been urged to-night, and many more, had been fully considered. They had heard what the Governor, what the naval authorities, what Sir William Martin, what Admiral Codrington, and what the Director of the Works had to say, and, having had ample time to rectify any mistake, he believed that this was a good and economical bargain for this country, and a wise arrangement on the part of the people of Malta.
§ MR. ADDINGTONsaid, that, although the hon. Gentleman told them there would be a sufficient channel, still the situation of the Marsa would be exposed to the prevailing winds which invariably drifted in 903 the soil, and the contingency was provided for by a stipulation that the soil should be carried away a distance of two miles. No one conversant with the correspondence could lose sight of the circumstance, that a good deal depended on the construction of a canal to unite the two harbours. But for several years he had heard that if a canal were formed it was very possible that the military authorities, in case of war, would lay their hands upon it. It was admitted that, if it were a mere question of site, French Creek was the place where the dock should be constructed. The question was, not whether they should choose a site which should be convenient for the merchant shipping; when they were called upon to consider a charge upon the Navy Estimates, what they had to do was to consider what was best for the navy. He was credibly informed that if a site on the Yaletta side were surrendered to the merchants, they would prefer that to the site at Marsa, and every naval man, with the exception of one who was connected with the Admiralty, had pronounced in favour of the naval dock being constructed at French Creek. Another advantage which ought not to be forgotten was, that the quarries were close to that site, whereas the stone for the works at Marsa would have to be transported some distance by a very indifferent road. As a naval man, and as one who had had some years' experience and knowledge of the harbour, he could confirm everything which had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Talbot), and from other hon. Members who had taken the same view of the subject.