HC Deb 06 May 1886 vol 305 cc362-3
MR. W. J. CORBET (Wicklow, E.)

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that one of his predecessors in office, in reply to a Question on 26th February 1885, as to the damage to the Arklow Breakwater, stated— The recent storms have caused a slight subsidence, which is of no structural import- ance, and has been remedied at a trifling cost; whether, after many ineffectual attempts on the part of the Harbour Committee, representing the ratepayers, who have guaranteed repayment of the loan of twenty thousand pounds, to get an inquiry, the Engineer of the Board of Works, who designed the Breakwater, reported, 20th April 1885, that the sand foundations had been scoured out by the sea, which scouring out extended under the storm wall for its entire width of nineteen and a half feet; whether his attention has been called to a paper just laid upon the Table, from which it appears an additional sum of ten thousand five hundred pounds will be required to carry out the recommendations of Messrs. Stevenson and Stoney, which sum it is proposed to charge upon the rates; whether he is aware that the ship and boat owners from the first condemned the plans of the Board of Works; and, whether the ratepayers will be called on for a fresh guarantee under all the circumstances of the case?


The statements in the first two paragraphs of the Question are substantially correct. Before the extra expense, £10,500, involved in Messrs. Stevenson and Stoney's recommendations is incurred, the consent of the Town Commissioners to that amount being charged on the town rates would have to be obtained. With regard to paragraph 4, I am informed that the ship and boat owners of Arklow, though at first objecting to the design of the Board of Works' Engineer, have from time to time disagreed among themselves. They, however, appear to be now in favour of the execution of the works in accordance with the original design with slight modifications, with one exception—namely, the northern groins. No decision has yet been come to as to Messrs. Stevenson and Stoney's plan. If the additional expenditure of £10,500 is incurred it would have to be guaranteed in the same manner as the £20,000.