The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-01 00:00:00

EVENING, MAY 1, 1849.

Ireland had a native Parliament, these deaths could not
have taken place, for the Irish would .have shut
the ports, stopped the 'distilleries, and :exerted
themselves to meet the distress. When Ireland had a
Parliament, they voted 250,00:.!. in the year 1795, fethe
defence of England, and forty thous:znd men for the pub-
lic defence against a threatened French invasion. It was
said in that House, that if England lost the first place
among the nations of Europe, she would be nothing.
He believed it, and he should always wish she were
first, but it was not keeping her position to be
peddling about a few pounds and a few stones of meal,
while the people of Ireland were starving. He wished
the Liberal Members of Ireland to consider what they
had done; they destroyed the agricultural interests of
the country--(" Hear" from the Protectionists)—they
destroyed its commerce, mainly by supporting certain
measures, and let them not now put the finishing stroke
to the miseries of the country. It was said there were
bad landlords in Ireland, and he believed it, but they were
not all bad, and in many cases, to his own knowledge, more
particularly in Connaaght,Cavan, and parts of Connaught,
no rent WAS paid at all, for several years. Let the House
look at his own case. lie had property nrar that farmed
by the l)uke of Buckingham, in the county of Longford,
and Colonel White had property also, and so had Lord
Longford; but what was :the fact? The Buckingham
property was covered with paupers, whom they had to
support in addition to their own; and although it was
recently sold for 14,5001, not a single shilling could the
purchaser get from the tenantry on that property. They
first, as he had said, destroyed their agriculture and
commerce—they took away the constitution in conse-
quence of a mock insurrection, and then talked of
sending away the people by emigration. For his own
part, he was incendiary enough, and would continue so,
to tell the people of Ireland not to pay any rents to the
absentees—for they were the cause of the misfortunes
which befell the country. For his own part, he should
vote for the Bill, in the hope that it would afford some
relief to the famishing people in the present dreadful
crisis.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL then proceeded to address
the House, in the midst of loud and vociferous cries of
" Divide, divide." He denied, in the first instance,
that the people of Ulster were superior either in know-
ledge or loyalty to those of the south or west of Ireland,
as had been alleged by Hon. Members on the other side
of the House. Ile had also heard it complained of that
the loan of ten millions to the people for some years
back created a bad effect. He denied it, for it relieved
the people from death by starvation in many instances,
and where so many lives were preserved it could not
have created a bad effect. He voted, as he had already
said, for the Bill now before the House as a choice of
two evils, and ha should say it was not lair for that
House to place Irish Members in so pailful a position.
—(Hear.) They had heard that evening of the horrible
account given by the gentleman who, in driving through
the western parts of Ireland, in the county of Mayo,
was obliged to desist from his journey in consequence of
the number of bodies which lay dead and festering along
the road. But they had not heard half the story of the
horrors which now existed in that unfortunate country.
He had received letters from various other parts of Ire-
land—Kilkenny, for instance, a rich and fertile district—
from places within a short distance of the metropolis,
and in the gangway, if he might use such an expres-
sion, of trade and commerce, and yet the destitution
which prevailed was really frightful. The Hon. Member
then proceeded to read an extract from the Cork Eva•
miner, in which the writer of the letter gave a melan-
choly description of the misery produced in various places
in Kerry, in consequence of recent evictions which
took place in that county; and then proceeded to say,
they might depend on it that the emigration now going
forward of the farmers and yeomen of the country,
which was most disastrous, would be encouraged instead
of checked, if this system of eviction were permitted to
go on. They were beautifying the public buildings of
that metropolis, widening streets, and rendering them
more magnificent than any others in Europe; but they
were doing that—they were expending money at a time
when the people of Ireland were starving. It had been
blasphemously asserted that the misery of Ireland was
Heaven's will; that her people ought to be left to their
own wretchedness. Yes, in rich powerful England, and
in the nineteenth century, such language was used, and
the author not reproved, towards millions of God's
creatures, and for whose salvation he laid down his life.

Colonel DUNNE said that unless they were taxed
justly, the Irish Members would not support this mea-
sure. He was prepared to show that in Ireland they
could not get this money, and therefore this security
was delusive. The whole tax must tall on one-half of
Ireland. He thought the poor-law objectionable. There
was no help for Ireland at this moment, unless they
fundamentally altered this poor-law. He repudiated the
idea that the Irish Members were responsible fur any-
thing that was going on in Ireland. The Government
ought to have spoken out. Their present proceedings
would not result in any permanent benefit to the coun-
try. There were 172 petitions from Ireland against this
measure, and only one for it The measure was opposed
to the general feeling in that country.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—

Fur the amendment
Against it
. .

Majority -74

The Bill was then read a third tinge.

Colonel RAWDON suggested some verbal alterations
in the title of the Bill. He thought the collection of
this rate would most materially affect the beneficial ope
ration of the poor-law in Ireland. After the word cer-
tain he moved to insert the words "other more" dis-
tressed unions. He protested against this invasion of the
Act of Union.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the words objected
to'unobjectionable, therefore he should not agree to the
intendment.

It was then negatived without:a division.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.

The House then went into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. BEItNAL in the chair.

The following votes were passed nou. con.:-138,214/.
to defray the salaries of the officers and the general ex-
penses of the Admiralty-office; 9,772/. for the General
Register and Record-office of Seamen; and 52,8471. for
the suientific branch of the nary.
On the vote of 137,2871. for her Majesty's establish-
ments at home.

Mr. CORRY took occasion to remind the House that
the late Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Ward), in
moving the estimates, and in explaining the alterations
which the Admiralty proposed in the dockyards,
made some observations with respect to the manner
in which the business was carried on by the dock-
yard officers. Since that time certain Hon. Members,
following up the remarks of the Hon. Gentleman had made
use of strong language in reference to those. officers
—some having even gone the length of charging them
with gross and profligate mismanagement. Now, hav-
ing had five years' experience of the manner in which
business was carried on in the dockyards, and enter-
taining the highest respect for the officers of those
establishments, he felt bound to say that the observa-
tions which had been made upon them were by no
means deserved.—(Hear, hear.) Ho would do the Hon.
Gentleman the late Secretary of the Admiralty the justice
to say that he did not think he intended to convey the
impression to the souse which some Hon. Gentlemen
had attached to his remarks.—(llear, hear.) It had
been said, too, that the Board of Admiralty had for 200
years been conniving at gross peculation and extrava-
gance in the dockyards. Without denying that the
system was open to improvement, he felt bound to
maintain that the charges which had been urged against
it were greatly exaggerated. It was said, for
instance, that there had been no audit of wages;
but that did not arise from any loose management on
the part of the authorities, but simply because
they had always found their preliminary in-
quiries sufficient to secure accuracy. Then again it was
said that there had been no general survey of stores;
but that was because of the enormous expense which
such a survey would have occasioned, and because it
was considered to be unnecessary, iu consequence of
other arrangements calculated to secure the same end,
With respect to the existence of any check upon expen-
diture, it should not be forgotten that there was a
monthly return of all the stores, which was duly verified
by the superintendents.
Str F.'l'. BARING regretted that bis lion. Friend
(Mr. Ward) was not present, in order to explain per.
sonally that he had no intention whatever of ascribing
blame to the officers of the yards. So far was his Hon.
Friend from stating that the system hitherto pursued at
the yards had been a system of peculation, that he, on
the contrary, was much struck and greatly satisfied, on
strict inquiry, by the honesty with which the public busi-
ness had been carried on in the yards.—(lleur, hear.)
No doubt there was room for improvement there, as in
all large establishments of a similar nature.

The vote was then agreed to, as was also a Yo to of
24,8731, for the salaries of officers, &c., and contingent
expenses of the aaval establishments abroad.
On the vote of 414,4161., for the wages of artificers,
labourers, and others employed in the naval establish-
ments at home,

Mr. COBDEN hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would
not object to postpone it, as the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose (Mr. Hume), who had two amendments on the
paper with respect to the reduction of the dockyard bat-
talions and of the shipwrights, was unable to attend in
his place owing to a sudden attack of cold which ren-
dered him quite inaudible.
Sir F. T. BARING said, ho would not object to post-
pone bringing up the report on that particular vote till
the lion. Member (Mr. Hume) could attend in his place.
The vote was then agreed to.
40,7441. for wages to artificers, labourers, and others
employed in the establishments was also agreed to.
On the ♦ote of 1,168,8691. for naval stores, building.
repair, and outfit of the fleet, and for steam machinery,
Mr. COBDEN avid that all who had examined into
the details of the Committee last year would be satisfied
there were no grounds whatever for the charge of pecu-
lation in any branch of the service; but, at the same
time, there was a very general opinion that the manage-
ment of our establishments was very defective, and ac-
cordingly a Committee had been appointed to revise the
system and put the public on the footing of private
establishments. He should like the Right Hon. Baronet
to state the result of the inquiries of that Committee, as
to which the late secretary (Mr. Ward) had been very
anxious.
Sir F. T. BARING was understood to state that the
report presented by the Committee was now in course of
being carried into effect.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 301,934/. to defray the charges of im-
provements, repairs. Ex.,
Mr. FAGAN, at some length, but in so low a tone as
to be almost i❑audible, rose to bring under consideration
the expenses of the erection of a steam-factory at Haul-
bowline. lie complained of the very small portion of
money expended in Ireland, and called on the Govern-
me❑t to redeem their promise of making a landing-place
at Cork.
Sir F. T. BARING assured the lion. Gentleman
that th• Admiralty not only admitted but wero most

willing to perform their promise.—(Hear, hear.) With
respect to establishing a steam-factory at Cork, he could
only say the project had been stopped there as well as
in other places, from the general curtailment of expendi-
ture, which had been as strictly Enforced in England as
in Ireland.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL thought it a great hardship that
Ireland should have only one dockyard, while England
had ten or eleven.

Admiral BOWLES expressed his opinion that some
of the large grants made to Ireland should have been
employed in such reproductive works as the erection of
a steam-factory at Cove. He hoped the Government
would not listen to the advice of those who would reduce
the navy to a state of degradation. He did not think
they could reduce the navy lower than it was at
present. Recollecting how, in 1846, the United
States had attempted to seize the Oregon ter-
ritory ; how, in 1847, they had attacked Mex-
ico ; how, at the present moment, all Europe
was torn by foreign and intestine warfare, he could see
no ground on which they would be justified in reducing
the navy, or in dispensing with the services of that small
farce which they now kept in a state of tfficiency.
Neither had any new circumstances arisen to lessen the
necessity for precaudon. They had a powerful neigh-
bour which maintained strong naval and military esta-
blishments, and which might turn upon this country
with much more facility than at any tormer period.
Perhaps it was an old-fa:,hioned idea of his to prefer ex-
perience to theory. But it was imagined that the time
was at hand when warfare would ct are, and armaments
might be dispensed with. Those who took a prominent
and active part in urging reductions might have been
expected to inculcate those great Christian principles of
charity, love, and forbearance, by the diffusion of sit hit/
alone that happy change could be effected.—(Hear,
hear.) He regretted to say he saw nothing
of the sort. He thought those gentlemen were
as pugnacious politicians as he had seen in the
course of a long experience. He was reminded of the
fable of the sheep, the wolves, and the dogs. He pre-
ferred the dogs to the wolves. The attempt was made
to undermine these great safeguards of the country
which those who had engaged in it would not venture to
take openly. They disparaged the management and
sneered at the efficiency of the naval establishments.
He could not forbear noticing the unbusinesalike way in
which discussions were commenced. No inquiry was
made as to the establishments of other maritime nations.
During the inquiry of last year not a question was asked
tending to elicit information on that point. France had
40 sail of the line, 60 frigates, and a large steam navy;
Russia had about 55 sail of the line, a smaller number
of frigates, a steam navy considerably increas-
ing; and merica 12 sale of the line, 14 frigates,
and an increasing steam navy. In 1793 this country
had 78 sail of the line in commission, and in 1795
upwards of 90. At a later period of the war this country
had to contend with France, Spain, Holland, with two
northern coalitions, and finally with the United States.
What would have been their situation had they been, a
few years before those contests, in :the. hands of the
financial reformers? The reduction of the navy by
3,000 men involved the breaking up of the squadron
fitted out in 1845, and which, no doubt, had acted as a
check on the American Government. With respect to
the ships which were said to have never been at sea, the
reason was, that providentially this country had not been
at war. Some of the old vessels were of inferior qua-
lity, and it was better to go on building new vessels than
expending an equal sum of money in repairing the old
ones. While other navies were increasing, the navy of
Great Britain was diminishing; and he therefore en-
treated the House not to sutler the revolution which was
urged in the system to proceed further, but rather to
persevere in the measures undertaken by the Right Hon.
Member for Tamworth, to supply the deficiencies of
the navy, and especially to increase the steam navy and
put the dockyards on a better footing; while, at the
same time, the education of that rising generation of
officers should not be neglected, on whose skill the
country must rely for defence in all future emergencies.
Mr. HENLEY thought the Government placed in a
difficult position. On the one hand, the country was
calling out for reduction, while there were two parties
in that House who took a different course. The Irish
Members called for new establishments, for no other
purpose apparently but to have money spent in Cork.—
(Hear, hear.) However anxious they all were to sus-
tain the honour and dignity of the country, they were
agreed in thinking that their establishments should be
kept up as economically as possible. The multiplicity
of their establishments very much increased the expense.
Ile was one of those who thought there were too many
of those establishments already; if they had fewer, the
work would be better done, and the cost would be less.
There was nothing to show that the navy was neglected.
In 1843 the number of men was very much the same as
at this moment. The number of men might fairly be
taken to test the other items of expenditure. The Go-
vernment were must fit to determine what should be the
number of men. But at the present day more was
paid for stores and dockyards than in 1843. He wished
the Government had been able to make a greater reduc-
tion. The expenses of the dockyards were higher than
they ought to be. Reduction might be carried to a much
further extent; but it was for the public interest that the
service should Ise maintained in as efficient a state and at
as moderate a cost as possible. _

Admiral DUNDA reminded the Hon. Gentleman
that the estimates for the present year included items
which were not included in the expenditure of former
y ears.
Mr. HENLEY had taken caro in his comparison to
omit those items which related to the victualling yards
and the steam navy.
Mr. CORRY said that from 1818 to 1827 the average
yearly amount of the navy estimates was 6,141,0001. ;
from 1833 to 1838 it was 4,764,0001.; during the five
years of the last Administration it was 7,062,0001.; and
during the three years which the present Government
had held office it had been 7,492,0001. If the increase
which had been made in the estimates since 1827, on ac-
count of cunt' acts for packet service, additional men and
additional pensions, were to be added to the estimates
for the years between 1818 and 1827, these estimates
would exceed the present estimates by about 450,0001.
When it was borne in mind, too, that since 1828 we had
created large steam establishments in the dockyards,
and established a steam navy, the House would see cause
to doubt that the percentage on wear and tear was less
formerly than now.
Mr. HENLEY said that 1814 was the period which
ho referred to, and insisted on the statement which he
had made being correct.
Lord BERNARD advocated the propriety of advanc •
ing money for the improvement of Cork harbour. The
sum required for the completion of the works would nut
exceed 30,0001.
Colonel SIBTIIORP gave notice that upon the bring-
ing up of the report he would move that the number of
the Lords of the Admiralty should be reduced by two,
and that the salary of the First Lord should be reduced
by ten per cent.
Captain FITZROY was happy to bear his testimony
to the fact that the navy had never been in a more effi•
cient state than under the late First Lord and the late
Secretary to the Admiralty; whilst at the same time due
attention had been paid to economy. Ile wished to
know whether there was any improvement as to the me-
thod of coaling the steam navy, for considering that only
100 tons could be put on board in a day on the old sys-
tem, it was desirable that some other mode should be
adopted. Another question to which he wished to call
the attention of the Government was with regard to the
freight of specie. He thought it would be better if some
arrangements could be made for altering the present
practice.

- Sir F. T. BARING was much obliged to the lion.
Gentleman for the handsome terms in which he had
referred to the state of the navy under the late Lord
Auckland and his lion. Friend Mr. Ward. He was
glad also to have the opportunity of bearing his testi-
mony to the merits of hits lion. Friend the late secretary.
He must say that during the short time he had been at
the Admiralty he had never met with a more zealous
public servant.—(llear, hear.) The attention of his
lion. Friend had been much given to the subject to
which the lion. Gentleman first referred—that of coal-
ing the steam navy ; but he (Sir F. Baring) had been
so short a time in his present office that he was not yet
acquainted with all the details of it. Ile believed, how-
ever, that before long a new plan would be adopted.
With respect also to freight, the question was one of
considerable difficulty, and he had not yet been able to
come to a satisfactory determination upon it.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thee complained of the works
that had been carried on at Keyham. Already 479,0001,
had been spent upon them, and now 120,0001. more was
quired. There was a powder-magazine in the middle
of the works, and he should wish to know what was the
' determination respecting that magazine before they
voted any more money.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH thought there had been
great waste and extravagance with regard to these
works. In 1844 Parliament had been informed that
certain works were to be commenced at Keyham ; these
were to cost 400,0001., and on the faith of that estimate
Parliament had voted 30,000/. On the 25th of September
of the same year, a Mr. Baker, a contractor, had pro-
posed to the Admiralty a plan of operations at Keyham
which required 713,0001. for the completion of portiona
the
only, not of the whole of the intended works, and
Admiralty approved of the plan, andent.; in virtue of
entered into en-
gagements with Mr. Baker to that effect
those engagements the Secretary of the Admiralty had
stated that Parliament was pledg_edeyteoretnexpleenfisd ?beet year
t
at least 120,0001. at Keyhatn. A
estimate in 1845 had been only foal., 67tn5a,0t00132/.
Admiralty Otmheontitghththaet
the whole of the whaovrkeskinowconntemplation at Keyham
could not be completed for muchleesthannftw6irmtuhoalt
sum. In 1846 and 1847 the same estimate
had been laid before Parliament. At length—last year
—the h2l
been increased to 1,225,0001. The
Navy ea'-' however, had discovered that an im-
portant item had been omitted from that estimate, and
now the Committee was told that 1,322,627/. was the
SUM required, although the lion. Gentleman the Secre-
tary for the Admiralty had told the Navy Committee
that the scale upon which the Admiralty would pro-
pose to open Keyham would be less than half that laid
down in the plans which they found traced out by the
previous Government." Ile had likewise told the Nave
Committee that it was originally proposed to have two
basins and three docks at Keyham, and that the pre-
sent Government had struck out one of the docks. It
was evident, therefore, that from the year 1844 to
1848 Parliament had been misinformed with regard to
the intended costs of these works. It tad however,
been said that the works estimated in 1844 at' 400,0001.
were different Iron those which were now to cost more
than 1,300,0001. How did they differ? Precisely in
the same manner as the foundation of a house differed
from the whole house when completed. The works of
1844 would have been useless without the subsequent
works. If in 1844 the Admiralty had plainly stated
that it would be useless to commence the works unless
Parliament were prepared to expend 1,300,0001. upon
, them, what would have been the consequences? In all
probability Parliament, knowing that there were costly

works connected with the steam navy in progress at
Woolwich and Portsmouth, would have hesitated to
commence far more costly ones at Keyham without more
information. and would perhaps have referred•the ques-
tion to a Select Committee ; and if the Committee
bad been like the .Navy Committee of last year, the
works ut Keyham would never have been com-
menced, for the Navy Committee had stated in their
report that if those works had not been com-
menced, they would have had no hesitation in re-
commending Parliament to withhold its sanction from
them. There was no doubt that great blunders had been
committed with regard to these works. First, they were
on the lee shore .instead of being on the weather shore,
and therefore exposed to the prevailing winds. It was,
however, a strange fact that it was the same with all our
dock) ards.—(Hear, hear.) Secondly, there was cot a
sufficient depth of water at Keyham—(Hear, hear)—sa
that the largest class of steamers would only be able to
enter the basins at spring tides. To remedy this defect
it was proposed to cut a channel through the mud and
to endeavour to keep it open by constant dredging.
Thirdly, the entrances to the basins being at right angles
to the current of the stream, large steamers would run
the risk of considerable damage in entering, unless they
entered at the top of the tide, at slack water. Fourthly,
the basins were , xtravatantly large; the two would
cover sixteen acres, and would easily contain be-
tween fifty and sixty steamers of the largest size.
But what possible use could there be for such
enormous basins when there was such a harbour as the
flamoaze et hand ?—(Hear, hear.) Fifthly, the works
were prematurely undertaken. In 1844 works connected
with the steam navy were in progress at Woolwich and
Portsmouth ; Parliament, as usual, had been misin-
formed that they would be completed for 100.0001.
Since then about 400,0001. had been expended there.
Now, the Admiralty should have waited until those
works had been completed, and then, it experience had
proved their expediency, works of a similar character
might have been constructed at Devonport for about a
third of what Keyham would cost. Sixthly, all these
works had been undertaken, partly in consequence of
a most ludicrous miscalculation of pecuniary benefits
to be derived from them. It had been calculated that
by means of these works steam-vessels could be re-
paired for about 2.5 per cent. cheaper than by con-
tract. From this calculation the cost of the works, and
of keeping them in repair, had been omitted. Now,
it would be easy to show that the interest of the
money expended, and the cost of keeping the works
in repair, would be nearly equal to the whole cost of
repairing the steam navy by contract.--(Hear, hear.)
It was evident that these works had been begun in the
most thoughtless, reckless, and unbusiness-like manner.
They were, however, but a specimen of a system which
had been pursued for years both by the Admiralty and
the Ordnance. He thought it was worthy of considera-
tion whether there should not be a board of public
works, to which all plans and estimates, both of new
works and of alterations of old works, should be sub-
mitted ; which board should bo responsible to Parlia-
ment for the accuracy of both plans and estimates ; and
without the full report of which board as to the nature
and intended cost of a work no estimate should be pre-
sented to Parliament. If there had been snch a rule in
1844 Parliament would not, by voting 30,0001. on an
estimate of 400,0004, have pledged itself to works cost-
ing 1,300,000/. He thought, with respect to these works
at Key ham, that the wisest plan would be to stop them,
and to pay a forfeit to the contractor, for by doing so
there would probably be a saving of 700,0004 He,
therefore, moved that the amount of the vote be re-
duced by 120,000/.
Mr. CORRY said that, as he was in office at the Ad.
miralty when the works at Keyham were undertaken, he
was enabled to afford the House some information on the
subject. The Hon. Baronet had proposed in the Com-
mittee on the Navy Estimates that a step should be put
to these works, but his proposition was only supported
by another Hon. Gentleman besides himself; and he (Mrs
Curry) therefore hoped that the Committee of the House
would support the Committee upstairs in their decision.
by rejecting the Hon. Baronet's amendment. The Hon.
Baronet had said on a former occasion that the Admi-
ralty, under the pretext of making economical repairs,
were squandering large sums upon the works of Keyham.
Now, those works were undertaken solely in order to
maintain the efficiency of the steam navy, which in case
of war was essential to the safety of the country. It must
be obvious to every one acquainted with naval affairs,
that if there were any part of the coast where it was
essential to have a harbour of refuge and means of re-
pair for steam-ships, that place was Devonport. As the
greater part of our naval force would be required in the
event of war for protecting the coast of Ireland, or for
blockading the western coast of France, Devonport was
the best point at which provision could be made for its
repair, and that port was also easy of access to ships
coming from any foreign station, except from the North
Sea and the Baltic. He admitted the Committee had
expressed their opinion that it the works at Keyham had
had not been commenced they would not have recom-
mended that they should be undertaken; but, with all de.
ference to the Committee, he would rather rely on the
opinion of gentlemen who had much more acquaintance
with matters of this kind than the Members of that
Committee could possibly possess. Mr. Ward, nearly
all the Naval Lords of the Admiralty, the late Lord
Auckland, Admiral Bowles, Mr. S. Herbert, many
engineers, and, indeed, all the witnesses examined
before the Committee, with only ono exception,
ho believed, had urged the necessity of eats-
' blishing extensive works for the repair of steam ma-
chinery and steam-ships at Devonport. It had been said
that the works might have been commenced on a small
scale; but he considered that there could bo no worse
economy than to commence important works of this kind
on a small scale. 'The Honourable Baronet had given a
most exaggerated account of the capabilities of the
basins at Keyham. It was true that the basins were
very extensive, but this arose from the necessity of
having space for bringing the ships alongside the wharfs,
that they might be placed under the shears to receive
the immense weight of boilers and machinery; and, so
far from those basins having been constructed on an ex-
travagantly large scale, it was in evidence that they were
only about one-third larger than the basins at Ports-
mouth. He had been informed by an officer that so far
from the basins at Woolwich and Portsmouth being too
large, the only mistake had been in making them so
small; and he therefore thought it was the duty of the
Government, in undertaking new works, to take care
that sufficient accommodation was provided. The Ho-
nourable Baronet had said that a gross blunder had been
committed in placing the works at Keyham on the le*
shore; but, as the dockyard was on the lee aide of the
harbour, it was deemed advisable to place the basins ou
the same shore. The Hon. Baronet was entirely mis-
taken in his statement respecting the depth of water, fur
he (Mr. Curry) believed the channel would be kept per-
fectly clear without having recourse to dredging. Al-
thcugh he admitted it was desirable that Parliament
should have the fullest information as to the extent to
which it was intended to carry these works, yet it was
very difficult on commencing a great undertaking of thin
kind to determine upon the particular works, so as to
make a satisfactory estimate. During the progress of
such works various improvements, enlargements, or
alterations might become necessary; and if in 1843 be
had laid before Parliament a full estimate of the works at
Keyham, he would have been deceiving the House, for he
really did not then know to what extent it might be de-
sirable to go. He denied, however, that the Government
in the course they had taken, had had any intention of
deceiving Parliament, for their estimates had always
specified the particular portions of the work for which
votes were required. The increase in vote No. 11 had
been noticed, but that increase was caused by the same
circumstance which had led to the increase of many
other estimates in this department—by the necessity of
providing for the maintenance and repair of the steam
navy. Another cause of the increased expenditure for
works in the dockyards was this—when the late Board
of Admiralty came into office, they found the dockyards
in a state of dilapidation, they considered it their duty
to place them in an efficient condition, and hence con-
siderable expense had been incurred, but he believed it
had been attended with results most advantageous to the
public service.
After a few words, in explanation, from Sir W.
MO LESW OR TH,
Mr. COBDEN said it had been stated before the
Committee to which the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Curry) had referred, that the Government had en-
tered into contracts to a certain amount for con-
structing the works at Keyham ; and a strong
opinion was expressed in the Committee that
those contracts should be adhered to, but he
thought there was also a strong feeling that the works
should nut go on after those contracts were completed.
take the sense of the House as to whether any
shirt _
lie hoped his lion. Friend (aSeterinWg.pAllsonle.es.owbroeritthh)e wtoohnisealdri
expense should be incurred until the House_orhe foci;
cost of their construction. He hiaddererde reason
practical
that the whole thing
ananld"ebeashinasd, aanndopopt opportunity
yinning what would
cessity of these docks,
to end.—(Hear.) As to the se
me to the resolution that
on to know'
engineers
would have
not recom-
mendedbegun, they
icnoeemrsuitiottebee
of
fislgarsact eyfeuwalrastocathceoncsountry from beginning
if they had not been h
that
i et h
is construction,
country becausehad
al
re
atd
ye y
docks were
andsa-
tisfie thtal
basins enough for the repair of all her steamers.
Was the House aware that these preparations
d
were made, not in order to construct engines for
their steamships, bat for the repair of these vessels in
the event of a great war? It seemed to be assumed that
they were to have another general war to•morrow, and
that they must therefore be prepared with steam basins,
and have everything in order, to be ready for another
battle of Trafalgar. Now, was that a wise policy with
reference to the taxpayers? He denied the necessity of
having a steam-basin at all; and his reason for doing so
was, that private builders of steamboats had no basins.
—([fear.) There was not in this country such a thing
in existence as a steam-basin for the construction of
private steam-vessels. The Right Hon. Gentleman said
that the advantage of Key ham dock was to be estimated.
not by the extent of dock, but by the amount of wharf-
age. If so, what was the use of this great dock? It won d
be better to have a great sea-wall, and then to bring up
f
the steamers alongside the wall. But this sy.sotrit the
expending public money was carried on b
slightest reference to the capabilities of th;:tat
had as
of the country ; and if the Government
fetnhe
Hhoaduse..i7
inexhaustible California under the table o
would be impossible for them to
work in a more
reparation ra Lion was mad*
reckless manner than they had done
eine and the putting
for the removal of one powder ere
fm39o 000/., capable of COR•
up of another, at an expense
powder.o Was that wanted ?
"ntoreference to this
Keyham dock.—(Hear, hear.) i
taining 40,000 barrels of
They had 90,000 barrels at present all stored in places of
it necessary
was all done in reference to war. Now, was
primed, charged, and loaded
security in this country. But he should
_ be told. that thill
that everything should be
in preparation for a great war to-morrow.—(Hear, hear.)
war, would be
Instead of preparing for an imaginary it
wiser to consider the convenience and capabilities of the__
taxpayers; and, in order to put on end to the eaersordi•