The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING; JULY 5, 1861.

would be strong forts inside replying to them. He con:

sidered the fortification desirable as one of the advanced
defences of the country.
Mr. LINDSAY wondered why the government should
spend money on enclosing a harbour which was full of

rocks, and in which the tide was so strong. No man in his

senses would think of running in a gale of wind for Alder-

ney. ~lt was, therefore, not a harbour of refuge; and he

did not see why they should spend £1,300,000 for amere

look-out. All wanted for that purpose would be

a telegraphic wire and a person at the other end to send us
word what was going on. The noble lord had given the house
the usual stereotyped answer, namely, that so much had

been done that it was necessary to spend half a million

more to complete the work. But how did they know that

half a million more would be sufficient? If we had never

spent a penny on this island, no foreign power would ever
in case of war have thought of seizing it. It was the build-
ings that we had put upon it that would tempt invasion.
Besides, would not the 5,000 to 8,000 men that would be
required to garrison the forts be much better placed else-
where. He trusted, therefore, the house would refuse the
vote at once. (Divide.)
Mr. BUXTON asked whether it would not be possible for

a few gunboats to slip out of Cherbourg and lay the works
in ruins, as our gunboats had done the forts at Helsingfors ?
Mr. K INNAIRD said the only question was whether it

would be better to give up the island altogether than to

complete the works? (Yes.) It might not be a good har-
bour of refuge, but it was the only one on that coast. He
should support the Government, believing that it would be
a greater economy to finish tho works than to throw away

all that had been hitherto spent. (Divide.)
' Mr. BAXTER said the speech of the Secretary to the

Admiralty had convinced him that it was his duty to divide

the committee on this vote. The point marked 1) was a

basis for the expenditure of nearly £1,800,000, and other
portions of the place involved the outlay of over £2,000,000.
The Government had apparently not made up their mind
as to how far they meant to go, and he must, therefore,
divide on the question.
Lord C. PAGET said the sum asked for on the estimate
would complete all the works it was thought desirable to
proceed with on the plan. (Cries of "Divide.")

Lord PALMERSTON said the great argument of the
honourable member who moved this amendment, was his
fear that the Government might be turned out of
office next year. (Laughter.) Well, he suggested to
his hon. friend that he might very much mitigate the
chance of that event by not persisting in his present

motion. (Renewed laughter,) The question was not a

new one. It had been debated again and again in that
house. The Government were in possession of the opinions
of the highest authorities that viewed it in a military
and naval light as a defensive position. With reference to
Cherbourg and other places, the harbour and fortifications
at Alderney were of the utmost importance. He really
thought that upon a practical question of that nature the
house would think that the opinions of such persons were
entitled to some consideration. For his own part, he be-
lieved that there never were works better contrived than

hose at Alderney for the purpose of crippling, thwarting,

and intercepting any military or naval operations under-
taken from the opposite side of the channel. But it was
argued that there was no plan, and that the Government
were bound to say how far they would go and where they
would stop with these works. The answer was, there had
been a plan from the beginning, but by degrees the works
had been extended, though always on the same plan, and
there was a distinct and definite limit to them. It was ob-
jected that rocks had to be blasted in order to complete the
works, but there was really nothing easier than to blast
rocks under such conditions as existed at Alderney. It
was very different at Holyhead and other deep water har-
bours, where considerations of the public interest had over-
ridden even that argument. But it was next argued that
the change that had taken place in naval and military
operations had destroyed the value of such harbours as that
at Alderney. He entirely differed from his hon. friend who
used that argument. So far from these changes having
diminished the value of the harbour, they had added to it.
It was quite clear that if our guns were of heavier metal, of

longer range, and of greater precision and accuracy, they
must be able to hit ships at greater distances with greater
certainty, whether moving or stationary ; and therefore
that argument went, in fact, in favour of the harbour.
Then it had been argued that the harbour would be de-
stroyed, like some of those in the Baltic during the late
war. To that he replied, a harbour consists of water and
certain defences, ani that these could not be destroyed by
firing at them. We could always shelter in Alderney har-
bour a fleet of small steamers and gunboats equal to those
which might be brought against us. As to the argument
that 3,000 soldiers would be required to garrison the works,
who would be more valuable elsewhere in case of war, he
would only say that, if 3,000 men placed at Alderney de-
feated any attempt to land upon our shores, they would be
better employed at that station than anywhere else. To
refuse to complete these works now that they had pro-
ceeded so far, would be, in his opinion, the worst economy,
and he hoped that, having gone so far on what he consi-
dered valid grounds, the committee would not agree to the
motion of his hon. friend, but determine to complete these
works for the purposes originally intended.
The committee divided, and there appeared—
For the omission of the item 5O
Against it
Majority —ls
Mr. PEEL, in answer to a question from Mr. LINDSAY,
said Dover harbour would be completed for about £650,000
and £46,702 for Holyhead and Portpatrick.
Mr. H. HERBERT wished to call attention to an item
under this:vote of £445,000 for packet service. The city of
Dublin had contributed largely for improvement in the
postal service, but the Government had not performed their
part of the contract, so that the large sums voted by the
house and subscribed by the city of Dublin were rendered
nugatory by the negligence of the Government. The dis-
tinct agreement was, that the public should have a covered
pier at Holyhead for the convenience of the public, similar
to what existed at Kingstown. That agreement was not
carried out by the Government. They broke faith with the
public, to whom this accommodation was not afforded.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILLIAMS said the public were put to enormous
expenditure by erroneous estimates. The difference be-
tween the lowest estimates first put in for the construc-
tion of this harbour was amazingly great, the lowest being
in the first instance £lO,OOO, and the highest £200,000.
Afterwards Sir J. Rennie gave an estimate of £BOB,OOO,
and Mr. Hawkshawe one amounting to £1,920,000. These
estimates exhibited such wide discrepancies as to require
consideration. (Hear.)
Mr. LEFROY complained of the inadequate accommo-
dation afforded to passengers at Holyhead.
Mr. PEEL admitted that the accommodation for the
public was not satisfactory. The Government had endea-
voured by a temporary pier at Holyhead to remedy the evil.
It was afterwards thought that by some small additional
outlay the temporary wooden pier might be made a perma-
nent one. That would account for some votes taken during
the last few years. It was now thought that the sum o f
£445,000 would be sufficient to construct a permanent pier.
He admitted it was a defect in the temporary pier that it
had no covering, but he thought there would be no diffi-
culsy in remedying that defect. As to the packet service, he
believed that, generally speaking, the mails between Lon-
don and Dublin were conveyed within the time specified in
the contract.
Mr. BENTINCK thought that so long as the free-trade
principle was adhered to, every one should bear his own ex-
pense, and that the public should sot be called upon to pro-
vide for the accommodation of private individuals. There
did not exist in Europe such a specimen of public misman-
agement and downright absurdity as the harbour of Holy-
head. The harbour was originally planned so as to be car-
ried out at a comparatively trifling cost. A certain area
was enclosed for a harbour of refuge and postal communica-
tion. It was found that after the northern pier was completed
it was inadequate for the purpose for which it was designed.
No vessel could without great risk enter what was intended
to be a harbonr;of refuge.gAfter £600,000 had been expended
it was discovered that that sum had been thrown away. Had
the Government undertook in the first instance to expend a
larger sum they might have had a good harbour and on
economical principles. (Hear, hear.) There was no man
who had seen the harbour of Holyhead who did not look
upon it as a disgrace to the country. He thought no hon.
member would venture to contradict what he had said
about that harbour. They now grudged the small sum of
money that was required to make that harbour give accom-
modation to the steamers sailing to Dublin. He wanted to
know from the Government whether they were to have the
new harbour or not. (Hear.)
Lord NAAS said a series of blunders had been committed
with reference to the harbour of Holyhead. Certainly, the
place from which the packets started now had nothing to do
with the harbour of refuge. The subject of a packet pier
had been under consideration for some time. The tempo-
rary pier used at present was quite unfitted for the accom-
modation of the public, and they ought to know whether
Government intended to erect a stone pier in the room of
the wooden one which was used at present. (Hear,)
Mr. LINDSAY said the harbour of Holyhead appeared
to be condemned as a harbour of refuge, notwithstanding
the amount of money which had been already spent upon it.
Instead of spending mosey to make Holyhead a harbour of
refuge, it appeared they were to spend money for piers for
the accommodation of passengers. Now they should recol-
lect that Galway, Southampton, and Liverpool had equally
as strong claims upon the public pursa for the building of
piers as Holyhead had.
Lord PALMERSTON said it was quite a mistake to
suppose that the harbour of Holyhead had failed as a
harbour of refuge. So far from being a failure, it had
been a success, and had afforded refuge to hundreds of
vessels in bad weather, so that the money had not been
thrown away upon it as some hon. members had con-
tended. The argument which might apply to other har-
bours did not apply to Holyhead, for the question with
reference to that harbour was an imperial one, and it
could not be put upon a footing with the other harbours
of private enter-
Kuiitnegrddeloastmti:Boartnitdfarioni
tniwanaadsmtlahrteetielrarnddutfyormthedfapcialrittaot
ef
communication as much as possible; and the question was,
ptrthherifeeesrreljer,feonifdoretredoG
the object was a national one. (Hear, hear.)
There was a great deal of force in the remarks as to the in-
convenience of the temporary wooden pier, and the matter