HARBOURS OF REFUGE—MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.

HC Deb 21 March 1871 vol 205 cc340-403

LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON

rose to move an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that She would direct that the recommendations of the Harbours of Refuge Commissioners of 1858 be carried into effect as far as relates to the construction of a harbour of refuge at Filey, in Yorkshire. The question, he said, was one of the utmost importance, for it affected the lives and the property of a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects. In bringing the subject before the House he was supported by the Reports of two Committees of the House, by the Report of a Royal Commission, and by the votes of the House itself. The question was first seriously taken up in 1836, when a Committee was appointed to consider it; but no action resulted from its inquiries. In 1851 an application was made from Redcar, on the north-east coast, south of the mouth of the Tees, to construct a harbour of refuge at that place; but nothing came of it. But in 1856, and in January, 1857, this country was visited by a series of terrific storms, and the mind of the people was fairly stirred with regard to the great loss of life and property which occurred annually on our coasts; and early in 1857 Mr. Wilson, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee of that House to inquire into the policy of making further grants of public money for the improvement of harbours and for the construction of harbours of refuge on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. The Committee sat for two years, and reported, in the summer of 1858, unanimously in favour of the principle of grants of money for the improvement and extension of existing harbours, and also of grants of national money for the construction of harbours of refuge. That Committee included some men of great distinction—among others the present Chairman of Committees (Mr. Dodson), the senior Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), Mr. Ewart, and last, but not least, the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), now occupying the distinguished position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee reported in favour of grants of public money for the construction of harbours of refuge, but proposed that the sites on which such harbours should be made should be referred to a Royal Commission which should visit the coast; and accordingly, Mr. Wilson, in 1858, moved the appointment of such a Royal Commission. Between 1857 and 1858 Lord Palmerston's Government had gone out of office, and Lord Derby came in. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) spoke in high terms of the manner in which Lord Palmerston's Committee had done justice to the subject, and said he felt bound, as First Lord of the Admiralty, to recommend the appointment of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission reported in 1869, and recommended that there should be a grant of £2,365,000, with loans at a low rate of interest, for the improvement of certain harbours, on condition that certain stated local sums were raised to meet the national grants. In June, 1860—Mr. Wilson having gone to India, as Finance Minister, and Lord Palmerston having returned to office—Mr. Lindsay, the Member for Sunderland, moved a Resolution asking the House to carry into effect the Report of the Royal Commission. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, in the course of the debate, accused the Government of trifling with the question. Mr. Milner Gibson, then President of the Board of Trade, defending the action of the Government, stated that the Report of the Commission was far too sweeping, and they could not sanction so large and irresponsible an expenditure of public money, but that the Government felt alive to the magnitude of the question, and at a very early period would introduce a Bill dealing with it. Lord Palmerston also admitted the necessity of harbours of refuge; but could not agree to such a large expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister also strongly opposed that large expenditure of public money. Mr. Milner Gibson was rather unfairly dealt with in being blamed for apathy on this matter, and the widows of seamen who had been wrecked were often styled "Milner Gibson's widows;" but Mr. Milner Gibson ought fairly to be exonerated. In fact, a change in reference to this subject had arisen since the time when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the charge brought against Mr. Milner Gibson lay at the door of that right hon. Gentleman. In the following year the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) called attention to the question. Lord Palmerston again acknowledged the magnitude of the evil; but resisted the Motion. In May, 1862, Mr. Lindsay again moved in the matter; when Mr. Gibson deplored the annual loss of shipping and sailors, but still opposed the Motion. On a Division, Mr. Lindsay was beaten. In April, 1863, the question was again brought forward, and the Motion was again negatived. In 1864 Mr. Lindsay again brought it forward, and was again defeated. In 1865 Sir Frederick Smith introduced the subject, and was defeated by a majority of 12. Since then the question had remained in abeyance. Questions, indeed, were asked on the subject by the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) in 1866, and by his own Colleague (Mr. Bourke) in 1869; but the replies to their Questions were, as usual, unsatisfactory. He did not stand up to recommend the adoption as a whole of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1858. Since that time there had been, many changes tending to the improvement of shipping and the manner in which ships were sent to sea. Many harbours had also received grants from the Public Loan Commissioners, and by those means had been greatly improved, and afforded great protection to shipping. He did not advocate a great national expenditure on what might be called local objects, and for which money should be raised from local and voluntary sources. But Filey could not be included in that category. The Royal Commission were unanimously of opinion that a harbour of refuge should be constructed at Filey entirely from national funds. He (Lord Claud John Hamilton) advocated the construction of a harbour at Filey—first, for the saving of human life; secondly, for the protection of property; thirdly, for the protection of the north-eastern sea fisheries; and fourthly, from a strategical point of view, as a naval station. From the mouth of the Humber to the Firth of Forth there was a long strip of coast about 200 miles in extent, containing all the coal ports of the eastern coast, and possessing the most extensive and varied coast trade—it might be said to be the most important of the whole seaboard of the United Kingdom. But the whole of the harbours on that coast were bar-harbours, and therefore not approachable at all tides by vessels of any considerable size. The only exception was Hartlepool, where there were 14 or 15 feet of water—[An hon. MEMBER: 21 feet]—but it was always referred to as a bar-harbour. It was given in evidence that in 1857 the entire tonnage of British sailing vessels clearing coastways from ports in England was 8,162,000 tons; coastways and foreign together 15,796,000 tons. The tonnage from the five ports of Newcastle, Hartlepool, Sunderland, with Seaham, Shields, and Stockton, clearing coastways, was 3,733,000 tons; coastways and foreign together 5,160,000 tons, representing 45 per cent of the whole coasting trade, and 32 per cent of the entire trade, coasting and foreign together. At the same time, Captain Washington computed that 25 per cent of the entire wrecks of the United Kingdom occurred here, or on one thirty-sixth of the whole seaboard of the country. The annual loss to the nation was computed at £1,500,000 and 830 lives. When these facts were put before the Committee, they had no hesitation in reporting that remedial measures should be taken to avert such evils. Besides, the trade and shipping of the United Kingdom were greatly on the increase, and casualties must also increase. There were several reasons which influenced the Royal Commission in selecting Filey as the best site for a harbour of refuge on the north-east coast. First of all, two-thirds of the Baltic trade between London and the Firth of Forth invariably made for Flam-borough Head in returning homewards, and coasted towards their respective ports. It was also brought to the notice of the Commission that the annual imports of coal to London from northeastern ports were 3,500,000, tons, and to other ports 5,000,000 tons, passing Filey in 20,000 vessels. Besides this, 300,000 tons were annually exported, two-thirds of which passed Filey. It was also stated that the colliers from the northern ports generally started together in large fleets, coasting along till they came to Flamborough Head, where, in case of a change of wind from the south, they sought shelter and waited a fair wind; but when, as often occurred on that coast, the wind shifted to south-east or south-east by east, the position of those vessels became critical in the extreme. They would either have to make for the shore—in which case the loss of vessels would be certain and of lives possible—or they would turn round to the north, and run back, to whatever port they could enter; and it was under these wild flights for safety that terrible disasters annually occurred. The only harbour on the north-east coast which could be called a harbour was that of the Tyne: it was not strictly a bar-harbour, but in rough weather the entrance to it was dangerous from the strong undercurrents produced by the great freshes in the river meeting the heavy sea, which lifted the steerage of vessels out of the water and rendered them unmanageable. Last November three vessels, including a screw-steamer, went ashore from this cause. Therefore, vessels driven by south-east and easterly winds from Flamborough Head, having practically no place whatever to run to, were often driven to the Firth of Forth, and sometimes as far as Aberdeen. In a pamphlet which had recently been published by a gentleman thoroughly conversant with the subject, it was stated that fleets of loaded vessels leaving the coal ports bound south got up as far as Flamborough Head, where, becoming baffled by the wind, they were unable to "weather" the Head, and, consequently, congregated there in large numbers—often to the extent of many hundreds—not unfrequently of a thousand sail. If in this position they were caught by a south-east gale, there being no port capable of entry during a storm, they were scattered along the coast as far as the Firth of Forth, strewing the shores with wreck, or foundering by the way, and in the latter case usually carrying all hands to the bottom. Those ships which did succeed in reaching the shelter of the Forth—battered, damaged, and leaky, from their struggle with the storm, often with spars carried away, and scarcely a rag of canvas left—still had their whole voyage before them, and, after re-fitting, started again—too probably only to repeat the same process; so that it was by no means uncommon for a whole fleet to reach Flamborough Head and be driven back again as often as three times in one voyage, losing many of their number, both ships and crews, each time. In December, 1852, there were brought up for shelter in Filey Bay about 100 vessels, with a still larger number dodging on the north side of Flamborough Head; a south-east gale coming on, they were obliged to slip their anchors and run north, and several foundered with all hands. One master, Captain Sayers, described how his sails were blown away; the bulwarks and everything on deck were swept overboard; there was five feet of water in the hold, and the crew were exhausted with incessant labour at the pumps for nine days, during which time they could have no fire. They saw two of their companion vessels founder; but could render them no assistance. Ultimately, they got into Aberdeen; whither also were driven about 60 others of the fleet. Of the hundreds of captains examined on this point there was hardly one who could not speak to similar experiences—so that the loss of from 50 to 100 vessels, and from 20 to 50 or 60 lives in a single day on this line of coast, was shown to be a far too frequent occurrence. It might be pointed out that, according to the Wreck Chart, the wrecks did not occur in the neighbourhood of Filey; but the reason was that the vessels driven back made for their respective ports; and this was shown by the Returns of the Board of Trade, which proved that four-fifths of the vessels lost were laden. There had been gales in which laden vessels from the coal ports, compelled to dodge about the Head, became entangled with a fleet of vessels in ballast bound for the North, and the two had been blown out to sea together, or frequent collisions occurred causing serious loss. An instance of this occurred on the 2nd of January, 1857, when 76 vessels and 119 lives, at least, were lost. A similar disaster occurred on the 10th of February last, when, in one night, 53 vessels were lost—19 off Burlington, 2 off Filey, 7 off Shields, 1 off Scarborough, 7 off Grimsby, 2 off Hartlepool, and 2 off Withernsea, and the remainder off Yarmouth. He was informed on the best authority that 80 lives were lost, and that being added to the loss in other shipwrecks, the number of lives lost on the east coast in two months of this year would reach 100. If there were a harbour at Filey vessels would not hug the shore, as they did now, until it was too late. Such facts as he had quoted proved that the necessity for a harbour of refuge on our north-eastern coast was as great now as in 1857, when the Committee inquired. When Mr. Milner Gibson was pressed by the Board of Trade, he asked for "more time;" the matter had been in abeyance since 1857, and the state of the coast was as bad as ever, and the plea for "more time" would not do any longer. Enormous sums of money had been expended upon the improvement of the harbours of the Tyne and the Tees, the Public Loan Commissioners having advanced £175,000, £250,000, and £65,000 for this purpose; yet the colliers still needed a port of safety between the northern harbours from which they started and their destination. It might be that many vessels were sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, and that they were overladen and undermanned; but there was great difficulty in dealing with these matters, and meanwhile life was being sacrificed. Again, it might be said that the National Life Boat Institution afforded immense assistance in saving life. No one appreciated more than he did the efforts of the National Life Boat Institution; but it must be remembered that the purpose of that Institution was to save life, and that it did not attempt to save property; and in many cases its crews sacrificed their own lives in the attempt to save those of others. But what could even they do in the face of such a storm as that which occurred last month off Bridlington, when there were 20 or 30 wrecks near the pier, when 100 lives were lost, when the crew of the life-boat were drowned, and there was witnessed a scene of agony and despair which beggared all description? He might be told that steam colliers were, to a large extent, superseding sailing coasting vessels. It was true that there had been a large increase in steam colliers; but he had yet to learn that there had not also been a large increase in the sailing coasting vessels. Now, he was of opinion that it would be most im- politic on public grounds to attempt, by encouraging steamers, to stamp out the smaller class of coasting vessels. The north-east coast furnished the very best nurseries for seamen of the Royal Navy, and if the coasting trade were superseded by steamers only about a third of the men now employed in the coasting trade would be required to navigate those steamers. Since 1857 the coasting and foreign trade had increased enormously. The total foreign and coasting trade in 1857 was 23,178,792 tons, giving an average per month in that year of 1,931,565 tons. In February, 1871, the total foreign and coasting trade was 5,456,000 tons, being an increase over one month in 1857 of 3,524,467 tons. The coasting trade of the kingdom increased steadily year by year. The coasting trade in February, 1869, represented 2,587,085 tons; and in February, 1871, 2,684,993 tons. But while the coasting trade continued to increase, so did the casualties. In 1860 the total number of casualties at sea was 1,379, and the number of lives lost 536. In 1863 the total number of casualties was 2,001, and the number of lives lost 620. In 1866 the total number of casualties was 2,289, and the number of lives lost 896. In 1869 the total number of casualties was 2,594, and the number of lives lost 933. The casualties on the east coast were about one-third of the casualties on all parts of our coast; and on this calculation it would be seen that, in 1860, the casualties on the east coast were 459, and the lives lost 178; in 1863, 667 casualties and 206 lives; in 1866, 763 casualties and 298 lives; and, in 1869, 864 casualties and 311 lives lost. He believed that the storm of the last month had again roused up a strong feeling on this subject among the people along the east coast of England. They were determined that at last something should be done to prevent this terrible loss of life and property. In 1857, no doubt, many hon. Gentlemen advocated particular ports on interested and selfish grounds; but he believed that, with about one exception, the north-eastern ports had sunk their differences and consented to the building of a harbour of refuge at Filey. As he had already stated, he advocated the construction of a harbour of refuge as a means of extending the north-east fisheries. No social question had so much engrossed the attention of Parliament and the country as the improvement of our fisheries, both deep and inland. The Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries in 1866 stated that the annual value of the fisheries on the east coast was £2,000,000, and that the north-east coast fisheries were of the same extent as the superficial area of Ireland, and were annually increasing in value to the extent of £10,000 per annum. He found by the Board of Trade Returns that the number of registered fishing boats in England was 16,195, representing 127,013 tons, and employing 47,290 men and 7,467 boys. Between Lynn and Shields, inclusive, there were 2,815 boats, representing 35,249 tons, and employing 7,980 men and 1,763 boys—thus bearing a proportion of 17.27 and 16.23 respectively. The whole of these boats were engaged in fishing on the Dogger Bank, and in addition there were the boats from Yarmouth, from the South of England, and from Scotland. These vessels in a storm had absolutely no place of refuge, and it was necessary for the extension of these fisheries, which the Commissioners said were to a great extent un-worked, that some harbour of refuge should be provided. An increased working of these fisheries would cause a large reduction in the market price of fish, and a wholesome article of food would be more generally placed within the reach of the poorer classes of this country. He now came to the question of the construction of a harbour of refuge as a naval station on the east coast of England. That at the present moment was a question of the most serious importance. It had been the custom of this country for many years past to regard the French people as our great rivals and as enemies, and it had consequently been the policy of Parliament and of statesmen—among the latter he referred especially to the Duke of Wellington and Lord Palmerston—to provide for the adequate defence of this country, and to have regard more especially to the defence of the southern rather than any other portion of our coasts. We had large establishments at Portsmouth and Plymouth, and extensive works at Jersey, Alderney, Dover, and Portland, as a sort of set-off for Cherbourg on the other side of the Channel. But the happy relations which after the Crimean War existed between England and France, and the momentous events of the last few months on the Continent, had altogether altered the military position of this country. In the late war France had been so utterly crushed that any apprehension from that quarter for many years to come was almost beyond the bounds of probability. The Government, with the sanction of the country, had asked the aid of Parliament in placing this country in a state of adequate defence; but if our rival on the South was for the present extinguished, and if it was wrong and ungenerous to cast looks of apprehension across the Atlantic, where did the danger lie? He thought we had now to look for it from the East, and that not at a very great distance. From the time of that unfortunate—he might say degrading—decision of Lord Palmerston with reference to the Danish War, the whole position of this country had been altered. That war, which resulted in the cession of Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia, the Austrian War, and, finally, the utter defeat of the French, had raised up on our east a stupendous and aggressive military Power, supported by people bound together by ties of the most extraordinary nature, and ready at any moment to follow the bidding of their rulers. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had stated that our first line of defence—and he thought that proposition had met with the general acceptance of the country—must be in a fleet of iron-clads; but a fleet of iron-clads, to form an efficient first line of defence, must have harbours at which they could rendezvous, from which they could keep watch, and, above all, at which they could easily coal. Yet from Sheerness to the Firth of Forth where would they find a harbour with such capabilities? If hon. Members would cast their eyes across the sea to Prussia they would find at Jahde, in Oldenburgh, dockyards and fortifications equal to a second Cherbourg springing up opposite our own shores. That arsenal, which was already in a thriving state, was opened with some pomp in 1869 by the King of Prussia, and the Report of the Admiralty Officer who then attended was of an interesting and instructive character. At the mouth of the Elbe the Prussians might construct another great arsenal, and if the channel, capable of allowing men-of-war to pass, which was projected from Kiel to the German Ocean, through Holstein, was carried to a successful completion, there was nothing to prevent the whole Russian and Prussian fleets coming through almost in a single day. Under such circumstances, our eastern coast would be almost at the mercy of an invader. What was there on the east coast of England to pit against them? There was not one harbour that was capable of coaling a man-of-war along the coast of a thickly-populated, wealthy, and important district. The evidence which was given before the Committee of 1857 was in favour of Filey from a strategical point of view. All the witnesses agreed that it was the most salient point on that coast; for there a fleet could keep a lookout to the east, the north, and the south; while they also approved of it as a safe place for shipping in case any war should occur. A gallant officer (Captain Sherard Osborn), who was a man of great ability, and whose opinion would be favourably received by both sides of the House, thus wrote to The Times last August— There is no part of Great Britain so open to attack or insult, yet so little prepared for it, as the seaboard which faces the North Sea and European Continent. To defend this coast I hold that we should have a good home squadron of iron-clad monitors, fit to handle in shoal water with speed, to move suddenly to any point threatened; and the next most essential point is the construction of good harbours of refuge, one on the east coast of England and another in Scotland, where our squadron could always concentrate, seek shelter, or repair, and within which, as at Portland, the fleet of our merchantmen may run for succour or safety. There were many other authorities on the subject; in particular Admiral Washington, the late Hydrographer of the Navy, had reported as to the absolute necessity of establishing some naval station on our east coast, and it was in order to ascertain the opinion of the present Hydrographer to the Admiralty that he recently moved for any Correspondence on the subject. Passing on to the local reasons for selecting Filey as a proper spot for a harbour of refuge, it might be mentioned that the north of Flamborough Head was the place where the great bulk of the coasting vessels and also those engaged in the Baltic trade congregated. Filey was protected on three sides, and near it was a natural break water half-a-mile in length, which would afford an excellent foundation for any works that might be projected, and there was at Filey as good anchorage as there was in the kingdom, the ground being hard firm clay, covered with a thin coating of sand, which had not shown the slightest tendency to silt or shoal. As to the question of expense, there was within a short distance of Filey an abundant supply of excellent stone that was suitable for the construction of a breakwater, and an estimate had been made that a harbour capable of affording refuge to all our largest men-of-war as well as to a large number of merchant ships, covering an area of 665 acres, could be constructed there for £860,000. Bearing upon this point was the question of the utilization of convict labour, which had much occupied the attention of Parliament during the last few years. It was at one time thought that the labour of convicts could not be economically utilized; but that problem had now been solved, and it was shown that the average labour of convicts was worth 2s. a day. The Director General of Convict Prisons had visited Filey, and it was to be regretted that the Home Secretary had declined to present that officer's opinion to the House, though he hoped that when the Correspondence was complete the Papers would be laid on the Table. By those facts and statements he had tried to show the House that the state of affairs with respect to casualties and losses of life on our north-east coast was just as bad now, in spite of all that had been done, as it was in 1857–8; and he had endeavoured to show that should a harbour be built at Filey, it would not only afford ample protection to our shipping on that coast, but that it would also result in the saving of much property and the lives of many hardy sailors; while, above all, it would give a central and admirable station for the British Fleet in the North Sea. On these grounds he asked the House to give this proposition their favourable consideration. There need be no delay in this matter, because no improvements that scientific research could suggest, no new discoveries that might be made, no laws that the House might pass could regulate or prevent the destructive nature of the storms on the north-east coast. If hon. Members did not make use of the resources which were at their disposal, there would be oft-repeated accounts of shipwreck, disaster, and lamentation. There was not another country in Europe that would stay its hand for a moment in trying to avert such calamities—and yet England, the richest of them all, stood hesitating between the lives of some of her bravest men and the expenditure of a paltry sum from her National Exchequer. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Address.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

seconded the Motion. Reference had been made by the noble Lord (Lord Claud John Hamilton) to the Report of the Committee of 1857 and a Resolution of the House which afterwards affirmed their decision. The Resolution stated that in the opinion of the House it was the duty of the Government to adopt, at the earliest period, the necessary measures to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed in 1858 to inquire into the formation of harbours of refuge on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. The Royal Commission had done their work thoroughly; but the strong objection to carry out their recommendations was the expense which would necessarily be incurred. ["No!"] If not, why had they not been acted on? The cost of constructing Filey Harbour had never been placed higher than £860,000—should such an amount stand in the way of our having a harbour there? Shipwrecks with all their horrors did not come home to the minds of hon. Members; the ships sunk, and the men were swallowed up and passed out of memory—the poor fellows, moreover, belonged to a lowly class; but that was no reason why the House should not do its duty by them. The gentlemen who had taken part in these inquiries were practically acquainted with the subject, and their recommendations ought not to have been overruled by persons sitting in the office of the Board of Trade, who must necessarily be ignorant of the peculiar requirements of that coast. No doubt the great obstacle to the recommendations to which he had referred being carried out was the great expense they would involve, but it was our national duty to do all in our power to preserve the lives of our sailors. Were the same annual loss of life to occur in railway accidents that was occasioned by wrecks, and were the matter thus brought more immediately before our eyes, there would be no further delay in legislating upon the subject. It had been said that Filey could bear no part of the necessary cost; but surely that was a matter which was hardly worthy of consideration. Soon after the Commission had reported some gentleman in London—whom he was happy not to know—chose to make a Memorandum in reference to the Report of the Royal Commission, in which he eliminated nearly all the power and force from their finding. He eliminated just what he pleased, and left only just so much as was necessary to break down the case of the Committee and of the Royal Commission, and there he left it. Whoever the writer may have been, it was clear that he knew nothing about the matter, and his Memorandum was as worthless as the paper upon which it was written. He did not even know whether the writer was an officer of the Board of Trade or a sailor; but any sailor who knew the coast would agree with him (Mr. Wheelhouse) in reference to it. It was only when there was a storm upon the coast, and when the agonized cry of the seaman was scarcely audible, and when the roaring element around him was preparing to engulph him—then, and only then, it was that men could form an opinion of the dangers of the northern coast. He entreated the House, by the humanity which was common to them all, to do that which ought to have been done years and years ago.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that the recommendations of the Harbours of Refuge Commissioners of 1858 be carried into effect so far as relates to the construction of a Harbour of Refuge at Filey in Yorkshire."—(Lord Claud John Hamilton.)

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

said, he cordially supported the Motion of the noble Lord. The interest taken in this question was not purely local, as would be seen in the fact that the noble Lord who had introduced the Motion for the construction of a harbour at Filey, sat for a borough in Norfolk (King's Lynn). So long ago as 1835 a Committee strongly urged that the borough of Scarborough, which he himself represented, was the most proper place for a harbour of refuge. But since then times had changed, and he could not venture to make such a statement now in the face of the evidence which he had read on the subject. Though he had not a strong local interest, he might say he had more local knowledge than any other Member of the House. No man lived nearer to it; no man knew better how perilous it was to seamen, and to what storms it was subject to at all times of the year. In January, February, and at the time of the equinox, it was a most perilous and dangerous coast. During the first survey which Captain Washington made on that coast, he (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) had the pleasure of being present with him on many occasions, and had heard his opinion, and he remembered quite well that he was in favour of a harbour of refuge at Filey. He would direct the attention of the House to one point in the Report of the Commissioners, issued in 1859, which to his mind turned very strongly on this question. The Commissioners, in pointing out the conveniences of Filey as a place for a harbour of refuge, said— We submit that a sum not exceeding £800,000 be granted for its construction. The site is one which, independently of the facilities of construction, is unquestionably superior to any other on the coast, and it may be enlarged to any extent desirable. He had also a Blue Book of the Report of the Committee of 1836, and he believed there were members of that Committee still living. He found that the Committee of that day were not prepared to offer any opinion whether such a harbour should be kept up at the public expense from the interests of humanity, or for national objects. Since those days the interests of humanity had advanced a little. The evidence of Captain Hewett was in favour of harbours of refuge on the coast. The evidence supplied by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn was so overwhelming in favour of Filey that he need not go into particulars, and he would content himself with pointing out a few of the arguments in its favour. In the first place, it was the most salient point of the coast—a consideration which naval men would regard as of great importance in the case of a naval war. It certainly had the best anchorage on the coast, and a good clay bottom. It was also nearest to the great port of Hull, the trade of which was increasing at the rate of at least 30 per cent per annum; and, in the event of a naval war on our hands, Hull would be one of the first places that would be attacked. Further, there was a natural breakwater extending for a considerable distance into the sea, so that the foundation of the northern part of the harbour might be said to be already formed; there was, moreover, abundant stone at hand of good quality, and if it was considered not sufficiently good, stone could be got from the other side of Yorkshire. There was another argument in its favour—namely, economy of time. It would be a great matter to owners of ships not to be driven about by stress of weather for three or four days on the voyage, as they now were. But there was a much stronger consideration—the economy of lives it would produce. It might, perhaps, be said that shipwrecks were dispensations of Providence; but he maintained that many of them could he prevented, and that it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to do so. If it were said that was a question of money, he answered that money would be well spent for such an object, and the Government ought to spend it. If they looked to the large sum of money they had not spent by not going to war, surely that was as good as money in the pocket of the nation, and surely a small part of our savings might be advantageously applied to a purpose like this. If commercial companies were capable of spending large sums on one harbour in a very few years—if there had been spent on the Tyne Docks £760,000 for the accommodation of their traffic—surely it was not too much to ask that the Government, which was a body corporate, elected by the voice of the nation, and charged with the responsibilities of the nation, should spend £800,000 on a harbour for saving both life and property belonging to the nation. Looking to the evidence of Captain Washington, he believed that 45 per cent of the lives that were lost by wrecks on the coasts of England were lost on the northeast coast, and that property to the value of £1,000,000 sterling was lost to the nation every year. The question also affected every ratepayer on the northeastern coast. Those who were connected with Boards of Guardians would know very well the number of widows and orphans of sailors that were thrown on the parishes every year. The list, which came before him very often, was enough to appal anyone. And what were those lives which were sacrificed every year merely by the procrastination or miserable policy of Government? They were the very backbone of the Naval Reserve; and the Commissioners, in their Report, stated that the north-east coast was a nursery for seamen, excelled by none and equalled by few. The policy of sacrificing the lives of those men he could not understand. He admitted that he, and those who agreed with him, were asking for money, and wanted to get it, it was because they wanted to get in the thin end of the wedge, so as to get harbours of refuge elsewhere. If there had been any desire on the part of the shipowners of the uorth-eastern coast to combine so as to present their case to Parliament, a much better case would have been presented to the House. Those who had most reason to complain did not make themselves heard, and therefore their case did not come urgently before Parliament. They were not asking Government to legislate for imaginary dangers, but to prevent that distress which was constantly occurring, and which they believed would be remedied by harbours of refuge.

MR. PEASE

said, the House must have listened with great interest to the excellent speech of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord C. J. Hamilton), who had stated his case with that remarkable ability which always characterized his addresses to that House. He thought it must have been tedious to right hon. Gentlemen both on the Liberal and the Conservative Benches—most of whom had sat longer in the House than he had—to have this old question of harbours of refuge once again before it. He took a great interest in the subject, and had taken a humble part in the agitation which had induced the House of Commons to appoint the Commission of 1858, whose Report was the foundation of the Motion of the noble Lord. But he must remind the House that since that Report was issued a different view as to harbours of refuge had prevailed from that advocated by the noble Lord, and it had been thought that more good would be effected by the expenditure of small sums of money on numerous local harbours, than by the expenditure of large sums in the construction of one or two of vast dimensions, as would be the consequence of the noble Lord's Motion. The noble Lord had singled out one harbour of refuge to which he was particularly partial, and had left Hartlepool, Newcastle, and other places in the same neighbourhood to take care of themselves, as well as all other harbours on various other portions of the coast, as recommended for construction by the Commission. Hartlepool, however, was a most important place; it had a depth of something like 20 feet of water at spring tides; it shipped annually 1,500,000 tons of coal; it imported 300,000 quarters of corn, 30,000 sheep, and 3,000 head of cattle, besides other merchandize. Such a place could not be neglected in considering the subject under discussion, and besides that, it was the most westerly point of the north-east coast. The question really was, should the House follow the plan it had hitherto uniformly adopted of granting loans for the improvement of existing harbours on the security of the local authority, or grant large sums absolutely for the construction of harbours of doubtful value, at least so far as the saving of life was concerned? The noble Lord had entirely overlooked the difference made by the substitution of steam vessels for the old sailing ships. The steamers of the North made somewhere about 56 voyages a-year to London and back, and they would not leave the Tyne, the Tees, and the Wear until they saw their way clear long past Filey; so that Filey for the coasting trade between London and the North would be of comparatively little or no use. Moreover, since the issue of the Report of 1858, very large sums had been advanced to the Commissioners of the Tyne and the Wear and the Tees for the improvement and deepening of those rivers. The river Wear had, at a local expenditure of £500,000, been made almost a harbour of refuge; on the Tees remarkable facilities existed for making a harbour in the refuse slag, from the furnaces of which the ironmasters were very anxious to get rid; and a wall had been made the whole length of the Tees between Stockton and the bar for some 12 miles. The Tees bar, which formerly had only some 2 or 3 feet of water, had now some 13 or 14 feet. The money for these improvements had been advanced by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, and would all be repaid in due course. The Tyne Commissioners had been assisted in a similar manner with similar results; and he trusted this sound policy would be continued, because it was unquestionably the most economical, the most efficient as a means of saving life, and tended most efficiently to increase the general commerce and wealth of the district. The local authorities at Hartlepool were now applying to the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for assistance to make a harbour which, if smaller than that contemplated by the Commission, would be substantially a harbour of refuge, and thus be instrumental in saving life, while they at the same time benefited the whole country by increasing the sum of our exports and imports. With those facts before him he very much demurred to the Government granting money where it could produce very little benefit, either for the saving life or promoting commerce. If they wanted a harbour of refuge on that coast, one at Hartlepool would be better than anywhere else.

MR. C. SYKES

said, he had two reasons for trespassing on the indulgence of the House while he supported the Motion of the noble Lord. In the first place, he had the honour of representing a large and important constituency, the sea-coast of which by the construction of a harbour of refuge would be made of immense national importance to the commerce and trade of the country, instead of being, as it now was, a barrier and a snare. In the second place, he had lived nearly all his life within a very few miles of Flamborough Head, and he had seen the whole coast black with wreck; he had been on board a small vessel in a very heavy sea, when it was a matter of great doubt whether it would be able to weather that cape, and he, therefore, could realize more, perhaps, than any hon. Member of the House the danger that environed that coast. He would venture to remind the House that there were sufficient traces to show that the Romans, 18 centuries ago, had made use of these facilities, and he had himself seen in Filey Bay traces of a great Roman work for forming a harbour of refuge. He had no intention to pronounce a decision upon the relative advantages of Bridlington Bay and of Filey Bay—that was a subject which was peculiarly the province of engineers and scientific men, of seamen and geographers. What he asked the House was that they should not be alarmed at this proposed expenditure, which might at first seem large, but which, compared with the sums asked for night after night, appeared to him very small. He entreated the House to believe that he did not ask for this merely as a local man, but because he wished to see carried out a great national, commercial, and humanitarian object.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

thought his noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn had made a very good speech on a very strange proposal. Indeed, he had seldom heard a more remarkable suggestion than that which his noble Friend had made to the House that evening. His noble Friend asked the House to single out one particular spot upon the coast of the country for the expenditure of public money in the construction of a harbour of refuge. Now, he did not think it necessary to go into the question as to the general merits of harbours of refuge, which he thought had been greatly narrowed by previous inquiries. His own impression was that the thorough discussion which this question received some years ago conclusively proved that the advantages of harbours of refuge, as far as concerned the safety of life and property, had been greatly exaggerated, and that, at all events, unless these harbours of refuge were numerous, they would be of very little use. When this question was formerly under consideration it was pointed out that there were many other means of saving life and property far more effectual than the construction of harbours of refuge; and, among them, to secure that goods and human beings should be sent to sea in ships and vessels capable of enduring the perils of the sea. Though he was unable to say that no unseaworthy ships were now sent to sea, he believed that the number in former years was far larger than it was now, and especially with respect to the coal trade on the east coast of England, that the new class of vessels now employed, and which were increasingly employed in that trade, contained within themselves greater means of safety than could be secured by the mere multiplication of harbours of refuge. But he would just remind the House of the main points in the history of this question for the last few years. The question having been warmly taken up by a number of gentlemen, they procured first of all the appointment of a Select Committee, and afterwards of a Commission of Inquiry to go round the coasts. The Commission was to a great extent identical with the previous Committee, though numbering also among its members more men of professional eminence. Yet there was a very great distinction between the recommendations of those two inquiries. The Committee recommended the construction of a certain number of harbours of refuge, at a cost of something less that £2,000,000, two-thirds of which sum was to be raised by a charge imposed upon the shipping interest of this country. On the other hand, the Commission, which was certainly the more important body, were decidedly of opinion that the small number of harbours recommended by the Committee would be insufficient; and, while recommending that an additional number of harbours should be constructed at an expense exceeding £4,000,000, they were entirely opposed to the imposition of any charges upon the shipping interest, and recommended that the cost should be defrayed mainly out of the Consolidated Fund, with some minor assistance from the localities concerned. But he would remind his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) that the Commission were opposed to the construction of a single harbour of refuge, and that although they recommended that a harbour should be constructed at the Tyne at the cost of £1,000,000, another at Hartlepool at the cost of a further £1,000,000, and a third at Filey at a cost of £800,000, they were also of opinion that the thing, if done at all, ought not to resolve itself into the construction of a single harbour of refuge. Now, in the year 1860 that House adopted a Resolution in favour of those recommendations. But what had happened since then? So decided was the opinion of Lord Palmerston's Government that it was not the proper course to enter upon this great expenditure of public money, that they declined to act upon that Resolution of the House of Commons; and that Resolution was accordingly, and had been on several occasions since that time, reversed. In 1864, when this question was last brought before the House, the course was somewhat remarkable. It was then discussed from a national and general point of view by Mr. Lindsay, the then Member for Sunderland. On that occasion Mr. Lindsay moved the adoption of the Report of the Royal Commission. To that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) moved as an Amendment that either the whole, or, at all events, a portion of the expense, should be defrayed by tolls on shipping, in accordance with the plan recommended by the Committee by whom the subject had been considered. The whole question was then discussed on the double issue thus raised. It was opposed by Mr. Milner Gibson on the part of the then Government, and both the original Resolution and the Amendment were rejected by large majorities. The question now is, does the House mean to reverse the decision so arrived at? If they did, the question should be treated as a whole, as it was treated when under consideration in 1864, and the House should be asked to review the whole subject. They should not permit the system of urging the claims of a single harbour against all rivals. It was vain for his noble Friend, or those who followed, to represent this as a national question; it was simply a local question. ["No, no!"] What he meant was that a dozen other Gentlemen might get up and make out as good a case for other parts of the coast. Not that Filey had not a good deal to say for itself; but his noble Friend himself admitted that people preferred their own ports, and that other places had a great deal to say for themselves. The House would, perhaps, like to be reminded of the extent to which that was the case, and of the manner in which those ports had been run one against another. In a Memorandum with respect to the north-east coast of England he found that the evidence from North Shields went to prove that the Tyne, the Weir, and the Toes should be the places selected for harbours, as one would not be sufficient; and that Filey was not necessary at all. At Sunderland, also, the evidence was in favour of the Tyne, the Weir, and the Tees, and against Filey. At Hartlepool the evidence went to show that Hartlepool was plainly the proper place, and not Filey. At Redcar the evidence was that Redcar was better than Hartlepool and than Filey. At Whitby it was maintained that Whitby was better than Filey, than Redcar, and than Hartlepool, and that Filey Bay was not convenient at all; and it was added that the improvement of existing harbours would do more good than the construction of new ones. It was not until the Commissioners came to Filey that they got evidence that Filey was the proper place in preference to Redcar, Hartlepool, and other places; but then this remarkable admission followed—that in that case it would be necessary that there should be another to the North as well. Such was the state of things brought out during these investigations—the result being that if the policy recommended by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn was adopted, it would be preposterous to confine it to one single harbour; it must be carried very much further, and the £800,000 asked for would be a mere bagatelle in comparison with the vast sums which would be required in the end. But, further, it appeared that a greater number of lives had been lost on other parts of the coast than that to which the noble Lord had directed, their particular attention. Why was it, then, that his noble Friend should take such special care of human life and property on one particular stretch of coast without paying any regard to the rest? His noble Friend had entirely forgotten the country with which he was so honourably connected—he meant Ireland. Then, his noble Friend had attempted to strengthen his case by considerations of a totally different character, which showed that he felt the weakness of his case upon commercial grounds, for he went into the Admiralty question and the Home Office question. His noble Friend told the House that it would be an excellent thing to have a great naval harbour on the east coast, and that our convicts might be advantageously employed in constructing it. But, as far as he could learn, the Department responsible for the Navy of this country had no idea that it was necessary, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had informed him that he had no necessity for finding new work for his convicts at Filey, for he had other plans by which they could be profitably employed. He would, therefore, put these two pleas entirely aside. His noble Friend had not told the House how the £800,000, and the millions for other harbours which would follow, were to be provided. In the days when the inquiry into the subject was carried on there were two plans by which it was proposed to be done—the one mainly by a special charge on the shipping interest, the other by money out of the Consolidated Fund, with some contributions from local sources. But the Government of the day, supported by Parliament, adopted neither; their policy was much sounder. It was to assist localities by a system of Government loans on easy terms for the improvement of their harbours. That was the policy deliberately adopted in 1860; it had been going on since, and with very great success. There was evidently a very considerable advantage in combining harbours of refuge with trading and commercial harbours, because a large portion of the danger was incurred by vessels in attempting to make their own ports. The natural effect of offering those loans was to make the port of destination a harbour of safety as well as a trading and commercial harbour; but as at Filey there was no trade it was not likely the inhabitants would avail themselves of the Government loan. But this had not been the case with other places. Up to the end of 1869—the latest date for which he had returns—loans to the amount of £3,000,000 had been applied for, while £1,734,000 had been granted, and he was informed that the money had been laid out most advantageously. Therefore he demurred to the policy, so frankly stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone), of inserting the thin end of the wedge. If the policy of successive Governments and Parliaments was to be reversed, let it be done on full consideration, but not in the way the noble Lord proposed. The late Government, as far as he knew, showed no intention, during their period of office, of altering that policy, and he would be very much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman whom he saw opposite (Mr. S. Cave) declare it unsound. He was convinced that the House would not consent to deal with the question in this piecemeal fashion, and he could not advise them to entertain the proposition that had been submitted to them by the noble Lord.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

rose to answer the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman. He was not prepared, he confessed, to reverse the decision at which the House arrived in 1864. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not quite fairly stated the decision which was then arrived at. Mr. Lindsay, whose Motion he himself had seconded, proposed in that year that the House should carry out the recommendations of the Committee and of the Commission, but did not in his Resolution propose any plan for defraying the expense of the harbours proposed. An Amendment to the Motion did propose a certain method of defraying the expenditure, but the House refused to adopt either the Resolution or the Amendment. The chief objection then raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devon, as to the making of harbours of refuge round the coasts, not only of England but of Ireland and Scotland, was that it was too vague. The same objection, however, could not be urged to the Motion by the noble Lord that evening, for nothing could be more simple than his proposal to construct a particular harbour upon a particular part of the coast. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed great astonishment that in these days a Motion for the construction of harbours of refuge should be brought forward at all. But he was not aware that the construction of harbours at Dover and at Portland, for instance, in any way militated against the lending of money by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to any of the mercantile harbours in the neighbourhood. What necessary hostility existed between the construction of harbours of refuge in places where no mercantile harbour would pay and the lending of money to mercantile harbours with a view to their improvement? He did not believe that the construction upon an exposed point of the east coast of a harbour in which our ships of war might find refuge ought to be construed into a menace to Prussia or any other country. As to the position which such a harbour should occupy the shipowners themselves ought to be the best judges. This was no local question. Petition after Petition had been presented to the House by shipowners in favour of a harbour at Filey, and he himself had presented a Petition to the same effect from his own constituents in the South of England, whose only interest in the subject was the desire of saving life and property. Filey had been strongly recommended by Mr. Coode. It would contain 427 acres fit for ordinary vessels, and 300 capable of sheltering vessels of the largest size. Of the total number of wrecks upon the shores of the United Kingdom, 56½ per cent, or upwards of one-half, occurred upon the eastern coast, and half that number again—that was to say, one-fourth of the whole number of wrecks—occurred upon the point of land between the Humber and the Forth. The noble Lord was not quite accurate in stating that the loss of life had increased in the same proportion as the loss of vessels, probably owing to the exertions of the Life Boat Institution. In 1858, property to the amount of upwards of £1,500,000 was sacrificed in this manner, and as the number of wrecks had since increased from 900 to 1,200, it was not difficult to estimate the amount of property which was annually strewn upon those coasts. It must be borne in mind that because a vessel happened to strike upon a particular part of the coast it did not follow that the loss of the vessel was attributable, in all cases, to some particular local danger. He remembered a statement which was made by Mr. Stevenson as to the reason for putting a lighthouse upon the Bell Rock, which it must be remembered was situated to the north of the Firth of Forth. He stated that vessels running from Flamborough Head, and trying to make the Forth, were in the habit of running too far out to avoid the Bell Rock, and thus missed the Forth altogether, and were lost sometimes even on the Shetlands and the Orkneys. He quite admitted the importance of the question—how was the harbour of Filey to be made? [Mr. GLADSTONE: And maintained?] Certainly; and maintained. He felt little doubt that the estimate of £800,000 would be exceeded, and that the total cost would be nearly £1,000,000. He agreed with the recommendation of the Commission for the construction of the harbour, but he differed with them as to the way in which the money should be raised. It was necessary to bear in mind the different interests that would benefit by the construction of the harbour. There would be, first, the local interests, for the value of land and houses in the vicinity of Filey, already a watering-place, would rise; secondly, the accommodation of ships of war in the harbour would be an advantage to the nation; thirdly, if merchant ships were able to run into the harbour in time of danger, shipowners, underwriters, freighters, and sailors and passengers especially, would benefit. There ought, therefore, to be, in the first place, local contributions towards the cost of construction; and, secondly, a contribution out of the national Exchequer adequate to the importance of the harbour as a naval station; and, thirdly, the mercantile marine ought to pay its proportion. This might be done in the ordinary way, by ships, British and foreign, sailing along that portion of the coast and likely to use the harbour being called upon, as far as possible, to pay rates towards the harbour. He objected to the charge being confined to ships using the harbour, because the House knew how liable sailors were to run a great risk to effect a small saving; just as some people rode a long way round to avoid a turnpike. Though it was fair to add that latterly efforts were being made, and with considerable support on the part of that House, to take away the maintenance of lighthouses from the passing tolls, and to charge this upon the general funds of the country. And, of course, whatever reasoning applied to lighthouses in this matter would apply still more strongly to harbours of refuge, which might well be taken to be of national advantage, as they benefited not only shipowners, but the public generally by saving life, and thus diminishing pauperism. The coasting trade was not the only trade which might be expected to use the harbour at Filey, for vessels engaged in the Baltic trade, as well as from Archangel and the harbours of the White Sea, would also pass along this portion of the coast. For these reasons, therefore, and not because he wished to upset the decision which had been arrived at in 1864, he was not unfavourable to the present proposition. At Portland, and at various places in Ireland, it had been proved that considerable results were capable of being attained at small cost by convict labour, and when this question was brought forward on a former occasion, the utilization of convict labour for harbours of refuge was strongly pressed upon the Government. If, therefore, the noble Lord, who had stated his case in the most admirable manner, felt it right to go to a Division, he should feel no difficulty whatever in supporting the Motion.

MR. HEADLAM

said, that after the strong statement of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn as to the perils attending those who "went down to the sea in ships," and of the number of casualties to life and property annually occurring upon the coast, there might appear to be something harsh and ungenerous in opposing a Motion which was aimed at diminishing the dangers of navigation. But having given full attention to everything which the noble Lord had said, he had come to the conclusion that the House would not be acting wisely in assenting to the present proposal, and that the large sum of money necessary for constructing this harbour could be spent in an infinitely better way. £800,000 was the very lowest estimate that had been put before the House, and after all this money had been expended there was no guarantee whatever that contributions would be obtained from any quarter for the maintenance of the harbour. His right hon. Friend who last addressed the House (Mr. S. Cave) evidently thought the burden would be placed on the shoulders of the mercantile marine, because if, as he suggested, the dues were not to be levied on vessels entering the harbour, a toll must be imposed on all ships which passed by it. He (Mr. Headlam) did not hesitate to say that such a toll would be resented by the whole mercantile marine. If the proposed harbour were constructed he did not believe it would be of much value to the shipping interest; indeed, his opinion was that that interest would be far better served by the improvement of our existing harbours than by the expenditure of large sums of money upon new ones. But, however this might be, the Harbour Commissioners recommended in their Report that £250,000 should be granted for carrying out works on the Tyne, with the interests of which he was specially connected. The Government advanced money on easy terms to the local authorities, who had actually expended £1,500,000 as a return for the very moderate sacrifice on the part of the Government. The result was that a harbour of refuge had been created. The number of vessels which entered the port for purposes of refuge was 132 in 1865, 194 in 1866, 255 in 1867, 322 in 1868, 402 in 1869, and 558 in 1870. To that extent the local authorities had already created a harbour of refuge, and this was what the nation had got by making a small sacrifice and advancing money on tolerably easy terms. According to the recommendation of the Commissioners, the Tyne was entitled to £250,000. There was a very strong adverse current at the mouth of the Tyne, which he believed could be remedied by carrying out the piers a little further; and if the money recommended by the Commissioners were expended on those works a far better harbour of refuge would be formed than could be effected by laying out £800,000 at Filey. Moreover, the improvement would be one which would be felt by the whole mercantile interest of the Kingdom instead of the special one of the locality. The local authorities, he might remark, had already done as much as they could be expected to do for national purposes. As to the creation of a great harbour of refuge at Filey, that was a matter for the Government to consider; but before they commenced such a work they ought to make the great rivers of the country safe, and spend a great deal of money on fortifications. The present danger was great, but might be removed by a very moderate expenditure. On the whole, whether looked at from a mercantile or a naval point of view, he did not think the House would act wisely by assenting to the Motion now before it.

MR. G. BENTINCK

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam) show how inevitably local interests would crop up in discussions of this kind. In his opinion, however, this question ought to be considered on general grounds. He joined in the tribute which had been paid to his noble Friend for the able and lucid way in which he had brought forward this subject; but he was afraid his noble Friend hardly estimated correctly the difficulties he must encounter. He was afraid the two rocks on which the noble Lord's Motion would be wrecked were the two Front Benches. The Ministerial Bench was only interested in the prevention of one kind of wreck—namely, the wreck of the Government; while the only harbour of refuge to which the Front Opposition Bench turned their attention was the Treasury Bench. Both were utterly indifferent to a question of this kind. He wished his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Cave) had been better supported on this occasion; but the absence of all his late Colleagues was sufficient proof of their indifference to the subject. The President of the Board of Trade had said his noble Friend (Lord Claud John Hamilton) had singled out a particular harbour upon no better ground than his own opinion, and he characterized his noble Friend's Motion as "a strange proposal;" but he must say that the arguments urged by the right hon. Gentleman were stranger still. Now, he was one of the very few Members of this House who had frequently been in charge of ships on the east coast of England. He had no local interest in the matter, however, but his constituents had, and he had heard them discussing it for nearly half a century; and so far from this being a question supported merely by local claims and local interests, he felt convinced that if 500 of the best authorities, unconnected with the locality, were examined on the subject, they would all state their opinion that Filey was the place best adapted for a harbour of refuge on our eastern coast. The question was not local but general, for it was connected with the great question of the saving of human life and national wealth. When the right hon. Gentleman expressed a doubt as to the proposed harbour turning out effectual for the saving of life, did he mean to say that the creation of a harbour into which a large number of vessels might enter in bad weather was not calculated to save both life and property? It was no argument, he contended, against a measure good in itself that the House should not be called upon to reverse its decision. Millions were about to be thrown away in a direction which he believed the expenditure would be found to be totally useless; yet a cost of under £1,000,000 was grudged for so excellent an object as the saving of human life and property. He wished also to observe that we stood in need, on the eastern coast, of a naval station, where a large fleet of men-of-war might lie summer and winter without risk, and have means of coaling. As matters at present stood, the whole of that part of our coast was completely defenceless. Also, he was opposed to the humani- tarian system of making pets of convicts, and it was the duty of the Government, he thought, to take in hand such a work as that proposed, because they could execute it comparatively cheaply by means of convict labour. Governments at the present day were, however, he regretted to say, more disposed to look at their own interests than the interests of the nation, and, under these circumstances, he could hardly feel sanguine with respect to the success of his noble Friend's Motion, though he thought that on the score of humanity it ought to succeed. It certainly had his best wishes; and he trusted we should have soon on the Treasury Bench a Government, whose Members would think a little more of their country and less of themselves.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he congratulated the noble Lord on the ability with which he had brought forward the subject; but he must say he thought he was in error in supposing that there was now a greater demand for harbours of refuge than existed in 1859. He was sure, he might add, the noble Lord would concur in the proposition that if we could utilize our present harbours so as to make them better adapted to the purposes of commerce while using them as places of refuge, we should be adopting a much wiser policy than by constructing harbours which could be only used for purpose of refuge. It was against Filey, therefore, he must admit, that it was simply a harbour of the latter class. The noble Lord had adverted to the great loss of life and property on our north-east coast, but the question was how far his proposal was calculated to diminish that loss. Now, a harbour at Filey would be mainly valuable in an east and south-east wind; so that it would follow a harbour there would be of comparatively little use as a refuge except so far as the 30 or 40 miles of coast to Spurn Head was concerned. It must also have occurred to the noble Lord that the best refuge on a lee shore was the depth of the bay, which in this case was at Hartlepool, and not at Filey. Considering that the harbours in the North had been much improved, not by the expenditure of public money, but by local resources, it was unreasonable and unfair to call upon those who had so improved their own harbours, to pay taxes for the purpose of constructing some competing harbour elsewhere. The success, too, of the present proposition would only have the effect of giving rise to other demands in favour of other localities. Moreover, he objected to the inadequacy of the scheme as well as to its limited availability. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refused money for better purposes than the one advocated by the noble Lord, and he (Mr. Candlish) hoped that the Government would not undertake local engagements to the neglect and injury of other parts of the country. If once the principle were admitted, the claims of many places would be multiplied and enforced on the Government in a most embarrassing manner.

SIR JOHN HAY

had frequently addressed the House upon this question, but never with greater satisfaction than to-night, when he had to bear witness to the admirable statement of his noble Friend, and, as far as his experience went, to corroborate the facts so well put forward on the Motion he had brought before the House. The subject had been rather complicated by the mode in which it was treated by the President of the Board of Trade. The question they had to consider was not whether it would or would not be wise to lend public money to the harbours of Hartlepool or New-castle-upon-Tyne, the Wear, or the Tees. The trade of those harbours deserved the attention of the country, and enabled them to receive and afford proper security for that assistance which was given by the Public Loans Commissioners for the improvement of local harbours. But the harbour of Filey was entirely different. There was no local interest or trade at Filey which could be taxed, or represent any security for advances made if Parliament should be disposed to grant a loan with a view to its improvement. The harbours on the eastern coast had been much improved by loans of public money, and had become great commercial depôts. With their local interests they deserved and had received the just attention of the State. But the harbour of Filey had advantages with regard to its position for the general trade of the country far superior to any which those harbours held out. They must not attempt to discuss this question as if they were engineers and seamen, and persons locally connected with the harbours. The evidence of such persons had been brought before them in the most clear and conclusive manner by various Committees and Commissions, and that evidence should have due weight and influence with the House. It was quite true that, in one sense, vessels going to the ports named might proceed thither with much greater safety than they could before; but they had one practical difficulty, when in those harbours they could not get out so easily. The advantage of Filey was this, that if completed as a great harbour it would stand out in bold relief in the German Ocean, and vessels seeking shelter from one wind, with a very slight change of wind, could easily get out again to sea. He quoted the evidence before the Committee of Mr. Coode, C.E., in favour of Filey. All the independent evidence pointed to Filey as the place which on the east coast of England might become what the harbour of Portland was on the south—a great national harbour of refuge and a naval station in the event of war. We had no such station from the Thames to the Firth of Forth. To show how much Filey was sought for, although there was no immediate local trade, 600 to 700 vessels were frequently found sheltering there; on one occasion it was stated there were no fewer than 1,300. The local facilities for the construction of a breakwater had been reported on at various times. There was a reef of rock, called the "Brig of Filey," running out to the sea; at certain times of tide it served as a breakwater now; and both before the Commission and the Committee it was shown that the cliff could be easily excavated, and conveyed to the Brig, so as to form a complete breakwater out of the partial one which nature had made, to afford 700 acres of excellent anchorage—indeed, they had the best holding ground in the world. If such a breakwater were constructed there would be complete shelter for ships, which would seek it here in greater numbers than they did now, because they would not be liable to accidents with the change of the wind. He did not see why the proposed harbour should be regarded as a menace. There was now in course of formation one of the most formidable military ports in the world—Wilhelmshavn—more formidable, in fact, than Flushing or Cherbourg—intended as a place of resort for the great German Navy—and it must not be forgotten that from the mouth of the Weser to the Humber was not many hours' steaming. In case of an attack our ships must assemble either in the Firth of Forth, in the Thames, or, under certain conditions, in Yarmouth roads; whilst there was no place which could be called a military port on the whole line of the east coast. Filey would give us that which we wanted, and he therefore thought it was desirable to agree to the proposition before the House. If there were any competition with Filey which had commercial claims he would say let us avail ourselves of it, but there was no place which could be named against Filey, as a port of shelter. He concurred entirely with the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, the speech of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, in bringing the question forward, was the best that could be made under the circumstances. He agreed with those who thought Filey was the best point that could be selected; but, by naming it, the noble Lord, perhaps, excited certain local feelings which would have slept if the noble Lord had placed the matter before the House rather more vaguely. It was undeniable that a harbour of refuge was wanted on the east coast, and he thought the matter had been met rather unfairly. He was one of those who spent a part of the autumn in the middle of the coasting trade; and last September he was on the east coast when a very great storm arose, and he was unable to get southwards because there was no such shelter as would have been afforded by a harbour at Filey. He could bear testimony to the very great number of fishing vessels engaged in the fishing trade of the coast, and their number was considerably augmented by fishing vessels from Ireland and Scotland, which were not included in the statistics quoted by the noble Lord; and on his cruise he passed through an enormous fishing fleet which, by the storm, was scattered to the winds, because there was no harbour in which the vessels could take refuge. Some of them were driven as far north as the Firth of Forth, and some got shelter in Sunderland, or in harbours on the Tyne. There was an erroneous impression that autumn winds were steady; but they usually shifted in the course of the day; and if a fleet of merchantmen took anchorage under Flamborough Head in the morning, they were sure to be exposed to the full force of the wind before the close of the day. All the harbours of which he had spoken were tidal ones, and as the hour of high water varied every day a mariner who sailed along that coast must make exact calculations as to the port which he wished to enter in order to ascertain whether there would be water enough for him to cross the bar; and if there was only a slight difference between his watch and the table of tides, he might find himself in a worse position than if he had kept at sea. Local harbours, therefore, did not satisfy the requirements—although he admitted that both Sunderland and Hartlepool had been greatly improved. At the latter port he took refuge during the prevalence of that gale in which the Captain was lost; but if a steamer had not been sent to take him into the inner basin his vessel would, as the water receded, have been left high and dry. A breakwater might be constructed near Hartlepool, which would enclose a large area of water; but at present that port could not be called a harbour of refuge. What was wanted was a harbour of refuge for vessels that had got as far south as Flamborough Head. These were practical details, and the result showed that if there were a harbour at Filey many vessels would rest there during a time of bad weather, while now they were kept in Tynemouth, Sunderland, and other ports at an enormous cost to the owners. He had been at those ports during bad weather, and had seen them so crowded with vessels as to render almost impossible the admission of other ships which came in by every tide. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) had said that the condition of vessels had been improved during recent years; but he replied that he had seen ships dismasted, with bulwarks torn away and decks swept, they having been exposed to the greatest possible disasters. In the face of the Returns, which showed the increasing number of wrecks, it was useless to say that only seaworthy vessels were now afloat—for the steam vessels that engaged in the coal trade greatly added to the danger of sailing ships, because on board the former there was very rarely any watch kept. For these reasons, he thought it desirable that there should be a harbour of refuge on the east coast somewhere between Berwick and Yarmouth. In doing so, he advocated not any local interest, but what would be best for the shipping interest of the country. The cost of constructing a harbour seemed to be large, and, as the money would be spent for a national object, he urged that it should come out of the national funds; for in a maritime country Like England no expenditure could be more justifiable than one which had for its purpose the giving to the seamen who were engaged in the coasting trade a chance for their lives. At present they had not that chance by reason of any national expenditure; for although on the south coast the exigencies of war had rendered necessary the construction of magnificent harbours that were open to the mercantile marine, yet on the east coast, which was far more exposed, and on which a great number of vessels were lost every year, there was no such refuge. The money, therefore, which might be spent on Filey would not be ill-employed. He did not attach importance to the argument that a great naval arsenal ought to be provided on the eastern coast; for although, in future years, the great preparations which had been made at Jahde might be regarded as menacing to England, at present it did not seem necessary to think them so threatening that we ought to create a great naval port on the eastern coast. Without going into the question whether convict labour should be employed in the construction of such a harbour, he thought that the Government ought to give the House an undertaking that the eastern coast should no longer be left in its present condition.

MR. STEVENSON

said, that, with respect to the Tyne, the sum of £1,600,000 had been spent during the last few years in improving the approach to that river, with results so satisfactory that, while there was formerly a depth of only 21 feet at high water, there was now a depth of 20 feet at low water; and the facilities were such that all except the very largest ships could enter the Tyne at any state of the tide; and this rendered that place practically a harbour of refuge. During the past year no less than 558 vessels which had sailed from other ports had sought refuge in the Tyne, irrespective of far larger numbers which had sailed from that port and had been driven back by stress of weather. In the severe gales that prevailed on the 10th of February and the two following days, no less than 200 laden vessels had run into that port for shelter. In point of accommodation he proposed harbour at Filey could not compare with that at the Tyne, because while the limits of the former were only calculated to receive 200 vessels, the whole of the river Tyne, nine miles in length, was open to vessels seeking shelter in the latter port. Before the making of new harbours at great expense was undertaken, existing harbours, like that of the Tyne, ought to be improved. Attention ought to be directed to the totally altered state of circumstances that now existed, from that which existed when the Report of the Royal Commission was made. Then, all the harbours along that part of the coast in question were bar-harbours, in and out of which vessels could only get at certain times of the tide, and they incurred increased risk by being obliged to put to sea in all weathers, or else lose their chance of getting out of the harbour for some considerable time. Now, however, the entrance of these harbours had been greatly improved, and there was an ample depth of water over the bars. The Tyne Harbour Commissioners had undertaken an expenditure for the piers and harbour improvement of £1,500,000; but they had not benefited by the harbours loans to such an extent as they ought to have done; because, although they had obtained £100,000 at 3¼ per cent, and another £100,000 at 3½ per cent from the Public Loans Commissioners, the Government had refused to lend them any more money for the purpose of advancing their great undertaking except at 5 per cent interest. The sea works at Tyne Harbour would ultimately cost £750,000, and, considering the great scale of those works, it was to be hoped the Government would reconsider their decision on the subject, and would consent to advance the necessary funds at a moderate rate of interest—more especially as there was still some danger incurred by vessels entering the harbour. To the honour of the locality he might mention that, not only was Shields the birth-place of the lifeboat, but the first volunteer brigade to work rockets was established at Tynemouth. Attention had been drawn to the fact that during the past few years the coasting trade had been principally carried on by means of steamers. From figures he had before him he found that whereas the number of coasting vessels sailing from the Tyne had been reduced from 11,552 in 1859 to 9,305 in 1869, the tonnage had increased from 1,631,000 in 1859 to 1,842,000 in 1869. In the former year the percentage of coasting sailing vessels compared with that of coasting steam vessels was as 85 to 15, whereas in the latter year it was 49 to 51; showing a vast increase in the number of steam vessels employed in the coasting trade. And the tendency to substitute steam for sails was still increasing. There was, therefore, less necessity than ever for going to the enormous expense of making this very speculative harbour of refuge, which had been defended on the inconsistent grounds of being capable of containing a North Sea fleet swinging at their anchors, as well as accommodating large fleets of merchant ships, and serving as a station for fishing boats. In consequence of the improvements that had been effected in the Tyne Harbour a large herring fishery had been established there. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to support the Government in resisting this demand.

MR. WARD-JACKSON

said, he deprecated making the question of harbours of refuge the subject of rivalry between different ports; and he did not think it right that Parliament should still be discussing a matter which, in 1860, was declared by a Royal Commission to be necessary. The Report of that Commission had clearly pointed out Filey as a proper place for a harbour of refuge. In his opinion, no question of economy ought to weigh against the imperative duty of providing all reasonable protection to the lives of our sailors; nor could he see that the increased use of steam justified the Government in disregarding the importance of harbours of refuge. It should be remembered that the steamers themselves required shelter against storms. At the same time, he confessed he thought it would have been better if his noble Friend (Lord Claud John Hamilton) had included other places besides Filey in his Motion. When he was examined before the Royal Commission, he had himself advocated that there should be a sheltered anchorage at Filey Bay; but he did not say a harbour of refuge, because a harbour was one thing and a sheltered anchorage another, and he believed that the latter was all that was required at Filey Bay. Without at all disparaging Filey, he agreed with the last speaker that the Tyne was fully entitled to expect that the small sum recommended by the Royal Commission should be expended for that river. The sum of £250,000 was small compared with the advantages which Newcastle could afford, and would probably be extended over five or six years; and the House must remember that, even in the case of Filey Bay, the proposed expenditure of £800,000—a very large sum in the lump—would, and indeed must, be spread over eight or nine years. Since so much had been said about Filey on the south and the Tyne on the north, he felt himself justified in speaking of a place between the two. Seeing that he had himself laid the foundation-stone of West Hartlepool, which was now the fourth port of the kingdom, and which he had the honour to represent, he was not likely to be insensible to the capacity of localities to help themselves; but as regarded the improvements at Hartlepool and Filey Bay, it was impossible to raise all the money from the localities; the reason was because the Bill of 1861, authorizing the Exchequer Loan Commissioners to lend money for the improvements of harbours, implied exclusively the improvement of local harbours, which clearly was the legitimate object of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners' advances; but this did not include works which were beyond the scope of private enterprise, whether managed by trustees, commissioners, or a public corporation. Now, the River Tyne was managed most efficiently and energetically by commissioners; but they had no private interests, and it so happened that by the Act of 1861, if money was granted, it must be on condition of re-payment of the principal, with interest, in 50 years. But supposing they could not do that? Before refuge could be provided for ships the money must be expended; and in the case of Hartlepool, when the Royal Commissioners recommended a grant from the Consolidated Fund of £500,000 to aid the £500,000 to be raised from the locality, he found that the thing was impracticable, because raising money from the locality practically meant by subscription, and on those terms no man in his senses would contribute £1,000 for a harbour of refuge in Hartlepool Bay. If, however, the Government would come forward and advance the £500,000, he would answer for it that they would get sufficient interest on their money as soon as the harbour was made. Every ship that came within the limits of the port and entered into the two private harbours which had been constructed within the last 30 years paid a public toll, the revenue of which was £6,000 a-year. Steamers even could not get off that coast easily in a north-east gale. Lord Palmerston, when Prime Minister, in a very few words, expressed strong sentiments on the occasion of Mr. Lindsay bringing forward his Motion to endeavour to prevail on the Government to carry into effect the recommendation of the Harbour Commissioners. The noble Lord said— There was great difference of opinion among the witnesses who were examined by the Commission and the Committee as to the particular localities. Some were in favour of Hartlepool, some for Filey, and some for other points. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has told the House that the Government have a measure prepared for the commencement, at all events, of these operations. That measure might be brought in during the present Session if the other business before the House did not seem to make it impossible to hope that it might be carried into law before the Prorogation; but we are prepared to assure the House that in the next Session this matter will assume a shape in which the House will be called upon to take it practically into consideration. …. I assure the House that it is most unjust to the Government to state that this matter has not occupied their serious attention, that they are not fully alive to the importance of the subject, and that it is not their intention to deal with it in an efficient and practical manner. It is sufficient to know that a great number of our most valuable seamen are annually sacrificed to storms and disasters, some of whom might have been preserved were there harbours of refuge on the coasts. …. It will be our duty in the next Session of Parliament to bring this matter before the House in some practical shape."—[3 Hansard, clix. 711–12.] That practicable shape assumed this position, that a Bill was introduced in 1861; was passed into an Act, and was called "The Harbours and Passing Tolls Act." The title of this Act was "An Act to facilitate the construction of harbours of refuge by the Loan Commissioners advancing money to harbour authorities;" and the word "authority" was defined to include any person or persons concerned in maintaining a harbour. The Act gave power to those Commissioners to advance such money as might be required for the purpose of constructing, improving, or lighting any harbour, provided that no such money should be borrowed without the sanction of the Board of Trade; and, in all cases, the period for re-payment was not to exceed 50 years. They were now in this position; they were referred by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade to the Act of 1861, as facilitating the construction of harbours. It did facilitate the construction of local and mercantile harbours; but where there was not a mercantile element to assist in the construction of the harbour of refuge, the Government ought to contribute annually a comparatively small sum for so great an object. With regard to Hartlepool, Admiral Washington said—"the bottom of the bay was the focus of shipwrecks." If there was a sheltered anchorage provided at Hartlepool, that would form a security for the interest of the £500,000. But they could not get the money, because they were hampered by the Act of 1861. He asked the Government to relax the restrictions of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners with regard to these advances of money. He could not say that Filey Bay could give a security for the re-payment of the advance; but ships which took advantage of the works which might be constructed by the Government might be made liable to pay toll. It was essential that there should be a sheltered anchorage on the east coast of England. The fact that 10 lifeboats were stationed within Tees and Hartlepool Bay alone on the north-east coast was sufficient evidence of its dangerous character, of which he had had personal experience, having risked his own life there to save others; and if the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the President of the Board of Trade were to find themselves off that coast in one of the smartest ships in Her Majesty's Navy, in a heavy north-east gale, and they were fortunate enough to survive it, we should not have occasion to make Motions for a harbour of refuge either at Filey Bay or Hartlepool Bay.

MR. BAINES

said, the question had been treated on the Government Bench as one chiefly involving a squabble among the ports on the north-east coast of England, which of them should obtain the largest share of the public money. This observation at least could not apply to the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Claud John Hamilton), the Mover of the Resolution, nor to his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone), who had supported it, both of whom were perfectly disinterested in their advocacy of a harbour of refuge at Filey. But it was not merely the maritime towns which were sensible of the want of this harbour. The Chamber of Commerce of his own borough (Leeds) had presented a Petition to the House some time since, strongly advocating a compliance with the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners. With the permission of the House he would read two sentences from that Petition. The Petitioners said— They are of opinion that the grievous loss of life and property which annually occurs on the coasts of England, more especially on the north-east coast, in the vicinity of Flamborough Head, in consequence of the want of harbours of refuge capable of affording an asylum to the numerous vessels driven coastwise by stress of weather, is a matter of grave national importance and responsibility, and one that claims the serious and early attention of your Honourable House. Your Petitioners would especially beg to draw your attention to the peculiar necessity existing for a grand national harbour of refuge at Filey Bay, on the north-east coast, the construction of which was strongly recommended by Her Majesty's Commissioners in their Report before mentioned. Such were the opinions of the leading merchants in the principal town of Yorkshire; who knew that their goods, and possibly at some time, even their lives, might be in jeopardy from the want of a harbour of refuge on their coast. He was positively ashamed that the Government should refuse the paltry sum of £800,000 for the constructure of a harbour on the most exposed, the most frequented, and the most dangerous part of our own coasts, when the amount of our exports and imports was not £800,000, but £530,000,000 a-year. It was known that he was a devoted adherent of the present Government, and an admirer of the economy which they had practised; but when such an amount of property and so many valuable lives were constantly hazarded on our own shores, he thought the construction of a place of refuge was both justifiable and necessary. The Tyne Commissioners had acted with good common sense, and had protected their own interests by making the entrance of their river a safe and valuable harbour, though still it was a tidal harbour, and he doubted if it was quite safe in all weathers. But the distinct recommendation of the Royal Commissioners of 1860—who consisted of the most eminent naval officers and engineers—was conveyed in these words— We, therefore, very earnestly recommend the construction of life harbours, partly national and partly local, at the entrance of the Tyne and at Hartlepool, and of a national refuge harbour at Filey. It would be observed that they emphatically designated those harbours "life-harbours," because they were chiefly needed for the saving of human life. They further expressed an opinion that at the Tyne and Hartlepool the harbours should be "partly national and partly local;" but they distinctly recommended "a national refuge-harbour at Filey." The wealthy communities on the banks of the Tyne, the Wear, and the Tees, where there was the largest coal trade, the most flourishing shipbuilding establishments, and other great industries, were able to contribute, and ought to contribute, to the improvement of their own ports. They had properly obtained grants, or rather loans, of public money for these purposes under the Harbours Act of 1861. But because they had done this, it was no reason why a purely national harbour should not be made at Filey, the geographical situation of which was such as to require it more than any other place, and which had no population or trade able to contribute towards the expense. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) had stated that in the great storm of the 10th of February last, 200 vessels had taken refuge in the Tyne. Yes; but on that very same day the nautical reporter at Whitby says— About 1,000 vessels passed here yesterday, bound south with a N.W. wind; and it is now blowing a gale at S.E., with sleet. Now, these 1,000 vessels would be about off Filey Bay when the storm arose; they would not be able, with a southeast wind, to get round Flamborough Head; and the fact was that they were all scattered, and great numbers of them lost, with many lives, from the want of a place of refuge. He found it stated that at least 80 lives were lost on the north-east coast in that one storm. The construction of a harbour of refuge at Filey was necessary for the safety of the numerous vessels trading between the Tyne and the Thames; it was a halfway station, and available for vessels bound both north and south. He wished hon. Gentlemen had seen the sight which he had seen standing on Filey Head, and they would better understand the arguments in favour of this Motion. Flamborough Head ran out far into the sea to the south-east, and a line of precipitous cliffs, about 12 miles in length, and rising from 150 to 400 feet in height, stretched along the coast to Filey Head. It was an occurrence perfectly familiar to those who knew the locality, that very often vessels coming from the North were unable to get round Flamborough Head; they gathered in hundreds under the shelter of the cliffs, and as long as the wind remained in the south-west or south, they were safe. But when it chopped round to the south-east or east, having an iron-bound coast on their lee, they were compelled instantly to slip their anchors and run out to sea, whatever the violence of the weather; and then they were exposed either to founder in the storm, or to be driven ashore whilst trying to get into the bar-harbours. If Filey was a suitable place—as he had shown—for the construction of a harbour of refuge, it was no argument against the Motion to say that there was no trade to that place. Surely we might take a lesson from other countries and earlier days. For many hundred years pious men had built and occupied hospices on the passes of the Alps, and in our own days refuges had been added by the Governments, to save the lives of travellers caught in the winter storms. And surely this rich maritime country ought, on principles of mere humanity, to construct harbours of refuge on its coasts, where hundreds and thousands of lives were constantly risked, and in the most exposed part of which a harbour might be made for £800,000. Whilst he should always be averse to an unnecessary outlay of public money, he thought it was the duty of the Government not to shrink from expending it to save life and property on so large a scale. It had been stated, in a conversation which he had overheard between the Gentlemen on the Front Bench and those on the Back Bench, that no instance was known of a steamer being lost on that coast; but he had authority before him for stating that a large steamer, the Lifeguard, was lost in 1862, with 52 souls on board, not one of whom was saved. [Mr. CANDLISH: She foundered at sea, and was not driven on shore.] Yes, she foundered at sea; but where did she founder? Just off Filey Bay, and, if there had been a harbour there, she might have been saved. He, therefore, gave his warm support to the Motion of the noble Lord, whose facts and arguments were as sound as they had been ably stated. On behalf of his own constituency, on behalf of the shipping trades of the country, and on behalf of humanity, he claimed from the Government a careful consideration of this question.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I have heard with pleasure the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Leeds in support of the Motion so ably brought forward by my noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn. That Motion has evoked an important debate, which shows how strong an interest is felt in this question. I am unwilling to give a silent vote upon this question. After the great interest which, during a number of years, I have taken in this question, I cannot avoid expressing my regret that the late Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) has been prevented from following up the honourable part he took in this matter. I have always regarded him as one of those who do honour to our national institutions. He rose from small means to eminence; he was immediately connected with the shipping trade of the country, and while he occupied a seat in this House, he was never deterred from advocating the interests of that branch of trade by the power of a Minister or by political influence. It is my intention to support the Motion of my noble Friend, even at the risk of again incurring the imputations of the present Prime Minister, who attacked me during his celebrated Lancashire tour for the extravagance I had shown in supporting former Motions upon the subject of the shipping interest. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of canvassing the county of Lancaster, had been canvassing the county of York, I think he would have cast no reproaches upon those who have advocated the establishment of harbours of refuge on the north-east coast. I have nothing to do with the county of York or the county of Lancaster; but I have my duty to perform as an independent Member of this House. I take part in this debate from the consideration—and from that consideration alone—that it is our duty to do what we can to save human life, and to protect the commercial interests of this country. Upon this broad and simple ground I am disposed to assent to the strong words of the hon. Member for Leeds, and say that I am ashamed of the manner in which year after year this subject has been evaded by Ministers of the Crown. [Mr. GLADSTONE: You have been a Minister of the Crown yourself.] Yes, I have been a Minister of the Crown; but this subject did not originate with a Conservative Minister, but with a Liberal Government. The first step was taken by the Government of Lord Palmerston, which appointed a Committee, ably presided over by an eminent Member of this House, and a Member of that Government—the late Mr. Wilson. That Committee made a Report which deeply affected the commercial interests of the country. But before the Report was presented a change of Government had taken place. I had become a Minister of the Crown, and was then First Lord of the Admiralty. I am not ashamed of the part that I took. I did not lose a day. It had become my duty to consider the Report of the Committee, and I appointed the Commission whose Report has been referred to in this debate. I appointed that Commission only in deference to the Report of the Committee originated by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. I placed at the head of the Commission the able and distinguished man who is now Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth—Sir James Hope—and he was supported by men as capable as himself of going round the coast to see where the harbours of refuge recommended by the Committee ought to be constructed. The recommendation of the Commission was that it was desirable there should be a harbour of refuge at Hartlepool, and especially "on national grounds" that there should be such a harbour at Filey. Mr. Lindsay again brought the matter forward after the Conservative Government had ceased to hold Office; and in the teeth of the opposition of the Government carried a Resolution to the effect that the Report of the Commission ought to be carried into effect; yet, from that day to this, nothing has been done—and now that the question is once more brought before the House, we are met in the manner we have witnessed this evening. After the debate which has taken place, it appears to me that the Motion of my noble Friend may be divided into two parts. One consists of those local interests which, I am sorry to say, interfere with a national question of this magnitude. First, one hon. Member gets up to speak for Hartlepool, then another hon. Member rises to defend some other port; and so we have almost everyone looking after the interest of his own locality and his own constituents. Beyond that, we have had what I cannot but consider as the very evasive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He began by saying that the noble Lord had made a strange proposal; but I must say that that proposal was met with a strange answer; for I heard nothing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which dealt in a straightforward way with the merits of this question. The right hon. Gentleman charged my noble Friend with having picked one particular spot, which he supported by his own speech. Why, it was not my noble Friend who picked out every spot. Whether he might not have been more prudent if he had made the terms of his Motion less definite I know not; but it was not he who picked out this one particular spot, but the Commission of Sir James Hope. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: One out of 20.] It was Sir James Hope and his Commission who picked out this one place as distinguished above others in this respect—that it was the place to select "on national grounds." I will here advert to what fell from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), who drew a distinction between harbours of refuge which are made for refuge purposes only and those harbours which are combined with the commercial interests of particular towns. This, I admit, is an important distinction; but in my judgment it is one which tells directly against the view for which the Government are contending. Where commercial interests of great towns are connected with and promoted by a particular harbour, I grant that you may fairly call upon the inhabitants to bear a large share of the expense of making the harbour; but I maintain that, where the shipping interest, the preservation of life, and the prevention of shipwreck require the establishment of a harbour of refuge at a particular point, and where commercial interests are not concerned, then we have in such cases a fair right to expect that the Government of the country should interfere and should come to the relief of the shipping interests of the country. Well, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade went on to state that he thought the advantages of harbours of refuge were very much exaggerated, and that a great many of the shipwrecks that occur would not be averted by the establishment of such harbours. No doubt this statement is true as far as it goes; but, on the other hand, it may be as truly said that a very great proportion of the shipwrecks which occur might be prevented by harbours of refuge; and it is a great mistake to assert, as the right hon. Gentleman did assert, that the advantages of harbours of refuge are exaggerated. Now, nothing is more difficult than to prove a negative; but I can quote a case—of which perhaps no man is a better judge than the right hon. Gentleman himself—showing the extreme value of a harbour of refuge for the prevention of shipwrecks, and it is on a somewhat large scale—I allude to that of Holyhead. The harbour at Holyhead is not connected with any great commercial interest. It is a harbour which but for the efforts of the Government and the Votes of the House, would never have existed; and I appeal to every candid mind in this House—and no man knows it better than the President of the Board of Trade—whether in winter time the harbour at Holyhead is not crowded with hundreds of vessels, which, if it were not for the existence of a harbour there, would be compelled to face the danger of St. George's Channel in the very worst gales of wind, when many of them would suffer shipwreck, and much loss of life be involved. I therefore think that Holyhead furnishes a complete answer to the unsatisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that we cannot rely upon harbours of refuge for the prevention of shipwrecks. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to make a statement, which, if I do not recollect the exact figures he gave, at any rate amounted to this—that there were a certain number of lives lost on the east coast, and a certain number lost on the south coast; that the lives lost on the east coast were about double the number of those lost on the south coast.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

That is not exactly my statement.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

It is not exactly the opposite, I imagine.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

I referred to the statement that there are tracts of coast the losses on which during last year were greater than those that occurred between the Fern Islands and Flamborough Head.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I do not speak of the Fern Islands and Flamborough Head.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

But that is the question.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I take the broader ground, which the right hon. Gentleman does not contradict, and which I hold to be fatal to his argument. It amounted, at any rate, to this—that on the eastern coast of England, where there are no harbours of refuge, the loss of life is double, or nearly so, the loss which occurred on the south coast, where there are harbours of refuge.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

That is not my statement at all.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

What I have stated is certainly the impression I had of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, whose argument is fatal to the view he takes upon this question.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

No, no.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I have no desire to misquote the right hon. Gentleman. Whichever way the figures as given by the right hon. Gentleman may tell, I certainly did not notice, throughout his speech, any attempt to grapple with the startling and painful statement of my noble Friend behind me (Lord Claud John Hamilton). Only a month ago, out of 1,000 vessels on the very part of the coast under consideration, 53 were lost, with 80 lives; and from that time, the 10th of February, to the present, no fewer than 100 human lives have been lost on the same part of the coast. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to deny that statement. We all know how vessels will resort to protection where protection can be had; and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny that if I there had been harbours of refuge on this east coast of England, the strong probability is that an immense proportion of the vessels lost might have been saved. Entertaining these views, I feel great regret at the line Her Majesty's Government are taking on this question; and I regret it at this moment more than at any other, because the time is gone when the Government may use the argument that they are unwilling to incur expense. A short time ago the motto of the present Government was "Economy," now it appeared to be "Money no object." We find them willing to squander millions in perilous expenditure, to incur an enormous addition to the already great cost of the Army for doubtful results; but where human life is to be saved—where the shipping interest is to be protected—we are met with the economical argument again. I say I deeply regret the course the Government have taken, for I think this is a question that claims the attention of the Government, and I am confident the time must come—it may not be this year, it may not be next—but a foundation was laid by the Committee and Commission of 1858 and 1859 which cannot be permanently disregarded—the time will come when the object my noble Friend has in view will be conceded. I, for one, shall give a hearty vote in favour of the Motion of my noble Friend, thanking him for having brought it forward in so able a manner, and, in conclusion, I wish to express my conviction that the day is not distant when the shipping of England will have some protection afforded to it on our dangerous eastern coast.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I am not at all surprised at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir John Pakington). His views on the question of public expenditure have long been fundamentally different from my own. I am aware that public expenditure is not the only matter involved on this occasion: I also know he is but acting consistently with expressions he has formerly used, and with votes he has given in this House; but when he rises to flights of rhetoric and says he is "ashamed" to think of the course the Government has taken on this question, as indicated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. C. Fortescue).

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he had but repeated the expression used by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines).

MR. GLADSTONE

No doubt that is so; I would have the House bear in mind that when the words of the hon. Member for Leeds are echoed by the right hon. Gentleman they acquire again tenfold force. The right hon. Gentleman was "ashamed" to think that a Government could exist in the country and allow years to pass by and yet do nothing. When the right hon. Gentleman was not content to treat this question upon its merits, but must make it a matter of blame to the Ministry. I reminded him that he, too, had been a Minister. Wholly misunderstanding my own reference, he went back to the period of 1858, when it was true this matter was under consideration; but it was not to that period I referred; and I will venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman, who is so "ashamed" that any Minister in this country can allow such a question as this to sleep, and be so unmindful of the sacred duty of rescuing human life from danger, that he sat in great contentment in the position of Minister during part of the Session of 1866, the whole of the Session of 1867, and the whole of the Session of 1868. Whether he was "ashamed" or not we cannot tell; whether he was struggling in the agonies his mind may have endured we are unable to tell; but external evidence of such agonies there was none. During that period the right hon. Gentleman appeared to me to enjoy as much comfor-and satisfaction as fate ordinarily allows to anyone in the position of a Minister. I want to point out the singular position in which the House is placed. Gentlemen rise in considerable numbers to; support this Motion, but in point of fact they almost invariably support something else. A conspicuous example of this I perceive in another right hon. Gentleman who sits beside the right hon. Member for Droitwich. The right hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen Cave) says, "I shall have no difficulty in voting for this Motion;" but in a previous speech he has unfortunately explained his view of the question, and that view was this—that it would be most unjust to provide the required sum of £800,000 from the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund, said the right hon. Gentleman, ought to be a contri- butor, but the locality ought also to contribute, and the shipping as well. Having expressed that view, the right hon. Gentleman says he will find no difficulty whatever in giving his vote for the Motion, which in explicit terms declares that the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1858 should be carried into effect so far as regards Filey—the recommendation being that fully £800,000 should be paid from the Consolidated Fund and not a shilling from any other source. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON dissented.] Does the right hon. Gentleman raise a dispute on the meaning of one word—for the dispute turns entirely on the meaning of the word "nil"? Here is the recommendation of the Commission. There is a column headed "amount to be advanced out of the Consolidated Fund without repayment;" another column for the "amount to be raised from local sources;" and then a column for the "total amount," and when we come to Filey we find in the first column "£800,000," in the second column the word "nil," and in the third column "£800,000." The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Jackson) has given us the benefit of his experience, and I believe he is going to vote for the Motion, like the right hon. Member for Shoreham; and if the right hon. Member for Shoreham does not feel any difficulty about it, I do not see any reason why anybody should feel any difficulty. If he is able to get over those glaring contradictions between his speech and his conclusions I do not know why anyone who possesses the same faculty should not be able to do the same thing. But the Member for Hartlepool will vote for spending £800,000 upon a harbour of refuge at Filey. [Mr. JACKSON: No; for a sheltered anchorage.] I know he spoke of a sheltered anchorage, but he is going to vote for a harbour of refuge, and for nothing less, for that was what the Commission of 1858 recommended, and it is for that recommendation that he is going to vote. I believe we might go through pretty nearly the whole list of those who spoke in the same sense in favour of the Motion. My noble Friend the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury) spoke for the Motion too, but his speech did not support his vote any more than the other cases, for he said, "I do not plead the case of Filey any more than any other place, but some place on the eastern coast I am determined to have." But as a matter of fact he votes for Filey, against every other place, in the most explicit terms. There is some difficulty in knowing how to contend with a hundred-headed being of this kind—for such is the character of the support of the Motion that hon. Gentlemen seem entirely to absolve themselves from the obligation to prove any consistency between what they say in their speeches and the vote they intend to give. Apparently they do not deem it necessary to enter upon the question of cost at all. Now, I do not believe that such will be the general sense of the House. But I wish to look at this Motion in the two points of view in which it is capable of being regarded—first of all as an isolated vote, and secondly as the reversal of a policy. As an isolated vote, the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) has told us that the amount is a paltry sum, and that he is very favourable to economy; while the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), who has enlisted himself in so conspicuous a manner under the banner of the hon. Member for Leeds, does not say it is a paltry sum, but that the Government have done with economy for ever, and that it has become entirely indifferent whether we vote more or less upon such a Motion. But I do not agree that this is a paltry sum—particularly when I bear in mind that, according to any rational view that can be formed, this is not the whole sum that we shall have to spend. This sum is the first item of the amount that would have to be expended. It is not founded upon estimates of any kind, and in putting the amount for this particular harbour at double that for which it is written, I should be completely justified by experience. I could quote one case out of many—that of Alderney—to prove that I should be justified in taking the total at a much higher figure. But my hon. Friend must recollect that when we have made our harbour of refuge, we have not done with the matter. Who is to maintain it? Are you to levy a toll upon the ships that enter it? And, if so, how many ships will enter it at all? Then, what machinery are you to have for making the toll?—no very easy matter to settle. If you make the harbour you must maintain it. The prospect of new public establishments is not supposed to be disagreeable to a Ministry that must of necessity obtain the patronage; but I believe we should have to expend £2,000,000, including the cost of maintenance; and the example of Holyhead will support that view. But I do not doubt that my hon. Friend's imagination and courage are equal to the emergency, and would say with reference to the saving of human life that even that sum would be paltry. But he must bear in mind that one harbour of refuge has a tendency to engender other harbours; that there is no sacredness in the claims of that part of the country, and no speciality in the character of the sea upon that portion of the coast. It is an utter mistake to imagine that danger is confined to that particular spot upon the circuit of this island. It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend describing himself as standing upon a rock in the midst of a storm and forming all his nautical conclusions out of what is about to take place; it is interesting, and I might almost say, if I did not wish to avoid hyperbole, it is sublime. But my hon. Friend might find other rocks to stand upon on other portions of the coast, where he might fold his cloak around him in a manner quite as picturesque and as comfortable, while he watched his fellow-creatures struggling for their lives beneath, and thus realize the well-known quotation from the Latin poet which I should be ashamed to recite in this enlightened Assembly. But why do we speak of the enormous number of shipwrecks on this portion of the coast, as if shipwrecks were almost unknown on any other part of this island? The right hon. Baronet was very bold in quoting his figures from memory. But here are some figures from that same Report of 1864, and I have very little doubt, from what I know, that the comparison since then is greatly in favour of the east coast; because I doubt whether there is any portion of the coast on which the character of the vessels employed has been so much improved in so short a space of time as on the east coast. I do not include the Scotch coast in the figures I am about to quote from the Parliamentary Paper of the Board of Trade, showing the number of shipwrecks during 11 years. During that period there occurred between the Faroe Islands and the North Foreland 1,480 wrecks; between the North Foreland and Scilly 1,240 wrecks; and in the St. George's Channel, or Irish Sea, 2,772 wrecks. What is the inference? First, that there is no great or glaring difference between those portions of coast which the right hon. Gentleman has marked as possessing harbours of refuge and those where there are none; and, secondly, that undoubtedly you cannot proceed to shed your paltry millions, as they have been called, upon the sand in the neighbourhood of Filey without being prepared to meet claims of the same kind dotted from point to point around the some thousand miles that constitute the coasts of these islands. I own that I take a Parliamentary objection to the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn. As it comes before us, this is an isolated and local Motion, and it is a great pity that local Motions should be made in this House by local representatives for the expenditure of public money in favour of particular portions of the country. I take the liberty of telling this to the noble Lord, that with a longer Parliamentary experience he will come well to know the importance of that proposition. I do not deny his abstract right to propose and discuss anything that the House pleases to listen to; but the practical wisdom of this House has endeavoured to shut out proposals of this kind by establishing a rule that it will not entertain a Motion for a grant of money except at the instance of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. I cannot do otherwise than enter my protest against local proposals of this kind, because of the nature of the feelings they call into action, because of the play of motives for which they give scope, and because in every public and popular assembly in the world, so far as it is public and popular with strong democratic influences, it is known that the struggle of particular localities and interests to get their hands into the public purse is one of the most fruitful sources of political demoralization. I quite admit that the Motion could not stop here. It is idle to suppose that the case of Filey could be dealt with in a particular manner as the reversal of a policy; and now I beg to remind the House of the circumstances connected with the adoption of that policy. We are twitted as being indifferent to the saving of human life. Ten years ago there was a great struggle on that subject, as the right hon. Member for Droitwich well knows; and the House of Commons carried by a majority against the Government of Lord Palmerston a Resolution giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that the Government of Lord Palmerston declined to act upon that Resolution. But they did not simply decline—they recommended a policy of their own, which consisted of two branches. The first sought to do whatever lay with them as a Government towards improving the character of the mercantile marine of this country, and thereby providing for the security of human life; and they likewise adopted the policy embodied in the Act of 1861, under which loans of public money were provided at low rates of interest, with a view to encouraging the formation of those great public works at different points on the coast which might serve as harbours of refuge. Reference has been made to "Gibson's widows," as a name in use on some portions of the coast—as though some people were ignorant enough to imagine that my right hon. Friend Mr. Milner Gibson, by the recommendations he made, sacrificed human life; but I say that, by his recommendations, he saved human life. There was then a system of navigation in use which led to great sacrifices, and if we had adopted that most reckless plan for the wholesale creation of harbours of refuge at the public cost, the improvement of that system of navigation would have been greatly retarded. It was the ancient collier that was the great enemy of human life, and it was indeed a venerable commodity, if the title to veneration is to be measured by years. There are some wines that will keep for almost any number of generations, and that privilege the ancient collier shared to such an extent that it was declared to be an observation frequently made—"When a vessel is good for nothing else she is sure to find a market in a coal port," and no one ever heard of a collier being broken up. I think that between that system of carrying on the coal trade and the old plan of creating these harbours at the public charge there was an alliance; and I claim for the Government of Lord Palmerston that, by setting its face against that plan, instead of making widows they kept husbands alive, and the general substitution, extensively in the coal trade, of seaworthy and effective ships for those that were not. In the course of 10 years we have passed from a state of things in which steam navigation from the Tyne—which, no doubt, is a fair sample—was 15 per cent, and 85 per cent sailing ships, to another in which 51 per cent of steam and 49 per cent of sailing ships. That process has since that Return been progressing in an increased ratio, and that has been a really powerful instrument in the saving of human life. Another fact having an important bearing on the necessity of harbours of refuge is, that superior ships were not easily induced to go into harbours of refuge. My impression is—but I am not sure—that the harbour of Holyhead is a gratuitous harbour of refuge; and yet what happened to the Royal Charter? Why, that the most terrible wreck of modern times happened when she was within half-an-hour of Holyhead Harbour; and not because she fell short of, or could not get into that harbour, but because she had passed it, and did not think it worth while to go in. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: The ambition of a quick passage.] And something more than a quick passage—namely, the keeping her in a state of continual activity, so as to turn out the greatest amount of profit for her expenditure within the shortest possible space of time. But the case of the Royal Charter is no isolated example of the difficulty of inducing ships of that kind to enter harbours of refuge, and the more shipping improves the less and less will harbours of refuge be valued for this purpose. I have been told that the only screw coal colliers that have been lost have been out at sea, and at such distances that harbours of refuge could never have been available to prevent it. It is painful even to be asked whether we would save a million of money rather than human life. It is painful to treat the two things as if this could be reduced to a common measure. At the same time it should be remembered that, as human happiness is in our charge on a large scale, it does appertain to human happiness that we should be just, equitable, and thrifty, in the administration of public money. Now what occurred in the successive campaigns of Mr. Lindsay? I have no hesitation in saying that the reason Lord Palmerston was able to resent the pertinacious inroads that were attempted on the public treasury by Mr. Lindsay was not so much on account of the mere amount of money that was required but to the searching scrutiny made at the time by Mr. Milner Gibson, then President of the Board of Trade, whose nautical experience every sailor respected, into the real value of the claims of those harbours of refuge. Mr. Milner Gibson looked from wreck to wreck; investigated the causes of each; tested the question how far those harbours could have been made available for the saving of human life in each particular case; and reduced all the vague and general statements, such as had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, about the hundreds of vessels all driven out to sea to matters of mere imagination, and he satisfied the House that not one life could have been saved by the adoption of the policy then argued, but that the results in that particular were particularly insignificant and barren in proportion to the ardent, sanguine, and admitted philanthropic efforts of those who have been the supporters of this policy. But what did Lord Palmerston and his Government do. I am not aware—I was not—if any of my Colleagues in the Cabinet were parties to the original initiation of this policy.

LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for the University of London.

MR. GLADSTONE

He was not in the Cabinet.

LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON

No, but he was a member of the Government.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that might possibly be so; but at the same time the responsibility of one member of the Government for the policy of every other, though a sound principle, must not be taken too rigidly. I hope the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn may at some time be a member of a Government, and will then find the benefit of some elasticity in the principle. I am anxious to show what has been done rather than lay down dogmatic rules. Now, what would be the effect of such a Motion as that before the House upon the system now in most beneficial action? At the time of Mr. Lindsay's efforts, the men of the North of England, with that energy and that sagacity which they were well-known to possess, had set their minds upon the improvements of their ports, but most naturally when they were promised that very large grants should be made they pressed for those grants; and when they were refused the people of Newcastle formed one of the noblest and most magnificent plans of local improvements connected with their river and port that ever arose in the minds of a local community—they framed a plan at the cost of £1,500,000. They undertook not a smaller but a much larger charge than had been contemplated by the Commissioners, on their own responsibility, trusting that they would receive that moderate and unobjectionable assistance which had been promised in the shape of a share in the public loans at a low rate of interest. And here I will say that it was with regret I heard an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stevenson) connected with the works which did more than honour to all concerned, state that the people of Newcastle considered they had received scant justice at the hands of the Boards to whom they had applied. I will say on the part of my right hon. Friend near me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and myself, that it would cause us the greatest dissatisfaction and even pain not to have been able to correspond with the expectations that have been held out. I invite the parties concerned to communicate with the Government, and the matter shall be carefully looked into, in order that if we have fallen short of what has been reasonably expected the deficiency might be made good. But the principle upon which the Government have proceeded is perfectly sound—there were to be loans at a low rate of interest, and the money was to be repaid. Had that system failed to work? Instead of failing, it has surpassed the most sanguine expectations, and already £1,700,000 of public money has been advanced, probably without a shilling of ultimate risk. Nor is that the aggregate of what has been spent, but merely the means of stimulating to a far larger expenditure. Let the House beware, then, how by a rash and hasty vote they interfere with this activity. And is there no fear from such interference? Do you suppose it possible to say—"We will give £800,000 to Filey without asking a shilling of local contribution or any charge on shipping," and then expect that other communities will do as Newcastle have done? You cannot, in fact, work these two systems together. I do not speak of financial consequences merely, but the policy advocated by the noble Lord (Lord Claud John Hamilton) is an enfeebling and emasculating policy in its effects on the energies of the country. My noble Friend the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury) said that what he asked for was what would be best for the shipping interest. Well, if there is good to be done by harbours of refuge—I mean the extensive good contemplated by their advocates—the measure of that good is undoubtedly to be found in their effect on the shipping interest—because what they want to prevent is the loss of ships, of cargoes, and of lives. How then does the shipping interest consider these harbours of refuge? In what way have they recognized their interest in them. We know quite well that they have refused to bear any burden of any kind for the purpose of sustaining any proportion of the cost of those works. Now, that is a matter of fact, and not a a matter of argument or imagination and anticipation. They have demanded that passing tolls should be abolished; they have resisted impositions, and declared they would not pay one farthing towards the creation of any one of these seaports; and I im not aware that that they have ever mooted that these harbours should be created, or that they should be charged with the dues of them. That is really a confutation of the idea that very great changes with respect to the amount of wrecks and the destruction of life and property will arise from this costly measure. But allow me to point out that we are getting harbours of refuge to a large extent. It cannot be denied that the works of the Tyne are operating to the creation of a most magnificent harbour of refuge. They give a low water bar of 21 feet, and the degree to which they have affected the security of navigation is to be found in the statement, in which it appears that during 1865 there entered the port of Newcastle for the purpose of refuge 132 ships; that number progressively increased to 558 in 1870; and in January and February of the present year 334 vessels had entered. Under these circumstances, I hope we shall not be asked to deal with a Motion of this kind upon arguments for the employment of convicts, and arguments for the creation of a military harbour for our fleet. Is the noble Lord (Lord Claud John Hamilton) really going to take the initiative out of the hands of the Government? I must tell him that if a harbour was required for the purpose of accommodating out fleet, it is but fair that the Admiralty should have some voice in the matter. The Admiralty, however, are not sensible of the existence of any such want; nor is the scheme of the noble Lord for the employment of convict labour one of which the Home Office approves. When a Gentleman brings forward a Motion stamped with this local character it is not an easy matter for him to get out of it; but this I must say—I hope the House will not follow him upon so very dangerous and slippery ground as he invites us to tread without the smallest possible prospect of benefit, and with the certainty of vast expense, and with the certainty also of the proposition meeting with resolute opposition.

LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON

, in reply, said, he thought it right to state that Mr. Milner Gibson was not responsible for the change which had occurred in the policy of Lord Palmerston's Government with respect to harbours of refuge. The proposal was made by Lord Palmerston's Secretary to the Treasury, and with the full authority of the Government Mr. Wilson moved for a Committee, on which sat the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who voted in favour of an expenditure which he now repudiated. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I was a member of the Committee, but I never gave any such Vote.] He had carefully gone through the proceedings of the Committee, and he could assure the House that whenever the question of voting a large expenditure of money arose the right hon. Gentleman always voted in the affirmative. The Committee reported; and the appointment of a Commission was sanctioned by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). How was it that when his right hon. Friend proposed the appointment of that Committee from the Treasury Bench, neither Lord Palmerston or his Colleagues on the front Opposition Bench said a single word in opposition to the Motion? It was not, indeed, until the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had returned from the Ionian Islands that Lord Palmerston and his Friends, on returning to power, reversed their policy. It was, he felt, unnecessary to try to defend the right hon. Member for Droitwich from any charge in connection with the matter, for when the Government of Lord Derby came into office, in 1866, it was for a particular purpose—to pass a measure for extending the franchise, which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government found himself unable to carry. Lord Derby's Government sat for two years and a-half on those Benches; but it should be remembered that Lord Derby's Government was in a minority, and that, had his right hon. Friend brought forward such a proposal, the first person who would have endeavoured to turn him out of office would have been the present Prime Minister. His right hon. Friend, therefore, had in his opinion, abundant excuse for not having dealt with the subject. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had taken him somewhat severely to task, and had called his Motion one of an isolated character; but the reason why he had selected Filey was because it had been recommended by the Royal Commission as a purely national harbour. He had brought forward the subject as Member for King's Lynn, for he was in no way connected with the locality, and acted merely from patriotic motives. The people of King's Lynn did not care where the harbour of refuge was—all they wished for was a harbour of refuge on the eastern coast; and when he found the Commissioners had recommended Filey as the best place, and when after consulting the shipping interest they concurred in that recommendation, he had simply brought Filey before the House, and he never imagined that the doing so would have been imputed to him as a local job. Any such imputation he must distinctly repudiate. Filey represented no interest; and was, in fact, at present little more than a village. He must, in the next place, remind the right hon. Gentleman that when vessels in distress entered harbours, such as Great Grimsby, they did not do so without paying a toll of something like 3s. a ton register, and that they would be much more ready to run into a safe harbour if they had only to pay the small sum which would be levied upon them at such a place as Filey. With respect to the employment of convict labour, he had been told that the present Director of Convict Prisons had visited Filey in connection with the subject last year; and he (Lord Claud John Hamilton) had put a Question on the subject to the Treasury Bench on that point which had not been answered; so that it would be seen that he did not seek to take the government of the country into his own hands, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. He had simply to say, in conclusion, that after the amount of support which he had received, and the great importance of the question in a national point of view, he should feel it to be his duty to press his his Motion to a Division.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he should not trouble the House with many observations, but he hoped the House would bear with him while he pointed out the extent of his offence, which could hardly be gathered from the speech of the noble Lord. Considering that the investigation into the subject with which he was connected was the first of the kind, and had taken place 13 years ago, it would have been quite excusable if he had changed his mind. He had been a member of Mr. Wilson's Committee, being at the time Vice President of the Board of Trade in the Government of Lord Palmerston, and the principle on which that Committee proceeded was that a certain sum should be advanced for harbours of refuge out of the Consolidated Fund; but that in consideration of that a sum about three times as great should be obtained from passing tolls. Now, that might have been a bad or a good principle; but it did not, at all events, contemplate what the noble Lord asked for on the presentoccasion—namely, to spend a certain amount out of the Consolidated Fund without any local contribution. The Committee recommended that a sum of from £1,395,000 to £1,849,000 should be expended on making harbours of refuge. They recommended that £400,000 should be expended out of the Consolidated Fund for making all the harbours of refuge which they believed to be required, being half the sum now asked for on account of one harbour of refuge. Such was his answer to the charge of the noble Lord. The matter was afterwards re-investigated, and a greater demand was made by the Commission which the right hon. Member for Droit-wich was so proud of having appointed that he seemed to think that its appointment placed him on a pinnacle of merit. They recommended that the amount advanced out of the Consolidated Fund should be £2,390,000, while the advances out of local resources should be £1,625,000. The noble Lord, however, did not propose to follow the general spirit of the recommendations of the Commission, but picked out one isolated point, with respect to which the Consolidated Fund was to contribute all, and local resources nothing. A more fatal blow, not only at the Exchequer, but at the reputation of that House, could not be imagined. He had some experience on such a point. He had been a member of a Colonial Assembly, the greatest part of the time of which was taken up in discussing measures such as the noble Lord now proposed, involving the application of general revenue to local purposes—such as the making of a road in one place, or the construction of a railway in another. The main time of the Legislature was occupied in that most discreditable manner, and he, therefore, ventured from practical experience to warn the House not to encourage such Motions as the present; for it would find no course so injurious to the respect and estimation it should be held in by the public as countenancing the grant out of the general revenue of the country of money to be expended on local purposes.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman refers to me he will not grossly misrepresent me—["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

having read the Motion—

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

begged to know whether the language used by the right hon. Baronet was in Order?

MR. SPEAKER

I did not hear the exact words used; but the words were not taken notice of by any hon. Member at the moment when they were uttered, the reading of the terms of the Motion have intervened, and it is now too late to call them in question.

Question put:—The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 124: Majority 35.