HC Deb 28 July 1876 vol 231 cc27-41
SIR EARDLEY WILMOT,

on rising to call attention to the deficiency of Harbour accommodation on the north east coast of England; and to move— That the great loss of life and property annually occurring to our shipping on the north east coast of England shows that there is a deficiency of adequate harbour accommodation in that district; and this House urges on Her Majesty's Government the construction on that coast of a suitable Harbour of Refuge and for strategic purposes, apologized for bringing the question forward at so late a period of the Session, but he had sought in vain for an opportunity during the last four months, and would, gladly have surrendered to the Government the present evening, which he had obtained by ballot after many trials, had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer given a more favourable answer to the Question which he had put on the preceding evening, and which he had put purposely in order to avoid being obliged to proceed with the present Motion. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the construction of such a harbour as the case required must be a matter of private enterprize, and come out of local funds and the pockets of individuals, he was constrained to go on, as he considered such a mode of treating a national question was not at all satisfactory. Nor should he be doing his duty to those brave men whose lives were daily jeopardized by the state of things existing on the North East Coast, and who had committed their case to his hands, if he did not persevere with his Motion. The Committees of the House of Commons had from time to time considered the subject of our national harbours. From one of these, in 1844, had proceeded the works at Dover, Holy head, and Alderney, and in 1853 that very question of the unprotected condition of the East Coast had undergone ample discussion. This last Committee recommended more ample accommodation for shipping on those shores; but as the exact site for a harbour of refuge was not within their province, they advised the appointment of a Royal Commission, which was accordingly formed in 1858, and was composed of men of distinguished ability and experience in the naval and military services, the Chairman being Admiral Sir James Hope. The Commissioners sat for several months, from August, 1858, till the end of February, 1859, during which period they examined more than 400 witnesses, men of every grade in the seafaring life, and of great experience in nautical affairs, and they ultimately issued their Report on the 3rd March, 1859. In the course of that Report they urged most strongly the disadvantages to which the North East Coast of England was exposed from various causes; from the iron-bound character of the shore, being not indented with bays which might afford a shelter to shipping in tempestuous weather, but being perfectly straight for many miles from the Tees to Flam borough Head; from the existing harbours along the coast being only tidal, and therefore not accessible at low water; and from the violence of the prevalent winds which blew steadily on shore from the North East. From these considerations the Commissioners advised the construction of an ample harbour of refuge at Filey, where the Brigg presented ample natural advantages, and where the surrounding cliffs would, afford every facility for its formation. The Report further adverted to the large and increasing loss of life and property occurring annually off the North East Coast. The hon. Baronet proceeded to remark upon the enormous trade and commerce in the shape of exports from the various ports in Northumberland, Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire, the annual exports from the Tyne, Tees, and Wear, amounting to £15,000,000, and the annual exports from Hull alone amounting to £38,000,000, making a total of £53,000,000, being one-fifth of the exports from the whole United Kingdom, and the shipping annually sailing from and arriving at those four ports actually exceeding those sailing from and arriving in the Thames and Mersey combined. In the Newcastle and Durham coal fields, in 1873, 90,000 men were employed, whose annual wages amounted in the aggregate to £7,000,000 sterling. Then, as regarded the Tyne, there were in that river alone in 1873, 103 ships built, with a tonnage of 64,933 tons, and 7,000 men employed in shipbuilding. In 1873, between the Tyne and Humber inclusively, there were 74,447 ships entered, withal tonnage of 16,460,000 tons. Passing from the vast commerce and trade of those regions to the sad list of casualties to ships, he might mention, in the outset, that the loss of ships from unseaworthiness was as nothing compared with the losses and wreck by tempest. The history of these casual- ties was to be found in The Wreck Register, which, as hon. Members knew, was annually presented to Parliament in June. The Register of 1876 had not yet been presented; he therefore cited from the one published in June, 1875. In that book he found that in 1875 there were 4,259 ships lost all over the world, with a tonnage of 911,000 tons; and this list exceeded that of 1874 by 2,068 ships. Of these 4,259, 3,380 were British ships, and 3,590 out of the whole number of 4,259, were lost "on our English coasts," which, as they knew, from the narrowness of the seas and rapidity of tide, were very greatly exposed to sudden and violent storms and tempests. Of the 3,590 ships wrecked on our own coasts, 461 were total wrecks, but only 33 of these from unseaworthiness in the vessel. They had been passing an Act to protect our sailors from unseaworthy vessels; but how equally, if not more important to provide against calamity which no skill or act of man could prevent, except by providing safe places of refuge in time of tempest! Now, he would proceed to mention a most remarkable fact—namely, that out of 3,590 vessels wrecked on our English and Scotch and Irish coasts, 1,660, or nearly one-half, came to grief on the North East Coast of England. In the year 1875, 920 lives were lost in the shipping on our coasts, the average loss of life being upwards of 800. The annual loss of valuable property on the North East Coast was considered to be £1,500,000; while in two gales only, which occurred in 1854 and 1857, 138 ships were lost, and £110,000 invaluable property. That would not be surprising when, as the Commissioners' Report stated, often 1,500 vessels were seen in Yarmouth Roads at a time, and 500 off Flamborough Head; and in a heavy gale from the North East these would have to run up northward for the Firth of Forth, or southward to Harwich or the Thames, to avoid being driven on shore. The westerly gales were most frequent on the Southern and Western Coasts of England; but, here, the casualties for 1875 were only 977 on the West Coast, and 549 on the South Coast. He held in his hand accounts of casualties from one or two of the north-eastern ports, and he found at Great Yarmouth in the 16 months from 1st January, 1874, to 30th April, 1875, there were 116 casualties to shipping, involving the total wreck of 22 ships, and 39 persons drowned or killed; while at Lowestoft, where, as at Great Yarmouth, the piers and harbour had been considerably improved, but the accommodation was at both places still very defective, the casualties amounted to 165. These facts plainly demonstrated the great difficulties our brave sailors, unsurpassed in hardihood and seamanship by any in the world, had to contend with; and that the words of Sir John Coode, one of our most eminent marine engineers, at the lecture he lately gave at the United Service Institution, were most fully justified when he said that "the great want on our shores at the present day was an adequate harbour of refuge on our North East Coast." In this opinion he had been supported by Admiral Sir William Hall—who had written an able pamphlet on our national defences—Admiral Collinson, and other distinguished naval officers, who also gave it as their opinion that such a harbour was most needed also for strategic purposes. The hon. Baronet then read an extract from an essay by the late Dr. Wynter, published in The Quarterly Review in 1858, in which he urged that— the appalling loss of life and property occurring every year on the North East Coast demonstrates the absolute necessity which exists for establishing on that most exposed and frequented position of our coast such a shelter as the sailor has a right to expect in time of need. So far as to the commercial aspect of the question, on which he had dwelt so fully that no time remained for its strategic consideration—which he must very slightly touch upon, having already trespassed so long on the attention of the House. But it should be remembered that at the present time we had actually no place from the Tyne to the Thames where an iron-clad, if disabled or requiring to coal or water, could go in. The German Navy had very greatly increased lately, and the Government of that great Empire had, ever since 1858, been constructing, at vast expense, a noble harbour, most strongly fortified, at Wilhelmshafen, in the Bay of Yayde, at the mouth of the river Weser, where their iron-clad fleet could lie safely, and go in to refit without fear of being attacked. In 1870 the French fleet lay outside, and could not touch the fleet within. Up to 1869 the Germans had spent £1,500,000 on Wilhelmshafen, which was necessary to them, as it might happen that if shut up in the Baltic in time of war, or during the winter season, their other harbours of Kiel and Dantzicmight be of little use to them. Would England begrudge spending money—a rich country like our own—to defend our commerce, and form a basis of defensive and offensive operations for our fleets, when they found Germany, Russia, and other countries making such great and rapid advances in maritime power and resources? Why, look at Cherbourg, where an enormous French fleet could ride at anchor in perfect security, and the piers and batteries had been constructed at a cheerful cost of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000! while, on the other hand, we were building magnificent ships, and when they were built we found there was no place to receive them. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had, he must say, astonished him by an argument used, last year when a discussion took place relative to a harbour at Lundy Island. The right hon. Gentleman objected to harbours being constructed by Government, because, he said, they would not pay. Such an argument was, he must say, hardly worthy of the abilities of his right hon. Friend. Did Portland pay? did Holy-head pay? did Plymouth pay? Certainly not as a 3 per cent investment; but they paid most profitably in the preservation of the lives of our gallant sailors, in the protection of our property and fleets, and in the increased prosperity and security of our common country. In conclusion, he urged strongly upon Her Majesty's Government the prompt and serious consideration of this most important question. Local ports and harbours could be established or improved by private enterprize, but such a harbour as the North East Coast required could only be made at the national expense. For no purpose could the nationalpurse be better resorted to, or our own money be better used, than in the strengthening of our national defences, and in the lessening of those numerous dangers to which the trade and commerce, on which our superiority as a nation so material depended, was now most unnecessarily exposed.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,

who had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect that it was expedient that there should be further inquiry as to the best mode of practically and successfully carrying out the various harbour projects, said: I very readily rise to second the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), not because I concur in the essential part of the Motion, which urges the Government to incur at once a large outlay for a new harbour on the Yorkshire coast, but because I wish to have a debate on the important subject of how to be able to construct with success the many much needed coast harbours; for, agreeing as I most fully do with the hon. Baronet in respect to thereat deficiency of harbours, I cannot think that we ought to supply that want by urging the Government to enter into new constructions of harbours in our present state of distrust as to the works being successful. As a mere money question the construction of harbours is advisable; for the annual loss of wealth to the nation by shipwrecks, is, if capitalized, fully equal to a capital of from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000. Then, again, as to the way to prevent the many losses of lives now occurring on our coasts, we do not regard the spending of money on land for sanitary improvements, for better dwellings, for good water, for providing purer air, or for a variety of purposes conducive to the saving of lives and prolonging of life amongst our people living in towns on land, but we disregard our poorer but hardy sailors and fishermen on the seas, and allow many to be annually lost by reason of the want of proper and sufficient harbour accommodation. Then, again, look at the question in the light of commercial gain. The extension and improvement of our harbours would enlarge and extend our commerce, thereby greatly increasing our ships and multiplying our seamen. Then as regards our fisheries, we have only to provide ports to which our fishing boats can find safety from the storms along the coast to insure a great increase to our fishing vessels, and consequently to the hardy and persevering fishermen, who are so willing to toil for large additions to our food, if they can only be supplied with refuge from the gales which at present destroy so many of these industrious men. We are all thoroughly alive to the importance of multiplying our commercial and war vessels, and the numbers of sailors on board, but few are alive to the wealth which the sea would yield if we multiplied our fishing vessels and fishermen. I do not specially advocate the openings for profit afforded by the seas that wash the rugged coasts of the county which I represent, because I desire to see all our coasts fairly considered by the Government; for though I know that the coast of my county has hitherto not been so treated—in so far that other parts of Scotland in counties favoured by the Scotch Fishery Board have had money spent on their harbours, whilst Kincardineshire has been neglected—yet I desire now, in mentioning the neglect, to use this as a plea for asking the Government to act in future in a fair and impartial spirit to all parts of the United Kingdom. I can confidently urge that within 30 miles of the coast of my county there is a bank on which fine fish in enormous quantities can be caught, and would be obtained if our fishing boats could run to a port in the county by the sea shore, after being exposed to the storm for a few hours. I fully believe that the wealth that could be gained by fishing that bank would more than equal the value of the produce from all the lands of the county. That this is not without some considerable support may be shown by the remarkable success of the fishings at Frazerburgh. There the fishings are said to equal the rental of that part of the county in which this new harbour is situated, and that the value of land in the neighbourhood has largely increased, to the great gain of the proprietors. I have often heard, even in this House, that the formation and improvement of harbours is a duty that ought to be undertaken by private individuals, or corporate bodies, for their own gain or advantage. I am quite willing to assent to that view, provided those parties knew how to carry on these harbour works, with some better prospect of deriving their gains than they now have. But Government has already proved, by their great failures in their attempts at harbour construction, that it is not wise for individuals to follow the Government example and fail as disastrously with as great losses of capital. The discouragement caused by the Government's failures at Alderney, at Jer- sey, at Ramsgate, nay, even at Dover, at Wick, at Anstruther, at Port Patrick, at Dunbar, and in several fishing ports on the coast of Scotland and Ireland, and in other places, must first be removed before private enterprize can be expected to face the risk of loss which has been there seen. It is useless and idle to repeat a truism, that private capital can and ought to be employed on such works; and so it will, and in an abundance that would astonish Europe, provided the private capitalists had as fair a certainty of not suffering the total losses of invested money as has the Government. The sole object of the Amendment of which I have given Notice, but which I am prevented by the Forms of the House from moving, is to induce Government to enter upon an inquiry as to how harbour works can be carried on without the certainty of the great failures which have so frequently happened in the undertakings of Government. I ask the Government to undo the mischief which these blunders have caused. I ask the Government to enter upon a great inquiry of national importance. We find no hesitation in employing Commissioners, not only in the United Kingdom, but abroad, in order to investigate into many subjects of far less importance than harbours. We find Commissioners of every kind employed at the public coat to find out how the people of this country can be benefited by improvements of every and many varied kinds of ordinary affairs of life—Royal Commissions at the public expense, on water, gas, coals, food, art, education, science, and innumerable other affairs, and though thousands of minds are engaged in these inquiries, yet we never hear of the story told in this House and outside the House that the subject of harbours is entirely one for private enterprize, without any such aid from Government as is so readily extended to every other branch of knowledge bearing on the ordinary concerns of the people. I could enlarge on this my favourite question of harbours, for I have tried to obtain some knowledge of the subject, and have advanced sufficiently far in my inquiries in being able to say that I know and appreciate the necessity of much more knowledge than we at present possess. I urge the Government to supply this great want, not alone by investigating into the causes of the many failures, with but few successes at home, but by having the harbours abroad examined, and the successful and unsuccessful works ascertained, with all the causes of either failure or for good results. We have much to learn along the coasts of the Mediterranean; we there find many harbours of peculiar forms, adapted to the positions on the extensive coast of that inland sea. We there find the science of using materials which has descended to the present races from the old people, evidently from the Carthaginians, and then we have the harbour designs of engineers of old times, which have in many instances been a great success. We have in modern times also harbour works which, have been successful. I could particularly name Bona in Algeria as a place where an outer and inner harbour has been made by the French with a remarkable degree of success, and at palace in Algeria not so important as is the capital of my own county, Stonehaven. These are the inquiries which Government alone can undertake; no private individual can possibly be expected to incur the expense, or devote the time required for this work. Then, again, the means of access to foreign harbours can only be obtained by the influence and by the officers of Government; more than that, our war vessels must be employed to visit the various foreign ports and examine with impartiality their maritime fitness. Even now there is a great harbour in the course of construction on the coast of Holland, known as the North Sea Harbour, with a great canal successfully completed leading to the wealthy city of Amsterdam; it faces our shores, and should a powerful nation obtain the use of that harbour, it would afford refuge for vessels of large size. Few there are in this country who know of its formation; but though a commercial harbour for Amsterdam, yet its importance can be judged of when it is known that the canal which connects Amsterdam with the coast is already formed; and its vastness may be judged of by knowing that it has 27 feet of water. The success of this harbour is therefore of material importance, not only in respect to the great increase of national power it will give to Holland and Germany, but as a specimen of a work commenced on a shore exposed to gales and to seas of as much severity as fall on our own coasts. As I have promised the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) to afford him an opening for bringing on his important Motion, I feel that my time is come for ceasing my suggestions. I urge the Government to weigh them fairly and considerately; they are given, not to support any particular project, but for the sake of many projects for many harbours along our extensive and exposed coasts. The success in forming harbours which I anticipate from the inquiries which I advise being made will not only add to our commercial greatness, but will give a strength and a power to the defensive means of the nation. The shipping of the country will be increased, and our seamen and fishermen largely multiplied, and, above all, by new harbours being constructed, we shall save property, and the lives of our people; these are two inducements of such importance as cannot fail to commend the subject to the economist and philanthrophist.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the great loss of life and property annually occurring to our shipping on the north east coast of England shows that there is a deficiency of adequate Harbour accommodation in that district; and this House urges on Her Majesty's Government the construction on that coast of a suitable Harbour of Refuge and for strategic purposes,"—(Sir Eardley Wilmot,)

—instead thereof.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, they were all agreed that they ought to do everything they could to reduce loss of life at sea; but the question was, whether the Motion proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for South "Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), and seconded and opposed at the same time by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) was the right mode of meeting the difficulty, or whether the method on which the Government and the country had for many years made up their minds was not the preferable one. The question had been mooted for 20 years past, sometimes before Committees, sometimes by private Members, and propositions had been made sometimes for establishing harbours of refuge here and there, and sometimes for providing them all round our coasts. Every kind of proposition on the question had been taken up in that House, and even the same hon. Members had made contradictory propositions regarding it from year to year. Last year, the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had been as urgent in urging priority of claim for a harbour of refuge at Lundy Island as he now was for one in exactly the opposite direction. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), on the other hand, wanted them to consider how they should carry out all the various harbour projects, whether for commerce, fisheries, refuge, or offensive and defensive purposes. He (Sir Charles Adderley) would not argue which was the right way of proceeding in relation to harbours, but he thought he could show that Parliament, representing the country, had long since made up its mind how to act. Hon. Members constantly referred back to the Report of 1859, but they seemed to forget that after the presentation of that Report, Lord Palmerston induced Parliament to take action on that Report and to pass the Harbours Loan Commission Act, which gave facilities to localities throughout the Kingdom to make or improve their own harbours by the aid of Government loans on easy terms. That plan had now been acted on for many years, and he thought they had established the principle that the way to make harbours adequate to the wants of the shipping of the country was not for Government to take upon itself to construct them, but aid those who knew most about what was necessary, and had the most interest in maintaining their harbours when constructed. All experience was in favour of acting upon the principle so laid down by Parliament 25 years ago. The moment it was found that Parliament intended to act upon it the people set to work and constructed for themselves, with the offered loans, works which equalled in magnitude and rapidity of construction any works that had been done in the New World, and exceeded them in solidity. The trade left to its own judgment, instead of multiplying mere harbours of refuge, took to improving their ships, and the result had been that the old rotten sailing colliers had been replaced by steam colliers, and the number of wrecks had been correspondingly reduced. He trusted that the House would not assent to either of the Mo- tions on the subject before it, which would be no benefit, but rather injurious to the mercantile interests, while they were antagonistic to the spirit of the country. He, however, admitted that, although Her Majesty's Government should not undertake the construction of harbours themselves, they should continue to give every facility by loans to those who were desirous of making harbours for themselves. It was always suspicious when proposals were made for public money to be granted for local purposes. There was something primâ facie objectionable in Government being asked to spend Imperial money for local purposes. If the localities immediately concerned did not care to execute those works themselves, surely it was not for Parliament to tax everybody else for them. Moreover, if those interested in the establishment of those harbours were to construct them for themselves, the work would be far better done than if performed by the Government, and there would be a fair probability that the harbours, when constructed, would be properly maintained. Commerce would know best where commercial harbours were wanted, and how they should be made; and, where there was no commerce, there would be no persons interested in maintaining harbours. Several national harbours had been constructed by the Government, but some of them even had not been maintained since, and he need only point to the case of Alderney harbouras a lamentable instance of the way in which public money had been thrown away in the attempt on the part of the Government to construct harbours. In the case of Holyhead, owing to a change of plans during the construction of the works, a concave surface had been exposed to the sea; and in the case of Alderney, the decision had been come to, to let the sea wash away the remaining wreck of works that had cost £1,500,000 to construct. While fully admitting the necessity for the Government to construct naval harbours for national purposes, he could not call upon Parliament to provide money, except by way of loan, for any other harbours, and he believed that the best security for life and property would be to leave it to the commercial classes to provide, improve, and maintain at the seats of commerce, our mercantile harbours. If the Government were to undertake the construction of harbours for commerce, fisheries, and refuge, two questions would arise, the first where they should begin, and the second where they should end. On the whole, he must oppose both the Motions which had been brought forward.

MR. J. COWEN

said, he knew the House was anxious to engage in discussion on an important colonial question, and he would not stand between them and that debate more than a few minutes. As, however, he represented a constituency which was as deeply, perhaps more deeply, interested in this question than any other, he might be permitted to express his obligation to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) for having brought the subject before the House. The Royal Commission which sat in 1859, if he recollected rightly—he spoke entirely from memory—recommended that the Government should give a certain amount of money for the purpose of forming national harbours of refuge at given points round the coast. They also recommended that assistance should be given to different localities for the formation of commercial harbours. This assistance was to be regulated according tithe commercial importance of the places, and the amount of money the localities chose to invest in improving their harbours. To some places the Commission recommended that Government should supplement the local expenditure by a grant of one-third, and tooters of one-fourth the amount of money spent by the local harbour authorities. The only persons in this country that had complied with the conditions laid down by the Commission for securing Government help were the River Tyne Commissioners. They had expended a large sum of money in improving the estuary of the Tyne and the navigable channel for a considerable distance. The water on the bar was now three times the depth it formerly was, and the consequence was that the Tyne now was really a harbour of refuge—the only one on that part of the North East Coast. The Government, however, had not carried out the recommendation of the Royal Commission in this respect, because they had given the Tyne Commissioners no monetary assistance. They had even not been as generous with them as he thought they might have been, by lending them funds at a moderate rate of interest. By the Act of Parliament referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the Public Works Loan Commissioners were empowered, with the sanction of the Government, to lend money to harbours on moderate terms. The help the Tyne Commissioners had got from Parliament had been comparatively insignificant. One other remark he wished to make was this—the circumstances of the North East Coast were entirely altered since 1859. A complete revolution had taken place, not only in the harbours of that part of the country, but also in the shipping and the size of the vessels frequenting them. It would, therefore, he thought, be unwise for Government to act strictly now upon the recommendation of the Commission that sat and reported 18 years ago. By change of circumstances and lapse of time many of the recommendations made at that time would not only be injudicious, but positively injurious. He thought, however, the Government might consent to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), and agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to supplement the labours of the Royal Commission, and put Parliament and the country in possession of the latest information respecting this important national question. While he supported that suggestion, he could not help expressing concurrence with the views of the President of the Board of Trade, who naturally shrank from investing any large sum of the Imperial Revenue in national harbours of refuge, with the ill success which had heretofore attended experiments of that kind before him. But more liberal help to commence harbours of refuge, where the localities had expended considerable sums of their own money, by loans, on easy terms, was what he thought the Government might wisely do.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."