HARTLEPOOL PIER AND PORT BILL. (Hansard, 20 March 1855)

MR. HEADLAM
said, he should oppose the Motion, for the following reason. It was proposed to raise the sum of 800,000l. for the purpose of improving the harbour and converting it into a harbour of refuge. In order to pay the interest of this sum three several sources of taxation were originally proposed, namely, duties were to be levied upon ships availing themselves of the advantages afforded by the harbour, upon goods exported from the port, and a rate was to be made upon the owners of property in the town; but, in consequence 879 of the opposition which had been raised, the two latter sources of taxation had been abandoned. He did not think the amount which would be received from vessels using the harbour would anything like pay the interest of the debt to be incurred, and the ordinary annual outlay; and, even if it did, it would be inflicting a gross injustice upon the individuals engaged in the shipping trade in that port. He should therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. FARRER
said, he should support the second reading of the Bill. He thought the measure was justified by the rapidly increasing prosperity of the town and port. Eight years ago the revenue enjoyed by the two great dock companies in Hartlepool was 65,000l., which had now increased to 200,000l. There was no intention by this measure to levy a passing toll, the only object being to extend the trade and afford conveniences for sheltering distressed vessels on that coast; neither was toll leviable till 250,000l. had been expended, and no shipowner, he thought, would object to pay a reasonable toll when he found that the cost of insurance was materially lessened, as it would be by reason of the increased safety of the port. The harbour had been inspected under the direction of the Admiralty by a competent engineer, and the report, he believed, was very favourable as to its capability as a harbour of refuge if the proposed improvements were carried into effect. He therefore trusted the House would not throw out the measure, which was, he conceived, one of great public importance.

§ MR. INGHAM
said, he should oppose the Bill, not seeing how the interest and the sinking fund for the repayment of the capital and the working expenses were to be raised. That amount would not be much short of 60,000l. a year. He believed, practically, the whole cost would fall upon some half-dozen coal proprietors in the immediate neighbourhood, and it was most unjust to saddle them with the expense of making this a harbour of refuge, which, if it were required as a national undertaking, ought to be made at the cost of the nation.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, he thought a Private Bill, unless it contained some general public principle, should not be rejected on the second reading, but should be investigated in Committee. The facts regarding Hartlepool were very striking, and the trade of the place had increased in a most extraordinary way. In 1835 it was a mere fishing town; docks had been made, and last year no less than 10,177 vessels entered the two docks of that port; and he found that the trade, foreign and colonial trade alone, without including the vast coasting trade in coal, was so great, that, as regards the export trade in foreign ships, Hartlepool was now the sixth port in the United Kingdom; and as regards the export trade in British ships, it was the tenth in importance. Now, it was proposed to make a great harbour by enclosing the bay. To effect this object, the Commissioners would lay a tax on the ships entering the port; they had power to do so, to a certain extent, by an Act of Parliament passed three years ago, and this Bill would only be an extension of that power.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he should oppose the Bill. No parties had a right to come to Parliament and ask permission to raise the enormous sum of 800,000l. without being able to show by what means they would raise it. He understood that the tax proposed to be laid would raise 15,000l. a year, if it were levied on all the shipping in the port. But how could any body of men, upon an annual revenue of 15,000l., be enabled to borrow 800,000l.? The result would be that, after having got 250,000l., or at most 300,000l., and having expended that, the Commissioners would be obliged to come to Parliament again, and say, "We have expended upon the security of our own tolls 250,000l., the whole of which will be totally lost, unless you give us fresh powers." What would those powers be? They must be allowed to levy a passing toll; or else it would be demanded that a certain sum of money out of the public funds should be granted to complete this work, on the plea that a harbour of refuge would be very advantageous to all the shipping that frequented the north of England. Now he had great suspicion of such plans, for there had been too many jobs of that kind. He had not had any representations from his constituents respecting this Bill, but he opposed it because it related to those 881 shipping interests to which he had devoted his exclusive attention, and on which he was accustomed to speak in the House.

§ Mr. J. FORSTER
said, he hoped the House would not assent to any such proposal as this, by which persons who did not derive any benefit from the scheme were to pay the expenses.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, that viewing this matter on public grounds only, he thought the Bill ought to be read a second time. He was quite sure it would provide an admirable harbour of refuge, where one was most wanted, and a great public desideratum. Judging from the opinion of Mr. Rendell, the engineer, who had investigated the site, he had confidence in the utility of this work; and the only question was, with respect to the funds by which it was to be executed. A passing toll was not asked for, and there were strong checks on the operations of the Bill. The Board of Trade had reported on the matter, and the report of Mr. Rendell had just been presented to the Admiralty. The outlay of 800,000l. was indeed large, but the rapid growth of the trade of this harbour justified the parties applying for this Bill, who had no personal interest in the speculation.