§ MR. MACKINNONSir, on the present occasion I feel myself bound in duty to come forward and move for a Committee, or obtain a promise that some steps will be taken to diminish or do away with the charge of tolls on ships, both British and foreign, passing the Channel on one side or the other of the Goodwin Sands. I do so in consequence of the directions of the Committee on Ramsgate Harbour, of which I was Chairman.
As briefly as I can, I will state to the House the facts of the case. About a century ago, the harbour of Ramsgate was concluded, in the 32nd year of George III., an Act was passed by the Legislature naming trustees for Ramsgate and authorising them to levy a duty or toll of from 2d. to 3½d. per ton on every vessel, British or foreign, that passed up or down the Channel, these tolls to be levied on 633 British ships when they were cleared from port, and on foreign vessels whenever they entered an English harbour. This ought to continue so long as the harbour of Ramsgate wanted repair, which the trustees took care should always be the case. Not only is this toll most impolitic towards foreigners by making them avoid our harbours and seek refuge in the ports of France or Belgium, but it is most generally felt by the shipping interest, who, according to the Report laid before the Board of Trade, dated July, 1853, are taxed by the passing tolls to the amount of 500,000l., which large sum is paid by that interest without any remuneration or advantage whatever; now, in the Trinity House duties they have the advantage of lights, buoys, and beacons for their shipping. It appears that in 1822 a Committee of this House considered the question, and reported that 1,500,000l. had been expended on Ramsgate Harbour up to that period, and since 1822, it now appears that nearly 500,000l. more have been laid out, making up the enormous sum of 2,000,000l. on that harbour, which evidence before my Committee stated might have been done for less than half that sum—not to exceed 700,000l.! What an immense waste of money drawn out of the shipping interest! Now, it appears that the receipts of the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour amount, from tolls levied on ships to about 25,000l. yearly, that their income from their capital in the funds, houses, and land near the harbour amounts to about 6,000l., making, together, 31,000l. a year; now, it appears from the report of General Williams, of the engineers, that the sum of 7,000l. a year is amply sufficient for all the purposes of keeping up and repairing Ramsgate Harbour. On these grounds, therefore, it was recommended by the Committee of which I was chairman, that the whole amount received from passing tolls should be done away, that the trustees should have the power to levy 6d. per ton on ships entering the harbour for refuge, which toll would make up, with the 6,000l. a year, the income of the trustees, a sum of upwards of 7,000l. a year, so that the tolls could be abolished on passing vessels without any deficiency of means in the trustees to repair the harbour of Ramsgate. On these grounds it is, Sir, that I call on Her Majesty's Government to take such measures as may be necessary for bringing about this beneficial result. Before I sit down, let me say that in no 634 manner whatever do I mean to cast the slightest imputation on the trustees; they are all men of high integrity and honour, well-known and respected; their offence is not one of commission but of omission; they all reside in London, go to Ramsgate once a year to eat a good dinner, and then return to town, all the business of the harbour is left in the power of engineers and superintendents, who seem to act as they please without supervision or control, and are constantly pulling down and building up, purchasing enormous masses of stone not required, and expending vast sums of money to little or no purpose. Under this view of the case, convinced as I am that a public benefit will accrue, I now make my Motion, unless the Board of Trade assure me they will remedy this crying evil, which cannot long continue in these days.
§ Promise made by Board of Trade.
§ Motion withdrawn.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a Select Committee be appointed to ascertain the condition, revenue, and expenditure of the Harbours of Ramsgate and the Cinque Ports.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had confined his observations solely to Ramsgate Harbour, and had left the Cinque Ports altogether out of view. He was sorry he could not assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for a Select Committee. The object of any Select Committee must be to inquire into facts, whereas with regard to Ramsgate, inquiry was altogether exhausted. There had been already four several inquiries into the state of that harbour, and his opinion was that they should now be prepared to deal with it. The harbour was maintained mainly by a toll levied upon the shipping passing up and down the Channel. These tolls produced a very large revenue, but in 1850 a reduction of them was made to the amount of 4,600l. a year, and in 1852 they were further reduced to the amount of 5,000l. per annum. The tolls now levied were 63 per cent less than the rate which the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour were allowed to levy. The trustees, therefore, deserved credit for the endeavours they had made to lighten the burden on the shipping passing Ramsgate harbour. This Motion respecting Ramsgate harbour practically involved the question as to the propriety of passing tolls, and they could only be justified on the principle that the bulk of the passing shipping on which the tolls were levied derived some benefit from 635 the harbour or the lights. To a certain extent, he thought it had been clearly made out that ships passing Ramsgate did derive benefit up to a certain amount of tonnage. A very large number of ships took refuge in the harbour from the Downs, and upon those ships no more than the passing tolls were levied. The Downs, which constituted the greatest anchorage in this kingdom, were thus relieved of the presence of many ships with which they would be otherwise encumbered, and he thought it would not be desirable to take away from the harbour all sources of further existence. If the tolls were taken away the harbour must be maintained from other sources. In short, Ramsgate harbour must have a revenue, and that was just the difficulty. At present the harbour was not in an efficient state. Works absolutely necessary were in the course of construction, and others were required, and thus a considerable extraordinary expenditure was occasioned. When they had put the harbour in an efficient state, there would arise the question of how it was to be maintained. By dint of other sources of revenue, by the aid of the property the trust already possessed, and by the continuance of the passing tolls for a limited period, the necessary funds might be provided, and at the same time relief be given to ships from the pressure of the tolls; but the best way would be to alter the management of the harbour, which was now in the hands of independent trustees—gentlemen of high character—mostly men of business in London, but who, from their other avocations, were unable to give all that attention to the concern which it required. He was prepared, therefore, to propose, and hoped in the course of the present year to be able to lay on the table of the House, a Bill to provide for taking away from the present trustees the management and direction of the harbour, and vesting it in another authority under the control of the Board of Trade. When that was done, the Board of Trade would be able to ascertain how far the extraordinary expenditure of the harbour was likely to go, what the ordinary expenditure would be when the extraordinary had ceased, and then, he thought, they would be able to deal with the question of the passing toll in a satisfactory way.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had taken the part of defending the enormous and 636 atrocious exaction of passing tolls. The only principle on which passing tolls could be justified was, that something was offered for the money in the way of a harbour of refuge; but neither Ramsgate nor Dovor offered a secure protection to shipping at all times. Dovor was only a mousetrap; it was a dangerous place for a loaded vessel to attempt to enter, and, when in, no one knew when it might come out again. When the navigation laws were repealed, it was understood that such local charges as these Were to be abolished as speedily as possible, and he hoped no time would be lost in granting this relief to the shipping interest. The hon. Gentleman had not given any good reason for refusing this inquiry, and he should therefore support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Rye.
§ MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he should support the Motion. The steps proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade were not of sufficient scope to meet the question, which embraced not only Ramsgate, but the whole of the Cinque Ports. A reform in the administration of Dovor harbour was quite as much needed as in the administration of that of Ramsgate, for a large expenditure had been going on there for many years without the harbour being, comparatively speaking, much improved. The harbour of Sandwich had also a grievance, for it had been greatly injured by the works now going on at Dovor. He could not help thinking that a Report of a Committee on all the Cinque Ports would be of great use, and he should therefore support the Motion.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought it would be a great disappointment to the House to be told that they were still at the stage when inquiry was necessary in the matter of passing tolls. In the case of Ramsgate, that statement was too ridiculous, for inquiry had been exhausted. First, there was the Committee of 1850, then the inquiry by Mr. Walker, and afterwards other inquiries by Captain Vetch, Sir John Rennie, and lastly by Sir William Cubitt, who was sent down by himself in conjunction with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, when First Lord of the Admiralty, and who reported that at the end of the present year it would be perfectly safe to abandon the passing toll altogether. In accordance with that Report, he had prepared a Bill for the abolition of this passing toll at Ramsgate, 637 but which was not introduced in deference to the recommendation of the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the burdens upon shipping all round the kingdom, and who thought that all legislation ought to be deferred until they had presented their Reports, when a general and comprehensive measure could be laid before Parliament. Their Reports, both for England and Ireland, had now been presented, and the time was come, therefore, he thought, for legislation; and he trusted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) would very speedily bring in a measure, not with regard merely to Ramsgate and the Cinque Ports, but having reference to the broad and general question of all these burdens. The question involved not only burdens on shipping, but also some of the most important questions of treaty with foreign countries. He should certainly unite with the hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in opposing the present partial, meagre, and unnecessary inquiry. Somebody had said that the Ramsgate harbour money was wasted, and wasted in hospitalities and in eating and drinking. But the trustees of that harbour were independent gentlemen who received nothing for the labour they performed, and when it was proposed to abolish the trust, the chairman and members of that trust waited upon him, and said that they had no object in the world except one, and that was that their trust should be taken from them and placed upon some satisfactory footing, and that there should be done for Ramsgate harbour that which would most contribute to the uses for which it was instituted.
§ MR. HUDSONsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had dealt with this question, and he regretted he had not remained in office to carry out his liberal principles and measures. He heard with regret the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) that it was intended to continue passing tolls. He had hoped that the principle of passing tolls had passed away. He must contend that ships which passed Ramsgate harbour without receiving any benefit ought not to be compelled to pay any toll. He could tell the hon. Gentleman that his measure would be opposed by the shipping interest, and he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman, if he did not abandon his view on the subject, would sustain defeat on the obnoxious principle of passing tolls. He agreed that no inquiry 638 was needed with respect to Ramsgate harbour. The trustees had not exceeded their taxing powers—but the system of legislation had changed, and the necessity for passing tolls was now neither obvious nor expedient.
§ MR. MACKINNONsaid, he would not protract the discussion any longer, as he had obtained his wishes—namely, an assurance from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouveric) that he would bring forward a measure to do away eventually with these passing tolls. He would withdraw his Motion, relying as he did on the promise—the positive promise—of his hon. Friend.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.