SECOND READING. (Hansard, 13 February 1857)

§ MR. T. BARING
said he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to make a few observations upon the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in moving for leave to introduce it with respect to Ramsgate harbour. The right hon. Gentleman stated that Ramsgate harbour had cost £2,000,000; that its cost had been defrayed out of Government money, and that this was an improvident use of Government money; moreover, that the expenses of the harbour amounted to £20,000 per annum, and that they might, in his opinion, be reduced to £7,500 if the harbour were placed under the management of the Board of Trade. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman had no wish to convey an erroneous impression to the House 679 in order to promote the success of his own measure; but he felt it to be his duty, on the part of the harbour trustees, to correct the inaccuracies of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The sum of £2,000,000 could not properly be called expenditure upon the harbour, because it was the total amount which had been expended since 1748, not only upon the harbour, but upon every branch of its management, and upon all the arrangements connected with it. He thought the statement that this £2,000,000 was Government money was also calculated to mislead the public. It had been obtained from the passing tolls which were granted by Act of Parliament to the harbour Commissioners, and pledged by the Trustees when money was wanted by them. Not a penny had been received from the Consolidated Fund or from Government. The annual expenditure for the last six years had been £17,500, and that sum included not merely the cost of the management of the harbour, but some very heavy incidental expenses, such as those of repairing and building the walls of the harbour. If the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to defray all those expenses for the sum of £7,500 the Trustees would be happy to allow him to make the attempt. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not hesitate, after this statement, to acknowledge the errors into which he had fallen.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, he wished to inform the House of the circumstances under which this somewhat extraordinary Bill had been introduced. Any one who looked at its title, without examining its details, would hardly suppose that it dealt with the rights of persons who had exercised those rights under the authority of Acts of Parliament for a long series of years. The title was insufficient; it ought to have been called, "A Bill for the Abolition of Passing Tolls, and for the levying of Taxes or Charges in certain cases." This was not the first time the Bill had been brought before the House. Four years ago, a Bill directed against the same interests, was introduced by the Admiralty, when the House declared that it was a direct attack upon private property, that notices ought to have been served upon the persons interested, and that it must go to the Examiner of Bills and the Standing Orders Committee, and take its chance. What was the result? The Examiner reported that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and the Committee, 680 notwithstanding that it was a Government Bill, reported that the Standing Orders ought not to be suspended in its favour; and the Bill was lost. Subsequently that identical Bill was embodied in a larger Bill, and again introduced; but notices were then served, and the persons interested petitioned to be heard by counsel before a Select Committee, and the Bill was accordingly sent to a Select Committee; but, in consequence of the early close of the Session, the petitioners had no opportunity of making out their case. The Bill had now been introduced a third time, but no notices had been served, and he believed it was the opinion of the Speaker that notices were not necessary, inasmuch as the Bill operated upon several harbours in different parts of the United Kingdom, and thereby became, to a certain extent, a public Bill. But he also understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Speaker) hold that the character of the Bill with regard to Ramsgate was such that it ought to be submitted to the ordeal of a Select Committee. He had mentioned this to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lowe), and had informed him that after the Bill had been read a second time he (Mr. Deedes) should move that it should be referred to a Select Committee, which, following the precedent of the Smithfield Market Bill, should consist of nine Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that the parties petitioning should have power to appear by their counsel, agents, and witnesses. If this course were adopted, he should be unwilling to occupy the attention of the House; but he must say that he thought it was contrary to all recent principles of taxation that the Board of Trade should be allowed to tax the inhabitants of Rams-gate by means of a toll levied upon all cargoes landed in that port to the tune of about £2,000 and some odd hundreds a, year, in order to maintain this harbour. It was said that Ramsgate would be nothing without its harbour; but why should not Ramsgate flourish as well as Brighton, where there was no harbour of refuse?

§ MR. JAMES MACGREGOR
said, that the case of Sandwich harbour was harder than that of Ramsgate, because in that instance there was a question of the redemption of a debt contracted by the Commissioners.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that although he should cheerfully bow to the decision of 681 the Speaker, he thought it would be a great hardship to the shipping interest that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The subject had been so fully discussed that it was impossible any fresh information should be obtained. This tax was upon the face of it grossly unjust. It amounted to about £32,000 a year, and not only did not one out of twenty of the ships which paid those tolls derive any benefit from these harbours, but he really believed that more ships were lost in endeavouring to mate those so-called harbours of refuge than were ever saved by the shelter which they afforded.

§ MR. LOWE
said, he bad hoped that, before be replied to the hon. Members who addressed the House, they would have been favoured with the opinion of Mr. Speaker; but he supposed it was more in order that the expression of that opinion should be reserved until the Bill had been read a second time, and it became a question what should be done with it in its subsequent stages. In reply to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) he would state that he never intended to give any offence or to cause any annoyance to those very respectable gentlemen, the trustees of Ramsgate harbour. If he had said that any money spent upon the harbour had come out of the Consolidated Fund he was certainly wrong. The money so expended was, however, to a certain extent, public money, because it had for the last 108 years been levied by tolls upon the shipping interest. It was an enormous sum, and there was but little to show for it; but he did not believe that that was in any measure the fault of the trustees. So far as he could make it out, the trustees had spent about £10,000 a year in keeping up the harbour, which was the sum he stated the other evening. The Government was told that by close economy the harbour could be managed for £7,500 per annum; but, whether that were so or not, he did not intend to make it any reproach against the trustees—than whom he believed no men could have acted with a more single and entire view to the public service—that they had spent £10,000 a year. He could not admit that there was any hardship to Ramsgate in the abolition of the passing toll, because the harbour was constructed and the tax imposed for the benefit, not of Ramsgate, but of the shipping interest, which, it appeared, was now anxious that this 682 tax, originally imposed for its benefit, should cease. What the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Deedes) had said as to the injustice of taxing the people of Ramsgate referred to the provision to be made for the maintenance of the harbour. That provision was simply this:—A certain amount of property which had been realised by the passing tolls was to be applied to this purpose, and there were, besides, certain taxes levied in the harbour, the proceeds of which it was likewise intended to devote to its maintenance and repair. There was a toll which was levied by the paving Commissioners upon all coals landed in the harbour, and the proceeds of this were applied to municipal purposes; and the Consolidated Fund would also be called upon for a contribution. It would, however, be monstrous that public funds should be applied to the maintenance of this harbour, and at the same time the Corporation of Ramsgate should be allowed to tax goods brought into it for their own benefit. He did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could with any face ask the House to vote the public money for Ramsgate harbour while the corporation of that place levied a tax upon coals landed in the harbour for municipal purposes. Let him turn next to the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. James MacGregor). The hon. Gentleman, following the track marked out for him by the petition which he had presented, had misled the House as to the true state of the case. The hon. Member alleged, as did also the petition, that owing to the injury done to Sandwich haven by the erection of Ramsgate harbour, the former town was entitled to a payment of £200 a year from the Ramsgate passing tolls. That, however, was not the fact. The hon. Gentleman was very anxious the other night that he should give him an opinion on a case stated by himself; and he (Mr. Lowe) was very glad that he had not done so, because the case was not a correct one. The Ramsgate passing tolls were imposed in consequence of the recommendation of a Committee of that House, which sat in 1749, and took evidence on the subject. Witnesses from Sandwich were examined, one of whom was prevailed upon to say that the haven there would be choked up by the construction of Ramsgate harbour. But it also then came out that the haven was in the course of being gradually silted up, and that the water was then shallower by one 683 foot than it had been twenty years before. Moreover, it was notorious that the meeting of the tides from the North Sea and the Channel formed the Goodwin Sands, and caused the silting up of the harbours on the south-eastern coast—a process which had been going on for very many years. He had also the authority of Sir John Rennie for saying that no practical or appreciable difference could have been produced on Sandwich haven by Ramsgate harbour. So that, if Parliament had granted £200 a year out of the passing tolls in consequence of the probable shutting up of Sandwich harbour by the construction of Ramsgate harbour, the anticipation had not yet been realised, and the grant was obtained by false pretences. That, however, was not the case, for the Committee attached no weight to the evidence adduced before it upon this point, and the section of the Act under which the £200 a year was claimed contained a recital which showed that the money was granted upon general grounds, upon which it would be extremely difficult to maintain the payment. That recital was to this effect:— That whereas the haven of Sandwich, now in danger of being choked up by great quantities of sand lodging at, and settling within, its mouth, by means whereof the navigation would be greatly obstructed, to the manifest detriment of the inhabitants and the ruin of the trade and commerce of the town; and whereas it would be necessary, for preserving the navigation of the haven up to the town of Sandwich, and preventing the mischief and inconvenience apprehended, to cleanse the channel of the haven, and erect a pier and other works at the entrance thereto; therefore that the said haven should be preserved and maintained, whereby not only the inhabitants of the town, but the trade and navigation of the kingdom in general might be greatly benefited, as thereby a safe and commodious harbour would at all times be kept open for the reception of ships, be it enacted"— And then it proceeded to grant the £200 a year to the port of Sandwich; but not one word was contained in this recital respecting the harbour of Ramsgate; it was simply and solely that Sandwich wanted money to deepen its harbour and prevent its being choked up by the siltage brought thither by the sea; and, being no doubt ably represented then, as at present, in that House, they deemed it an excellent opportunity to get the Committee to put in a "small trifle" for themselves. It was not even pretended that the haven was a harbour of refuge—the thing was obtained 684 by a very simple and easily understood job. The hon. Gentleman said, this Bill made no provision for the payment of the debt contracted on the security of the grant. That was certainly an oversight, which, if the Bill went into Committee, should be carefully remedied. The creditors, no doubt, had a right to be protected, and he was obliged to the hon. Member for reminding him of this omission. So much, then, for the alleged cruel hardship sought to be inflicted on the borough of Sandwich. He had only to add, that he should bow to the decision of the Speaker on the technical point that had been raised in the discussion.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that if each harbour had been dealt with by a separate Bill, it would have been liable to all the rules and orders affecting Private Bills; but under the circumstances of this measure no notices were required, but the parties whose interests were affected by the Bill would be entitled, by the rules of the House, to be heard, and it would be more convenient for them to be heard before the Select Committee.

§ MR. JAMES MACGREGOR
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade cited the opinion of one eminent engineer, that Sandwich haven was not injured by the construction of Ramsgate harbour; but there would be no difficulty in showing the contrary by the evidence of others, who were convinced that Ramsgate harbour caused an accumulation of sand and silt at the entrance of the haven. He had a personal knowledge of the effect of the tides and currents on the southeastern coast and harbours, and he believed the laws of nature were the same and were as well ascertained a hundred years ago, when provision was made in the Ramsgate Act of Parliament for their certain consequences on Sandwich haven, as they were now. The Lords of the Admiralty took a different view of the importance of keeping open and unobstructed the navigation of the Stour, the river of the town and port of Sandwich, from the right hon. Gentleman. Ten years ago he was engaged with other 685 Gentlemen in constructing a railway to Sandwich and Deal which crossed the Stour, the river of the port of Sandwich, a considerable distance above it; but the Lords of the Admiralty required works to be executed there for the greater freedom of the navigation, which caused an expense of not less than £15,000. The borough of Sandwich was now as much entitled to consideration at the hands of Parliament as it was in 1749; and he maintained, however much it might expose him to the sneers of the Vice President of the Board of Trade, that he was doing his duty towards the trade of the kingdom by endeavouring to protect Sandwich from the spoliation which the right hon. Gentleman was about to perpetrate when a grave omission was pointed out to him in his Bill that had resulted from his own neglect of duty.