HC Deb 17 April 1863 vol 170 cc308-27
SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, he trusted he should meet with the indulgence of the House while he called attention to the important subject of Harbours of Refuge. It would be in the recollection of the House that a few years before 1857 there was great loss of life and property by shipwreck upon our coasts, which led to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to investigate the question. That Committee, presided over by that talented man the late Mr. Wilson, sat for a considerable period, and examined a great number of witnesses. It was re-appointed in the following year, and consisted of nearly the same Members. Both in 1857 and in 1858 the Committee took great pains to discharge properly the duty intrusted to it. In 1857 the Committee sat ten days; in 1858, thirteen days; and altogether 8,000 questions were asked and answered. The Report was drawn up by Mr. Wilson in the most able manner, and concurred in by the Members of the Committee, and, he believed, had received the sanction of the House. To a few passages of that Report he wished to draw the attention of the House. At page 10, paragraph 12, there was an important passage. The Committee there stated that they would proceed to consider the evidence as to the important financial questions which had arisen in the course of the inquiry. The estimated cost of the proposed improvements had been stated as not exceeding £2,000,000, or a sum which, spread over ten years, would be at the rate of £200,000 per annum. The Committee submitted that that was a comparatively small amount for works having for their object the diminution of the dangers of the navigation on our coast, which involved an annual loss of 800 lives and £1,500,000 worth of property. They did not assert that the whole of that loss would be obviated by the proposed works, although a considerable proportion of it would no doubt be so; but they said that the loss of property from shipwreck constituted a real abstraction from the national wealth of the country; so that if the execution of these works only prevented 30 per cent of it, the whole outlay required for them would be less than the saving effected by them in four years. The saving of human life by means of these works would, in all probability, bear a larger proportion to the total present loss than in the case of property. After a very lengthened inquiry in 1857 and 1858, the Committee recommended that a Royal Commission should be sent to investigate particular localities along the coast with a view to select the best sites for these works. On that recommendation a Royal Commission was accordingly appointed, and among its Members was that distinguished officer Admiral Sir James Hope, who viewed the question not only with the feelings of a seaman anxious to save the lives of sailors, but of a statesman desirous of throwing as light a burden as possible upon the country. Sir James Hope was the Chairman of the Commission. It had also amongst its Members Admiral Washington, the hydrographer of the navy, who knew more of the coasts of Great Britain than any other man living; and Captain Sullivan, of the Royal Navy, who occupied an important post at the Board of Trade, and of whom he felt sure that the right hon. President could not speak in too high terms. There was also Mr. Coode, the eminent civil engineer, now and for some years past in charge of the works of the harbour of Portland; the hon. Member for Sunderland, a skilful sailor and a large shipowner, was also a Commissioner, as well as Captain Vetch, of the Royal Engineers, in charge of the Harbour Department of the Admiralty, and himself (Sir Frederic Smith). The investigation was conducted with the view to discover, not the greatest number of places at which such works could be carried out, but the fewest consistently with the great object in view, and with a wise principle of economy. It occupied eight or nine months In the concluding paragraph of their Report the Committee of 1858 said, they could not too earnestly press upon the House of Commons their strong conviction as to the necessity, upon national grounds, of these works being undertaken at as early a period as possible, and placed under some system which should secure their steady and speedy progress. After referring to the large increase in the foreign and coasting trade of the kingdom during the last fifteen years, the Report went on to say that the construction of the works which the Committee ventured to recommend was absolutely indispensable to the development of our commerce, and that there was no object for which the public money could be more usefully or more profitably employed, having regard to the future welfare of the nation. In June 1860 the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) brought forward a very important Motion on that subject, which was very ably argued. The words of the Motion were— That in the opinion of this House it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to adopt, at the earliest period possible, the necessary measures to curry 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. Although it was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for Montrose, and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, it was carried by a majority of 17. The proposition involved the outlay of £4,000,000. What he (Sir Frederic Smith) now recommended involved not more than £200,000, and never had such a sum been more beneficially expended. The Commission had made their Report, which had been for some time before the House. Its recommendations were very brief. The Commission recommended that something should be done quickly. Its first proposition was, that a harbour should be formed at Wick. It was proposed that Government should contribute £125,000 in constructing that harbour, on condition that the locality should raise an equal amount for its completion. Peterhead, also, was to have £100,000, on the condition that the locality subscribed £200,000. But he had not heard that that sum was raised, and therefore he did not include Peterhead in his present proposal. He should be happy, however, to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and to include Peterhead, if there was any chance of the money being subscribed. The Commission brought forward two harbours on the Irish coast—Carlingford and Waterford—for each of which £50,000 was asked. He now only asked one-half, as he did not expect to get the full amount, and he had selected Waterford as the harbour on which the money should be spent. Douglas, in the Isle of Man, was to have £50,000 on condition that the locality raised a similar sum. No such sum had been raised on the spot; Douglas was not therefore on his list. The Commission recommended that St. Ives should have £400,000. No one could doubt the great advantage of having a harbour there, and he believed the sum proposed would execute the works. But he was not prepared to ask that sum on the present occasion. Padstow was very important, especially for the coasting trade. The inhabitants had laid out a certain sum of money in cutting off a portion of the bluff headland called Stippers, which took the true wind from vessels entering the harbour. If the Government would spend £40,000 more in the removal of a further portion of the bluff point, vessels of large size could enter the harbour in safety, and the many shipwrecks which occurred along that inhospitable coast would be avoided. As the harbour was examined with great care, and as it was a question of executing certain definite works for a certain definite sum, there was no danger that the estimate of £40,000 would be exceeded. It was recommended that the Tyne should have £260,000, provided £750,000 could be raised in that district; but that sum had not been subscribed, therefore the proposition was abandoned. The sum of £100,000 had already been borrowed from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, but that was not enough to make the Tyne a harbour of refuge. The full sum proposed would be necessary, and for that amount he was confident an excellent harbour could be constructed. No doubt in this case, as in all tidal harbours, there was a danger of a bar being formed in time, at its entrance; but according to the late Mr. Walker's plan the piers were to be projected so far out to seaward that no inconvenience could be felt from it for a great many years. It was proposed that Hartlepool should have £500,000 if the inhabitants supplied as much; but he had not heard that such was the case, therefore he did not recommend this sum to be granted. Lastly, it was proposed that £800,000 should be laid out on Filey. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wake-field (Sir John Hay) had an Amendment on the paper that Filey should be added to his Resolution. All he could say was, that if he saw the least chance of carrying that Amendment, he should be most ready to accede to it. He believed Filey to be a most important point. A harbour of refuge was much required there, and he had no doubt a harbour of refuge would be constructed at Filey at no very distant period. Not unfrequently as many as 800 vessels were clustered round Flam-borough Head at one time; and when a gale came on, those vessels had to run for the nearest port, some of the laden ships often foundering in the course of the run. Filey was the last of the places which the Commission proposed should be provided with a refuge harbour. With respect to Padstow, he had received a letter from a gentleman well known in that place, informing him that £40,000 would be ample to complete the necessary works, and that contracts could be obtained within that amount. The writer added that the only additional feature in the case of Padstow, since the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission, was the great increase in the number of foreign vessels seeking shelter in that harbour, and especially of French vessels, which were nearly ten times as many as they were formerly. The neighbourhood of Padstow, and, indeed, almost from the Land's End to Harlland Point, was an iron-bound coast, with no refuge whatever for the passing trade. The trade of the port itself was in a great degree provided for by means of local funds, a portion of Slipper Point, as already stated, having been cut away, so that vessels were enabled to carry in the true wind, and thus avoid, as formerly had been too often the case, being driven on the "Doom Bar" Sand, where shipwreck was their inevitable fate. What was now proposed would give a certain refuge for the whole of the coasting trade and a great proportion of the passing trade making for the Bristol Channel, and many lives would be saved. It might be argued by the President of the Board of Trade that the sum required, being so small, should be subscribed in the neighbourhood. But how unreasonable it would be to expect this. Why should the locality be taxed, not for its own mere benefit, but for the general commerce of the country? So far as the local wants existed, they had been supplied by local subscriptions, and all that was now asked for was to extend, by means of a Parliamentary grant, and for general purposes, the improvement so well begun by the commercial men and others of Padstow. Here there could be no fear of the estimates being exceeded. The House would hardly believe that from 1850 to 1860 no fewer than 300 lives were lost on this part of the coast, the greater portion of which would, he believed, have been saved, had previously the small sum now asked for been laid out in the manner proposed at this harbour. The case of Wick was a strong one. The harbour there, as proposed by the Commissioners, would have been one of great capacity, with good anchorage, consisting of two breakwaters, with an opening 500 feet wide to admit the entrance of large vessels. There was a very large number of vessels passed along that coast; but from the Orkneys to the Firth, of Forth there was not a single harbour for them to run into, There should be a harbour at Wick or Peterhead; but, as he had said, he feared the money required could not be found at the latter place. At Wick more than 10,000 men were employed at the fisheries. It was true that some small projecting piers were about to be constructed for the benefit of the fishing vessels, but those piers would effectually; prevent the formation of any harbour capable of being of use to large vessels. He contended that £125,000 was not a large sum to expend for so important a purpose as the construction of a harbour which should be accessible to all classes of vessels. Supposing that the country should be at war with any northern Power, where would their cruisers obtain stores and coals, or effect repairs? They must run through the Pentland Firth, where strong north-east winds might be blowing, or they must run for the Orkneys. And let them imagine this country at war with America; then they would find American cruisers and privateers coming through the Pentland Firth and capturing their traders with impunity; whereas, if they had a harbour at Wick, they would always have a man-of-war attached to the station, ready to protect their commerce. He considered a harbour at Wick, therefore, an object of great national importance. A harbour on the east coast was absolutely necessary for the preservation of lives and property. The loss of life was not diminishing, for he found that in 1856, 1,163 lives were lost on our coasts; in 1857, 1,145; in 1858, 1,156; in 1859, 1,416; in 1860, 1,379; and in 1861, 1,494. It was said that such a thing as an old, worn-out collier, like a dead donkey, was never heard of, and it was these old colliers that were supposed to founder; but an official Report which had been issued showed that the loss was not in proportion to the age of the vessel The loss of life upon our coast was enormous, the means of saving life were comparatively easy, and he thought it was only an act of common humanity to adopt, those means. It had been said, that if you built harbours of refuge, you must I provide for their defence; but in his opinion, if it was necessary to defend them rather than any other points of the coast, a two or three gun battery would be amply sufficient. Harbours of refuge at Wick, Waterford, and Padstow would cost a comparatively small sum, and would give in England, Scotland, and Ireland some additional chance of saving the lives of our seamen. He was sure that he need say little about the importance of such an object. As respects Waterford, it should be remembered that the approach was free from danger; there was a bold shore and a clean bottom; the entrance was wide, and the harbour offered a large area of sheltered anchorage within; but, as at Carlingford, a flat, having only thirteen feet of water over it, obstructed the entrance at low water. If once this could be dredged away, the cost of which would not exceed £50,000, it was fair to presume the scour of the daily ebb and flow of the tide would keep the passage clear. Looking at the many advantages this harbour offered at the south-eastern angle of Ireland and near the entrance of St. George's Channel, it seemed most desirable that these advantages should be turned to account; and this was the opinion, not only of the Select Committee, but also of the Royal Commissioners. In very early life he himself had been wrecked, and the impression on his mind of what he then saw had never left him. He felt most deeply for sailors when exposed to dangers in a position in which there was no refuge at hand; and he appealed to the sympathy and the commercial instincts of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of these poor men, to the humanity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the patriotism of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He was sure that such an appeal would not be made in vain, and he thought that he might safely leave the cause of the mariners of England to the humanity and kind feeling of the hon. Members of the British House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member then moved his Amendment.

MR. KENDALL

said, he rose to second the Motion. Perhaps, as a Cornishman, his advocacy of the claims of Padstow might be received with some suspicion, but he contended that a special case could be made out in favour of that place. Padstow was one of the life harbours recommended by the Commissioners; it was situated on an iron-bound coast, where for a distance of sixty miles no other shelter could be found, and life and property to a lamentable extent had been lost there. The local authorities had already expended £2,000 upon improving the harbour, and they were willing to spend £2,000 more to meet the Government grant. On the score of humanity, and also, he would add, on that of economy, he contended that it would be desirable to carry out the recommendations of the Commission; but if these could not be carried out, to the full—if the Government were of opinion that they could not carry out all that was desirable—he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to make a beginning at Padstow, where the most could be accomplished for the least amount of money, and particularly as the local authorities had shown a disposition not only to help themselves, but also to assist others.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, so much of the Report of the Commissioners on Harbours of Refuge as applies to Waterford, Wick, and Padstow, be carried into effect, —instead thereof.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he had given notice of a Motion to include the harbour of Filey in the proposition before the House; but the proposal of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith), being in the nature of an Amendment on the Motion to go into Supply, he understood he could not, by the rules of the House, move an Amendment on the Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

The proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham is an Amendment on the Motion that I do leave the chair. The hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield cannot therefore at this time submit his Amendment to the House. But if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham be adopted, it will then become a substantive Motion, on which it will be competent to the hon. and gallant Member for Wake-field to move an Amendment.

MR. PAULL

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend was desirous to have the word "Filey" added to the Motion, and in the event of the proposition of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith) being carried, he understood it would be then competent for his hon. and gallant Friend to move that Filey should be in- cluded; but if his hon. and gallant Friend should then address the House, he would not be entitled to make such a Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

The original Motion was that I do leave the chair, on which an Amendment was moved by the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith). The Question I shall have to put is, that the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment stand part of the Question. If the House shall decide that they shall not form part of the Question, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith) will become the Main Question, and it will be for the House then to determine whether the word "Filey" shall become part of it.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he did not mean to interfere with the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham. He only wished that Filey should be added to the number of places in which harbours of refuge were to be constructed. His hon. and gallant Friend had selected the three harbours set forth in his Motion, not because they were superior to others in point of efficiency, but because they were inferior in point of expenditure to other harbours spoken of by the Commissioners. As a naval officer he was anxious to draw attention to the necessity, in justice to the commerce of the country, of improving the harbour of Filey. From the Hum her to the Forth there was no harbour of refuge along the north-east coast, and the numerous vessels engaged in the Baltic trade had in times of distress to anchor at Filey, From evidence taken by the Commissioners it appeared that on the 7th of February 1858 there were 100 sail at anchor there, that in consequence of a sudden change of wind to the south-south-east they were obliged to put to sea, and that many of them were lost in consequence of being obliged to do so. There had been as many as 1,300 sail there at one time, and it frequently happened that there were 700. A sum of about £800,000 would complete what nature had partially accomplished, and make Filey a good harbour of refuge. In his opinion, what was being done at Alderney and Spithead was as nothing compared with what would be effected for the commerce of the country by making Filey a safe harbour of refuge. It was for those reasons that he had placed his Amendment on the Notice Paper; but after having stated his opinion upon the subject to the House, he would leave it to one of the Members for Yorkshire to press that Amendment if he should think proper.

MR. BEECROFT

said, the whole subject was of great national importance, while the necessity for a harbour of refuge at Filey had been long felt in the north of England. The whole of the north-east coast, from the Frith of Forth to Flam-borough Head, was in an unsheltered condition; there not being during its whole length a harbour into which vessels could run at low water; and yet there passed by that coast 45 per cent of the coasting trade of England, and 32 per cent of the entire shipping trade of the country. He was sure the country would not begrudge the money necessary for the work in question.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, that as one of the Commissioners on Harbours of Refuge, and a person who was well acquainted with the coast, he begged to corroborate most strongly what had been said by the last two speakers, as to the expediency of creating a harbour of refuge at Filey. He believed that was the point along the whole coast at which it was most desirable that such a work should be constructed. He had seen as many as 500 or 600 ships together off Flamborough Head. On the north-east coast the changes of wind were sudden; and when the wind veered round to the south-east, the vessels were driven on shore in clusters. Ships were also forced into streams and thus came into collision, and therefore it was necessary to have harbours of refuge. In one gale as many as fifty vessels had been lost off that coast. It was melancholy to think that as many efficient seamen as would form the crews of one or two line-of-battle ships were lost there annually. He had given notice of his intention to move that Peterhead should be added to the list of ports to which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had directed attention. It was a salient point, to which the Archangel and the north country trade converged; and although at the north of Scotland they might not see a square-rigged vessel, such vessels were continually passing in streams north and south. He would press the noble Lord at the head of the Government to give the subject immediate consideration; for it was not a light thing that after a Committee had sat for two Sessions, and been followed by a Commission, the Report of the latter should be allowed to remain a dead letter, whilst they were carrying- on at other places works of more than questionable utility.

MR. BLAKE

said, he would not have risen but for an observation which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Sir John Hay) early in the debate, to the effect that Sir Frederic Smith had advocated the harbours of Waterford, Wick, and Padstow, not so much on account of the necessity which existed for harbours of refuge at those places, but because the cost of constructing the works would be less than at other places. Now, as far as Waterford was concerned, he could state that there was ample ground for the Motion that had been made on the merits alone, because there was no port in the United Kingdom which could afford greater advantages to the shipping interest. On Imperial grounds, therefore, and on these alone, he was prepared to advocate the claim of Waterford. In doing so he wished it to be understood that he was not speaking in the interests of his own constituents, because, so far as they were concerned, they would derive but small advantage from the conversion of their port into a harbour of refuge. The harbour in its present condition was sufficient for their local purposes, for there was an ample draught of water for all ships trading to and from it. But a large number of vessels coming from or going to foreign countries had been wrecked in its immediate neighbourhood. But that he was unwilling to detain the House, he could give them a long and sad list of shipping casualties which had occurred within the last four or five years. He had made it his business to investigate some of those disasters, and the captains of wrecked ships had assured him that had they been aware of the condition of the bar they would have preferred to have beaten about the coast rather than to have attempted the harbour. Some years ago the Minister of the Crown, in replying to a Motion similar to that now under discussion, had said that shipowners could, in a great degree, protect themselves by insurance, but there was a. species of loss which could not be insured, and that was human life, and life too of the most valuable description. It was only within the last couple of winters that the crews of two fine vessels, numbering some five and twenty persons, were wrecked off the coast of Waterford; and on inquiry he had found that the casualties had occurred from the want of those works the construction of which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir P. Smith) had advocated. An hon. Member in the course of the debate had said that preference should be given to those places the inhabitants of which were prepared to help themselves; but if this were to be used as an argument, he could say that no locality was prepared to do more than Waterford. The authorities of the port were now about to take advantage of the admirable Bill introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, and were about to avail themselves of its provisions to construct dry docks, which would cost a sum of £40,000. Now, if a harbour of refuge were made at Waterford, large vessels could come in and refit, which it was impossible for them now to do. Vessels requiring aid of that sort were obliged to repair to a great distance. In addition to this argument, it should be borne in mind, that between Kingstown and Queenstown (or the Cove of Cork) there was not at present a single place in which a vessel in distress could put in. There was another reason why Waterford should be converted into a harbour of refuge, and that was, that the captains of ocean-bound steamers were directed by their owners to take the southern passage in winter; besides which fully three-fourths of the vessels passing up and down the Irish Channel had to pass by the harbour of Waterford. He had no hesitation in saying, no stronger case could be made out than that in favour of Waterford, and he believed that the expenditure of £50,000 would be productive of ten times more advantage as compared with any other harbour in the Empire.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, he thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had exercised a wise discretion in limiting his Resolution to the three ports named in it. No doubt, a harbour of refuge at Wick would do a great deal of good, but he thought it would be better to postpone a grant, as it would open up many questions which were not ripe for decision. As to Peterhead, the Commissioners recommended that the Government should advance £100,000, if the locality raised £200,000; but it was utterly impossible to raise that sum in that part of Aberdeenshire, so that the proposal of the Commissioners must remain a dead letter. Before the Committee and before the Commissioners a strong case was made out for a harbour of refuge, and a still stronger case for a naval station, at Peterhead; and he hoped that on some future occasion, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus, the Board of Trade would consider whether they could not, by advancing a larger sum of money than was proposed by the Commission to Peterhead, confer a great benefit on the north of Scotland, and upon the trade of the North Sea.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, that whilst other places had been trying to get large grants, Wick had been helping itself; and, by the aid of a loan from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, it proposed to build a pier for the accommodation of the large herring fleet which gathered there during the fishing season; but the pier would not make it a harbour of refuge for large vessels. It was for his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether it would not be best at once to form a complete harbour of refuge for all sorts of craft, and to provide public money for the purpose.

MR. LIDDELL

said, there was an inherent inconvenience in dealing with large subjects piecemeal, but there was sometimes the advantage that an opportunity was afforded of getting in the thin end of the wedge. He had always regarded the construction of harbours of refuge in the light of a national insurance against national loss; though the first consideration undoubtedly was the saving of life, which no amount of insurance could effect. But the necessity for insurance against the loss of property increased with the trade of the country, and the means of paying the policy of such insurance were provided by the growth of wealth. The Government, however, had always declared it was not in a position to pay the premium for that insurance. But, if the principle were conceded, it must necessarily be first applied to those places at which the greatest losses of life and property occurred, and it would not be difficult to show that the places now named did not at all answer that description, but it was because he wished to see the principle established that he should give his vote in favour of the Resolution. It was immaterial to trouble themselves with the mode in which the expenditure was to be met; if the principle was right and the House adopted it, the Executive would find the means of carrying it out. He believed that the principle was right; and that as these works would afford security to shipping in the future, the means ought to be provided by loan, as in the case of fortifications, which were intended to provide against the uncertain contingencies of war, whilst harbours of refuge were to provide against the certain contingencies of storms. If the House sanctioned the principle of protecting our shores by military works, the same principle, he maintained, applied to affording security against natural occurrences. No doubt, the moment they moved in the matter each locality would urge; its claims; but he wished to treat the subject as a national question. There was a principle involved, and it was because lie wished to see it adopted, in however small a degree, that he should support the Resolution.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, be hardly knew, judging from the speeches which bad been delivered, to what principle the House would pledge itself if they agreed to the Motion before them. The hon Gentleman, who had just sat down intended to vote for the Motion, not on its merits, but because he wanted to sanction some general principle implying that every harbour in the kingdom was to be entitled to draw upon the public funds for the purpose of improving and encouraging its trade. That really was a large and novel principle, arid one which the English people, who were distinguished for the great undertakings they had successfully carried out by private and independent effort, had not been accustomed to act upon. He did not mean to say that in no case should the public money be advanced, but he was not prepared to give in his adhesion to the general principle promulgated in this debate. What the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) wanted was to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to Peterhead. But the Commissioners did not recommend Peterhead as a life harbour of refuge, they merely recommended that some improvements should be made. The hon. Baronet had asked them to pledge themselves to vote public money for Peter-head, but he had not given any assurance that the people of Peterhead were willing to carry out their part of the arrangement recommended by the Commissioners, who proposed that Peterhead should find £200,000 and the State £100,000. If he went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for £100,000, the right hon. Gentleman would refer to those recommendations, and ask if the people of Peterhead were ready with £200,000. It appeared, indeed, from the statement of their own representative, that the people of Peterhead had no desire to embark in any such expenditure.

MR. GRANT DUFF

explained that what he had said was, that the locality could not raise £200,000, and wanted the State to give a larger sum than £100,000.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he must remind the hon. Member that what the Government were desired to go upon was the recommendation of the Commissioners—namely, that the State should give £100,000 if Peterhead would find £200,000. He next came to Filey. He would admit, that if a large sum were to be expended on the eastern coast of England, there was a strong case to be made out in favour of Filey; but the effect of a harbour of refuge there in the saving of life and property would, perhaps, not be so great as was generally supposed. The whole annual loss of life, from 1856 to 1860, inclusive, between Flamborough Head and the Fern islands, from causes which would be affected by harbours of refuge, was about fifteen. No doubt a harbour at Filey might be the means of saving a certain portion—how many he could not tell—of those fifteen lives; but it would involve a large grant of money, no aid could be expected from the place itself, and he doubted whether they would be justified in voting £800,000, probably £1,000,000, for such a purpose. The real question now before the House was whether they should pledge themselves to vote money for Waterford, Wick, and Padstow. Some improvements might be made at Waterford, and it was proposed that the entrance to the harbour should be dredged, He believed that at low water spring tides there was never less than thirteen feet of water there—a very fair draught for the coasters and small trading vessels that were likely to be compelled to seek refuge at Waterford. But it must be remembered that not far from Waterford there was the fine natural harbour of Cork, in which vessels of any size could find refuge when unable to keep out at sea. The improvement of Padstow harbour could have little or no effect in reducing the loss of life and property on our coasts. From 1856 to 1860 not more than one life and a fraction per annum would probably have been, saved by a harbour of refuge at Padstow, excluding certain cases of wreck of which the circumstances are unknown, and one case where forty lives were lost by a mistake in navigation. He had no doubt that the merchants and traders of Padstow would look after their own harbour, and he could hardly imagine that they had given their sanction to a demand for public money. Excluding one particular case I have referred to, in which a large number of people were lost in one vessel, the annual loss of life from shipwreck in the neighbourhood of Pad stow was only one and a fraction from the year 1856 to the year 1860. These figures showed what exaggerated notions were entertained of the saving of life and property which would be effected by the construction of harbours of refuge. It was a mistake to suppose that the Government had neglected the recommendations of the Commissioners; on the contrary, they had adopted the most important and most beneficial parts of them. By supporting a Bill promoted by the hon. Member for St. Ives they had given facilities for the making of harbours, while their own Harbours Bill enabled the managing bodies of harbours to carry out improvements by borrowing money at a moderate rate of interest and upon easy terms as to repayment. Since the Harbours Bill was passed no less a sum than £600,000 had been either advanced or promised. By that means they stimulated private enterprise, and many improvements were now in progress which would never have been commenced but for the encouragement afforded by the Bill of the hon. Member for St. Ives, and the facilities held out for borrowing money to be laid out upon harbours. Loans had been made for such works at Falmouth, the Tyne, the Wear, Leith, and other places. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: These are not harbours of refuge, but harbours of commerce.] The case of the Tyne was surely that of a harbour of refuge, and it had had a very large advance. As to the case of Wick, the noble Lord the Member for that borough (Viscount Bury) had told them that the inhabitants were inclined to help themselves. During the last Session they obtained, after a struggle before the Committee, a private Bill to make a new harbour at Wick, and the harbour authorities were then asking an advance of £60,000 from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the construction of the proposed works. The hon. and gallant Member's Motion might induce the Wick people to suspend their own operations and wait for the action of the Government, and its adoption would be extremely bad policy. It would be far better to leave them to make their own harbour under their own local Act, if they could get their advance from the Loan Commission, which they no doubt would do by giving satisfactory security for its repayment. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: That is not a harbour of refuge.] He must contend, from what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Wick, that it was a harbour of refuge calculated to prevent the loss of life, as far at all events as the Wick fishermen were concerned. The fishermen said, that when they went to sea, and were caught in a sudden gale, they had no shelter to run to; and it was to supply that want that the local authorities of Wick were bestirring themselves. With regard to shipping generally, all he could say was that the Scotch shipowners had never expressed any desire to have a harbour of refuge at Wick; the only persons who had expressed such a desire were the inhabitants of Wick themselves. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was in error in saying that no sailor would approved what was being done by the Wick people. Their plan was approved by the Admiralty. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not damp private energy by voting sums for these works out of the money raised by the general taxes. If the representatives of different places were to come there and ask for grants of the public funds, he knew not where the system was to end. If they gave to one, others would present themselves with just as good a case, and the whole time of the House would be occupied in settling the pretensions of rival claimants upon the national purse. In fact, they would see a general scramble taking place for the public money. In resisting this Motion, he was sure he should receive the support of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would probably view it as a design against his surplus, which he was determined to defend and keep if he could. If the proposal were pressed, he hoped the House would reject it.

MR. BENTINCK

said, that one attribute appeared to be an essential part of political, or rather official existence—namely, that action was always to be postponed if attempted to be forced upon an official personage; and he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) had fenced with the subject in a manner worthy of his position. But he (Mr. Ben- tinck) thought the question one of so much, importance that the House would hardly be satisfied with the line taken by the right hon. Gentleman. It seemed to him, after the Report of two Committees and one Commission upon the necessity for action, that the time had come when action ought to emanate from the Government of the day, and he would like to have heard from his right hon. Friend that such was his intention; but as he had announced that he had no such intention, he (Mr. Bentinck) would state very briefly to the House the grounds upon which he thought that the country had a claim upon the Government for assistance in this matter, though he admitted, at the same time, that he was not prepared to support the view of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham. It was impossible to conceive that a great mercantile country like this, with such an extent of seaboard and commerce, could go on from year to year making no attempt whatever to remedy the deficiency of harbours of refuge. Now, it had been his opinion for many years that there was a way in which Government could contribute the most efficient kind of assistance possible for the construction of works of this kind, without directly contributing any money. It had always appeared to him that the proper mode of dealing with the question, involving the only chance they would ever have of commencing and completing the construction of harbours of refuge, would be by a local contribution of money, and by a contribution on the part of Government of convict labour. For years the term "convict labour" had been a mere farce. No such thing as labour had been exacted from convicts. A certain amount of recreation had been forced upon them for the benefit of their health; that was all. But he had always thought convict labour ought to be utilized to the extent of making our convicts self-supporting. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was not now in his place; but he might express a hope, that as one result of the Report of the Commission which was now sitting, they might see convict labour enforced and applied to such an extent in this direction as would greatly facilitate the construction of such important national works as harbours of refuge. His own belief, however, was, that to deal with the subject in the manner now proposed would rather be to frustrate the object which his hon. and gallant Friend had in view. He was therefore prepared to give his vote in opposition to the Motion.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he had heard the speech of the President of the Board of Trade with very great regret. Its tone was not creditable to the Government, and ought not to be satisfactory to the House. Any one not knowing the history of the question, and who heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, would be led to believe that the Motion was the first that had ever been made in the House upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget the history of the question, that it originated with the former Government of the noble Viscount, and the constant advocate of it was the late lamented Mr. Wilson, acting in the name of and as a Member of the Government of the noble Lord. It was Mr. Wilson who presided over the Committee which sat two Sessions upon the matter. When the Government of the Earl of Derby succeeded that of the noble Viscount, he (Sir John Pakington) had not taken his seat many days before Mr. Wilson urged upon him not to neglect the Report of that Committee. It became his duty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the matter. The House had before it not only the Report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Wilson, but also the Report of the Commission presided over by Sir James Hope, and nothing could be stronger than their recommendations that funds should be granted for the construction of those harbours of refuge which were required for the protection of commerce and the property and lives of their fellow-subjects. Well, after the speech they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that he was rather tired of hearing this question pooh-poohed, postponed, and adjourned sine die, and he felt bound to appeal from that evasive speech to the noble Lord at the head of the Goverment, and to ask him distinctly whether they were to go on year after year with this I important matter unattended to and the recommendation of his own Government set aside. He trusted the noble Viscount would be able to hold out some hope that the recommendations both of the Committee and Commission would receive some attention from the Government. At the same time, he would venture to take the liberty of suggesting to his hon. and gallant Friend a doubt whether it would be prudent to take the sense of the House on a Motion so very limited in its charac- ter, when the subject ought really to be considered as a national question. He also thought the occasion somewhat inopportune for attempting to make an inroad on the surplus of £500,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer only on the previous night expressed so strongly and on such fair grounds his determination to keep intact after making very large eon-cessions. He would suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend that a Motion of the kind ought to be made at an earlier period of the Session; so that if it was the pleasure of the House it should pass, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to arrange his financial scheme accordingly. He hoped he would not press the proposal to a division, and that the Government would hold out some hope that the financial arrangements of future years would be shaped with a view to carrying out these improvements.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he thought it better to do little rather than nothing at all. The only way of ultimately accomplishing their object was to proceed gradually, bit by bit. It was vain to look for contributions from the poor fishermen of Wick; but there were other resources besides the Exchequer. The House had granted millions on loan. Why not transfer the balance of the money granted for fortifications to that object, which was infinitely more worthy of the humanity and patriotism of the House? A large sum was also annually expended in the manufacture of arms, and in experiments of means for taking away human life. He thought a diminution might be made in that expenditure, and the sum saved might well be applied to the more humane object of saving life.

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