SECOND READING. (Hansard, 6 June 1866)

§ MR. NORWOOD
, in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, said, that its promoters sought powers to enclose some 4,000 acres of the foreshore of the River Humber, by means of a large stone wall. An immense quantity of tidal water amounting to 56,000,000 of cubic yards would thus be excluded, and the effect of this would be so to narrow the channel of the river, that fresh sandbanks would accumulate at its mouth and that the sandbanks now in existence would be enlarged. The measure was opposed solely on public grounds by the Humber Conservancy Commissioners, a body created in 1852 by Act of Parliament for the purpose of preserving and conserv- 1971 ing the navigation of the river. At high water the foreshore it was proposed to enclose formed a safe fishing ground for small craft; moreover, it was very certain that the wall would form an obstruction to ships making for the port. The promoters declared that the wall would strengthen Spurn Point. This, however, their opponents denied, and, in his opinion, private persons should not be permitted, simply for their own profit, to endanger the navigation of the river. The Board of Trade had reported against the Bill, and he trusted it would not be sanctioned by the House.

§ MR. CLAY
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. WATKIN
said, the hon. Member for Hull had forgotten the important fact that the authorities of the port of Grimsby, who were interested in the preservation of the navigation of the Humber, had petitioned the House that the Bill might be sent to a Select Committee. While Hull said the work would be a great obstruction to the river, Grimsby said it would be a great advantage. In his opinion the promoters of the Bill should be supported on the ground that their scheme would gain good land for the country, and would make a deeper channel in the river, because it would make a narrower one, and thus increase the scour. It was not therefore in his opinion desirable that the House of Commons should refuse to appoint a Committee to consider the Bill. The question in controversy was one for inquiry before a Select Committee, and their decision would be based upon the scientific evidence to be produced before them. The Bill had already passed the House of Lords, and the Committee of the Lords had the Report of the Board of Trade before them.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
said, from long experience he had found that for the purposes of drainage or navigation all improvements should commence at the mouth of the river. The works proposed under the present Bill were at the estuary of the river, where an angular bay was to be filled up. The result of that step would be to deepen the channel and improve the navigation; while, at the same time, it would add 4,000 acres of valuable land to the district. He thought the Motion pre- 1972 mature. It would be quite time to throw out the Bill on the third reading, when it had been before a Committee of the House, if that course after inquiry were thought desirable.

§ VISCOUNT GALWAY
supported the Motion for the second reading on the ground that the scheme had been approved by the House of Lords, and that it was only continuing a scheme of reclamation that had been going on for many years.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he thought the opinion of Grimsby was not to be set up against the opinion of Hull, and that after the investigation and report made by the Board of Trade, the proper course was to reject the Bill.

§ MR. CLAY
remarked that every one who knew anything of the district knew that whenever Hull said "No," it was almost certain Grimsby would say "Yes." But there was but one opinion on the subject of the Bill amongst all the public bodies who were interested in the navigation of the Humber, and that was that the effect of the embankment would be to damage the river. He contended that many precedents existed for throwing out a Bill under the circumstances, and he protested against private persons asking Parliament for its sanction to schemes adverse to public interest and public safety.

§ MR. LEEMAN
would remind the House that the Committee of the House of Lords in giving their sanction to the scheme had had an opportunity of examining witnesses and investigating the recommendations of the Board of Trade. He hoped that the House would not arrive at the conclusion that it was to be bound by a Report of the Board of Trade. Knowing the locality, he was surprised that the Board should have arrrived at the conclusion stated in the Report. The scheme of the Bill had, in fact, emanated substantially from the Admiralty. Captain Veitch, of the Board of Admiralty, in company of Admiral Perry, examined the locality and reported in favour of the scheme; and the late Mr. James Walker, the eminent engineer, who had the care of the works at Spurn Point, was of the same opinion. He believed that no one who looked at the Bill impartially, would doubt that the works proposed would have the effect of improving the navigation of the Humber.

§ COLONEL WILSON PATTEN
observed, that the Report which had been presented by the Board of Trade on the subject was 1973 very adverse to the Bill; but, at the same time, the House ought to have some deference to the judgment of the House of Lords which had passed this measure, and he would therefore suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Committee for further consideration.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, that as the Board of Trade had presented a Report in reference to the Bill before the House he desired to make a few observations upon it. An Act of Parliament had devolved upon the Board of Trade the duty of ascertaining the effect of any proposed works upon the interests of the navigation of the kingdom. The present Bill made a proposal to appropriate eight square miles of the estuary of the Humber for private use, the land, at times being covered by nine feet of water, and forming a place of refuge eminently useful to the shipping of the country, especially small coasters, in bad weather. It was well-known that nothing was so valuable to small vessels without anchors or cables in dark nights as a place where they could beach, and thus save life and property. Well, this place, which was so valuable to the merchant shipping of the country, was proposed to be appropriated to the purposes of private gain. No doubt the land would be cultivated, and therefore, to a certain extent, the public would reap some benefit by the reclamation. And he did not say that private gain was any reason why the Bill should be rejected; but the Board of Trade had to look to the effect the proposed works would have upon the interests of navigation. The most competent authorities had been consulted, including the Trinity Corporation and Commander Carver, who had been recently employed in making a survey of the estuary, as well as the professional advisers of the Board, and all were of opinion that the proposal was attended with considerable danger to navigation. Accordingly, the Board of Trade reported in accordance with the opinions of those who had a right to public confidence. He was quite ready to admit that engineers were very often wrong in their estimates of what would be the consequence of works in tidal rivers. In the present case, however, it must be admitted that there was great probability of injury to the navigation being the result of the proposed works, and the House was now asked to enable certain persons to appropriate a portion of the estuary of the Humber for their own private purposes, at the risk of greatly endangering the interests of an 1974 important harbour of refuge. Since Captain Veitch made the report which had been referred to, Spurn Point had been rendered secure by works undertaken by the direction of the Government and at the public expense, and therefore there was no necessity for constructing any embankment for its protection. If the hon. Members for Hull chose to divide the House, he should feel it his duty to vote with them.

COLONEL SYKES
said, this seemed to be a question between private parties and a body especially intrusted with the protection of the navigation of rivers; the deliberate opinion of the Board of Trade being that the scheme put forward by the promoters of this Bill involved danger to the navigation of the Humber. There seemed to be no doubt that the land proposed to be enclosed was of the greatest possible use to the coastal shipping, and was most valuable in saving life and property, and he should therefore have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment.

COLONEL EDWARDS
said, that as a Member for Beverley—the interests of which were identical with those of the neighbouring city of Hull—he fully concurred in all that had been said by the President of the Board of Trade as to the importance and the necessity of maintaining the harbour of refuge at Hull. On that coast harbours of refuge were imperatively required, and the House during the last few years had taken great interest in that question. It was now, however, proposed to reclaim a piece of land upwards of six miles square for a private object, that land being frequently covered by a depth of nine feet of water, and used as a harbour of refuge. Surely it would be madness to sanction such a scheme. If the provisions of the Bill were to be carried out, the coast would be rendered exceedingly dangerous to fishing smacks, which were in the habit of taking refuge on the part proposed to be enclosed; and he would, therefore, give his vote against the measure.

MR. J. G. KING
protested against the second reading of the Bill, which sought to damage the only harbour of refuge on the Yorkshire coast. The House had heard much of proposals to construct artificial harbours of refuge, but here it was intended to destroy a natural one.

§ MR. BAGNALL
thought that if the provisions of the Bill were to be carried out the harbour of refuge on the Humber would be seriously damaged, and he would therefore vote against the second reading.

§ MR. CANDLISH
said, that as the representative of a large constituency on the east coast, he would ask the House to reject the Bill, which if carried out would seriously damage the Humber as a harbour of refuge.