MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 12 June 1866)

§ MR. MELLER

moved for a Select Committee to consider the importance of ereating a harbour of refuge at Newhaven. The united testimony of naval officers, pilots, and engineers, the latter including the names of Cubitt and Rennie, was in favour of the harbour of refuge at Newhaven. Besides the general reasons for harbours of refuge there were special reasons why there should be one at Newhaven. It was on the great highway of our trade to the colonies, and just between the mouth of the Thames and Falmouth. There was not a harbour of refuge which could be used by a vessel of large tonnage. From the conformation of the coast at Newhaven it was peculiarly suited for a harbour of refuge, and there would be a depth of fifty-four feet of water at the mouth of any such harbour. Large sums had been expended on other harbours during the last six years, but nothing had been done for Newhaven. Captain Washington, in 1857, reported that lying as it did half way between Spithead and the 297 Downs it was most suited as a refuge. It had a well-sheltered anchorage, and had nineteen feet high of tide. The Government Commissioners had directed their attention to it, and the Emperor of the French had, with his usual acumen, sent two Commissioners to examine Newhaven with the view of making it a harbour of refuge for Dieppe. It was said that Dover was a harbour of refuge, and that there was no need for constructing another at Newhaven. The fact was that Dover could not afford accommodation for a fleet of merchantmen, and there being but twelve feet of water at the entrance, vessels of large draught could not make it available. An objection was offered to this proposal on the ground of expense, but the House was not asked to pledge itself to any expenditure, but only to appoint a Select Committee to examine the subject. Besides, Captain Roberts had reported that a guarantee of 4 per cent on the expenditure from the Government would enable the harbour to be constructed, and that, owing to the harbour deed, it would probably cost the country nothing. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand) stated that Captain Roberts had underrated the traffic which the harbour would bring with it, and that the Government ought to give a guarantee. Surely something ought to be done to render it a refuge available in time of war. There was another objection, that with the modern guns of long range the harbour would be within reach of the enemy. But it had been pointed out how it could be protected. It might be said that Parliament had not acted upon the reports issued in favour of the harbour, but this was a new Parliament, and if former Parliaments did not deem it necessary to take steps to protect the coast, this was not a precedent for the present Parliament.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that it would have been better if a proposal relating only to one particular place had been introduced as a Private Bill, when it would have been investigated in the ordinary way. It was not usual in the House of Commons to appoint a Select Committee to inquire whether a particular harbour could be improved. An attempt had been made this year to deal with the question by a Private Bill. The Bill was introduced and fell 298 through on Standing Orders, and now that the promoters had unfortunately failed they applied to the House for a Select Committee to consider the merits of their particular undertaking. Were the House to grant a Committee in the case of Newhaven similar inquiries would have to be granted in every other case where a seaport required its harbour improved, and the result would be that nearly every bay on the coast of the United Kingdom would make out a good case for constructing breakwaters and other extensive works for the protection of the passing shipping. No doubt, if a Committee were to inquire into the case of Newhaven, they would report that vessels could anchor there safely during eastern gales, and that if proper works were erected it would make an admirable harbour. He must remind the hon. Gentleman that the local authorities at Newhaven had already greatly improved their harbour under the provisions of the "Passing Tolls and Harbour Act," and probably when the works were completed the harbour would be fit for the reception of large vessels. If Parliament were to enter into the general question of harbours of refuge, they would probably be inclined to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission which sat some few years ago to inquire into the subject, and among the places selected by the Commission as suitable for being made into harbours of refuge, Newhaven was not included. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion.