HC Deb 05 April 1875 vol 223 cc354-61

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Adderley.)

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, that the first reading of the Bill was brought in at the same late, or rather, he ought to add, at the early hour of the morning, in a thin House, when all were tired with the labours of the past hours. It was a Bill that, if passed, would involve the country in a guaranteed expenditure of £970,000, and probably entail a much larger sum, and his only way to prevent that was in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He opposed it on the ground that it would be impossible to construct a harbour at Dover, which would not silt up. The question had been inquired into at various times, from 1836 downwards, Committees and Royal Commissions had investigated the subject, and all had reported against the attempt. One engineer who had been specially employed to examine the question, had distinctly stated that it would take at least £20,000 a-year to keep the harbour clear; and in 1865 a Special Committee had reported to the Admiralty that the deposit had then begun and must increase, which led the Government to abandon the idea of forming a close har- bour. Out of nine plans proposed between 1840 and 1846 for constructing the harbour, the lowest estimate was £2,500,000, and some were as high as £4,000,000; and when completed, a deposit of at least 10 inches might be expected to take place, and the cost of dredging would be enormous. In 1873 the late Government proposed a Vote of £10,000, and it was only passed by the House by 61 votes to 60 votes—a majority of 1; and both he and the hon. Member for Aberdeen were assured that this supply was intended for a preliminary inquiry. The Treasury were opposed to the formation of the harbour; but the Board of Trade set itself to work to defeat the Treasury. The President of the Board of Trade, then Mr. Chichester Fortescue, distinctly assured the House that the Treasury had satisfied themselves that the surplus revenue of the Dover Harbour Board would enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance a very large portion of the funds required for the construction of this work, and in the course of the debate, one of those Commissioners, the right hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), distinctly stated that no Report upon the subject of the security for advances for the completion of the work had been made by those Commissioners. Subsequently, the Treasury, in a Letter to the Board of Trade, dated 23rd October, 1873, directed the Board to refer the security to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in order to ascertain its value; but that the Board of Trade had failed to do, or rather refused, notwithstanding the fact that on passing the Act of 1861, known as the Passing Tolls Act, it was the intention of the Legislature, as the Board of Trade had lately avowed, to subject all loans to harbours to the independent scrutiny of that body. This Bill proposed to lend out of the Consolidated Fund a sum equal to all that the Public Works Loan Commissioners had lent to harbours since 1861. For the whole of the harbours of England not £1,000,000 had been expended by the Public Works Commissioners, and yet—and it was what he complaind of—under the Bill the Board of Trade proposed to lend to the Dover Pier and Harbour Board £640,000, without interest, for five years, and without any reference to the Public Works Loan Commissioners as required by the Treasury. Moreover, the Government added as a free gift the sum of £33,000. The rate of interest to be charged on even this nominal loan was at variance with the terms of the Act of 1861, and ought not to be permitted by the House of Commons to be violated. No plan had been submitted to the Commissioners so small in area as that now proposed for Dover. It was only to extend to 310 acres; whereas an area of 520 and even 1,000 acres had been suggested. It would be derogatory to the Navy to enter such a harbour of refuge, when there existed one of the finest anchorages in the Downs, within six miles of this bay, which had not even the merit of having good holding ground. Before the Government committed themselves to this wretched scheme, he hoped they would cause a thorough inquiry to be made. An expenditure of £30,000 or £40,000 would not be justified by any Inquiry or Report now before the House. He warned the House not to trust the information before it, as he believed the scheme would altogether involve an expenditure of several millions, and take 10 20 years to reach its completion. It was deeply to be regretted that this outlay should be permitted, when our commercial and fishing harbours so greatly needed aid. Everywhere abroad he had seen excellent harbours, with great facilities for loading and unloading; and in the face of the commercial activity which he saw, he urged the Government to concentrate all their energies on the improvement of our mercantile harbours, and not on doubtful military and naval harbours. The fisheries of Scotland could be so largely extended by a little aid from the State as to enable the hardy fishermen to collect produce more than the value of the whole land rental of the county in which improved harbours could be erected. And looking at the millions already spent on such harbours as Alderney, and, now, Dover, he much and deeply regretted that the Government should now desire to appropriate the fund at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in constructing a harbour about which such great doubts existed as to its being either practicable, or, if made, of any use.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir George Balfour.)

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

, in supporting the measure, said, it was a Bill for enlarging Dover Harbour, or rather for completing it. The House had incurred an outlay of nearly £1,000,000 in building the Admiralty Pier at Dover, which was becoming useless because the harbour was not completed. The Admiralty Pier was, in fact, acting as a huge groyne, and was daily silting up, for want of the completion of the harbour, and the expenditure already incurred would be useless unless another £1,000,000 were expended, in which case the pier and harbour at Dover would become in a strategical sense one of the most valuable properties belonging to the nation. The harbour would be most useful for the purpose of Continental communication and the more so in the prospect of larger ships being used, because the French Government intended to make a corresponding harbour on the other side of the Channel. It would also serve as a harbour of refuge in eases where the Downs were not available. The chief argument of necessity for the Bill was, however, grounded upon the importance of this harbour as a great military and naval station in the narrowest part of the Channel. It was also well defended, and in close proximity to great military stations. This being a hybrid Bill, must be sent to a Select Committee, when all engineering and other questions connected with it might be considered in detail.

MR. FRESHFIELD

said, the days had passed with them when it was the habit to advance and expend large sums of national money on harbours of refuge as such. But that was not the present case. The case of Dover was altogether exceptional, and the present proposed works were justified not on commercial grounds alone, or mainly, but on strategical considerations, as a measure of defence. Dover had been the port that, from time immemorial, had dominated the communication between England and the Continent. Our early Sovereigns recognized and appreciated the importance of that port. King Henry VIII. expended a sum—upwards of £80,000—a very large sum in those days, in the construction of a pier, besides other works. Queen Elizabeth expended further monies in maintaining and improving the works. James I. granted a charter to the Lord Warden and to the mayor and authorities at Dover, with power to collect monies for the support of the harbour. Under those auspices the port of Dover was improved from time to time; but it was not until the reign of Her present Majesty that that great and noble structure known as the Admiralty Pier was undertaken and completed. By means of that pier vessels of all sizes were enabled to be in deep water at all states of the tide, and embark and disembark mails, passengers, and goods. Still the harbour, with that single pier, remained very imperfect and insufficient. It was only some two or three years ago that Dover was decided by a jury not to be a harbour of safe anchorage, and the present measure was intended to remedy that state of things, and to make the port of Dover what it ought to be, and the project was based not on commercial grounds alone, as he before stated, but on strategical. Now, in considering for a moment the question whether the outlay of national money involved in that proposal was justified, he ventured to lay down two or three propositions, the first of which was that England, in case of war, must rely for her defence and security, primarily, on her first line of defence—her Navy. Secondly, that they were most assailable on the line of their southern and eastern coasts. He thought he might also assume that since their naval force had become concentrated in iron and ironclad vessels those vessels were neither safe nor efficient, except in connection with their steam power; and that, on the other hand, they could only carry coals for about 10 days. It was obvious, therefore, that a safe port of anchorage was indispensable in the centre of the long line of coast to be watched and guarded. Now, they had no port in the Channel eastward of Portsmouth. There was a time when their main anticipations of attack or invasion proceeded from the coasts and Navy of their opposite neighbour. But there were now three Navies that might threaten them—two in the North—the last of very recent creation, that was being increased constantly, and belonging to, a Power that was coveting and seeking ports in our neighbourhood, the possession of which might involve us in complications with States with which our interests were mixed. Now, it was clear that to enable us to be prepared in case of war against attack in those directions, as well as the defence of our own shipping which passed through the Straits of Dover in such vast numbers, a port was necessary in the position of Dover. Dover had been justly said to hold the key of the gate of the Channel, and our fleets ought to be able to he in force in that vicinity. It was indispensable to our security that there should be a safe harbour at that point, at which our naval force should be concentrated, ready to issue, with full force of steam, to the East, or West, or North, whenever we were threatened, and into which our vessels should be able to retire, for the purpose of refitting or taking in stores, but, above all, for the purpose of coaling. If he might be allowed, he would say a few words on the subject of the cost and management of the works. It would be seen that the cost of the works was estimated at £970,000, of which one-third was to be a gift contributed from the national finances. The other two-thirds to be an advance by the Board of Public Works at interest at the rate of 3¼ per cent. As to the first portion of the outlay it must be admitted to be a very small charge in connection with an advantage so great to the nation. As to the remainder of the outlay, its repayment was to be secured by tolls on vessels using the harbour, and on passengers passing to and from the Continent in vessels sailing from the port. Estimates had been carefully prepared, showing that those tolls would be more than sufficient to pay the interest of the monies to be advanced under the Bill, and to yield a surplus to form some return for the cost of the Admiralty Pier, which had hitherto been unproductive. It was proposed to vest the works, both new and old, in the present Harbour Board, supplemented by additional members nominated by. the three Departments, so as to give a majority in their councils to the Government, in consideration of the Imperial money that would be embarked in the undertaking. The existing Harbour Board was a body of considerable local influence and experience, and they had property in the town and harbour to the extent of an annual income of some £15,000 per annum. It seemed to him that no better management could be desired for the scheme.

MAJOR DICKSON

suggested that the Town Council, in the interest of the ratepayers, should have a larger representation than was given by the Bill, and would propose the addition of two more persons connected with the town of Dover on the Harbour Board. He also hoped that private rights would be equally respected as those of the Crown. He was not sure that the measure would be an unmixed benefit to the town, and feared that it would quite spoil it as a watering-place.

MR. WHITWELL

observed that if the arguments of one of the hon. Members for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) were to prevail, Government might be called upon to build harbours all round the coast, and he certainly thought the safety of England lay in something more substantial than Dover Harbour; besides, they had the opinion of competent authorities, both nautical and engineering, that if the harbour were constructed, an iron-clad would never get into it. Again, they had no assurance whatever that £1,000,000 would pay for the work, which, when completed, would have to be defended by new forts, which would lead to a further outlay. It was rather a bold claim for the expenditure of a large sum of money without the prospect of any adequate return, and he thought the House ought to have farther information before they consented to the second reading of the Bill. By acting without it, they would open the way to claims equally as good.

MR. BECKETT-DENISON

reminded the House that the Bill was a heritage left by the late Government, who had carried it by only 1 of a majority. He did not think there was a Member on either side of the House who would oppose the Bill if he believed it would be efficient; but they could not control the powers of Nature, and he, for one, had grave doubts of the possibility of carrying out a harbour for the purposes that had been explained to the House. The winds, the waves, and the currents would cause a silting up of the bottom which would render the harbour useless. The area of all depths was only 320 acres, and it was ludicrous to think that ironclads would have room there to get out to sea in case of an attack. Looking to our want of success in the construction of harbours at Alderney and elsewhere, he very much feared that, if the Bill went forward, Dover Harbour would become a standing monument of our want of prudence, and before the very large sum proposed for it was expended, we should have something like probability, at least, that the enter prize would be successful.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

supported the Bill, because though it might have defects it was a bold measure, and would, he hoped, be carried out in a patriotic manner. He thought it was opportune, when the French Government was going to improve the harbours on the opposite coast, and larger ships were being built, to improve the harbour at Dover. But the question might arise whether Dover was the best place, and he thought the Bill should be referred to a larger Committee than a hybrid Bill, and that its terms of Reference might include the question of Channel accommodation as regarded harbours generally.

MR. HUNT

said, the Bill was prepared by the late Government, and in order to make it as complete a measure as possible, the present Government took the opinion upon it of all the Departments concerned in it—namely, the War Office, the Board of Trade, the Treasury, and the Admiralty, which was that the proposed harbour would be a very important work from a naval and military point of view, and that the "silt up" would not prevail to such an extent that it could not be overcome by constant attention. If the House consented to the second reading, the various questions which had been raised could be dealt with by a Committee.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.