CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 31 July 1882)

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he had given his best attention to this amended Bill; and he was very sorry to say that the changes made in it were very small indeed, and that it fell very short of what it ought to be. This result might have been expected from the course followed in regard to this Bill. The Standing Orders of the House, framed for the purpose of preventing bad Private Bill legislation, had been cast away, and the Committees on the Bill were necessarily imperfect and insufficient for investigation. For a good many years he had taken great interest in Dover Harbour, and he had served on the Select Committee which inquired into the matter in 1875. From the inquiries then made it was quite clear that a harbour on the plan then proposed was quite insufficient and this proposal, very similar to the former, was equally unsuitable. On this account, and because he believed that the Dover Harbour Board was by no means fitted to carry out this great National work, he objected to the present Bill. Moreover, he did not believe that the Dover Harbour Board had either credit or property available for providing the money that would be necessary for the construction of the harbour. It was brought out very clearly in 1875 that the property of the Dover Harbour Board was even at that time pledged to such an extent that it would be difficult for the Board to obtain any further advances of money from either the public or from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Then, again, no proof had been given by the promoters of the Bill that the piers proposed to be constructed would be sufficient for the purpose of forming the harbour on the scale set forth in the Petition of the Dover Board. And, in regard to the cost, he might mention that a smaller proposal than the one now made had been estimated to require an amount of capital considerably larger than that stated for the present works. He, for one, had no confidence in the estimates of the Dover Harbour Board. Moreover, he was convinced that a satisfactory harbour could not be constructed at Dover for many times the sum for which it was proposed to carry out this scheme. Further, that no harbour of a satisfactory character could be constructed in Dover Bay which did not cover a large area. In the next place, 203 he objected to the period which the Dover Harbour Board was allowed for the completion of the works. Fifteen years were to be allowed before their rights under the Bill should lapse, and he submitted that there was no precedent for giving a municipal authority so long a period for failing to carry on the works. In 1875, when a similar proposal was before Parliament, the period for the completion of the works was much more limited, and the greatest care was then taken to protect the rights of the public. There could be no doubt that the influence of the Warden of the Cinque Ports, who was the Head of the Dover Harbour Board, as well as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had been long in operation in favour of a harbour being constructed, without due regard to the works being of that kind which would provide for an efficient refuge. There was another point which it was also desirable he should mention. On the last occasion when the Bill came before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) thought it right to say that it was not desirable to interfere with the provisions of the Bill with regard to the mode in which it was proposed to carry out the works. This view of the Head of the great Department which had control over all harbours of the Kingdom was to be regretted; and he was sorry to add that the Committees of the House of Commons and Lords to whom the Bill had been referred had looked upon the matter in the same unsatisfactory light. Now, he (Sir George Balfour) submitted that public interests were deeply involved in the mode of executing the Dover Harbour Works. For instance, the defences of Dover were dependent on a powerful battery now in progress at the head of the Admiralty Pier, which must form a part of the proposed harbour, and until such time as they had a Report from the Secretary of State for War as to what form the extension of Dover Harbour was necessary in order to provide for the efficient action of the National Defences, they ought not to pass the present Bill. The Government had already expended £130,000 in the erection of this fort and batteries at the end of the Admiralty Harbour Pier, and he believed that an additional expenditure of about £100,000 would have to be in- 204 curred before those defences were completed. In his opinion, these works would not be adequate when the proposed piers were finished, and further defensive works would then still be required if the piers proposed for the new harbour were ever completed. But the Secretary of State for War had never been consulted on the effect of these works on the defensive works. Then, again, he objected strongly to any tolls, dues, or fees being levied for the purposes of the Bill until such time as the works were completed. It was not in accordance with the ancient practice of the House to allow parties to levy tolls until the purposes for which they were required were carried out. But for 15 years, under the present Bill, the Dover Harbour Board would have the power of imposing a considerable amount of taxation on the traffic between England and France without giving the public any advantage. He knew very well that in that thin and wearied House he should receive very little support; but he intended to leave a record of his decided objection to the scheme, as proposed, and to this end to submit a Resolution giving expression to his objection to the Bill to this effect— That it is not desirable to confer on the Dover Harbour Board the powers sought for in this Bill, to construct a Harbour in Dover Bay, because this Board, by its constitution, is not suited for supervising or managing a great national work; and, finally, that there are important public rights involved in this objectionable scheme, which will be seriously injured by this Bill being passed. He begged to move that Resolution as an Amendment to the Motion.

§ MR. FRESHFIELD

said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) had 205 always been an opponent of the Dover Harbour; but his objections seemed to him (Mr. Freshfield) to be of a nature that were not likely to receive any considerable amount of support from the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman objected to the measure on every possible ground. The proposed harbour was too small; it ought, at least, to be ten times the size. Now, the promoters of the Bill had experienced great difficulty in bringing the harbour up to its present point. Ten years ago, the Bill brought in by the Harbour Board was opposed by the Government because they thought that, being called on to contribute to the work, they ought to have charge of it; but, since then, the Harbour Board had ceased to ask for Government assistance, and the measure now introduced received the support of the Government. In the next place, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Harbour Board had no funds; and he further complained of their proposal to levy tolls. Now, his (Mr. Freshfield's) belief was that the Dover Harbour Board had sufficient means and resources, and that they would be able to construct the harbour. Then the hon. and gallant Member went on to say that the adoption of this scheme would prejudice the defences of the country. But he (Mr. Freshfield ventured to say that the harbour could not interfere with any scheme of National Defence the Government might desire to carry out. A great deal of money had already been spent upon fortifications at Dover, especially with a view to the proposed harbour; and the two Railway Companies which were there were extending their works. It was just at that moment that the hon. and gallant Gentleman came forward to oppose this Bill; but upon what substantial ground it was difficult to understand. He would not take up more of the time of the House, because he knew very well that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the satisfaction of finding himself in a minority of one. He did not believe that the hon. and gallant Member would find anybody to support him.