SUPPLY.—REPORT. (Hansard, 9 April 1888)

§ MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)
asked the First Lord of the Treasury to be good enough to postpone the Resolution until Thursday, or Monday, as he was anxious to obtain from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs some information beyond that he could obtain in answer to a Question in reference to the state of things at Nyassa. People were imprisoned there, and in danger of their lives, some of his constituents among them.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
said, the hon. Member could obtain the information in Committee on the next Vote, the Foreign Office Vote. Still, he would not object to postpone the Vote, if the hon. Member particularly desired it.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he did not know when that Vote might come on.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, it would be the first Vote on the next occasion of going into Supply.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he would prefer to raise the question on the Report of the Resolution.

§ MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)
said, he desired, on this Resolution, to call attention to the state of Holyhead Harbour, and he regretted he had not had the opportunity in Committee. It 842 was the only Harbour of Refuge on the Welsh seaboard, with the exception of Milford Haven; it was a great national undertaking, and had cost £1,500,000. But this expenditure had been largely unproductive, because the original design had not been carried out. The great Platters Rock in the centre of the New Harbour had not been removed, so that the harbour was only partially used, and on occasions when most necessary, during stormy weather, it was scarcely used at all, as ships of heavy tonnage could only enter at full tide. During the storms of last winter it was impossible for ships to enter the harbour, and, as a Harbour of Refuge, it was useless. The removal of those rocks was part and parcel of the original design, and he understood the Government had sent down engineers to inspect the harbour. He believed he was rightly informed when he said that the engineers found that not only was the work necessary, but it could be accomplished at much less cost than was originally anticipated. He called attention to the subject last year, and the then Secretary to the Board of Trade admitted that the work was very necessary, but could not then be undertaken, inasmuch as a sum of £5,000 had been allotted in the Vote for Harbour Dredging. He would now venture to repeat his request to the President of the Board of Trade to carry out the promise of the late Secretary, and take up the subject. He admitted it would be necessary to spread the expenditure over several years, but until the work was undertaken the expenditure of the past was deprived of its value. That was not merely the wish of the people of Holyhead; it was the anxious desire of the Steam Packet Companies and the general shipping community, and he earnestly trusted the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate the desirability of completing this great national undertaking. He also ventured to call attention to another point. At present, there was no arrangement of sound signals by which ships in foggy weather could enter within the breakwater and know their position. This had been done, he believed, in regard to Government steam packets, but not with regard to the ships of other Companies. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to press this upon the attention of the officials of the Board of Trade.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)
said, he did not quite understand the second point raised by the hon. Member; but if he would communicate with him he would certainly give his attention to it, and if anything could be done to meet the request it should be done. Hon. Members must understand that the question raised did not in any degree relate to the ordinary harbour at Holyhead, that which was used by the Mail Steamship Companies and the London and North Western Railway Company; it related only to the outer harbour, the Harbour of Refuge. No doubt, this might be improved by the removal of the rock alluded to; but he could not admit that the expenditure would be anything like the sum the hon. Member had formerly mentioned. Indeed, on the authority of Sir John Hawkshaw, who had investigated the matter, he was assured the expenditure was estimated at no less than £250,000. Certainly he had not been able to satisfy himself that he could properly recommend to the Treasury the expenditure of such a sum on the removal of these rocks. Sir George Nares, the Adviser to the Board, had reported that if the rock was removed to the depth of 26 feet, the anchorage ground of 400 acres would not be materially increased, because over the rock there would not be sufficient deposit to render the space available for anchorage. He was sorry he could not give a more favourable answer; but with regard to what was stated last year, his hon. Friend the then Secretary to the Board of Trade only undertook that the subject should be investigated, and this was subsequently done by Sir John Hawkshaw. He did not undertake that the work should be done, because he did not then know the cost. The hon. Member expressed an opinion that £10,000 would do it. [Mr. T. E. ELLIS: No.] The hon. Member was so reported in the newspapers and in Hansard. There was a wide difference between that estimate and £250,000.

§ SIR EDWARD REED (Cardiff)
said, he regretted the retrogressive character of these remarks. The removal of the Platters Rock had always been in contemplation, but he should be disposed to doubt that the sum of £10,000 was ever put forward as the estimated 844 cost. He should also doubt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the removal of the rock was designed to give increased anchorage ground. He asserted that the removal would not do so, and that implied the presumption that those who desired the removal desired it supposing that thereby there would be increased anchorage. That had not, so far as he understood, ever been the intention of those who recommended the removal. The fact was, the Platters Rock was a serious drawback to the use of Holyhead as a Harbour of Refuge, and until it was removed the value of the harbour was very doubtful. He was sorry to find the right hon. Gentleman took such an unfavourable view of the matter. He should like to ask what was the date of Sir John Hawkshaw's Report, because it would be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that the removal of submarine rocks had within a recent period been made a work that could be accomplished far more economically than heretofore?

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
It was about a couple of months ago.

SIR EDWARD REED continued
If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was to be taken as a complete retrogression of the Government from any undertaking to remove the rock, then the subject must be made matter for further consideration by Committee or other means. He would not prolong the discussion now; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take every possible step to satisfy himself, before abandoning the idea of removal, that there was not a mistake in the estimate of the cost. It was some years since he directed particular attention to the matter; but his impression was that the removal could be effected for a much less expenditure than the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he quite admitted that the removal of the rock would be an improvement of the harbour, and if hon. Members could show that it could be done for a more reasonable sum than the figure he mentioned, and that it was much exaggerated, then he would reconsider the matter.