HL Deb 12 July 1860 vol 159 cc1750-61
THE EARL OF MAYO,

in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the state and efficiency of the Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, said he should arrange the statement he had to make under four heads:—first, the number of shipwrecks that have occurred during the last twelve months inside the harbour; second, the principal defects of the harbour; thirdly, the silting up of the harbour; and fourthly, the enormous increase on the original estimate. And as to the first point, the number of vessels wrecked within the harbour, the following account of the vessels that were wrecked inside the new Refuge Harbour at Holyhead on the 27th and 28th of April, 1859, is taken from The Shipping Gazette of the 29th of that month:— April 27: The Richard, of Whitehaven, sunk. The Mary Anne, of Preston, stranded in the New Harbour. April 28: The Royal William, from Dublin for Liverpool, sunk in the New Harbour. The Anne, of Swansea, sunk. The Byzantium received considerable damage in New Harbour last night, by the brig Queen, running athwart hawse. The brig Richard, of Whitehaven, drove against the upper sea wall and fills with the tide; supposed to be much damaged. The smack Amlwch Packet, employed carrying stone for the harbour works, sunk at the same place. The schooner Js. Annie, of Swansea, on shore at the upper part of the harbour. The brig Reaper, of Whitehaven, on shore on the beach. The above vessels, either by parting their cables or driving from their anchors, have come into collision with others and damaged them, but in consequence of the storm continuing, particulars cannot be obtained at present. The Queen, Wilton, of and from Chepstow, for Whitehaven, was towed in with loss of both masts, bowsprit, and all the gear attached thereto, a complete wreck, by dragging foul of the barque Byzantium, Harris, from Matanzas for Liverpool, in the bay last night; she slipped both anchors. The Vigilant, Belgian ship, slipped both anchors, and was towed in from the bay with loss of mainboom, boat, and bowsprit sprung, and bowsprit-shrouds carried away. The Gipsy was towed in with loss of both anchors, having slipped them in the bay. The Royal William, brigantine, parted from her anchors in the New Harbour last night, drifted alongside the quay and sunk. The Mary Anne, schooner, which drove on shore in the New Harbour last night, fills with the tide, and must dis. charge. The Mary Elizabeth sunk in the New Harbour; and a small smack in the Old Harbour also sunk. It thus appeared that on the 28th of April, 1859, no fewer than seven vessels were sunk and five others seriously damaged inside the New Refuge at Holyhead. The next occasion that them erits of the harbour were tested was on the 26th of October last. The effect of the gale is thus described by The Times:— A large part of the breakwater works at Holyhead have been destroyed, and vessels anchored far inside and sheltered, compared to where the Great Eastern lay, have either gone down bodily or been driven high and dry ashore. … Within the very extremity of the breakwater, where one would have thought the Channel fleet might have ridden through any gale, much damage had been done. High and dry ashore under Holyhead mountain lay a fine barque, and around her, in the same predicament, were three smaller vessels. Out in the centre of the harbour the tops of two slender tapering masts showed where Captain Henry's beautiful schooner yacht, the Mariquita, had gone down bodily. Immediately behind this last was another and larger vessel, which had apparently only escaped the same fate by driving on the rocks. On the same occasion the Great Eastern had narrowly escaped destruction; and upon two occasions (26th and 27th) when it was deemed advisable to remove her to more sheltered positions, her anchors could not be raised until they broke. Again, on the occasion of her departure for Southampton on the 4th of November follow- ing, Captain Harrison was again obliged to strain the chains until the anchor broke: And from the marks," says The Times reporter, "upon the anchor and chains, both of which were deeply scratched, it was supposed that the anchor had sunk through the mud until it nipped in rocky ground, and then held till the last strain broke it. The following Return from the Board of Trade shows that three other vessels were wrecked in the Harbour in January and February last:— Jan. 27, 1860.—The barque Robert Mills, lying with two anchors down in heavy gale of wind, dragged broadside on to the breakwater, and lay there thumping and making water until the wind shifted to the W.N.W., when she swung to her anchors again, and was towed for safety to Old Harbour. Jan. 30.—The schooner William Henry put into Holyhead New Harbour for safety, and when beating out and endeavouring to clear a brig, ran upon the rocks and filled. Feb. 27.—The barque Robert Mills let go anchors off the new breakwater Holyhead, but she drove and continued driving until she got on the Penrhyn Rock in Holyhead Bay, when she became a total loss. So well, indeed, was the danger of the harbour understood, that he was informed that the Liverpool merchants had warned their captains against entering it, and the Royal Charter passed it in a heavy gale of wind the evening before she was wrecked, and would have entered it had it been a safe harbour. He would now proceed to show what were the principal defects of the harbour, and also that they were brought before the Government before the measure had received the sanction of Parliament. When the Bill for forming the Harbour of Refuge was introduced in the Commons in 1847, the citizens of Dublin petitioned against it on the following grounds, as stated in the Report of the Naval Commissioners, 1847:— First, That Holyhead being situated on a bold coast, and bounded by dangerous rocks on a lee-shore, exposed to the violent action of the prevailing winds, and to unusually rapid tides, is not a fit place for a Harbour of Refuge. Second, That the entrance being in the teeth of the prevailing winds, no vessel could enter the harbour at such times when shelter is most required. Third, That, as by far the largest portion of the bottom of the area proposed to be enclosed by Mr. Rendel was found, after careful examination, to consist of rock, it would be impossible that vessels could, in storms or rough weather, anchor with facility or security within the proposed harbour. Fourth, That from the rapid increase of the Stanley Sands in the direction of the proposed harbour, there would be great liability to its being choked up with silt, or a bar being formed at its entrance. The shipowners of Liverpool also presented a petition to Parliament, and which contained the following paragraph:— That your petitioners are strongly impressed with the inexpediency of laying out the immense sum of money necessary for the construction of an Harbour of Refuge (so desirable on some part of that coast), at the port of Holyhead, on the ground that the rocky nature of the bottom of the greatest part of such harbour would render it unsafe, if even possible to anchor ships there; and they venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government, before finally adopting that port for such purpose, will institute further inquiries on the subject. Shortly after these petitions had been presented, and in consequence of them, a Commission, consisting of three naval officers, was appointed to inquire into the merits and demerits of the plan. The Commission sat on the 14th of June, and closed their inquiries on the 16th; but in the meanwhile the Bill had been read a second time on the understanding that no further proceedings should be taken until the Report of the Commissioners had been a reasonable time in the hands of Members. Notwithstanding this arrangement the Government appointed a Select Committee on the Bill, which sat three days before the Report of the Commission was in the hands of the Members; and in consequence, the citizens of Dublin and Liverpool and those who opposed the scheme, had no opportunity of being heard. The civil engineers and nautical authorities who were examined before the Naval Commissioners were, Mr. Rendel, Sir John Bennie; Mr. Bald, Tidal Harbour Surveyor to the Admiralty; Mr. Page, Engineer to the Woods and Forests; Mr. Williams, Managing Director of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company; Captain Christie, R.N. Mr. Williams stated, on behalf of his Company, that there appeared to be great doubts of the harbour being safe, on account of the bad anchorage shown by the Admiralty charts; the principal part of the site appeared to consist of a floor of rock; and in many cases the naked rock projected above the covering, and was so rough and uneven as to chafe the hawsers. Captain Christie stated that of 369 operations only four appeared to afford good holding-ground. Mr. Bald, being examined as to the anchorage ground, stated:— The edge of the coast from Ynys Wellt is low and rocky, as far as Holyhead Harbour." "There is a channel inside the Outer Platters; but as foul ground extends for some distance from both Tnys Cribi and Ynys Wellt, it would be imprudent to use it without the assistance of a pilot. And it is this space of water, with its foul rocky bottom, which has been proposed to be formed into an asylum harbour. It is unnecessary to mention that any asylum harbour which shall be formed at Holyhead without possessing good anchoring ground within it, will be a failure, and the case of Howth Harbour ought to be a sufficient warning. I am quite satisfied that had the important subject of the bottom and anchoring ground been sufficiently investigated, as to its being clean or foul, no asylum harbour would have ever been proposed and designed in a place so extremely objectionable. I examined the nature of the bottom; an iron chain 100 feet long, with a very heavy lead attached to it, was dropped down; the impression upon my mind at the time, upon looking at the nature of the shore and going over it was, that it was a floor of rocks." The evidence of Sir John Bennie, Mr. George Bennie, and Mr. Page will be found confirmatory of Mr. Bald's.

He had now to draw their Lordships' attention to the evidence of the witnesses who were examined before the Naval Commissioners on the part of the Shipping interest of Liverpool. The first witness examined was Mr. Lockett, the Chairman of the Shipowners' Association of that Port. His evidence is as follows:— Mr. Lockett: We have had many discussions before our board of shipowners respecting this harbour and the nautical gentlemen connected with it. We wish, first, to be certain as to the anchorage; because, if it is, as represented, a rocky bottom, if it is going to be enclosed in the manner laid down in this chart, it is considered it will be anything but a harbour of refuge for ships from Liverpool. Many gentlemen say, instead of its being a harbour of refuge in certain gales of wind, it will be a harbour of destruction. Captain Askew, Harbour Master of Liverpool: My opinion of the bottom of the anchorage, is that which has been already represented, and I can only follow the language of Mr. Lockett in saying, that so far from its being a harbour of refuge, it will be one of destruction. I think the north breakwater, instead of being a protection, will be an injury. In a gale of wind from the north-west to the east-north-east, I defy any man to go along that wall. I am also given to understand it is principally rocky, with the exception of some patches of sand; if you take a vessel in there, and let go her anchor, and the anchor did not hold, as you cannot immediately take the canvass off, she must either go on the vessels which are there, or upon the rocks. Mr. Irwin: On behalf of the shipowners of Liverpool I may add to what has already been observed, that I am quite certain they never would avail themselves of this intended harbour from the fact of its insecurity. Mr. Askew: It would be impossible to lay in safety in it. The next point to which he desired to draw their Lordships' attention was that of the silting up of the harbour. The engineers examined before the Naval Com- missioners in 1847 objected to the site chosen for the harbour of refuge on the ground of there being every probability that it was filling up. Mr. Bald stated that the Stanley Sands, through which the river Alaw runs, had advanced half a nautical mile in twenty-four years, and that in fact the proposed asylum harbour would prove only a cesspool to receive the silt and alluvium discharged by the Alaw; and a chart recently published, by Mr. Calver, one of the surveying officers of the Admiralty showed that diminution of ten feet in the depth of the new harbour had taken place since Captain Beechey surveyed the bay in 1840.

The importance which the late Sir Robert Peel attached to questions of setting may be gathered from his remarks on the Harbour of Dovor in 1847:— With respect to Harbours of Refuge, he could assure the hon. Member for Dovor, that the subject had not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. But if there were any one thing in respect to which the utmost precautions were unusually necessary, it was the spending of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of money in erecting Harbours of Refuge. He had himself lived to see a Harbour of Refuge constructed at an expense of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which harbour had become almost utterly valueless, because sufficient precaution had not been taken to ascertain the nature of its sedimentary deposits. The construction of such a work as Dovor might involve an outlay, not of hundreds of thousands, but of millions; and before that work was undertaken, it was manifestly desirable that they should have the most reasonable grounds for believing that it would attain its purpose. He could not, however, deem it consistent with his duty to propose to the House of Commons an enormous outlay, without being able to show that every precaution had been taken; first, to insure the selection of the best place; and next, that every guarantee had been afforded that a work of that kind would, if undertaken, be so constructed as to afford the greatest possible amount of advantage to the public. He now came to his fourth and last point, the great increase on the original estimate. Mr. Rendel originally estimated the cost at £600,000; but the engineers who were examined before the Naval Commissioners gave estimates in detail to show that, instead of £600,000, it would cost little short of two millions:—

Mr. Page estimated the cost at £1,500,000
Sir John Rennie at 1,800,000
Mr. George Rennie at 1,800,000
Mr. Bald at 1,900,000
Again, it will be found that the testimony of those eminent authorities has been borne out by the result; for, according to Mr. Hawkshaw's last Report to Parliament, the sum of £1,158,000 has already been voted for the works, and £762,000 more will be required to complete them, making the total aggregate estimate to the present time £1,920,000; but, according to the evidence of Captain Washington, Hydrographer to the Admiralty, before the Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge, 1858, it is clear that the total cost of the Harbour will be little short of three millions. He (the Earl of Mayo) had known the harbour since 1808; but in 1852, in consequence of a proposition to make it a great Atlantic harbour, he determined to make himself thoroughly acquainted with it. Accordingly, on his way from Ireland he stopped at Holyhead; saw the Engineer, or the gentleman who acted for him, and attentively examined the maps. He found rock, rock, rock, everywhere, and his study of the map increased his surprise that any one should recommend a large expenditure of money on such a place. On coming to London, he sent some papers on the subject to the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), who was then Premier. In 1859, a part of the great breakwater in course of erection was swept away, and the sea swept over it. Under all the circumstances, he could not but think it very much to be regretted that £1,500,000 should be spent upon this harbour, not of refuge, but of destruction. The citizens of Dublin and the merchants of Liverpool had petitioned against the expenditure of the public money in the formation of the harbour. The most experienced captains asserted that it was most unsafe for vessels in bad weather without the construction of a proper breakwater, which was estimated to cost £400,000; but if Holyhead was a safe harbour, what did they want with a breakwater? He trusted that the Government would grant him the Committee he asked for, because he believed he should be able to prove that the harbour of Holyhead, instead of being a harbour of refuge was really a harbour of destruction; and that there was no use in throwing good money after bad in the vain hope of making it truly effective for its purpose. The noble Earl concluded by moving— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the State and Efficiency or otherwise of the new Refuge Harbour at Holyhead, the Cause or Causes of the Number of Wrecks that occurred therein during the last Year; also to inquire into the Plan as now sanctioned by the Admiralty for the Construction of a Packet Harbour for the Accommodation of the large Class of Steamers about to be employed for the Irish Mail Service.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, he could not take on himself any of the responsibility for the construction of the harbour at Holyhead, which had been undertaken at the recommendation of a Royal Commission appointed to report on the most suitable site for a harbour of refuge on that coast. He believed, however, that the outline of the harbour proposed by the late Mr. Rendel would have cost less, and would have afforded greater shelter, than the plan subsequently agreed to. But it was no use to regret what had taken place; their Lordships ought rather to determine whether Holyhead was really so defective as a harbour of refuge. After the great gale of the 25th or 26th of October, a letter was written from the Admiralty to the officer in charge to inquire what damage had been done to the breakwater, and likewise to the shipping. In reply it was stated that— The breakwater was uninjured. The sea did not break into the harbour; but at high water the crest of the waves came over the unfinished part of the breakwater. Some 600 feet of wooden staging was washed away, and a wooden building in which the red light was kept was destroyed. There were fifty-six vessels inside the Platters (rocks), and the Great Eastern lay outside in the roads. The following casualties were reported:— The England, bark, deep laden with salt, having already lost an anchor off Liverpool, put into Holyhead to get another, and had not supplied herself when the gale came on. She broke the fluke of her remaining anchor, and, falling foul of three smacks and a schooner, landed herself and them on the beach. They were got off with little damage. The Gipsy, schooner, ran in during height of gale, let go both her anchors, swung foul of a vessel, slipped one anchor in order to clear her, parted the chain of the other, and went on the rocks; she was much damaged. The Mcraquita, schooner yacht, was run foul of by a steam-tug, and thrown on the rocks. One or two other collisions occurred among the small craft, but no vessels dragged their anchors. The sea, with wind at east, was heavy for boats, but nothing to hurt a wholesome vessel, properly provided with anchors and chains. The harbour is easy of access, and proved itself perfectly safe. The Great Eastern was the only vessel in the outer roads, and was at single anchor; when the wind came to the north-east she swung and rode outside the shelter of the breakwater. She dropped a second anchor, and rode well all night. Next day she weighed one anchor, and, having steamed ahead for this purpose, her remaining anchor broke across the shank. On the 2nd of November she broke another anchor. But it was the opinion of the officer on the spot that she never was in any danger. Admitting that the money spent at Holyhead might have been laid out to greater advantage, that a larger area might have been enclosed, and that rocks which would now have to be blown up with gunpowder might have been avoided, he still thought the evidence went to prove that as a harbour of refuge it was not unsafe. As regarded its present condition, he felt it would be desirable in any case to complete the outer work, to prevent what had been already done from going to ruin; but before any new and expensive works were undertaken the matter should be submitted to the consideration of Parliament. Application had been made last autumn for the construction of a pier or jetty to accommodate the large new steamers which were to run between England and Ireland. In the original plan a solid pier was contemplated, which would have taken four or five years to complete, and the advantages of which would in the end have been very questionable. He therefore refused to countenance the outlay requisite for that purpose; but, regarding it as highly desirable that the public should enjoy the benefit of those vessels, he had sanctioned the erection of a wooden jetty at a cost of £9,000, which would be available for their passengers. If this did not prove sufficient, it would be necessary to consider the matter carefully next year; for, cost what it might, it would be requisite to establish a good communication between England and Ireland. He promised that the works in progress at Holyhead should not go beyond what he had now stated, and that the subject should receive the attention of Government. Under the circumstances, he hoped the noble Earl would not press his Motion.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

would not go into the general subject of harbours of refuge, but he thought it was perfectly clear that if in a harbour like Holyhead twenty vessels were lost in ordinary gales, that the prevailing winds were such that vessels could not enter, and that when in there was no good holding-ground or anchorage, there were certainly good grounds for refusing to expend larger sums of money than had already been expended. If the noble Duke would undertake to say that he would himself carefully and vigilantly look to the future progress of the work he had no desire to relieve the Government of the responsibility. The information they had was the only information they could acquire, and it required nothing but a sound judgment to take such measures as would prevent the public witnessing a further expenditure of public money, and of finding that they had no harbour of refuge after all.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

was of opinion that in a matter of such national importance a minister required a great deal more than merely sound judgment—he required considerable vigour in order to deal with and overthrow the proceedings of professional individuals, who domineered over men of sound judgment who were too apt to defer to those professional persons. The noble Duke had not contradicted any one of the statements that had been made. There was an expenditure of millions of money, and what was the justification for it?—that it was expended under the authority of the most eminent men. An eminent man, in fact, one who expended an immense sum of money, which made him still more eminent, and when the thing failed, who was responsible? Not the political head of the Government, because he had the best advice of the eminent man. Who, he wanted to know, was the eminent man to be condemned? He never heard of one. He had never heard of a Minister being censured, or of a public officer being dismissed, for all the money that had been thrown away. It had been mentioned before their Lordships' Committee that several of these harbours were useless, and that the money might just as well have been thrown into the sea. It was a poor consolation to tell them that they were to proceed with sound judgment if sound judgment was still to be fettered by professional engineers, who always would go on expending money on plans and systems which had failed for the last 3,000 years in all parts of the world. There were two harbours in existence at Holyhead. One was a harbour of refuge, built at an enormous expense, but not usable by packets, so that another had to be constructed for that purpose. He trusted that the noble Duke would take this question up with a determination to examine the matter and act for himself. After all this expenditure at Holyhead, the passengers had to embark and to disembark at a common wooden jetty, such as existed on the Thames, or at any watering place. He hardly knew of any harbour excepting Kingstown that had succeeded. He trusted the public money would not be further wasted on a work that was a monument of the folly of those eminent professional men who became eminent, not by the display of any skill, but by recommending enormous works to be constructed at an enormous expenditure.

LORD VIVIAN

said, if anybody was responsible for the large expenditure, it was Parliament, which had sanctioned it. He recollected well a Select Committee of their Lordships sitting to decide as to the construction of a harbour of refuge at Holyhead for the Liverpool shipping. He did not know whether that exhibited "sound judgment," but having sanctioned the work, their Lordships must be held to have some share in the responsibility.

THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY

said, they had it on the authority of Sir Edward Belcher, that the great fault was that Mr. Rendel's plan had not been carried out. He feared that an enormous outlay had been made for very little purpose; and that to have a harbour worth anything, they must revert to the original plan. He could conceive no inquiry more legitimate than that they should endeavour to ascertain the best plan for making the harbour. It had been suggested to refer the question to the Committee now sitting upon Breakwaters; but he thought it would be as well to refer it to the Admiralty, and that they should take care that no more money should be wasted on it and thrown into the sea. It was in evidence that the harbour was gradually silting up; and it was right an investigation should be gone into on that point, before there was a greater expenditure.

VISCOUNT DUNGANNON

trusted the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government would be directed to the subject. From all he had heard respecting the construction of the harbour, he thought it would be a difficult matter to elongate the pier in such a manner as to render it a safe retreat for vessels. The Breakwater, winter after winter, had been washed away, and never could get a firm holding. It was highly desirable for the traffic between England and Ireland that improved accommodation should be given; but he doubted, notwithstanding all this expenditure, whether they were not going from a bad Scylla into a worse Charybdis. He hoped that next Session the subject would be inquired into by a Committee.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said, he did not deny that Holyhead had not answered their expectation. But referring to what the noble Marquess had said with reference to eminent men, in fairness to the memory of the late Mr. Rendel, he must say that, first, his plan had not been followed out; that, secondly, it was not fair to expect that the harbour could resist every heavy gale, seeing that it was not completed. Excepting when the wind was from one particular point, Holyhead did afford a fair shelter for vessels. The question of a pier for packets was quite distinct from the question of the harbour as a place of refuge, and formed no part of the plan of Mr. Rendel.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, that his observation upon engineers was a general one, and that he had no intention to apply it particularly to Mr. Rendel.

EARL GRANVILEE

said, that having been acquainted with the eminent engineer, Mr. Rendel, it was impossible not to know how high he stood in the estimation of the profession, and how singularly clearheaded and able a man he was. If they were to avoid all professional advice, and especially eminent professional advice, he did not know how great national works were to be undertaken.

Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.