HL Deb 26 March 1860 vol 157 cc1233-8

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved for Returns of all Public Monies granted or advanced for the erection of Piers and Breakwaters on the Coasts of the United Kingdom since 1810. The noble Marquess said, that the subject to which his Motion referred was one of grave importance, and up to this time the professional men who had taken it in hand had more or less failed. Since he had first moved for Returns connected with this subject, a Paper had been issued, which, so far as shipwrecks were concerned, gave sufficient information for his purpose; and to that document he invited their Lordships' serious attention. A more melancholy record he had never read. It appeared from the Report of the Harbour of Refuge Commissioners, that the state of the harbours on the coasts of the United Kingdom was a disgrace to the nation; and it was stated in the Returns of Wrecks and Casualties made by the Board of Trade, that the annual loss of property upon the coast had been £1,500,000, and the average loss of life during a period of six years amounted to 780 souls; but in 1854 there perished on the coast no less than 1,549. During last year there were no less than 1,461 wrecks of vessels of different classes; and the number of persons on board these vessels was 10,538, nearly 4,000 of whom were in imminent peril of their lives, and out of that number 1,645 were lost. And all this had occurred notwithstanding the increased application of science to navigation, and the high state of perfection to which shipbuilding had been brought. Was this a visitation of Divine Providence, or was it one of those misfortunes which, under the blessing of God, might, through human agency, be averted or mitigated? He believed that if proper pains were taken, they might, by well-directed efforts, prevent many of the casualties which occurred. If that were so, there rested upon the Government, upon Parliament, and the nation generally, a most heavy responsibility, not only as regarded the safety of our maritime population, but as regarded our own interests. Our glory, our safety, and our greatness, mainly depended upon our maritime population. No doubt some efforts had been made to give shelter to the shipping on our coasts, but those efforts had been insufficient and ill-directed. The greatest diversity of opinion existed upon various experiments that had been submitted to the public for the construction of piers, harbours, and breakwaters; but the upshot had hitherto been only a persistence in the old system—that system which had existed for 3,000 years, probably among the Greeks, and certainly among the Romans, which last people had even adopted some improvements which we had neglected. Among the plans which had from time to time been proposed for affording increased protection to shipping, there were two projects which had attracted especial attention. That of the Rev. Mr. Glover, for the erection of artificial islands at the mouth of tidal rivers, had been submitted for years past to the opinion of many eminent authorities, and no opinion directly opposed to the principle of the invention appeared to have been given; while it had received the countenance of Sir John Burgoyne, Admiral Warren, Mr. Cubitt, and a number of other highly distinguished individuals. He by no means advocated the adoption of this plan or any extended scale without previous investigation; but when they perceived by the wreck chart the enormous loss of life that took place along the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk, which, from their sandy character, would be particularly adapted for the formation of such islands, it was not too much to expect that the efficacy of the plan should be tested by experiment, the cost of which would bear no comparison to the life and property annually thrown away on that dangerous coast. The other proposition, by Captain Adderley Sleigh, for a floating breakwater, had been patented, and received the support of Sir T. Hastings, Colonel Rutherford, Admiral Hathorn, Sir E. Belcher, Colonel M'Dougal, and a great number of other distinguished persons. The invention, surely, was worth a trial, for if one large vessel yearly were saved through its instrumentality, the outlay incurred would be more than repaid to the nation. Some years ago the people of Folkestone were very anxious to have this invention tested, and they applied to the Admiralty for a loan of anchors and chains for the purpose. If the experiment succeeded, full remuneration would have been insured; and if, on the other hand, it proved a failure, the cost to the country would have been scarcely appreciable. The decision of the Admiralty, however, was adverse to the application, and the experiment, from which so much benefit might be anticipated, remained still without having been attempted. Whether good or bad, these inventions ought to be tested, if there appeared a possibility of saving by them more lives from shipwreck. There had been two or three Select Committees on this subject. One was in 1857, which recommended the appointment of a Commission to inquire into harbours of refuge. He did not blame the Harbour of Refuge Commissioners for disapproving of plans where they assigned reasons for disapproval, as in the case of several recommended for Dovor, but what he did disapprove of was, their rejecting plans apparently sound in principle, without assigning any reasons at all. The floating break-water which had been supported by the highest authority did not come directly before the Commissioners, and they were therefore not responsible. The principle of the invention was that of deflection. By the slope which it would give to the floating breakwater, the deflection would be so considerable that not only would protection and shelter from storms be afforded, but it could also be made applicable to floating batteries, for the deflection of the slope would, to a great extent, throw off the hall of the enemy, so that even one of Sir William Armstrong's guns at a comparatively short distance would glance harmless off a battery. He repeated, that the state of the coast was a disgrace to the nation. Look at the mouth of the Mersey, and they would find it on the wreck chart studded with wrecks. The great impediment, no doubt, to the testing such experiments, was the expense. But we were now going to a most absurd and extravagant expense in constructing harbours and piers acknowledged by every one to be faulty, and to be failures in many instances. In 1857, a Select Committee of the House of Commons had recommended the voting of a large sum of money for harbours of refuge; they recommended an expenditure of no less a sum than £2,000,000. They also recommended the appointment of a Commission; but the Commission also, instead of finding out any more economical way than hitherto of making harbours, adhered to the old plan, and proposed to extend the expenditure to £365,000. So that at this moment there was to be expended upon these works £2,765,000. And some of the works upon which this money was expended were held in such low estimation by nautical men that they were called "ship traps" and "wreck pools." The works at the mouth of the Tyne had already cost £300,000, and it was proposed to spend £250,000 more during the next year; and yet there was not one single man of science to be found who would say that these works would be of lasting use. It was with a view to discover how much had been spent by the State on useless works of this description that he had moved for this Return. To the first part he understood there would be some objection, on the ground of the time it would take in making up, and he would therefore draw it up in a different form; but to the second part there could be no objection.

Moved, That there be laid before this House, 1. Return of all Public Monies granted by Parliament, or lent or apportioned in aid of other Contributions towards the Construction or improvement of solid Stone Piers or Breakwaters (not including works of Fortification) at any Port or on any of the Shores of the United Kingdom, since the Year 1810; specifying the Sums granted and expended in each Case, and the estimated Cost of each such Work according to the first Demand and alleged Expectation; and stating how much had been repaid by Harbour Dues or otherwise in each Case of Loan: and also, 2. Return of any Sums granted or lent for Experiments upon floating Piers, Breakwaters or Sea Barriers, or artificial Islands, or other Inventions for the Protection of Shipping or the Facility of Traffic, during the same time.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, the only objection he had to make to the Returns was that he believed they would take an enormous amount of time and labour, and could not be produced before the end of the Session. It was obvious that going back for fifty years would involve immense labour, for there were a great many places round the coasts where small contributions had been made in aid of trusts, where stone piers or other works were being built, and which, if all the returns asked for by the noble Marquess were to be furnished, must be all gone into. He had a few words to say regarding the expenditure that had been made through advances by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. The noble Marquess was in error on this point. The Exchequer Loan Commissioners were not in existence in 1810—not until 1817. They had advanced since that time to different towns in Great Britain for the construction of harbours and docks, £621,000, all of which had been repaid except £88,000. So that the public would be, in the end, no losers. As to Ireland the case was not quite so satisfactory. In regard to that country canals and harbours were classed together, and £152,000 had been advanced for their construction; and of that sum £135,000 still remained unpaid. With regard to the second part of the Return, the opinion of naval men was against expenditure upon experiments, which could only be really tested when a violent storm came, such as occurred, perhaps once in ten years, and the return of the Admiralty would, under that head, be "nil." If the noble Marquess would make an alteration, so as to limit the return within a reasonable time, he should be happy to give any information which the Admiralty could supply.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

said, that the great loss of life from shipwreck had naturally excited a strong and painful interest in the public mind on the subject of harbours and breakwaters. Parliament had testified its feeling on the subject by the appointment of Committees, whose inquiries were directed to measures of prevention; but when it was suggested that large sums of money should be spent in the construction of harbours, and when we consider the enormous power of the ocean against anything that could be constructed, it became matter for consideration whether the Government should undertake large outlays for such purposes. The harbours that had been eminently successful were those which had been constructed without any engineer, but by the deposit of stones which nature had been left to place in their proper position. Such a one was the Plymouth Breakwater. He could speak from personal and familiar knowledge of the manner in which it was constructed. After a considerable quantity of stone rough from the quarries had been deposited or dropped at Plymouth, the ocean rushed in under pressure of a storm, and those stones which before had appeared above water were no longer visible; but the work was persevered with; the area became enlarged, and the stones ultimately stood above the ocean, a monument of human labour such as the world had never witnessed before, and a breakwater as secure as one of nature's own islands. Reference had been made to the Cherbourg Breakwater; but there was this difference between it and that of Plymouth—the latter had to with- stand the Atlantic and its heavy surge, while the former had only to meet the waters of a Channel some fifty or sixty miles in width. When there was a quarry of proper stone near at hand, and nature was allowed to be the engineer, there was no doubt of success. This was the case at Portland; but wherever they attempted to make harbours by an engineer setting stone upon stone, and in a place behind which there was no river, these contrivances would only become mud traps and ship traps. Such works must be always unsatisfactory, the more so because those harbours were generally tidal harbours. Without two certain data he should never recommend the construction of a breakwater; one was the existence of a quarry near at hand; the other that the engineering should be left to nature, the inspection of the deposits of stone to be committed to those possessing a knowledge of the action of winds and floods. As to the experiments alluded to by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde), there were two descriptions which he thought worthy of consideration: that of making a bar such as that which would be formed by a silt deposit might be tried at the mouths of many rivers; of the other, that of floating breakwaters, he would observe that if they could secure a floating breakwater, no doubt it would be very serviceable. But would the floating breakwater be more secure than the floating body behind it? The objection to this description of breakwater was that it must be held by anchors and cables, which were as liable to part as those of ships', in which case the breakwater would be driven on the fleet behind, and breakwater and ships and all would be destroyed together. An experiment might be made in a place like Lyme Regis for about £10,000, which would be sufficient to test the merits of the plan. He had thought it right to say this much on the matter as it was one to which he had paid no small attention, and on which it was desirable that naval men should state their opinions.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, he would withdraw his Motion, and leave it to his noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) to see what portion of the information he could present to the House in the shape of a return.

Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

House adjourned at a Quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.