SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 July 1861)

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to afford facilities to local authorities for raising funds in order to construct new or improve existing harbours. The proposal was that the Public Works Loan Commissioners should be empowered to grant advances for harbour improvements on application made by the local authorities and sanctioned by the Board of Trade. The money was to be repaid within fifty years. When the money borrowed did not exceed £100,000 the interest was to be 3 1/4 per cent, and any amount exceeding that sum was to pay a higher rate, but not more than 5 per cent. The Bill also proposed to abolish "passing tolls" from and after the 1st of January, 1862. These tolls were levied on vessels passing four ports on the Eastern coasts—Bridlington, Whitby, Ramsgate, and Dover. In some of these cases the harbours did not at all answer their purpose as harbours of refuge, inasmuch as at low states of tides they were incapable of being entered by the vessels which were, nevertheless, called upon to pay the tolls. They amounted altogether to £35,000 a year, and as money had been advanced on their security it was proposed, in respect of the debts of Bridlington and Whitby, to transfer them to the Exchequer. With regard to Ramsgate no debt existed; and although on Dover harbour there was a debt of £8,000 or £9,000, there was ample property to be handed over to new trustees as security for that amount. The Bill abolished all dues levied by certain authorities for charitable purposes, making provision for existing pensions. The Bill also dealt with the differential duties on foreign shipping. In consequence of reciprocity 282 treaties, by which foreign shipping was placed on the same footing as British, Parliament had undertaken the payment of these dues to the corporations, Trinity House, and other institutions which in different towns were entitled to receive them. In 1826, which was the date of most of the reciprocity treaties, they amounted to no more than £10,000 a year; but in consequence of the great increase of foreign shipping they now amounted to £58,000 a year, with every prospect of their continuing to increase. It was most important to relieve the Exchequer from payment of these dues; but, as certain engagements had been made on the faith of their being continued, it was proposed that the abolition should not take place until 1872, by which time sufficient money would have been paid to meet those engagements. He thought that by giving the present recipients of the shipping dues ten years notice of their entire abolition, they could bring no charge against Her Majesty's Government that they had taken the harbour trustees by surprise, and they would also be enabled to make full provision for the contemplated changes. At Dublin there was a payment of £4,000 a year, originally imposed in respect of the harbour of Dunleary, which would also be abolished. It was proposed to make an alteration in the Dover and Ramsgate trusts. The Ramsgate trust would be transferred to the Board of Trade until further provision was made by Parliament. It had been suggested that it should be handed over to the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company; but for that purpose another Act of Parliament would be necessary. The Dover trust would be transferred to seven trustees, of which the Lord Warden would be President, and nominees of the Board of Trade, the Board of Admiralty, the South Eastern Railway, and the London and Chatham Railway would be members, as well as a certain number elected by the Corporation. This arrangement, he believed, afforded general satisfaction to the town. The Bill had received the general concurrence of all parties interested. It would clear up a number of questions which had been long agitated, and it would confer great benefit on the mercantile interests of the country. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would agree to read it a second time.

THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY
, although he approved of the principle of 283 the Bill, and had no intention of opposing the second reading, yet thought it highly important that their Lordships should clearly understand what they were about to do. He had no objection, of course, to the provisions for advancing money for the improvement of harbours; but in regard to the abolition of passing tolls it behoved their Lordships to consider well what that proposition really was. The passing tolls had been granted to the Commissioners of Whitby Harbour by Queen Anne, and renewed by subsequent Parliaments, and, finally, in 1826, Parliament declared that they were to continue for ever. He did not mean to say that it did not lie in the wisdom of Parliament to correct the legislation of times gone by; but still, the assurance of their being continued for ever ought to induce their Lordships to pause before they did away with them. It was true that the debt would be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, but there was no provision made for those objects for which the toll was originally imposed. As to these harbours not being generally accessible, he could only say that in the course of six years 3,707 vessels had taken refuge in Whitby. He should like to see a longer time given to the Harbour Commissioners, that they might have an opportunity of creating a new fund.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, at the time these tolls were imposed vessels were much smaller than at present, and the harbour of Whitby might, therefore, at that time be used as a harbour of refuge; but it was of little or no use now; and in consequence of the state of the harbours on the eastern coast the witnesses examined before the Harbour Commission recommended the expenditure of large sums of money in the construction of harbours on the coast at Hartlepool, Filey, and the mouth of the Tyne. He thought the Government were quite right in abolishing the dues levied for the support of Whitby as a harbour of refuge. He should like to know how much of the debt of £46,000 owing by the Commissioners of the Dover Harbour would be paid by the Treasury, and how much out of the local funds. As to the charities supported by funds levied on shipping in certain ports, he thought there ought to be a clause in the Bill prohibiting the managers of the charities from appointing fresh pensioners on these funds. With regard to the compensation paid to charitable corporations, 284 their Lordships were, perhaps, not aware that the Hull Trinity House, in 1860, received from the country for differential dues alone the sum of £13,000. This sum, which was extracted from the public purse, was not applied to the improvement of the harbour or to the benefit of shipping in any way, but went to increase the funds of a charity whose operations were, he believed, absolutely injurious to the town. With regard to Ramsgate Harbour he should have preferred its being transferred to the Admiralty rather than to the Board of Trade. The local authorities of Ramsgate had for many years levied tolls on shipping in aid of its local taxation, and an Act was passed some years ago empowering the town Commissioners to levy a tax of 2s. a ton on coal coming into the port, and on the security of this tax, coupled with their rating powers, they borrowed a sum of £18,700. The Bill exempted coal in certain cases from this tax, and as the security on which the money was advanced was thereby affected, he should like to know if the parties advancing the money had given their consent to that clause. We had adopted a free trade policy, and now ought to remove all restrictions on trade. The Commissioners of many harbours, particularly on the eastern and southern coast, in some cases on the authority of Parliament and in other cases on the authority of charters, now levied considerable taxes on shipping, which were not applied to the improvement of the harbours, but to the purposes of the town, such as paving and lighting, in relief of the local rates. That, he thought, was indefensible in principle; and if such a proposition were made now on behalf of any town in England he was quite certain that neither the other House of Parliament nor their Lordships would listen to it for a moment.

§ LORD TAUNTON
expressed his great gratification at the prospect of this intricate and complicated question, which had long been a source of complaint on the part of the shipping interest of this country, being at last satisfactorily settled. At the same time he must agree that, in strict justice, the price which the public were to pay to the local authorities for the abandonment of their rights was rather high. He well remembered the contest to which the Bill introduced a few years ago on the same subject, and which was one of strict justice, gave rise in Parliament. He could himself never understand 285 the claim which these local corporations had to tax the shipping interest of the country for their own local benefit. It always appeared to him that their powers were for public purposes, and that the dues they collected could not be brought within the category of private property. Therefore, he never had any scruple in supporting the principle of that Bill; but the Government of that day could not cope with the opposition which it encountered; the defenders of these local interests were active and zealous, and the Government was not sufficiently powerful for them. He believed, however, that the present Government had made a good bargain for the public, since at the end of ten years these dues were entirely to cease, and great credit was due to the President of the Board of Trade for having managed to pass the measure through the House of Commons with very little opposition on the part of local interests. He could not help agreeing with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore) that, as the navigation laws had been abolished it became the duty of Parliament and the Government to lose no opportunity of removing every disadvantage and burden under which the merchant shipping of this country laboured, in consequence of the complete competition with their foreign rivals to which they were now exposed. Some of these burdens still remained; but he trusted that in a short time they would be entirely swept away. In abolishing the system of protection which formerly existed they had done not only no injury, but the greatest benefit to the shipping interest; but while he said that, he thought that the fact of exposing them to the competition of the whole world gave them the strongest claim to every assistance and support which, consistently with sound principle, could be extended to them.

THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY
said, the reason why the trustees of Whitby Harbour had not paid off the debt was that they had entered upon extensive works for the improvement of the harbour.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
expressed his satisfaction at the speeches of two noble Lords who had just spoken, and said that he, too, hoped that what little remained to be done upon this matter would soon be accomplished. He rejoiced to see the reception the Bill had met with, and he would mention that when the Bill 286 was originally introduced five years' compensation was proposed, but that term was afterwards extended to ten years. This amount of compensation was, in fact, the price which the Government had agreed to pay for purchase of certain advantages and the price he did not regret, considering the benefits which would be derived.