KINGSTOWN HARBOUR. (Hansard, 20 July 1899)

* LORD CLONBROCK
My Lords, I rise to ask to what Government Department the Kingstown Harbour Commissioners and harbour master are responsible for the discharge of their duties, and to move— That it is; desirable that a committee be appointed to inquire into the management of Kingstown harbour, and the adequacy of the staff of the harbour master, and whether the lay Board of Harbour Commissioners should have the power of reducing that staff on their sole authority. I ask this question, my Lords, because it appears impossible, from the ordinary sources of information, to ascertain to what Department the Harbour Commissioners belong. Every Department seems inclined to disavow any connection with 1352 the Kingstown Board of Harbour Commissioners, but as they are a Government department and entrusted with the expenditure of public money there must be some Department to whom they are responsible, and to whom the harbour master can appeal for redress when he has been treated, as I think I proved to the House on Thursday that he has been in this case, in a very unjustifiable manner by the Commissioners. The answer which was given to the question I asked on Thursday appeared to me so unsatisfactory that I gave notice that I would move for an inquiry into the whole matter. In saying that the answer was most unsatisfactory I must, of course, assure my noble friend, Lord Denbigh, who gave the answer, that no reflection is intended upon him, because he only read a paper which had been placed in his hands, and was in no way responsible for the contents or the tenor of the answer. The more I look at the answer the more unsatisfactory it appears to be. In the first place, it is not actually an answer to my question at all. It states that the Commissioners were satisfied that if the harbour-master carried out the instructions given to him there would be no danger to life or property in the harbour. I never doubted for one moment that the Harbour Commissioners were satisfied on this point, or that they considered themselves competent to discharge the duties of the harbour-master as well as their own. For aught I know they may consider themselves competent to command the Channel Fleet. But my question was whether Her Majesty's Government were satisfied, which I trust is a very different matter; whether they were of opinion that due security was afforded to vessels frequenting the harbour when the harbour master, an experienced naval officer, had reported that the staff which had been given to him was absolutely inadequate for the discharge of his duties. I hoped that the Government in view of the importance of the matter would not be content with the "ipse dixit" of a lay Board, but would consult some nautical authority. The Harbour Commissioners, as the answer stated, are undoubtedly responsible for the management and control of the harbour, and the harbour master is bound to carry out the regulations which have been made; but the Commissioners have interfered with the men under the harbour master, and given them separate instructions. As a matter of fact, they interfere 1353 with the harbour-master in all the details of his official business, and if they are to do this I should like to know what is the good of having an experienced naval officer holding this post. When Captain Crofton was appointed by the then Lord Lieutenant (the Duke of Marlborough), the noble Duke made it a sine quâ non that the harbour-master should be a Commander in the Royal Navy of not less than forty years of age, and before making the appointment he referred to the Admiralty for particulars as to the character of that officer, and the appointment was not given to him until the noble Duke received a reply from the Admiralty stating that he bore a very high character. When the appointment was made, the noble Duke did not evidently anticipate that the harbour master would be reduced to the subordinate position in which it is now sought to place him. Under former Commissioners he was treated as a nautical adviser, and frequently consulted, and no attempt was made to interfere with him in the discharge of his duties. Now I come to what I consider the worst part of the answer which was given on behalf of the Government to the question asked by me on Thursday, viz., the unworthy insinuation thrown out against the harbour-master, that if he took a more active part in the discharge of his duties the staff might be reduced from twelve to eleven. The question I was calling attention to was the inadequacy of the staff of boatmen. Is it intended that the harbour-master should pull an oar in his boat, or act as stoker to his steam launch? If the answer does not mean that, what does it mean? How can an officer, by any increased activity, supply a deficiency on his staff unless he himself performs the duties of the man who is wanting? It seems so impossible that the Commissioners could have thus confused the duties of an officer and a seaman, that it looks to me as if this remark was made in the answer in an outbreak of temper, and as if the Commissioners, feeling that they were in the wrong, were trying to divert attention by throwing blame on somebody else. Their action reminds me of the old story of the instructions given to counsel—"We have no case, abuse the plaintiff's solicitor." There is an apparent discrepancy between the numbers I stated to the House on Thursday and the numbers given by the Commissioners. 1354 I was speaking only of the staff of boat men, and I stated that they numbered four, of whom only two could be on duty at one time. In addition to the boatmen there are two engine-room hands, two harbour constables, a night watchman, a messenger, and another officer who acts in the double capacity of pier-master and assistant harbour-master, making in all some eleven or twelve men; but of these only four are boatmen, and only two are available at one time. The Commissioners further said that the harbour-master was instructed to report immediately any case in which the authorised staff was found insufficient, and that no case had been reported; but I must remind the House that the chief ground of complaint on the part of the harbour-master, which it seems impossible to get the Board to recognise, was that the staff would be insufficient to cope with any emergency caused by stress of weather. This emergency has not occurred yet, but it is obvious that two men will be quite incapable of meeting it when it does occur. I think a sufficient case has been made out, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will grant an inquiry in some shape or form, and invite the opinion of nautical experts, who will be able to pronounce definitely whether the staff at the disposal of the harbour master is sufficient or not.

§ THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM
I should like to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will grant the inquiry asked for, because I think it is evident that the present Harbour Commissioners, who are really the Board of Works, have been exercising a false economy. Moreover, the action of the Commissioners in approaching the men under the harbour-master in the way they have done is subversive of all discipline.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)
My Lords, I will commence by answering the question which the noble Lord has asked. The Harbour Commissioners are directly under the control of the Treasury, and it is to that Depart- 1355 ment that complaints should be made if the Commissioners do anything wrong. I admit to the full the importance of Kingstown Harbour, and I am quite willing to grant that when the harbour-master was appointed he had done most valuable service. He was an officer in the Navy, and in that position acquitted himself with great distinction. I hope I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord not to press his motion. I am told by the Treasury that it is unusual to grant an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons in regard to a Departmental question of this kind. Of course, this House has the right to order any inquiry it likes, but when the question is one of staff, which involves a money transaction, I hope your Lordships will not take that course unless there are very strong reasons for it. I regret very much that this question was not raised on the Irish Estimates in the House of Commons, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been present to answer it, and the matter could have been better argued than it can possibly be in your Lordships' House. The question is really whether the staff of the harbour-master is sufficient or not, and I quite agree that when you have a naval officer as harbourmaster—a man of considerable ability and capacity—his advice and opinion ought to have great weight with the Harbour Commissioners. I have a lot of correspondence in my hand which has taken place between the Harbour Commissioners and the authorities, but I am not going to trouble your Lordships by reading any portion of it. I observe, however, that my noble friend stated that the leave of absence of the harbour-master had been curtailed. I have a letter which states that the question of leave of absence had never been raised. Of course, in making this statement I am repeating information which has been given to me. There seems to be a feeling, whether right or wrong, that the harbour-master has not been fairly treated by the Harbour Commissioners, and there is also some doubt as to his position. The Lord Lieutenant has the appointment of the harbour-master, who cannot be dismissed without the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, but, in the meantime, he performs his duty under the control of the Office of Works. If there is a feeling that an inquiry ought to be made, let it be made by the proper authorities, and I may 1356 inform the noble Lord that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised that he will undertake that an inquiry shall be held if it is the wish of your Lordships. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that assurance, and not press his motion.

* LORD CLONBROCK
I should like to explain that in moving for a committee of inquiry I did not mean a committee of this House. I had hoped that the Government might see their way to appoint an impartial small Committee, comprising some nautical experts, to decide the question of the staff. The question of leave is not one of so great importance, but the harbour-master informed me that his leave had been reduced from five weeks to four, and it certainly seems curious that the Board should know nothing about it. He informed me that the reason given for the reduction was that the length of his leave had been made to correspond with that granted to other harbour-masters. I do not know how many harbour-masters have the misfortune to be under this board, but harbours certainly vary in size, and there cannot be another of such importance as Kingstown. Therefore the comparison between the leave given to the harbour-master at Kingstown and that given to the smaller harbour-masters is not a fair comparison. It also came to his knowledge that the leave of the harbour-master had been calculated on the scale of pay, and that he was held in the office to rank with a third-class clerk. This, however, was not stated directly to him. I am convinced that the owners of ships frequenting Kingstown harbour would be very apprehensive if they knew that the staff had been reduced to such an extent that the only experienced man concerned—the harbour-master—declared it to be insufficient, and especially so in times of emergency. I think a thorough inquiry should be held into the matter on public grounds, and if the noble Viscount will assure me that such an inquiry will be held I will not press my motion.

§ VISCOUNT CROSS
My Lords, I can only repeat that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that, if it is desired by the House, an inquiry shall be made. With regard to the question of leave, I have a letter here, signed by Mr. Stevenson, 1357 in which he says that the question of leave of absence is entirely a new one.