The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-20 00:00:00

SAVINGS' BANKS.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether it was the intention of the Government
to proceed with the Savings Bank Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes.
ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE .

Sir ROBERT PEEL inquired whether any congress
was about to be held with reference to the annexation of
Savoy and Nice to France.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said despatches were expected,
and until they arrived no information on the subject could
be given.

ARMSTRONG GUNS.

Mr. BAILLEY inquired whether there was any founda-
tion for the statement that officers appointed to inspect the
Armstrong guns had reported against them.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said there was no founda-
tion for the rumour.
HARBOURS OF REFUGE.
Mr. LINDSAY moved, that in the opinion of this house,
it is the duty of her Majesty's Government, to adopt at the
earliest possible period the necessary measures to carry into
effect the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed
in 1858 to inquire into the formation of harbours of refuge
on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. He had brought
this question under the consideration of the house because
he happened to be acquainted with maritime affairs, and be-
cause the Government had neglected to do so. In 1854, no
fewer than 1,549 persons lost their lives. He did not speak
of sea• going ships, but only spoke of the loss of life, and of
vessels stranded on our own shores. The average loss of
life annually on these shores was 1,000 1 ersons, but last
year considerably-exceeded that number. The loss of pro-
perty annually on the coasts of the United Kingdom
amounted to a million and a-half. These important facts
were brought under the notice of the house in 1857, and
the house then, with one accord, appointed a committee
to inquire and see if anything could be done to mitigate
this fearful loss of life and property. That committee
sat for two sessions, and took evidence on the subject
from all parts of the country, thereby having it
thoroughly investigated, and in 1858 the committee re-
ported that they were under the strongest conviction that
on national grounds these works should be undertaken as
speedily as possible, and that they should be placed under
some system which would ensure- their early and steady
progress. Considering the extensive loss of life and property
upon their coasts, no money, he thought, could be more use-
fully employed then in giving protection from the dangerous
and unprotected state of their coasts, both for the present
and future welfare of the country. To that report there
was not a dissentient voice in the committee, and the re-
sult was that a Royal Commission was appointed, com-
posed of men who were eminently qualified to perform the
duties, and at the head of which was Admiral Hope, now in
command of the fleet in China. He (Mr. Lindsay), with
the honourable member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith), were
the only members of that house upon the commission.
They met in London and agreed upon certain points, the
first object they had in view being the saving of life, the
next was the saving of property. Then came the conside-
ration of giving facilities to commerce, and also the ques-
tion of defence by fixing upon such sites as might be ad-
visable for their ships of war in cases of emergency, or
where their convoys could assemble for that service.
They held their first meeting at Wick, and they found that
through the Pentland Firth 10,000 ships passed annually.
They found that from Cromarty to the Pentland Firth
there was not one harbour of refuge, though there were
as many as 1,700 boats engaged in the fishing trade, and
having from 8,000 to 10,000 men. On one occasion there
were 120 of these fishermen lost in endeavouring to make the
harbour of Wick. They found that from 300 to 400 vessels
entered the port of Shields, and that the whole sea in
that direction was covered with ships, and that for 120
miles there was no harbour which could offer refuge. The
fearful gales of the present year brought misery upon
many families besides a great less of property. The Tyne
would require a million of money to make a good harbour
of refuge, but the people there Said they would contribute
£750,000 if that house would give £250,000. (Hear, hear.)
At llartlepool the same amount of expenditure would be
requisite, and there £50,000 was offered. At Portland a
harbour had been constructed of great general advantage.
Passing further south, they found great want of harbours
of refuge. He passed over Dover, and he would oppose
large grants to the harbours of Dover and Alderney. Be-
tween Lundy Island and Bristol there seemed to be no
want, but looking to the Bristol Channel, they found that
from that port alone there was one-sixth of the trade of the
whole kingdom, and with that amount of trade there was
60 miles of iron-bound cost without any harbour for shelter.
They were unanimously, therefore, of opinion that at St.
Ives a nation..l harbour should be formed which would offer
great general advantage at a cost of £400,000. Now, look-
ing at the west of Ireland they found the magnificent har-
bour of Galway in the west, and in the south the harbour
of Cork. In the north they found the harbours of Belfast
and Lamlash, which offered excellent anchorage. They
found also that the Bay of Carlingford, at an expense of
£50,000, could be made an excellent harbour, and that for
a like expenditure Waterford could also be made an excel-
lent place of anchorage. Then as regarded the Isle of Man
they found that at Douglas an excellent harbour could be
made at an expense of £lOO,OOO, £50,000 to be granted by
the Exchequer. All the harbours which they deemed to
be necessary could be constructed at a cost of £2,365,000 ;
a large sum certainly, but he did not ask the house to vote
that amount at, present;but he asked that the Government
would, at the earliest possible moment, say they would
commence these great national works. It would take
ten years to complete these works, but all he wished
was, that the Government should be pledged to make a
commencement at the earliest possible period. It might
be said there was no good in an abstract resolution; but
was not an abstract resolution come to to give up the
paper duties, which was asking the house ix effect to
give up a million and a quarter sterling for evert That
was a far less important resolution than the one he now
proposed. 'We were essentially a m ,ritime people, and
our great strength must ever be upon the waters. It was
upon the seas that we must look for our chief defence,
and it was for that reason he asked the house to agree to
this resolution. The land defences, he thought, were com-
paratively of less importance than the wooden walls of Old
ngland. There was no end to land defences. They might
begin, but it was imp6ssible to draw a line as to where they
should end, for if the enemy were to land, it would not likely
be at any spot entirely commanded by our guns. He
thanked the house for the attention it had accorded him,
which in itself was an indication of the importance of • the
subject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FARRER seconded the motion, which he consi-
dered of national importance. On the morning after the
last great storm there were 36 vessels wrecked within ten
miles of Hartlepool, and three vessels were lost with all
their crews, involving a frightful loss of life, which would
not have occurred had there been proper harbours of refuge.
Ile hoped the Government would apply themselves to those
arts of the coast which required immediate. attention, so
that more ample means would be provided) foti the preser-
vation of human life. The hon. member referred to the
qhippiny Gazette for the details of the loss of the vessels
and property last year, which it appeared was very great.
He was most anxious and felt most deeply on the sub-
ject, and earnestly urged its importance on the Govern-
ment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BAXTER hoped the Government were not prepared
co give a hasty assent to this motion,which involved the ex-
penditure of two millions sterling, and in the opinion of
some persons a very much larger sum. There were very
serious reasons why the' house should pause. The re-
Port of the committee had been referred to, but the selec-

tjon of that committee was most unfortunate, for they were
representatives of seaport towns which had a direct rote•

rest in the expenditure of money.

-The annual avo-

rep loss of life by shipwreik was estimated at 780,
eind the loss of property from the same cause was
41,500,000. But he thought it very problematical whether
if the means recommended byt the commissioners were
_ _

tarried out, there Would
~)'e any very material saving

in either. He did hot mean to say that the construc-
tion of new harbours would be useless, but they them-
selves looked much to the improvement of existing har-
bours. 111-found and unseaworthy ships caused greater
loss of life than heavy gales. This was tlbe opinion of the
commissioners. Of 1,700 voyages made in 15 years by ves-
sels belonging to a Glasgow company, there were only 13
shipwrecks. This was owing to the good quality of the
vessels. The commissioners were also of opinion, that it
was better to repair and improve existing harbours, which
might be done at a small cost, than to lay out large sums
in the construction of a few small harbours. It was re-
commended that £200,000 should be expended on the har-
bour of Wick, and £300,000 on Peterhead, and that one-
half of the former and one •third of the latter should be paid
out of the Treasury. This was a preposterous proposal.
But equally extravagant was the recommendation to spend
£250,000 on the Tyne, and £400,000 on the harbour of St.
Ives, in Cornwall. They were also asked to spend
£500,000 at Hartlepool, and a 90,000 at File Bay. He
hoped the house would not sanction such an expenditure.
He felt deeply convinced that if the house permitted it they
would never see the end of extravagant outlays on harbours
of refuge. He would conclude by moving the previous
question.

The resolution was supported by Captain Talbot, Sir H.
Verney, Mr. Beecroft, Mr. H. D. Seymour, Mr. H. Taylor,
and Mr. Kendall.

Mr. A. SMITH cautioned the house against the delusion
that the proposed works could prevent more than a small
proportion of wrecks, unless the coast was studded with
harbours of refuge. He supported the previous question.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that no man could deny the
extreme interest of this question, and the great extent to
which it effected the welfare of the country. It was the
duty of the Government to have made up its mind on the
subject. He was surprised to see the President of the
Board of Trade (Mr. Milner Gibson) sitting silent on the
opposite benches, apparently having no opinion on
the subject—(a laugh)—and seeming to wait to
see if means could be found to oppose this motion. He
(Sir John Pakington) felt the importance of the argu-
ments used in the report of the committee in favour of the
appointment of the commission, and he lost no time in ap-
pointing that commission, at the head of which was Ad-
miral Hope, who had lost his life in the service of his coun-
try. The commission had done their duty, but the present
Government had not indicated their opinion. The house
were entitled to some distinct expression of opinion on this
important subject. He could not see by the arguments
used the amendment could be supported. The argument
that the finances of the country would not bear the pro-
posed expenditure, was a bad one. If we could take the
duties off foreign wines and silks, we surely could afford to
lay out £250,000 to save the lives and properties of our fel-
low-subjects. (Hear, hear.) If the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer could afford to remit the paper duties—which hap-
pily had been saved by another branch of the legislature—
it would nearly defray all the expenses of the proposed
harbours. (Hear.) The foreign trade at Swansea in 1843
was only 60,000 tons, in 1857 it was 260,000 tons. The mer-
cantile shipping in our ports in 1843 amounted to 1,181,000
tons, and in 1857 it rose to 13,964,000 tons, while the foreign
tonnage rese from 2,143,000 in 1813 to 9,984,000 in 18b7.
The general increase between these two periods was about
136 per cent. These facts showed the great importance of
providing harbours of refuge. Now, what were the disas-
trous facts to which the hon. gentleman called their atten-
tion ? The average antount of casualties exceeded 1,000,
two-fifths of which were a total loss—about 800 lives and a
loss of £1,500,000 per annum. The hon. member for Mon-
trose said these would , not all be safe if we had the pro-
posed harbours of refuge. That might be, but in this estimate
fishermen were not included. He never heard anything more
shocking than what appeared in the papers a fortnight ago,
thousands of persons on shore witnessed vessel after vessel
go down, all of which might be saved if we had proper har-
bours of refuge. (Hear, hear) Holyhead, Portland, and
other harbours were crowded with ships during stormy
weather, vessels which put in to these harbours for no other
purpose than to obtain shelter. It was impossible to esti-
mate how much had been saved by the harbours we had
or how much might be saved by the harbours that should
be constructed. He therefore entreated the Government to
give their attention to this subject, believing, as he did,
that the money they wished recklessly to throw away would
provide all that was required. (Hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said the right hon. baronet (Sir J
Pakington) had fallen into an error in charging the Go-
vernment with indifference to the importance of this ques-
tion. But the Government had not only to consider the
propriety of providing harbours of refuge on parts of the
coast now deficient of any shelter, but also the propriety of
placing this resolution of the hon. member for Sunderland
on the minutes of the house with a view to influence its fu-
ture deliberations and decision. In expatiating on the
great evils arising from the absence of harbours of refuge,
the right hon. bart. mentioned the Mumbles, in the Bristol
Channel, and also referred to the great loss of life of fisher-
men near Yarmouth. But if he bound himself to this re-
solution he would find that the report of the commission
would give him no assistance, for that report distinctly re-
jected the Mumbles scheme. While they were asked to
pledge themselves to do certain things, it 'should be re-
membered that the recommendations of the commissioners
had not yet been considered or discussed. It might be very
well to bring forward an abs ract' proposition, but if the
Government adopted the resolution of the hon. member for
Sunderland, they would bind themselves to carry out as
speedily as they could the views contained in the report of
the commissioners. The mode in which the necessary
money should be raised had yet also to be considered.
Some had proposed to defray the expense by passing
tolls, but there was at present a bill before the house
to abolish the passing tolls in the harbour of Rams •
gate, because of the hardship which these tolls entailed
upon shipping. It was remarkable that not one ship-
owner had come forward with a proposal to bear a por-
tion of the expense of providing harbours of refuge. Ap-
plications for their establishment :had came from persons
living in the vicinity whose interest would be promoted
in consequence. He would then ask the right hon.
baronet whether they were in a position at present to say
what amount should be expended, and where these harbours
should be established. The proposal made was, that about
two millions should be given by Government and that
three-fourths of the interest should be paid by levying
passing tolls. That was the recommendation of the com-
mittee, but the commissioners recommended that four
millions should be raised. But if Government agreed to
the resolution it was to be remembered that the estimates
had not yet been considered. (Hear, hear.) They all knew
that these estimates were generally greatly increased, and
they might find that the proposed four millions would be
increased to six millions before the proposed works could be
carried out. He could say, on the part of the Government,
that they greatly regretted the loss of life which had re-
cently occurred, but it was to be feared that the advantages
to be derived from these harbours of refuge would not be to
the extent anticipated. The right hon. gentleman then
quoted some statistics to show the correctness of that sup-
position, and at that moment, he said, in the south of
England, where there were fine natural harbours—better
than any harbours of refuge which could be constructed—
there had been great destruction of life and property. It
was, no doubt, the duty of this great maritime country to
provide every security they could against the lots of life and
property ; but the mode of doing so required very careful
consideration. A bill had been prepared for the improve-
ment of piers and harbours, which would have a very bene-
ficial tendency in a general sense. It was most important
to improve the entrances to harbours, which would give
more facilities to vessels getting in and avoiding the stress
of weather. The bill he had referred to would make pro-
vision for such improvement. That bill he should be glad
to induce the house to proceed with as soon as possible, and
the Government would give their best attention to the sub-
ject. (Hear, hear.)

Sir F. Smith, Mr. Liddell, Sir J. Johnstone, Mr. Paull,
and Sir M. Peto spoke in favour of the object of the resolu-
tion.

Mr. BENTINCK condemned severely the expenditure
upon the works at Dover and Alderney, upon which, he
said, more money had been wasted than would have sufficed
to construct several harbours of refuge.

After some remarks by Mr. Blake and Sir J. Elphinstone
in support of the resolution,

Lord PALMERSTON—I can assure the house that we
are as sensible as any one who have spoken of the vast im-
portance of the matter now under consideration. (Hear.) It
is impossible for any one to have gone through the reports
of the committee and the commission, and to have seen the
vast amount of valuable life and property which are annu-
ally lost by shipwrecks on the coast without being convinced
of the absolute necessity of taking measures to provide har-
Vourg of refuge for the protection of shipping. Therefore, if
we object to the motion of my hon. friend, it is not in the
slightest degree from any indifference upon the subject, nor
from our not having made up our minds upon the matter,
nor from the motives which have been imputed to my right
honourable friend, that he wished to evade or shirk
the question altogether; but the reason we object to it is
because it pledges the house blindfold to the whole of the
recommendations of the commission, to which recommen-
dations the present debate has shown that even those who
are prepared to vote for the motion are not prepared to give
an unqualified assent. Wick is one of the points that have
been adverted to. Now, is everybody agreed that Wick is a
case where a great outlay should be made ? The hon.
member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) says that Wick is
not a place for a national harbour. Another hon. gentleman
has told us that a harbour at Wick may be useful for local

purposes, but not-for national uses. One hon. gentleman
says that there is no:need* for harbours on the south coast
A England, while another hon. member says there is the
greatest need of harbours between the Foreland and Ports-
niouth. There is great diversity of opinion as to the diffe-
rent harbours, but my hon. friend who makes this motion
calls upon the bowie, without consideration, Without going
into details, to pledge the Government to adopt the reeona-
a,
mendations of the commissioners in their entirety
right There
of.. favour
Trade
axi of Hrtlepool
was great difference of opinion among the witnesses who Were
examined by the commission and the commd.eitthy y eaes
a ts o ltdo tt the
hon.
el
for other
Boardi n particular localiiadtineend someSomes.tofthWere points. e
friend
somefotrhaFPilerYes'
house that the Government have a measure
pre a
s suttieot, Titmeasure might be bre , . upon,
ligiAi in during the

present session if the other business before the house did
not seem to make it impossible to hope that it. might be
c art ied into law before the prorogation ; but we are prepared
to assure the house that in the next session this matter
will assume a shape in which the house will be called upon
to take it practicallyinto consideration. (Hear, hear,) I will
nat follow the hon. member for Norfolk into what he has
said about Alderney, but he has admitted that all those who
have successively occupied the Treasury benches, and who
from their official sources of information may be supposed
to know more about the subject than hon. members not pos-
sessed of that information, have been of opiniori that
Alderney was a proper place to form a harbour. The Duke
of Wellington, who may be considered a competent judge,
attached the greatest importance to Alderney in conneotion
with Portland. I can assure the house that this subject
has occupied the attention of the Governmmt. It is suffi-
cient to know that a great number of our most valuable
seamen are annually sacrificed to storms and disasters, some
of whom might have been preserved were these harbours of
refuge on the coasts. (Hear, hear.) But at the same time
I can't help suspecting that a certain proportion of those
calamities are traceable to ships being sent to sea insuffi-
ciently manned, or not properly found, and not in a condi.,
Lion to take the sea; and if on the one hand the Govern
ment is urged to take measures by providing at the public
expense .harbours of refuge, on the other hand I hope the
owners of ships will feel the deep responsibility which rests"
upon them if, in order to avoid expense, they send ships to
sea in a state not fit to cope with the difficulties which may
arise. I hope the house will not commit themselves to this
sweeping resolution, but will be satisfied with the assurance
of the Government that this matter has received and is re-
ceiving our serious consideration, and that undoubtedly it
will be our duty in the next session to bring it before the
house in s"me practical shape. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY briefly replied.

The CHANCELLOR of EXCHEQUER said that
the hon. member having replied it was not his intention to
detain the house—(divide, divide)—but there were one or
two points on which it appeared to him to be abso-
lutely necessary to set the house right. If the house
divided upon the speech of the hon. member, it would be -
upon a very different point from that which was contained
in the motion. The speech of the hon. member was in favour
of carrying out the recommendations of the committee of
1858, whereas the motion of the hon. gentleman urged the
house to carry out the 'recommendations of the commission '•
subsequently appointed. These recommendations involved
an absolute expenditure of the public money to the extent
of £4,000,000 in the creation of harbours of refuge, while
the proposals of the committee would only have required
£2,500,000, and that to be partly met in other ways. The
hon member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) was going to vote
for the motion, though he was opposed to the formation of
a harbour at Wick, which was one of the recommendations
of the commission. (Oh, oh, and Divide.) It was right
that he should place these facts before the house, because
he thought it would be wrong for it to commit itself to the
terms of a motion which would bind the Government to
carry out the recommendations as to the creation of harbours •
of refuge in places upon which there was the greatest pos-
sible difference of opinion, as well as to the sources from
which the money was to come. He would say nothing theist
as to the charges of insincerity which had been brought
against the Government on this subject, because other op-
portunities would arise which would enable him to slioW
that they were altogether unfounded.. ' •
The house then divided—

Fo,- the previous question l2B • ;
Against it . .
Majority
The motion was then put and agreed to amidst cheers.,
; DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
Mr. DUFF moved for a select committee to inquire into
the present
,condition of the diplomatic service, and the best
means of increasing its efficiency, suggesting the points to
which he wished the inquiry to be directed.
Lord J. RUSSELL acknowledged that the hon. triern-;'
ber had not made a personal attack upon any of the gen-
tlemen who were engaged in the -diplomatic .settoice,-.butu
the fact which he had stated—that there was .no reasowl
for finding fault ;with the diplomatic service—could hardly
be used as an argument for appointing a committee
_of!
inquiry. He believed that the proposed committee -would c,
produce little or no result. The questiona Which the'
member had mooted were not questions to be exatnined 'by
a committee, although they might from time to time occupy'
the attention of the Executive Government. For example,
there was no great number of persons who applied for thq,
post of attache,which, indeed, was not one that would gene-
rally be an object of great competition, and consequently
nothing would be gained by making it the subject Of a cern-
petitive examination. Again, the hon. member:, thought
that more attention should be paid to the Roman law ; but,
without going into that matter at the present time, it might
be said that there were other things required in,our diplo-
matic service of much more importance than the knowledge
of the Roman law, 'and, generally speaking, our diplomatic
servants obtained that information which it was necessary
their Government should possess, and inspired that' confi-
dence which it was desirable than Englishmen- represent-
kg their country abroad should enjoy. Nor was the %mo-
tion whether the Persian mission should ,be under the
Foreign or the Indian office worth the consideration of a
committee. It was one which might be decided either way
without any great risk of harm being done. The fact that
no committee had ever been, appointed on the diplomatic
service was a great compliment to that service. If things
were going wrong let a committee be appointed to inquire
and report ; but if, as the hon., member had stated, there
was no fault to be found with the diplomatic service, why,
put gentlemen to the trouble of attending a committee ?
He hoped the honse would reject the motion.
Mr. KINNAIRD said that,.as a member of the Consu-
lar Committee, he could assure the house that upon exami-
nation the service was found to be infinitely more effective
than they were led to suppose from the attacks which had
been made upon it. (Hear, hear.) Although the speech
of his hon. friend showed great research, he recommended
the withdrawal of the motion.
Mr. DUFF said he 'should take the earliest opportunity
next session of bringing the matter more fully before the
house.

The motion was then -withdrawn.
Mr. SPOONER obtained leave to bring in a bill for re-
gulating the business of dealers in marine stores.
Mr. DEASY moved for leave to bring in a bill for grant-
ing to her Majesty certain duties on wine licenses and re-
freshment houses; and for regulating the licensing of re-
freshment houses and the granting of wine licentes in
Ireland.

Mr. HENNESSY moved the adjournment of the de-:
bate but the motioßwas negatived, and leave was gives
to introduce the bill. it •

Mr. LOWE*moved fora select committee to inquire and
report what buildings are necessary for the South Aen-
singten Museum.

_
Mr. JOHN LOCKE thought the wording of the motion
ought to be altered, and that the question referred to the
committee should be whether the Museum should not be
done away with altogether. ,
Mr. DILLIVYN moved that the debate be adjourned;,
hut, after some discussion, this motion was withdrawn, and
the original motion, modified in its terms, was agreed to.
The orders of the day having been disposed of, the howls
adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

LIVERPOOL--JUNE 19.

We had a small attendance at to-day's market, and a
fair consumptive demand for wheat and flour at generally
last week's rates. Oats and oatmeal were quiet at late rates.
Beans, peas, and barley in fair request. Indian corn sold
at rather less money.

SHEFFIELD—JUNE 19.
There was a fair supply of wheat, and farmers asked an
advance, which was not conceded. A moderate business
was done.

Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...22s Od to 23s "d
White ...23s Od to 25s Od
New red 71 ...17s Od to 18s Od

- ...18s Od to 19s 6d New white „ »
Beans » ~
... 19s Od to 21s Od
Peas, per qr
Grinding barley, per qr 33s Od to 36s Od
Malting ditto, „ 3Bs Od to 43s Od
28s Od to 33s Od
Oats '
flour-1s 11d, 2s Id, and 2s 3d per
Millers' prices for
141 b.

LEEDS—JuNE 19.
Fine fresh new wheats must be quoted slightly cheaper
than last Tuesday, but the demand is limited. All other
descriptions of grain mainthin their value.