The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1835.

sive of the Trinity Board, there were individuals who, un-
der Charter from the Crown, had the privilege of maintain-
ingdighthouses, which became a very heavy tax upon the com-
munity ? and if ever there was a system of jobbing and plun-
der, that of private lighthouses was one. It appeared from
the inquiries made by the Committee,'that the aggregate of
lights was 105 land lights, 21 floating, and 93 local or harbour
lights, making in all 219. The north-west coast of Scotland
was in such acdeplorable state that no one would be surprised
at the number of shipwrecks which occurred, and yet exac-
tions were made upon the public which rendered it. very diffi-
cult to compete with the shipping of other countries. By an
account furnished by the Trinity Hoilse, it appeared that for
the fifty-five lights which they maintained the collection was
:'„13,0001. ; the charges of that collection 6,000/. ; the cost of
maintenance 35,900/. ; and the net surplus was 40,800/. over
the-expense of maintaining them. There were lights in the
hands of private individuals, for which 79,6721. was collected;
the charges of collection amounting to the enormous suer of
10,000/. ; the cost of maintaiaing them being 9,1001. ; and
thus, it would appear, the public sustained a loss of 60,0001.
In Ireland the amount of lighteousst dues collected per annum
was 42,0001. ; the charges of collection were I,SOO/. ; the
charges of maintenance 18,5001., leaving a surplus of 21,5001.,
which was applied to the erection of new lighthouses. In
Scotland and Ireland the amo.mt of annual surplus was 32,0001.
a year, and upwards of 150,0001. had accumulated in the hands
of the Trinity Houle, though 32,0001. were spent in pensions to
sailors and roasters, widows, &e. There were three lighthouses,
one of whicleproduced 23,000/. ; the charges of collection were
2,7001. Another produced 24,800/., the charges of collection
being 2,7001. The other produced 31,000/., the expenses being
3,268/. The three produced 79,676!., while the actual eepenses
amounted to only 9,000/. Such a state of things should not be
suffered to continue. He complained strongly that the Trinity
House should lease out of their power a number of lights for a
given number of years • for, by so doing, they put it out of
theit power
.to reduce the charge, and the public must conse-
quently lose. The Hon. Member proceeded to state the age
gregate amount derived from the lights so leased. They might
he divided into three classes. One class consisted of seven
lighthouses, of which Harwich was one. It was leased by the
Crown to General Rebow. In 1833 the amount collected was
9,270/. The expenses were 1,1961. and the charge of mainte.
nance 420/., leaving a surplus of 7,954/. When his ,Majesty
was advised to renew those leases that advice was given hi de-
fiance of the recommendation of the Committee of 1817. It
was not for him to say why those leases had been renewed,
but such renewals he thought to be most unwarrantable and an
absolute Waste of the public money.—( Hear, hear.) According
to some of the new leases the surplus was to be divided be-
tween the Crown and the lessee. Accordingly for Harwich
the sum of 4,594/. per annum had been paid to the Crown; and
3,060/. to the lessee. The Dungeness lighthouse, the
lease of which had been renewed in 1817 to T. W.
Coke, Esq., had its tolls reduced according to the scale
of the orders of 1832. This new lease had been made,
after a pledge to the contrary on the part of Mr. Huskisson
and Mr. Herries ; and, indeed, it would appear from the cor-
respondence annexed to the the report that the Treasury ware
determined that the lease should not be renewed ; and yet, after
all, a letter came directing that the lease should be renewed.
The annual SUM collected was 5,4841. The expense of col-
lection amound to 720/., the cost of maintenance was 628/.,
leaving a surplus of 4,1361., which was equally divided be-
tween the crown and the lease. The Wintertea Ness light-
house, which was leased to Lord Braybrool,,, produced
6,545/. per annum. The cost of collection was 1,153/., and
the maintenance was 866/., leaving a surplus of 7,5271., of
which the Crown received 3,563/. The total produce from
the seven lights was 24,862/. per annum. The cost of col-
lection was 3,0001, the maintenance 2,000/., the net surplus
19,624/., of which 10,400/.- went to the Crown and
9,224 t. to the lessor. There was another class consisting of
three lights, which were leased by the Trinity-house; these
were the Long-Ship, the Smalls, and tle Mumbles. In
1831 and 1832 the Long Ship produced 7,3951., the cost of
collection was 1,0001., and the cost of maintenance was 1,100/.
The surplus of 5,086/. went to the lessee, H. B. Smith,
Esq. The Small Ship produced 14,4331. ; the cost of col-
lection was 2,200/., the maintenance 1,100/. ; the surplus of
10,253/. went also to Mr. Sanith. Thus, epwards of 23,0001.
was levied, of which 16,400/. went to the leases. In the whole
United Kingdom the produce of the. lighthouses was 242,0001.,
the charges were 22,000/. ; the maintenance was 74,000/., the
surplus 143,7941. per annum. Ile contended that Ministers
ought to be impeached for renewing those leases-7( Hear.)......
He begged to call the attention of the House to the state of
Wintcrton lighthouse before the lease of it had expired, and
he had no hesitation in saying that the recommendation to re-
new the lease of that lighthouse was little short of high trea-
son.—( Hear, hear.) In 1833, 34, and 35, Lord Braybrook
had received 44,000/. from this lighthouse, being a profit of
something like 13,000/. per annum. In the next three years
he had received 47,000/., of which, after paying expenses, he
kept. 20,900/., and the Woods and Forests received 17,859/.
In the nine-years up to Decembet 1831, the gross amount of
tolls were 124,500/. for two lighthouses, of which sum Lord
Braybrook had received 72,150/., in defiance of the recom-
mendation of the Committee and the construction which the
law officers of the Crown put upon the Act of Parliament. If
ever there was a case called for impeachment, this was one.
Notwithstanding the enormous sums which thus went into the
pockets of Lord Braybrook, the lease was renewed on the Ist
of June-1828. This lease was thus renewed though his Lord-
ship hadepocketed 1,000/. per month by the profits and the
dues.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then stated the
items received from other lights which were leased to private
individuals. The total revenues of fourteen lights so
leased was 217,8721. The charges of maintenance and col-
lection was 42,000/. Of the surplus the Crown received
96,8431., and the lessees 78,941/. What was the use of their
talking about reducing them 50/. here and there ?—why talk
of men being cut down at the dock-yards, while suffering such
extravagance as this ?—(Hear.) The House of Commons
ought to address the Crown with a view to the retirement of
those lessees.—( Loud cries of " Hear," from the Opposition.)
He was desirous of impressing one point upon the House,
though his opinion differed from that of the Committee. He
thought light-houses ought to be viewed in the same light as
Consular exponces, and the expense of them be defrayed as
a public burden. Lord Palmerston had given every facility
to the labours of the Committee by placing before it the re-
gulations of France, Russia, and Prussia, on the subject of
light-houses. In France, from 1792 up to last year, the matter
had been intrusted to a separate Board, which had shown himself
extremely anxious for the improvement of science in that depart-
ment. They did not levy lighthouse dues upon ships, but they le-
, vied a small tonnage duty for that and other purposes. There was
one importaut fact which he wished to state. While the Tri-
nity House had reduced the charges on the shipping, the private
lights had made no reduction whatever. The Trinity House
now maintained 55 lights at a less expense than 33 lights cost
them in 1820. There were no less than 938 places of collec-
tion in the country, which created a great expense that might
be obviated by appointing one individual at every port. ,The
whole of these lighthouses would not cost more than 40,000/.,
if propeily managed, instead of a quarter of a million, which
they now cost. The Committee had recommended that
there should be one Board of Directors in London for
Great Britain, and one general system for the whole country.
It was also recommended that all the Northern lights should be
placed under the controul of the Trinity House, and that a
different mode of payment should be adopted. The Commit-
tee also recommended—and lie was sure the House would
agree with them—that the lights' duty should be reduced to
the very lowest amount consistent with the maintenance of the
lights ; and that all the improvements in science sbould be
applied to this subject. It was also recommended that the
dues should be levied upon some one uniform principle, and
he suggested the adoption of the Irish plan, by which each
vessel paid so much for every light it passed. By such a con-
solidation, it was hoped that the expenses of management
would be considerably diminished, and that an opportunity
would be afforded of erecting new lights. It was also recom-
mended that lights under the management ofhprivate indivi-
duals should be transferred with as little delay as possible to a
Central Board of Management in London. The rights of
every individual should be carefully examined and allowed.
The Hon. Member proceeded to read the recommendation of
the Committee respecting the renewal of leases, but lie was
completely inaudible in the Gallery. He thought that the
people of England should contribute to the maintenance of the
Heligoland light, as they derived advantage from it. The
Hon. Member concluded by stating that he had said enough
I to show that the present state of the system on which light
-
I houses were managed—its trouble and increasing expenses
were grounds sufficient for adopting the recommendation cf
I the Committee; and, if the House agreed with him, they,
would, he trusted, give him leave to bring in a Bill to carry
would
were
notgranted
effect
y such
savinga
he
pdhoeue:
tiraishpthtßiohroorsdeufiestlt,pidhs:eerlbg wasTtplhi
uersei
ex-
pense these recommendations into effect.
e
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET (who was scarcely-
audible in the gallery) differed from the Hon. Member respect-
ing the recommendation affecting the rights of individuals in.
faatmstoohutairetcyv%e_to buy up those rights. And even if a sum
vested in light houses. The Hon. Member' could not call
upon the House to grant from the land revenues of the Crown
faorbao)vini so
uus mus ethoi
s s N
independent
rtatehs)obpaiyetttnh the a
v 0 u favour Heligoland
of
the
s light t
a..
ptn(Toteehhnyseese?ee—NNo.oo(lfblbHylileteeßsaiLrom,,oaoarrhr
ddidne
taceAeros.n.atna)asebi
understoodbstyodrtseaeafisryltpayi onye
d
House.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. CUTL AR F lcußi eds
Ge With
we da
blishment of a Central Board. For Scotland, he should oh-
serve, that it was not satisfied with the administration of the
Board existing there. The Hon. Member complained of the
want of proper lights in Solway Frith, where, in consequence
of this deficiency, many shipwrecks had taken place. The
entire establishment, he contended, should be a national esta-
blishment ; and where individual rights--the titles of which
should be minutely examined—were proved to exist, compen-
sation should certainly be allowed.
Colonel PARRY expressed a hope that the House would
see that the deserving mariners, who were worn out by a life
of fatigue; were not deprived of their just provision.
Mr. CII APM AN should not oppose the Bill by anticipa-
tion. He submitted to the House that, in limiting the amount.
of pensions, they ought not to diminish the allowance pa d to
t
the poor sailor and orphan.
Mr. EWART was sure the interests of commerce would be
benefited by this measure, and that not only theßhiomasredif
would hold
at liberty merchants, but
t
the consumers, would be served by the change.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET explained.
theSHAWMr.
Billcameobjec
beforetedto thetbe removal
hoef
the D=_~blin
the English and Irish Boards, and
iely ty o
s opposeco it.contrasted
a
I‘,fr. v sted.
as well as former
apllp roved of
ir.Goutle system of
LiBuRN
defendedcentral centralisation.
o n.
present,
Administrations, from the charge of peculation, or of appro-

printing the funds in favour of persons professing certain poli-
tical opinions.
Mr. MURRAY approved of the Bill.
I Mr. C. FITZSIMON protested, on the part of the Irish
people, against merging the Irish Board in the Trinity House
of London.
The. LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND knew there
was a strong objection in Scotland to have these lighthouses
placed at the discretionary regulation of a self-elected 'Board
like tile Trinity Board. From this Board naval officers were at
present excluded.
Mr. PEASE contended there was a great change required
in the constitution of the Trinity Board.
Mr. defended the conduct of the Trinity Board.
Leave was given to bring in a Bill on the subject of the re 7
gulation of lighthouses.
ELECTION PETITIONS. _ _

The orders for considering the petitions complaining. of un-
due elections a,id returns for Dublin University, Kerry County,
ltutherglen, burgh, were read and discharged, the peti-
tioners not having entered into their recognizances.

Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition from certain persons
on the subject of the Leicester election petition, praying to
set right some literal error in the name of the sureties. Ile
should reserve his observations on it till to-morrow.
Mr. WYNN observed the name of the sureties, he must be
aware, could not be altered a second time.
The petition was read, and laid en the table.
Mr. Sergeant LEFROY presented petitions from certain
persons in the county of Cork, respecting the county of Cork
petitions on the same subject.
On the motion of Mr. IttiTOEN, jun., the House adjourned
at ane o'clock.