MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL. (Hansard, 27 June 1854)

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR
said, he objected to sailors being called upon to give answers which might criminate themselves. Besides, sailors were generally very illiterate persons, and answers might be inserted for them in the log-book which they had 745 never given at all. It was not at all unlikely, too, that they might be called upon to make replies at a moment when they were in a state of exasperation, and that an unfair advantage, therefore, would be taken of them. He thought the clause placed the accused party too much at the mercy of those over them.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, the provision was not a new one. It had been originally enacted as a protection to the sailor, to give him an opportunity of telling his own story, and it had been found to work very successfully.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he objected to the clause altogether, as not being calculated to be of any service to sailors.

§ MR. HORSFALL
said, he should support the clause, as rather a protection to seamen than otherwise. The clause directed that the reply was to be taken down in presence of the whole crew, and it should be remembered that the examination need not take place at a moment of excitement, but only at some period before the vessel got into port.
Clause agreed to, as were also the following clauses up to 283.
Clause 284 (Rules as to ships meeting each other).

MR. H. T. LIDDELL
complained that the language of the clause was too ambiguous to be understood by sailors.

MR. BENTINCK
said, he also thought that great confusion and no little danger would be caused by this clause. He had seen many instances in which, if a captain implicitly obeyed its provisions, be would run the greatest possible risk of losing his ship.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, the clause had been most elaborately considered by experienced naval men, by high legal authorities, and by the Trinity Board, and he could not, therefore, take upon himself the responsibility of altering it. He would, however, communicate again with the Trinity House upon the subject.
Clause was agreed to, as were also clauses up to 288.
Clause 289 (Equipment of steam-ships).

§ MR. J. O'CONNELL
moved the addition of the following proviso:— Every home-trade passenger steamer, carrying deck passengers, shall have accommodation in deck cabins or deck houses for women and children coming under that denomination, and, as far as possible, for male deck passengers; and when the numbers to be carried, or other circumstances, prevent the whole number of deck passengers from being thus accommodated, every 746 such steamer shall have, in the judgment of the Surveyors of the Board of Trade, an adequate supply of tarpaulins in good and serviceable condition, to protect the said male deck passengers during cold or bad weather of any kind, and at night. Some provision of this sort was rendered necessary by the misery and suffering of that large number of persons—amounting to not less than 338,000—who, in the last year, crossed the Channel as deck passengers, and more especially for those who crossed in the depth of winter, and were exposed to the inclemency of the weather for fourteen, and in some cases for twenty-four hours on the decks of steamers, without covering or protection of any sort.

MR. H. T. LIDDELL
said, the question was, whether the proposition of the hon. Member was made at the proper time and in the right place. The object of the Committee now sitting on the subject of emigrants and passengers was to ascertain in what manner the Passengers Act might be capable of amendment, so as to meet the difficulties and dangers to which passengers are exposed, but the Bill now under consideration was confined to the consolidation of the Acts relating to merchant shipping. He approved of the object of the hon. Member, but thought it most desirable to keep the two matters separate.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that on a former occasion he had himself brought the subject under the consideration of the House, believing it deserving of every possible attention. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool, that it was not desirable to introduce the alteration now proposed in the present Bill, which dealt with steam-ships going to all parts of the world. Although deck tarpaulins might be very useful and necessary in vessels sailing between Liverpool and Dublin, it would be extremely inconvenient to make such a provision with respect to vessels carrying passengers across the Atlantic. He thought the object of the hon. Member might be carried out by amending the Passengers Act so as to provide that the accommodation for deck passengers shall not be measured in the tonnage of the vessel.

§ CAPTAIN SCOBELL
said, he considered that the hon. Member for Clonmel did not mean his Amendment to apply solely to emigrants, but to persons also coming over between Liverpool and Ireland.

§ MR. J. O'CONNELL
meant his clause to apply especially to passengers by the 747 Channel steamers, and what he wanted to secure was a covering for the poorer class of them.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, he considered the provisions of the Bill would be sufficiently effective, without the addition of any clause, to meet all the necessity of the case.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
thought that something ought to be done, and that quickly, as the cases which had come to his notice were fearful and distressing in the extreme.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he considered that the 297th clause of the Bill would meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Clonmel, but he would further consider the matter.

§ Mr. GEORGE
said, that he could state from his own knowledge that the proprietors of the vessels alluded to in the discussion would be happy to do all in their power to meet the difficulties of the case; at the same time he must protest against minute legislative enactments on the subject, which, instead of doing good, would only create confusion.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR
said, he would suggest that a tarpaulin ought to be kept in readiness by all these vessels, to be used when really necessary.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
considered that the case would be better met by defining the number of persons that each vessel would be allowed to carry.

§ MR. HILDYARD
said, he thought it was very foolish to go on making any kind of amendments which were not framed under the authority of those who drew up the Bill, and that we should take care not to endanger the vessel and the crew while we were endeavouring to take precaution for the comfort of a part of the passengers.

§ MR. CARDWELL
could assure the Committee, that he would consider all the suggestions which had been made, and consult nautical authorities on the subject. He viewed with great respect the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Clonmel, and had no doubt but that the hon. Member would be fully satisfied with the steps that would be taken.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to, as were also the remaining clauses.

§ MR. HORSFALL
said, that as there was no hope of prevailing on the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) to agree to it, and as the opinion of the shipping interest was very much divided on the subject, he should withdraw the apprenticeship clause of which he had given notice.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
said, he regretted very much the decision to which the hon. Gentleman had come, for he considered that the apprenticeship system had been of the greatest service to the Royal Navy and to the mercantile service, and he thought the destruction of it was a great loss to the country. He could not sit down without giving his tribute of commendation to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the masterly manner in which he had consolidated the laws relating to the mercantile marine. This measure was a most invaluable one, as would be seen more fully after the experience of a few years.

§ CAPTAIN SCOBELL
said, he also regretted the determination of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) not to proceed with the clause of which he had given notice. He felt convinced that the apprenticeship system had been useful to the country, and he was sure the efficiency of the Navy would suffer from the loss of it.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he thought it must be gratifying to all—whether opposed to or in favour of the measure which Parliament had passed relative to the apprenticeship system—to reflect that we had manned our fleets without impressment and without bounty, and that nevertheless there was a larger number of seamen employed in the mercantile navy than had ever been employed in it before. This, he was glad to say, was not the result of an increase in the numbers of foreign seamen employed, for, on the contrary, as was shown by a late return, the proportion of foreign seamen in the mercantile marine had very much diminished. The number of apprentices was also on the increase, for while in 1852 there had been 2,675 apprentices registered, the number in 1853 was 3,163, and in the months of 1854 which had already elapsed it was no less than 3,645. It was clear, therefore, that Parliament need be under less apprehension of proceeding in the course which it had adopted on this subject.

§ MR. HORSFALL
said, he must maintain that it could not be correct to say that the number of apprentices had increased, when they were 31,136 in 1850, and only 13,820 in 1854.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, the figures which he had quoted went to show that they were on the increase from 1852.
House resumed; Bill reported as amended.