HC Deb 15 July 1863 vol 172 cc844-9

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (The Board of Trade may grant Licences for proving Anchors and Chain Cables, and may suspend or revoke Licences).

MR. CAVE

proposed an Amendment, the object of which was to enable the manufacturers who now possessed testing machines to make use of them under the Bill. The certificate of many of these manufacturers was a better guarantee than a public test, which in most cases only proved that the welds were properly fastened, while many chains of inferior iron were enabled to bear the strain test by being strengthened by inordinately large stay pins. The Admiralty always guarded against that by regulating the size of links and stay pins, and by careful examination. This was shown by Mr. Clark's evidence before the Committee of 1860, and in page 146 of the Appendix to the Report. First-rate manufacturers now did the same; but if their power of testing was taken away, although the sale of inferior articles would be prevented, yet there would be a risk of bringing the work of superior manufacturers down to the lowest authorized level, just as the Building Act has done with respect to the walls of houses. Besides, public machines would be all of the highest power—that is, capable of testing 2¼ inch cables by a strain of 91½ tons, whereas ordinary merchant cables were one inch, requiring a strain of eighteen tons only. Small outports would not be able to support, nor would require, a public machine of full power; in such cases it would be almost necessary to depend upon the machine on the premises of the manufacturer, all that would be requisite being to ensure that the test was faithfully applied. Under the Bill there was a threefold safeguard:—First, by the Board of Trade being enabled to grant, refuse, and withdraw any licence; next, that the testing machine might be certified by a Government engineer; and thirdly, that every testing might, if necessary, be performed in the presence of a Government inspector. This was a stringent Act, and his object was that it should work as easily as possible. He therefore begged to propose this Amendment, which was absolutely concurrent with the 11th recommendation of the Report of the Committee of 1860. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, line 12, after "public bodies or companies," to insert "or private companies or parties,"—(Mr. Cave.)

MR. MILNER GIBSON

suggested the substitution of the word "persons."

MR. BENTINCK

opposed the Amendment, which would defeat the main object of the Bill. If irresponsible persons were to apply the test, there would be no safety, which could only be attained by requiring the testing to be done under the superintendence of a Government officer.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he could not understand how any objection could be raised to the Amendment; but before proceeding further he wished the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill to state to the Committee how he expected it to work. For his own part, he believed the Bill, if passed, would be utterly impracticable; and he could not approve, at this period of the Session, of wasting time upon a Bill which, if passed, must remain a dead letter. The House had been a good deal governed by sentimental views upon this question; but he could state that all large shipowners took every means to test, their chains and anchors for their own sakes. There were now seventy or eighty makers of anchors and chain cables in about thirty-five different places, and there were three hundred persons engaged in the sale of those anchors and chains. It appeared to be considered that the testing of anchors and chains was the same as testing guns; but it was not so. A gunmaker selling a weapon which had not been properly tested was liable to a penalty, but not the person who used the gun. But under this Bill not only was there a penalty upon the manufacturer, but also upon the person who bought it, and upon the captain of the vessel which carried it.

MR. LAIRD

rose to order. The hon. Gentleman was discussing the principle, which had already been decided upon.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he would confine his remarks to the first clause, which empowered the Board of Trade to grant licences. What power was there to compel anybody to take out a licence?

MR. LAIRD

said, there were existing testing machines in many places, and he knew that if this Bill passed, there were many persons who were prepared to take out licences from the Board of Trade. As to the Bill not being workable, he could only say that it had been gone through clause by clause by practical men acquainted with testing machinery. It had been considered by a sub-committee of Lloyd's, who approved not only of the principle, but also of the details; and the Association of Shipowners of London, who had entertained objections to the original measure, were satisfied with the Amendments he proposed, and had withdrawn their opposition to it. With respect to the Amendment, be could not assent to it, and would remind the hon. Gentleman who moved, that although the eminent firm who supplied chains to the Admiralty tested all their work, yet the Government always performed its own test at Woolwich.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, if the Board of Trade was only to license public companies or corporate bodies, and not private traders, the effect would be to create monopoly.

MR. LAIRD

said, he would accept the Amendment if it were so altered as to provide that a manufacturer should not test his own anchors.

MR. LINDSAY

said, the Bill would either create a monopoly or it would become a dead letter. Would there be testing machines at all the thirty-five places where chains and anchors were now manufactured?

MR. J. C. EWART

remarked, that if the Bill should pass, chains and anchors could not be sold without being tested.

MR. CAVE

, in reply to Mr. Gibson, would not object to alter the wording of the Amendment. In answer to other Members, he stated that he did not mean that private firms should test their own manufactures, but that the testing should be done under Government superintendence.

MR. C. TURNER

suggested that the parties to be licensed should not be manufacturers of chain cables.

MR. BENTINCK

would not persist in his opposition to the Amendment after the explanation that had been given. He would, however, observe that this Bill was no attempt to create a monopoly, but to check an abuse.

Amendment amended, and agreed to.

MR. C. TURNER

proposed to add the words "not being manufacturers of chain cables."

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 11, after the words "persons," to insert the words "not being manufacturers of Anchors or Chain Cables."—(Mr. Turner.)

MR. CAVE

could not agree to the addition proposed. The object of his Amendment had been to enable manufacturers having testing machines upon their premises to avail themselves of those machines, instead of compelling them to lose the benefit of the outlay incurred in the erection of the machines.

MR. C. TURNER

could not see that a manufacturer's certificate of the goodness of his own work would be worth much.

MR. LINDSAY

agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and said that that was a single instance of how impossible it would be to make the Bill work. Was it intended to have a Government officer present at each manufactory? The result of the measure, if it passed, would be, that the public would get as bad chains as at present, but with a deceptive guarantee. He suspected that shipowners wanted to get some other advantage from this Bill. If they could get their equipment certified by the Board of Trade, and anything happened to their ships, they could reply to any objection of the insurance companies, on the ground of insufficient equipment, that they possessed a certificate from the Board of Trade. In short, it was sought to shift responsibility from the shipowners, and that was one chief reason why they supported the Bill.

MR. LIDDELL

said, if there were any apprehensions upon that ground, a clause might easily be introduced, providing that no responsibility at present cast upon the shipowner by law should be diminished in consequence of the passing of this Bill.

MR. R. HODGSON

, on behalf of the shipowners, protested against the statement of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). They did not support the Bill from any desire to escape the responsibility which at present rested upon them. He believed that their only motive was to make their ships and the lives of those who ventured in them as safe as possible. But he was of opinion that some better means than that in the Bill should be provided for securing testing machinery and testers throughout the country.

MR. T. BARING

also denied that this was a Bill put forward in the interest of the shipowners. Its object was the preservation of life and property.

MR. HORSFALL

denied that the Bill would relieve shipowners from responsibility. Every shipowner had a certificate of much greater value than that now proposed—namely, a certificate from the Board of Trade that his ships had qualified masters and mates. Yet his responsibility was not thereby diminished.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that the regulation referred to by the hon. Gentleman did release shipowners from some responsibility, because now in case of loss of life or property no one could declare that the ship had not a competent master. So it would be with these anchors and chain cables. He did not mean to cast any reflection on the shipowners as a body, but thought it far better to leave the responsibility with individuals than attempt to legislate on such a subject.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 30: Majority 30:—Words added.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

asked, whether no person who had ever manufactured chain cables or anchors was to be entitled to the testing licence.

MR. C. TURNER

said, the meaning of the words was obvious—that no persons being manufacturers at the time could hold a licence.

MR. LAIRD

said, the object was to prevent any person from testing his own anchors.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

pointed out that by preventing manufacturers from doing this you, in fact, rendered worthless the capital they had invested in testing machines.

MR. C. TURNER

thought it very unadvisable that a manufacturer should be allowed to test either his own or his friend's chains or anchors. In many cases, no doubt, the test would be honestly applied; but if this were permitted, public confidence in the result would be destroyed. To be of any value the certificate must be given by independent parties, in whom the public could feel confidence.

MR. LINDSAY

concurred in thinking that the certificate should be given by an independent authority; but this decision of the Committee suggested with renewed force the question, what guarantee existed that any such authority would set up the testing machinery; and if not, the whole Bill would be as waste paper.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Testor to test all Anchors and Cables in proper order, and impress the same with authorized Proof Mark).

MR. LINDSAY

inquired who was to be the testor.

MR. LAIRD

said, it was proposed to license the present independent testing establishments, if the Board of Trade thought them competent, and the responsibility of testing these articles would be thrown upon them, Inspectors visiting those establishments occasionally to see that the machinery was in good order.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.