§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had to propose the insertion of clauses in the Bill which had been suggested in Committee, and which seemed to have met with general acceptance. They were clauses relating to loading and deck lines taken from the first Government measure, which, unhappily, had to be withdrawn; but, although they had been placed on the Paper only within 48 hours, a number of Amendments already accumulated around them, and, indeed, the tendency to become smothered with Amendments seemed to 576 be inseparable from any measure on the subject. The first of the three clauses which he had to lay before the House provided that every British ship registered after the 1st of January, 1876, should be conspicuously marked with lines of not less than 12 inches in length and one inch in breadth painted longitudinally on each side, so as to show the position of every deck above water. This clause was not to apply to ships employed in the coasting trade, or in fishing, or to yachts. There were in the 2nd clause provisions with regard to the marking of a load line, a statement of the position of which would be required from the owner of every British ship before entering his ship outward on any voyage, showing the distance in feet and inches between the load line and the deck next above it, while he would also be bound to enter a copy of the statement in the articles of agreement with the crew and in the official logbook. There were, he might add, certain Amendments which he proposed to make in the clauses as they stood on the Paper. In compliance with the wish of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), he had altered the date at which the Bill was to come into operation to November, 1875, instead of January, 1876. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following clause:—
§
(Marking of deck lines.)
A. Every British ship registered on or after November one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five shall before registry, and every British ship registered before that day shall, on or before that day, be permanently and conspicuously marked with lines of not less than twelve inches in length and one inch in breadth, painted longitudinally on each side amidships, or as near thereto as is practicable, and indicating the position of each deck which is above water.
The upper edge of each of these lines shall be level with the upper side of the deck plank next the waterway at the place of marking.
The lines shall be white or yellow on a dark ground, or black on a light ground.
Provided, That—
(1.) This section shall not apply to ships employed in the coasting trade or in fishing; and
(2.) If a registered British ship is not within a British port of registry at any time before the date named, she shall be marked as by this section required within one month after her next return to a British port of registry subsequent to that date.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, that although an Amendment stood on the Paper in his name, which was substantially a new 577 clause dealing with the whole question of load line, he was actuated by no spirit of hostility to the proposals of the Government, and could, he thought, dispose of his Amendment in a very words. He had listened with most respectful attention to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the other evening, in regard to load line, and with every word of the right hon. Gentleman he (Mr. Mac Iver) heartily and entirely concurred. In expressing that concurrence, he believed he expressed the views of those who had the best facilities for becoming practically acquainted with the subject, and who had given these questions serious attention. The way to prevent overloading was to compel the shipowner to declare plainly and distinctly what he intended to do, and to indicate such intended load line upon the ship in such manner as to afford reliable and visible evidence in regard to the actual facts. He asked, however, if the Board of Trade clauses under discussion carried out this view? He (Mr. Mac Iver) ventured to say they did not; but that they would permit the alteration of a load line with too great facility, and in such manner as to confuse and destroy—so far as ordinary witnesses were concerned—all readily available evidence in regard to depth of loading. This might suit some people; but it would not suit those shipowners who meant right by this question, and he had received letters and telegrams on the subject, with an extract from only one of which he would trouble the House. It was from a shipowner of high standing, and was as follows:—
Such a load line would be worse than a sham. If the owner of a steamer, after marking his maximum load line, were to be at liberty to alter that mark at pleasure in any foreign port, such an arrangement would merely give full swing to his cupidity, under a sort of quasi-legal sanction.He (Mr. Mac Iver) was quite sure this was not the intention either of the Prime Minister or of the President of the Board of Trade. He had no desire to press the particular words of his own Amendment upon the Government; but that he thought he had pointed out a real defect in the Board of Trade clauses, which the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would, he hoped, see his way to remove. He believed his brother shipowners in the House of Commons 578 were equally desirous with himself that there should be an honest solution of the load line question; but he thought it was only in regard to steamers that there existed any necessity in regard to such legislation. The loading of sailing vessels was more generally understood; but, as regarded steam vessels, there was so much diversity of model, quality, and general arrangements, that he (Mr. Mac Iver) thought there was a real necessity for dealing with steam vessels upon the principles so well explained the other evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. There was another objection to the Board of Trade clauses, also one of detail, but on which he wished to say a few words. Was it worth while, he asked in a Bill which was tentative—brought forward to be in operation only for one year—to provide expressly that British vessels should be disfigured with discs and lines in the particular form set down? AU that appeared to him (Mr. Mac Iver) to be necessary was that the marking should be intelligible; and he thought it might be well to leave to the Board of Trade and the shipowners some discretion on the subject. He thought the prescribed manner of marking would, in some instances, result unsatisfactorily, and in others be a needless disfigurement.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, he did not wish to examine the Government's clauses hypercritically; but it was his duty to point out that they differed materially from his own, which the Government had substantially accepted. The Government had not given sufficient consideration to the difference between the density of fresh water and that of salt water, and this difference was estimated at about 2½ per cent; and this was rather a serious margin, considering the competition there was between British and foreign shipowners, and among British shipowners themselves. The clause and his own both provided for a disc; the clause proposed a larger disc than he did; but this clause omitted the scale of feet and inches which would enable surveyors and managers to make allowance for the difference between fresh water and salt water, and in the absence of which there would be continual disputes between master, seamen, and surveyors. In his Bill the power of changing load lines was carefully guarded; it was necessary it should be, 579 because the load line formed the basis of agreement between the merchants, the insurers, and all the parties interested; and the omission of the provision would render it necessary that the articles of agreement should lapse if the load line were changed. In his clause the mark could not be altered during a voyage, nor during the existence of articles, and in that way full protection was afforded to seamen. His scheme was devised in the interest of the seamen rather than in that of the shipowner. The Government had omitted that clause in his Bill which provided that the seaman's liability to fine or forfeiture should lapse if the load line were altered, and this would have been a great safeguard. As the Government had accepted his proposals so partially, he could not be responsible if they did not work satisfactorily.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, whose name was on the back of the Bill of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), objected to the facility which the Government's clauses afforded for the changing of the load line without the sanction or even the knowledge of the seamen, and said that the Government, by the way in which they had resisted proposals relating to load lines, deck cargoes, and grain cargoes, and by the way in which they had emasculated the provisions they had accepted, seemed determined to sail as close to the wind as they could.
§ MR. E. J. REEDsaid, there was no doubt that the scale of feet and inches proposed by the hon. Member for Hull would afford a ready means of making a comparison between a salt water and a fresh water load line. It was rather strange that the House should present the spectacle of shipowners pleading for greater protection to seamen than the Government seemed willing to give. Surely this could be nothing more than an oversight? He hoped the Government would make such additions to the clause as would give seamen the protection they desired. He could not sit down without thanking the President of the Board of Trade for the courteous manner in which he had endeavoured to meet their wishes in reference to a load line.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought that he should be able to meet the views of the hon. Member for Hull.
§ SIR JOHN HAYbegged to thank the President of the Board of Trade for his concessions on the subject of the load line.
§ MR. GOURLEYwas of opinion that there ought to be two fixed load lines—one for immersion in salt water and the other for fresh water. The weight of a cargo in a ship sailing in each made a very perceptible difference. As a matter of fact, however, seamen did not like vessels being marked in this way.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that unless care was taken in making these arrangements foreigners would obtain such an advantage over us that we should gradually lose the shipping trade of the country. He should like to know why coasting vessels were to be exempt from this clause, and why they should not be required to have a load line? Half the losses and disasters occurred in the coasting trade.
§ LORD ESLINGTONsaid, the load line would be part and parcel of the contract between the owner and his seamen. The next clause, however, said that if the owner or his agent wished to alter the maximum load line, they might do so. It would be in the power of an agent in a foreign port, therefore, to contract his owner, so to speak, out of the Bill.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREregretted that the clause had not been proposed in Committee, and he thought that as it had only just now been introduced the whole responsibility of it should be thrown upon the Government. He would therefore advise his hon. Friend the Member for Hull not to endeavour to amend it. He further thought, however, that the point as to an agent abroad altering the load line should be considered by the Board of Trade.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, the measure was only of one year's duration, and the House would see by experience how it worked. He could not see why vessels plying between Newcastle and the Thames should not have a load line, as well as vessels plying from London and Hull to Hamburg, seeing that the voyage was quite as dangerous.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that if hon. Members would consult the Register they would find that the losses in the coasting trade were exceedingly small as compared with the foreign and colonial trade. 581 Clause, as amended, agreed to, and aided to the Bill.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in moving the next clause, said, the object of sub-section 7 was to enable the shipowner when his ship started from a foreign port to alter the load line. The season, the cargo, and the circumstances of the voyage were very often entirely different when the ship left a foreign port on her homeward voyage. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the following clause:—
§
(Statement of load line.)
B. With respect to the marking of a load line on British ships, the following provisions shall have effect:
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought the Amendment was a very practical one.
§ MR. D. JENKINSobjected entirely to the load line being altered during the voyage, because this would destroy the value of the load line altogether. Great pressure would often be put upon a captain abroad to alter the load line. A captain ought not to be exposed to this pressure.
§ MR. BATESrecommended that the power to the owner's agent abroad to alter the load line should be altogether omitted from the clause, because he did not think that a captain when abroad should be allowed to alter the load line.
The provision as to the owner or his agent altering the load line abroad was negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYmoved the following clause:—
§
(Penalty for offences in relation to marks on ships.)
C. Any owner or master of a British ship who neglects to cause his ship to be marked as by this Act required, or to keep her so marked, and any person who conceals, removes, alters, defaces, or obliterates, or suffers any person under his control to conceal, remove, alter, deface, or obliterate any of the said marks, except in the event of the particulars thereby denoted being lawfully altered, or except for the purpose of escaping capture by an enemy, shall for each offence incur a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds.
If any of the marks required by this Act is in any respects inaccurate, so as to be likely to mislead, the owner of the ship shall incur a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. GOURLEYmoved to leave out Clause 3, and insert the following clause:—
§
(Cargo of grain, &c.)
From and after the first day of October one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five all British vessels over two hundred tons register, when laden with grain, corn, rice paddy, pulse, seeds, nuts, or nut kernels, shall carry at least one-third of the cargo in bags, sacks, or barrels, and placed on the top of the bulk cargo, or have the cargo stowed with shifting boards, bulkheads, or otherwise.
583
When laden with less than two-thirds of the aforesaid descriptions of cargo, then the same shall he secured in the same manner as if laden with a full cargo, unless the vessel have her cargo completed with wool, hemp, cotton, wood, or other cargo.
The master of any British ship who shall knowingly allow any cargo or part of a cargo to he shipped therein for carriage contrary to the provisions of this section, shall for every such offence incur a penalty not exceeding two hundred pounds.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsuggested certain verbal alterations which would then render the Amendment unnecessary.
§ LORD ESLINGTONwas afraid the House would be much disappointed with the effect of Clause 3 in preventing the loss of life at sea in grain-laden British ships. From information he had obtained to-day, he found that of 48 grain-laden ships in British ports of call yesterday morning only 14 were British. No other European States regulated the loading of its ships by law, neither did America, and he was afraid that by this legislation we should be giving a tremendous impetus to foreign trade without in any way securing the lives of the seamen.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYobserved, that the very important and interesting figures laid before the House by the noble Lord would be treasured up for use in another Session in the event of the House being then told that this legislation had driven British ships out of the grain-carrying trade.
§ Clause negatived.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved the insertion of the following clause:—
§
(Liability of shipowner to crew.)
In every contract of service, express or implied, between the owner of a ship and the master or any seaman thereof, and in every instrument of apprenticeship whereby any person is bound to serve as an apprentice on hoard any ship, there shall be implied, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, an obligation on the part of the owner of the ship to the master, seaman, or apprentice, that the owner of the ship his agents and servants, shall use all reasonable efforts to insure the seaworthiness of the ship for the voyage at the commencement thereof, and to keep her in a seaworthy condition during the voyage.
Provided that nothing in this section shall make the owner of a ship liable for the death of or any injury to a master, seaman, or apprentice belonging to any ship when caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of a seaman or apprentice belonging to the same ship, in any case where he would not otherwise be so liable.
584
The hon. Member said, the clause was substantially the same as one in the original Bill of the Government.
§ MR. RATHBONEthought the seamen ought to have the same right of action in respect of unseaworthiness as the owner of the merchandize.
§ MR. NORWOODwas of opinion that the relations between the shipowner and the seaman ought not to be dealt with in this piecemeal manner.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped the Government would not embark on this subject at present.
§ MR. E. J. REEDbelieved the insertion of the clause would add very much to the satisfaction with which the Bill was received by the seafaring community.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought the feeling of the House generally was in favour of the clause, and, as it was copied from his own original Bill, the Government, of course, regarded it as a fit and proper provision. The effect of it would simply be to bring seamen within Lord Campbell's Act. In a recent case it had been decided that the shipowner was not bound, in relation to the seaman, to keep the ship seaworthy, though he was under a statutory obligation to provide him with medicine. This was an unsatisfactory state of things. He thanked the hon. Member for moving the clause, and hoped it would be agreed to.
§ MR. GOURLEYwas understood to remark that it might be impossible at sea to keep the vessel quite seaworthy.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDpointed out that all the clause required in that case was reasonable efforts.
§ Clause agreed to and added to the Bill.
MR. MAC IVERmoved an Amendment on Clause 1, with the view of limiting the number of additional surveyors to be appointed by the Board of Trade to three. He wanted to see the general working of the Act placed in competent hands, and objected to an indefinite number of new surveyors of unknown qualifications with absolute powers. He thought additional powers were less necessary than that the Board of Trade should be enabled judiciously to exercise the powers they had; and that this could best be done by strengthening the Department in London. A few 585 first-class surveyors could readily be obtained who might efficiently relieve the Permanent Secretaries of the Board of Trade from some of their present duties in regard to the detention of ships under the Act of 1873; but he did not believe that the right class of person to be entrusted with absolute powers was obtainable for every principal seaport in the Kingdom at a moment's notice, and upon a mere yearly engagement. There would, in any case, be many applications for the new Surveyorships, but this—if any large number of appointments were contemplated—would but increase the difficulty of selection.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREhoped that the Government would be extremely careful as to the persons whom they appointed to exercise those large and arbitrary powers, and suggested that from six to eight first-class men would probably be sufficient for that purpose.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "a sufficient number of," and insert the words "not more than three."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHrecommended that the matter should be left to the responsibility of the Government.
§ SIR JOHN HAYthought three was obviously too small a number, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYproposed to amend Clause 3 by adding the words "such grain, corn, rice, paddy, pulse, seeds, and nuts."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. RATHBONEmoved to add the words, "This clause shall not apply to any grain ship previous to the 1st of October, 1875."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GOURLEYmoved that the section should not apply to vessels of less than 200 tons register.
§ MR. E. J. REEDthought this Amendment would weaken the clause, and that it would be a positive invitation to people to sail vessels of loss than 200 tons register.
§ MR. RATHBONEconsidered the Amendment a very reasonable one. In small ships the grain would be divided into small bulks.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKthought that small river vessels under 100 tons should be exempt.
§ MR. HAYTERopposed the Amendment. He felt certain that if it were carried a greal deal of grain would be carried in very small vessels.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERthought it would not be desirable, without consideration, to introduce any limitation in the clause. At the same time, the matter might be considered between the present time and the third reading.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 4; considered in Committee, and reported.
§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 26, after the word "pounds," to insert the words "the one-third under this section shall he one-third of the tonnage measurement of the cargo."—(Sir John Hay.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RATHBONE (for Mr. HER-SCHELL)moved, in Clause 4, page 3, at end, to add—
8. Every person who is guilty of any offence which is by this section declared to be a misdemeanor shall be liable either to punishment on indictment or to a penalty of one thousand pounds, to be recovered by the Board of Trade by action in any court of competent jurisdiction, which court may mitigate the same at their discretion; and where a penalty is adjudged under the provisions of this section to be paid by any managing owner of a ship, as defined by sub-section five, the owners of the ship shall become jointly and severally liable for the same as sureties for such managing owner, but in such case the owners shall not be liable to any other proceedings under this section in respect of the same matter.
§ MR. NORWOODstrongly objected to the Amendment, remarking that under the existing state of the law a person who knowingly sent, or attempted to send, a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition was liable to be prosecuted for a misdemeanour. But the Amendment sought to turn a prosecution for misdemeanour into a simple matter of suing for a fine, for which all the co-owners of 587 a ship were to be liable, though they might be wholly innocent.
§ MR. RATHBONEmaintained that the Amendment would render the law far more effectual by enabling the Judges to apportion the punishment to the offence.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it appeared to him that there was very great force in the objection of the hon. Member for Hull to the Amendment. It was undesirable to make the owners sureties for the managing owner when, in truth, they might not be in the least to blame. He suggested the omission of the latter part of the proposed clause.
§ MR. RATHBONEwas willing to accept the suggestion of the Solicitor General.
§ MR. BATESconfessed that he saw no great objection to the Amendment. He had been a managing shipowner for many years, and he had always understood that if he did anything wrong, his co-owners were liable as well as himself.
MR. MAC IVERstrongly objected to Clause 4, and said that it would be of no earthly use, and without any result other than annoyance to shipowners, by compelling the registration of so-called managing owners. The clause, he maintained, would fail precisely as Clause 11 of the Act of 1871 had failed, and from precisely similar reasons. He deprecated this concession to the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), and held that the clause was mere wastepaper legislation. It read stringently, but meant nothing; nor could it, he (Mr. Mac Ivor) thought, be made to mean anything unless additions were made to it such as would cause it to mean a great deal more than was reasonable. Nothing would ever be proved under the clause as it stood. There was nothing to compel the so-called managing owner to actually manage the ship, nor was there any endeavour to reach those persons who owned vessels under the provisions of the Limited Liability Act. If the directors of limited liability companies were compelled to register some of their number as managing owners, and if it were assumed that the registered managing owner must in every case possess personal knowledge in regard to questions of seaworthiness, the clause might then come to mean something. If a 588 Proviso were added to the effect that the foundering of a vessel was in itself proof of unseaworthiness as against the managing owner, the clause would then come to mean something very real indeed; but in such case it would have a meaning that would be altogether unreasonable. He (Mr. Mac Iver), however, saw no alternative between this and no meaning at all; and, in its present form, the clause had no meaning at all. He therefore strongly objected to it, and would hope to call attention to the remarks that he had then made when the same subject came up again for discussion next Session
§ MR. FORSYTHsaid, that the latter part of the proposed Amendment introduced a totally new principle into the law of England—namely, that of making a man criminally liable for an offence committed by his partner with which he had nothing whatever to do. A penalty implied an offence, and no man ought to be punished for an offence of which he was not himself guilty. He hoped the Committee would reject a proposal embodying a principle which was unknown to the English law and he believed to any other law.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERobserved, that though there was a great deal to be said in favour of the present proposal, yet, considering the many questions of importance which it involved, he thought it should not be introduced into a Bill of a temporary character at the period of the Session at which they had arrived. The matter must come up for consideration when the permanent measure to which they looked forward was dealt with.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYmoved, at end of Clause 4, to add—
Provided, That the repeal enacted by this section shall not affect any punishment incurred or to he incurred in respect of any offence against the enactment hereby repealed, or any legal proceeding in respect of any such punishment, and any such legal proceeding may be carried on as if this Act had not passed.Proviso agreed, to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.