MERCANTILE MARINE (No. 2) BILL. (Hansard, 22 July 1850)

§ MR. STAFFORD
said, that there were inquiries out of doors as to the effect of this measure upon yachting, the season for which was beginning, and some persons were under the apprehension that not a yacht would be able to set sail. He wished for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to know whether he had had any communication on the subject from yacht owners, and whether he would object to receive suggestions from them?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
assured the hon. Gentleman that it never had been intended to include the Yacht Club in the provisions of this Bill, and he did not think the measure could prejudice them; but if it did affect them in any way, he should be happy to listen to any suggestions, and quite ready to make the necessary alterations on the third reading.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that the Bill made no provision for burying seamen and apprentices, although a peculiar course was proposed for taking care of them when they were dead. A mode was proposed, which had all the inconvenience of the existing law, while no securities were given for the distribution of the property of these deceased persons, but rather the reverse. He advised the right hon. Gen- 81 tleman to leave this part of the subject alone, and to strike out this clause.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, the matter was not of very material consequence. This clause and the next had been well considered, and, in fact, only re-enactments of former provisions, and applying them to these shipping offices. The substance of the provision was scattered over two or three different Acts, and it was thought that the most convenient course would be to condense them all in one Act. However, if the Committee thought these clauses no improvement, or unnecessary parts of the Bill, he had no objection to postpone them.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that the right hon. Gentleman undertook a great responsibility for the Board of Trade in this clause. How could the machinery be arranged that no such difficulties would arise as those now existing with respect to savings banks? If there was a deficiency in these sums it must be made good, and if so, was it to be made good out of the Consolidated Fund? The claim should not fall upon the shipowner. If the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy the Committee that his machinery was correct upon this point, he would be satisfied.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
should be glad to hear any suggestion from gentlemen of the shipping interest. He could have no motive for throwing such claims upon them.

§ MR. CARDWELL
suggested that the point be postponed to the bringing up of the report. The question was, when there was a defalcation, what course would the Government take when parties arose who made a claim upon this fund?

§ MR. HENLEY
said, they had recently extended legislation upon this subject so much that the probable amount they would have to deal with had been greatly increased. He could understand that when the amount of wages left was very small, it might be given to the Seamen's Fund for the general advantage; but he I protested against including all effects whatever to be given to the Seamen's Fund.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
, upon the whole, approved of the suggestion of the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken last, and he would strike out the clauses; but upon the understanding, of course, that if found necessary on further consideration, they were to be restored on the report, or on the third reading.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, it must he understood that if the clauses were again proposed, ample time must be given for their consideration. If not, he would rather strike them out at once.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that no provision was made in the clause that the evidence before the inspectors should be taken in the presence of the parties concerned. The clause conferred a vast power, which he hoped would never be given to a local marine board. Moreover, the difficulty might arise of the inquiry being held before an examiner who was unacquainted with the proper mode of conducting it, relating as it might to a man's seamanship or ability to command a ship. The inspector might also be ignorant of the rules of evidence, and the result might seriously prejudice any man about to be put upon his trial. In section 20 great power had been taken for inquiry into the conduct of masters and mates; but in the present clause additional power was taken of inquiring into matters of misconduct and gross violation of the law, but there was no provision that the, party whose conduct was to be inquired into should be present. Also in collisions, or what were called "running down cases," there was no power to secure the presence of both parties at the inquiry. The sort of evidence given in such cases should be recollected: and was it just and fair that evidence given in such cases should be taken on oath; and a report made grounded upon that evidence that would prejudice the rights of parties not present at the examination, and perhaps had no opporunity of knowing anything about it?

§ MR. BAINES
said, that the report would be no more binding than the verdict of a coroner's jury.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that the same witnesses who were examined before the Commissioners would also appear at the criminal court afterwards. He doubted the expediency of the provision.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Gentlemen must reconcile themselves to applying somewhat different principles to eases occurring at sea to those on terra firma. He advocated the principle of this preliminary inquiry, which might operate beneficially to the accused party, inasmuch as, for example, there might be a primâ facie case for pro- 83 secuting the captain, which that inquiry might disprove. Powers stronger than those usually granted were necessary in these cases; they had hitherto worked satisfactorily, and might he safely left in the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his objection.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, if the inquiry was to he limited, as the right hon. Gentleman described, he would not object to it. There was, however, abundant power in the 20th section, and this clause related to matter of a personal character, the evidence on which ought not to be taken behind a man's back. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words referring to the misconduct of the master or mate, "or that any master or mate has been guilty of serious misconduct of any kind, or has shown gross negligence or want of skill." The omission of those words would reduce the application of the clause to a general inquiry, which he thought just and fair, and exclude inquiry into individual eases.

§ MR. BAINES
said, this was an important clause as part of the machinery to effect the objects of the Bill, and he proposed, in addition to the words "fine and imprisonment," to add the words "with or without hard labour." The Bill could not deal properly with some of the most flagrant offences without the addition of these words, and he proposed to add the same words with respect to costs.

§ MR. HENLEY
thought the first Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman an improvement, but objected to the proposal as regarded costs, and called his attention to the 1 and 12 Vic, by which common informers had been much restrained. He did not think it right that these penalties should fall into the hands of common informers who might bring forward the cases. That ought to be guarded against, or the parties, even if they had committed no offence, would be liable to heavy penalties at the mercy of common informers. The hard labour provision might be right and proper, but the question of costs should he kept out.

§ MR. BAINES
admitted the necessity of placing a check upon common informers. The Committee would decide whether the power of prosecution should be left to the Board of Trade, or to the parties. He 84 thought it had better rest with the Board of Trade, who would take care that no temptation was held out to common informers, whose object was part of the penalty.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, it was a question whether the powers could not be most safely trusted to a public board.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, it was a serious thing to inflict upon the Board of Trade the exclusive conduct of the prosecutions.

§ MR. HENLEY
objected to the clause altogether. It was most unusual to give costs in summary cases. The expenses of witnesses and fees to the clerk were granted; but he did not know a case in which costs to the attorney were given in a summary case, and he should move that the clause be struck out.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that the object of the clause, requiring the costs to be certified as proper, was to prevent the low bloodsucking attorneys who loitered about the courts from cheating the sailors. Whether the objection of the hon. Gentleman had weight or not, that purpose must be effected.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that some definite security should be taken for the expense of the machinery of this clause. Here they proposed to put the wages they might be holding as trustees, with all the other receipts, in one common fund, out of which they proposed to pay all salaries and other expenses, as thereinafter authorised. That he thought was not a convenient form. It was more desirable that the salaries should appear in a distinct form, and that the wages for which the Board of Trade was responsible as trustees should be a separate fund. They had no right to mix up those wages with the common fund without giving distinct and responsible security for them.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that the amount of wages the board would receive as trustees would be so small that it would be better to place them in the common fund; for it was not worth while, and at the same time very inconvenient, to constitute this trifling sum into a separate fund. There would be no danger in thus dealing with them, for the money would be as secure 85 as any deposited in the public departments.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that the salaries of the persons paid by the Board of Trade would be submitted to the House.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that when so many officers were appointed it was desirable to know the particulars of their salaries. Were the clerks separate for separate purposes, and was there to be a specific statement for each?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that the principal expense was incurred for the East Indian officer. The others would be appointed by the local boards, but the salaries would be paid by the Board of Trade. He did not wish to give these local boards the temptation of appointing officers, although he consented that the local authorities should fix the amount of salaries.

§ MR. HENLEY
would be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would have the accounts kept separate. Bui, if all were thrown into one general fund, how would the public know in what proportions these various sources of income arose, and be able to judge whether it was fair those salaries should be continued, and how much ought to be handed over to the merchant seamen's fund? He throw this out as a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that the accounts would be kept separate, and would be separately stated to Parliament. But it was really not worth while to keep the wages first alluded to by the hon. Gentleman as a separate fund. The items would be given separately, and when the accounts were on the table the Louse would be able to see from what source of income the payments were made.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that in the case of income arising from fees, it was right to appropriate that fund to office expenses. But those funds for which the board was trustee should go to the parties to whom they belonged, and if kept in the common fund the accounts would be more complicated. Besides, there might be interest accruing on those wages, and the board had no right to appropriate that interest in any other way than giving it to the owner of the wages. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might devise some simpler mode of settling this matter.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
quite agreed with that principle, but the whole object might be attained without making special provision for amounts so small.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
proposed to add a clause, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Liverpool concerning encouraging sailors' homes. He (Mr. Labouchere) was most desirous to promote them, with the sanction of that House, and he hoped that one of the consequences of this Bill would be, that those who would be connected with the shipping offices would be connected also with the sailors' homes. The Board of Trade would encourage them in every way; but the voluntary exertions of the shipowners themselves would do more for the establishment of sailors' homes than this clause, or any Act of Parliament whatever. The object, of the clause was to enable corporations to purchase land for sailors' homes.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
then brought up the Amendments in the clauses that had been postponed. Several new clauses were added.