§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4,
§ MR. HUDSONmoved that the clause be amended by the insertion of certain words, the effect of which would be to make Sunderland an independent port, without reference to Newcastle. He considered the port of Sunderland as one of the most extensive and rising ports in the kingdom, and he thought it was quite entitled to be placed in the independent position which it sought.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that, however he might be willing to accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, it would not be consistent with the scope and object of this Bill to agree to it. The grievance of which the hon. Gentleman complained, was not a practical one, and he hoped he would wait for another opportunity to redress it.
§ MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, that looking at the position of Ireland, he thought she ought to be considered in discussing this Bill. The Ballast Board of Dublin had now a balance in her favour of 104,000l., while Scotland owed 10,000l, and England had only a small balance; yet, by this Bill, it was proposed to place all three countries upon an equal footing.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he certainly thought the Ballast Board of Dublin were entitled to credit for the 104,000l. which they had in hand, as there were several lighthouses now under consideration to which the money could be applied.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the subject to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French) had referred, did not apply to the present clause. He could say, however, that no injustice whatever would be done to Ireland by the proposal to place the three countries upon the same footing.
§ Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5.
§ MR. R. M. FOXsaid, he objected to Kingstown Harbour not being looked upon as an imperial harbour, and its expenses 1219 defrayed in the same manner as that of Holyhead. He should prefer seeing this clause more like the preceding one, and should therefore move to leave out the words after the word "fund," and to insert words similar to those at the end of Clause 4.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. He submitted that if Ireland expected to get the advantages of the measure, she should he prepared to bear her fair proportion of its liabilities. It was clear if there was a material object, it was the lighting the coasts of this Imperial Kingdom out of a common fund, subject to Parliamentary control; and, besides, he considered the proposed arrangement was exceedingly fair towards Ireland.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he thought that Ireland had hitherto to bear the largest share of Imperial burdens, and that the Trinity House had not provided anything like sufficient accommodation in the way of lighthouses along the Irish coast.
§ MR. R. M. FOXsaid, he wished to have some explanation with regard to the balance of 170,000l. lightdues in Ireland.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the balance was not 170,000l., but 104,000l., and that this sum was charged with an annual payment of 3,600l. There was also a sum of 5,000l. for Dunleary harbour, which was not defrayed by Ireland, and Ireland would be relieved of both of those sums if this Bill were passed. She had, therefore, no reason to complain of the injustice of the arrangement.
§ MR. FERGUSsaid, he must complain of the employment of irresponsible Commissioners in Scotland. These gentlemen, called the Northern Light Commissioners, were the Judges of the County Courts, and never did any business whatever, save to make one or two yachting excursions, and to eat dinners on board. The whole of the work was done by the secretary, and, although the Commissioners had only thirty-two lights under their charge, they had twenty-two superannuations. He did not wish to deprive those gentlemen of their dinners and yachting expeditions, but he protested against the expense being charged to the shipping interest. Let it be charged to the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. MITCHELLsaid, the complaint made by his hon. Friend applied with equal force to the Trinity Board, where the same 1220 yachting and festivities went on with the same irresponsibility.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he must protest against the balance of the Irish accumulations being transferred to England, on the ground of the expenditure upon Kingstown harbour. This was another step towards that centralisation which had already so grievously injured the country.
§ Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 6.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, that there was no provision for the management of pensions and charities.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREfeared that the operation of this clause would hold out to the existing Boards to be lavish in granting pensions before the passing of the Act.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, this subject would come under consideration more properly upon the 12th clause. But nothing could be more honourable or straightforward than the proceedings of the Trinity House on this subject, for they had, since the correspondence with the Executive Government, acted precisely in the spirit of the Bill. He had no reason to suppose that the other boards would do otherwise, but, if they did, the Board of Trade would have the power of revising their Acts.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREbegged to explain that he had no intention to make any imputations against the Trinity Board.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURwould suggest that the local authorities at seaports should have the privilege of recommending persons for pensions.
§ MR. CARDWELLreplied that the habit of placing pensioners upon the list would now cease. Hereafter, no pensions would be paid except in those cases where promises had been made by the Trinity House before the passing of the Act.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the working of the latter part of the clause, which he was afraid would have an injurious operation. The bodies whose duty it was to supply deficiencies might hesitate in doing so if they had any reason to fear that any item would be objected to by the Board of Trade; and it might happen that if a light-vessel got adrift, such hesitation in supplying the deficiency would be productive of serious injuries to the shipping interest.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, be quite agreed that it was of the utmost importance that the bodies to whom the working of this Bill was intrusted should not be afraid, in ease of any deficiency occurring, of immediately repairing it; but he did not share in the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman, for he did not understand why there should not be the most cordial understanding between those bodies and the Board of Trade. He was, however, of opinion that all expenditure incurred should be subject to the most strict control.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that it was not intended to consider the items of expenditure incurred by those bodies in a niggardly spirit; but he did not think it was expedient that they should have the power of incurring expenditure subject to no control. It was proposed by this Bill to make them accountable to the President of the Board of Trade, who, in his turn, would be responsible to Parliament.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not entertain any apprehension of the items of expenditure being examined in a niggardly spirit; but what he feared was, that the operation of the clause would be to divide the responsibility, and that was not, in his opinion, desirable.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 8 to 13 were also agreed to.
§ Clause 14.
§ VISCOUNT GODERICHmoved to leave out the proviso at the end of this clause, and substitute in lieu thereof the following:—
Provided that, in addition to the duties hitherto performed in consideration of the said bal-lastage rates, the Trinity House shall place their ballast on board of, and unload ballast from, all ships requiring to be so ballasted or unballasted; and they shall be entitled to charge for such additional duties such reasonable rate per ton for ballast so placed on board, or unladen, as Her Majesty, by Order in Coucil, may from time to time approve.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought the matter had better be left to the discretion and judgment of the Trinity House.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 15 to 19 were then agreed to.
§ Clause 20.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that this clause gave a power to Her Majesty in Council to appoint inspectors in certain cases after complaint made; he thought it would be far better to make this a general power. This would be better than waiting to institute inquiry until complaints were made.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that general approval had been expressed of the management of the lighthouses, and that he thought the object of the Bill would be better promoted by not implying any suspicion on the conduct of the bodies who had them in charge.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed in thinking that it would be better to make a general inspection, than merely to cause an inquiry where a complaint was made.
§ MR. HUDSONsaid, that if the Board of Trade were to cause an inspection, they would have to make the inspection an annual one. He thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Trinity Board.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he would consider the suggestions thrown out by hon. Gentlemen.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 21 omitted.
§ Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
§ Clause 27.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would take this occasion to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade what progress had been made in winding up the Seamen's Fund?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that considerable progress had been made. It was anticipated that only 180,000l. would be realised, whereas 210,000l. had been already got; and, therefore, the sum which the country was bound to provide would be less by 30,000l.
§ Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 28.
§ Clause 29.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he must protest against the anti-national spirit in which this clause was framed, and he would predict that, if adopted, it would engender a spirit of disappointment, if not disaffection, among the seamen, and drive them in disgust into the service of the United States. The law which this clause would alter had continued in force since the time of Charles II., and it provided that vessels engaged in foreign trade should not have more than 25 per cent of foreigners in their crews, while it prohibited the employment of any foreigners whatever in the coasting trade. The reason for the latter provision was obvious: the coasting trade was the home nursery for seamen. He might be told by the President of the Board of Trade that this question was the very pivot of free trade; but let the House remember that when 1223 the Navigation Laws were discussed, in 1849, a free-trade Parliament had rejected these very manning clauses. It was his duty to warn the Government and the House that the adoption of this clause would produce most disastrous results. He had received many letters, informing him that at certain ports the seamen had entered into a common agreement pledging themselves, if the clause should be adopted, to enter the American service. At Liverpool a large meeting of seamen had been held to consider the clause, and when it was suggested that they should petition the House of Commons against it, the answer was, "We have petitioned it long enough; we will now petition the President of the United States." It might be said that this clause was the completion of free trade. Shame upon such a doctrine! Were we to make our seamen the subjects of barter—to buy them like slaves in the cheapest and sell them in the dearest market? Its effect would be to enable the shipowner to traffic his crew, and to exchange them for the seamen of Norway, Sweden, or Holland. This was one of the most important questions which could possibly occupy the attention of Parliament, because if British seamen were driven from the mercantile marine, we could no longer expect to retain the supremacy of the seas. Let them remember what Napoleon—Napoleon the Great—had said: "Give me the command of this Channel for three days, and I will land 100,000 men on the coast of England." There was no doubt that Napoleon could have done this, and would have done it had it not been for the battle of Trafalgar. Much had been said about maintaining the dignity of the British flag, but Parliament was now about to entrust the keeping of that flag to a crew of foreigners. We refuse to admit foreigners into the House of Commons, or into our dockyards, or police, and yet we were ready to place them in the van of our protective power. Recollect that every foreigner who might be employed must displace an Englishman. Imagine, too, the confusion which must prevail on board a vessel where foreigners of different nations were employed on account of the variety of languages spoken. For his part, he would compel these foreign crews to sing "Rule Britannia" every morning, the master accompanying them on the French horn, and the mate on the German flute. There was another important consideration connected with this subject: our national honour 1224 would be committed to the charge of foreigners, and if our flag should be insulted while under their charge, we must claim, and, if necessary, enforce redress. What could be more absurd than to allow our ships to be manned with foreigners at the very moment when high authority had announced the practicability of an invasion of the country? The President of the Board of Trade knew nothing of the feelings or habits of seamen; he was not old enough to know anything of war, though, perhaps the battle of Waterloo might have celebrated his chistening. The right hon. Gentleman had been put forward to move this clause by persons who wished to keep in the background. He entreated the shipowners to pause for their own sakes before supporting the clause. If their ships came to be manned exclusively, or in great part, by foreigners, the charge for insurance would be much increased. What a time to select for bringing forward this unpatriotic proposal! Russia had in the Baltic a fleet perfectly manned. In the Black Sea she had a fleet perfectly manned. We, too, had a good fleet near the Black Sea when it was united with that of France — not otherwise — and would France always be our ally? They had now a fleet at Spithead. Spithead had become a sort of naval Chobham for the exercise of vessels of war; but why were not those vessels sent to sea, or ventured to the back of the Isle of Wight? In the French fleet no foreigner was taken, for they knew too well the value of keeping up their marine for that. He believed that America was destined to be our great antagonist upon the sea, and that a generation would not pass away before his words would be verified. America had already upwards of 20,000 British seamen in her service; and in the late war it was found, when English and American frigates closed in action, that the American had numbers of English seamen on board, and that they had christened their guns by the names of the English ships in which they had served. He assured the House that he was speaking with as much earnestness for the safety of the country as if that safety was in his own keeping. There were 47,000 seamen in league together on this subject, and they had passed a resolution pledging themselves to avoid the Navy or quit the country if this clause were passed. They were casting the safety and honour of Her Majesty's dominions away by sanctioning this policy, for it was inimical to the very best 1225 interests and security of the country. They had the evidence of Lord Brougham that Belgian seamen could be had for half the wages of the British seaman, and inferior food, and, that, if war were declared with England 56,000 British seamen would he found in the service of foreign Powers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), when President of the Board of Trade, had said that it was impossible for us to keep up an efficient naval power without a powerful mercantile marine. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) had also said that the effect of the clause would be to throw the entire trade open to unqualified competition, and to on-able a shipowner to man his vessel altogether with foreigners. Again, the Economist even, which might be regarded as an authority, had admitted that the effect of the clause would be to enable the shipowners, by employing foreign crews, to withstand the unreasonable demands of the British seaman. But these unreasonable demands were merely applications for increase of wages, and surely seamen were as much entitled to share in the general prosperity in this respect as any other class of the community. There was also the testimony of Lieutenant Brown, who ought to have been an admiral long ago, but who was now the secretary for the registration of seamen, and that gentleman had said that the seamen looked upon their registration ticket as a proof that they were British seamen in contradistinction to foreigners. The First Lord of the Admiralty found it difficult to get seamen now; but the difficulty would be greatly increased if the clause should pass. There were causes now existing—to which it was unnecessary more particularly to allude— which indisposed men to enter the Royal Navy; the First Lord of the Admiralty was trying to turn landsmen into seamen for the Navy, but by no system of training could you make a sailor of a landsman. You never could have a good seaman without bringing him up to the business from a boy. We had lately gone to considerable expense in embodying militia, and now it was proposed that our primary defence, our ships, should be intrusted to foreigners. Why not have foreign militiamen as well as foreign seamen? The permission to employ foreign seamen was not limited to the foreign trade—it was extended to the coasting trade. Why, this was a suicidal act; it was downright madness. If the President 1226 of the Board of Trade persevered in retaining this clause in the Bill, he ought to he placed in the lunacy ward. [Laughter.] Really, he was speaking sincerely. If his voice should never he heard in that House again, he should rest satisfied, conscious of having fulfilled his duty. He spoke on this subject as if the safety of the nation were in his hands, and, knowing the responsibility which rested on the occupants of the Treasury bench, he could not for the life of him understand how they could sit calmly looking on, and thinking perhaps, in their own minds how they would cut him up by and by. He cared little for what they might say, for he knew that on this point he should have the country with him. The wages of foreign sailors were, he understood, not above one-half of those ordinarily paid to British seamen: but he did hope that the shipowners of this country would not be induced, by a desire of obtaining men who would take less wages and cat inferior food, to advocate a step which must be hazardous to the defences of this country. [The hon. and gallant Member then read extracts from the evidence given on this subject by eminent authorities, advocating the importance of the merchant service as a school for training seamen for the Navy.] At the present time every labourer was trying to get as high wages as he possibly could, and he did not see why sailors should be excluded from that competition. He would advert to a statement made in another place to point out what he considered a fallacy in it. Lord Grey, in speaking on this subject, said, that as German sugar bakers were allowed to come and exercise their occupation without restriction in this country, he saw no reason why foreign sailors should not be allowed to come in the same manner; but he would ask the Committee to consider what analogy there could possibly be between seamen and German sugar bakers The mere fact of the presence of foreign sugar bakers in this country could have no influence whatever on our national defences, while they would certainly be impaired by throwing discouragement in the way of the seamen of this country. He felt it his duty to state, that even at present, to his knowledge, many English seamen had obtained American protection. He would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley) who, when examined before the Committee, said, that we ought not to give up manning merchant vessels with at 1227 least a large number of British seamen. The only naval authority who had ever, to his knowledge, spoken in favour of the clause proposed was Sir James Stirling, and he had laid himself open to severe strictures; and he considered his evidence completely neutralised by that of the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester and others. The forecastle men and the captains of tops and able seamen had nearly all been brought up in the merchant service; and he did hope that, after the authorities which he had adduced, Her Majesty's Government would pause before pressing this clause. It was a clause of only four lines and a half, and it was hard to know at first what it really meant, for it only provided for the repeal of certain existing Acts of Parliament. He would not trespass longer on the time of the Committee, but he would only say, that he had placed before them a question of the utmost importance, for he felt the question of the state of defence of this country to be one of the most important points which could be brought on for discussion; and the matter which the Committee had now to determine was of a more weighty nature than any they had lately been called upon to decide. If this clause were passed, the effect of it would be to outrage and trample upon the feelings of the sailors of this country, and that to the advantage of the foreigner and the shipowners, if advantage it really were to them. He contended that the effect would be most injurious, and he wished that some shipowner would get up and repudiate the charge of wishing, by foreign competition, to reduce the wages of the British seaman. It might be true that at times the English sailor would ask a higher rate of wages than a shipowner felt disposed to pay him; but that was no reason for a wholesale introduction of foreign sailors into our mercantile Navy. The question was one of considerably more importance than the India Bill, for here it was proposed, for the first time, to repeal laws which had existed for upwards of 200 years, and under which the safety and honour of the country had always been maintained. He trusted that in a question of such paramount importance the independent Members in that House, and those who might waver in their opinions on this subject, would side with him, and that even if the working of the present system were, in point of fact, a source of some evil to certain individuals, they would still think that the national 1228 security ought not to be sacrificed for individual advantage. The seamen already displayed reluctance in entering the service; but if this clause were passed, their feelings would be outraged, and they would display more reluctance still, and a blow would be inflicted upon the prosperity which now fortunately pervaded the length and breadth of the land. While the Navy was on a good footing, the defence of the country was secure; but diminish its efficiency, as the passing of this clause would unquestionably do, and there would be nothing to rely upon to avert the horrors of war from our own shores. He trusted that the Committee would not consent to the clause.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTseconded the Motion.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he considered the hon. and gallant Officer's anticipations relative to the operation of this clause on the seamen's labour market as altogether illusory. The clause would not deprive a single British seaman of employment, nor would it benefit in any appreciable degree a single shipowner. Independently, however, of these considerations, the clause was open to serious objection. By the existing law three-fourths of the crew of a British vessel must be composed of British seamen, and be commanded by a British captain. It was in the power of the Crown at any time to relax this law by an Order in Council, and to permit a large proportion of the crew, or even the whole of it, to be composed of foreigners. This power was, he believed, uniformly exercised by proclamation at the breaking out of a war, or at any period when, owing to temporary causes, it was difficult to obtain a supply of British seamen. The permission accorded by law of employing one-fourth foreigners in the mercantile marine had never been acted on. The principle of our law was adopted by every other mercantile nation in the world, although the relative proportion between natives and foreigners might vary. Parliament was now called upon to enact a law by which it would hereafter be sufficient for a merchant ship to have what was called a "British owner," without having a single English soul on board, from the captain to the cabin boy. For aught he knew, this "British vessel" might never come near our shores—she might be built at Bordeaux, and navigated by Frenchmen, and trade with every country but England. In objecting to the proposed change, he was 1229 actuated by no party feeling. Ever since the formation of the present Government, he had given it his humble support, and he hoped to be able to continue so to do; but this question was of such vast importance that he felt bound to express his apprehension on the subject, even at the risk of appearing to act in opposition. What he had said on former occasions on this subject was, that he trusted the Government, in proposing this important change, had well weighed and considered all the consequences of the step they were inviting Parliament to take. He believed that by this change in their practice they were incurring great danger of another description. His opinion was, that the English sailor was not only the best but the cheapest in the world. He, therefore, did not fear that their interests would be at all hurt by the carrying of this clause. He found that even America, though they had the whole world as a market for their crews, yet always preferred the English sailor. Although, then, he did not oppose the clause on the grounds chiefly relied upon by the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Scobell), he doubted its policy for other reasons. He knew how easily the feelings of English sailors could be worked upon, and how such a measure as this might be made a handle of to wean them from their loyalty. He thought, therefore, that a Bill of this kind was calculated to afford the occasion of much dissatisfaction. He regretted that the Government had introduced a measure which tended so much to excite the sensibility of the British sailor, and to raise the fears—however mistaken they might be —of this valuable class of men. The main objection which he had to the measure was, that he believed it would have the effect of wounding the sensibilities of British sailors, and that it would involve us in a difficulty as to the national character of our ships. Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give them a satisfactory explanation for proposing this clause, he would be compelled to vote against it.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, the observations of his right hon. Friend had left him not without a hope that before the debate on this subject was brought to a conclusion, the Government would have the advantage of his vote. His right hon. Friend had indeed disposed himself of nine-tenths of all the arguments against the clause, for he had said that after all the British seaman was the best and cheapest in the 1230 world, and that this measure would not affect him injuriously. He could also assure his right hon. Friend, that in order to secure the British character and register of the ship, and to guard against the inconveniences to which he had alluded, this measure had not only been most maturely considered by the Government, but that the clauses on this subject had been also considered by the learned Judge who presided over the Admiralty Court. He believed the time had arrived when the Government might safely propose a measure of this kind. As regarded the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) it was impossible to doubt his sincerity; but substitute "ships" for "seamen" and his speech was a counterpart of one of those directed a short time back against the change in the navigation laws. It was filled with the same gloomy predictions which characterised those effusions, all of which had been falsified by events. The year last expired was that of all others in which the greatest number of British seamen had been employed. It was also the year in which the greatest number of ships had been built, and, beyond all exception, it was the year in which the greatest entry of British shipping, inwards and outwards, had taken place. Turning to the coasting trade, it would be found that the tonnage of ships entered inwards in 1851 was 12,394,902 tons, while in 1852 it was 12,475,405 tons. The increase was continuing. Comparing the tonnage of the first five months of 1852 with the first five months of the present year, it appeared that the tonnage entered inwards in the first period was 5,420,064, and in the latter 5,495,381. The coal trade presented results equally satisfactory. The quantity of coal brought into London by railway in 1851 was 247,908 tons; in 1852 it was 377,908 tons; that brought by canal in 1851 was 24,206 tons; and in 1852 37,009 tons. In spite of the influence of these causes, operating to reduce the amount of tonnage employed in the coal trade, it had increased from 3,236,542 in 1851, to 3,330,428 in 1852. Wages, which were in one part of last year 3l. 10s. had then risen to 4l. 10s. for all the year round. Comparing the first six months of 1852 with the first six months of the pre sent year, the tonnage of vessels employed in the coal trade appeared to have in creased 27,880 tons. All this was in the face of increased competition by railroads. Freights had also increased. The freights 1231 of colliers from the Tyne and Wear to London, which in 1851 were from 5s.1d. to 5s. 10d., had risen in 1853 to from 7s.6d. to 8s. 6d. Under these circumstances, it was surprising that any persons should he found endeavouring to fill the minds of that loyal and useful body, the British seamen, with idle apprehensions, [The right hon. Gentleman was proceeding with his argument, when he was abruptly interrupted by the Chairman retiring from his seat, the hour of 4 o'clock having arrived, when, by a Standing Order of the House, the adjournment until 6 o'clock takes place.]