HC Deb 15 May 1862 vol 166 cc1750-81

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd May], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

Question put, and agreed to.

House in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Certificates of Competency to be granted to those who pass).

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to ask upon what principle the proposal with respect to engineers, embodied in the clause, was based. It was the first time, he believed, that the Crown had undertaken the singular duty of determining the efficiency and qualifications of any body of persons engaged in carrying on their own private business. Not only were engineers who were candidates for service on board merchant steamers required to undergo an examination, and to be certified, but the whole operation was to be under the absolute control and discretion of the Board of Trade. The proposal involved so great a departure from recognised principles, that the right hon. Gentleman was called upon to give some explanations as to the grounds of the change.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the proposal rested on the same principle as the existing regulations with respect to the examination of the masters and mates of merchant vessels. Engineers had important duties to perform; life and property were intrusted to their care, and it was desirable that there should be some test of their competency. He believed there was no objection on the part of engineers to the proposal, which had this advantage, that in the case of misconduct, drunkenness, or neglect of duty on the part of any engineer, there would be the power of withdrawing this certificate. The object desired to be attained was obvious; and all concerned had expressed their approval of the proposed change in the law.

MR. HORSFALL

said, he considered the proposed examination for certificates of competency as one of the most important provisions of the Bill. No injustice was done to the engineers by the change, and it was only carrying out the principle of the Merchant Shipping Bill, that had been applied with such good effect in the case of masters and mates.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, that a similar provision had been in operation in some of the colonies with the best result, and no objection had been made to it.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought the object of the clause a very good one; but be wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman meant to work that part of the clause which required from the engineer "satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, and general good conduct on board ship." How long, in what manner, and in what capacity must an engineer have served at sea before going up for his examination? The conditions ought to be defined and made clear.

MR. AYRTON

said, he must repeat his objection to the clause, that it introduced a new principle. It was the first time an Act of Parliament invested the Crown with the power of determining whether a man should be at liberty to carry on his own business. It was the greatest condemnation of the much-lauded principle of free trade that could be pronounced. There was no reason for requiring the proposed examination that would not equally apply to engineers of railways, mines, and engineers in general. If it was the opinion of shipowners that the engineers ought to be raised to the standard of a professional class, a clear explanation ought to be given of what was intended to be done. It was a startling fact that the shipowners could not manage their business for themselves, like the owners of mines and railways.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that the clause would not impose upon shipowners the necessity of employing a particular engineer any more than the law which already required the examination of masters and mates, and which had been generally approved of, imposed upon them the necessity of employing a particular master or mate. Therefore while on the one hand the clause offered a great boon to shipowners, it on the other gave necessary protection to the public.

MR. HENLEY

said, there was a difference between the cases of masters and mates and engineers. The former must have learned their business at sea; but the engineers went to sea from the mechanic's shop. If the right hon. Gentleman had not made up his mind on the point, he might postpone the clause and bring it up on a future day.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he would admit the difficulty of determining what should be accepted as evidence of general good conduct and that a man might be an able engineer, though he had not been employed on board ship. Therefore he was quite prepared to omit the words "general good conduct on board ship."He presumed that although a man might on examination prove his ability as an engineer, yet if it should be known that he was a great drunkard, or his character were otherwise impeachable, there would be little chance of his obtaining a certificate.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he would express a doubt whether either the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) or the President of the Board of Trade fully understood the effect of the clause. They seemed to suppose that every engineer in a steamer would be required by the clause to have passed an examination. But that was not in the least the effect of the clause. By the fourth clause, the first and second engineers of every foreign-going ship would be required to pass an examination; but every such ship had six or seven engineers. Again, with respect to ordinary passenger ships, only the first and second, out of a body of six or seven engineers, would be required to pass an examination; and as to vessels of less than 100-horse power, only the first engineer would have to pass an examination. The practical result would be, that not more than a third or a fourth of the engineers employed in the merchant service would be required to pass an examination. Therefore he thought it would be inexpedient not to require the small proportion of engineers who would need these certificates to give some proof of their general good conduct on board ship.

MR. CAVE

said, that no new principle was introduced, as certificates or diplomas were necessary in many callings. There was a great difference between an engineer of a mine, who could be discharged if incompetent, and an engineer afloat, whose character might not come out till a hundred miles from land. He thought, however, the words "on board ship" should be omitted.

MR. HENLEY

said, the apprenticeship; of an engineer must be served on shore. He must have mechanical knowledge, which he could only acquire in a workshop,; and there was no reason for giving a monopoly to the inferior officers of merchant steamers merely because they had been to sea.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he agreed with; the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) for this reason—no one would like to have for an engineer on board ship a man who had never been to sea. If the men were not required to have certificates in order to act as assistant engineers, it was quite clear that they would have ample opportunity for learning their sea-going; duties.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Incorporation of certain Provisions of Merchant Shipping Act).

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

said, that the question as to how far the Board of Trade were in future to undertake the function of inquiring into the alleged misconduct of masters and mates in the merchant service was properly raised on the tenth clause. Upon that point great dissatisfaction prevailed in the mercantile marine. Under the existing law the Board of Trade had the power of investigating any charge before two justices or a stipendiary magistrate, with a view of determining whether the certificate should be cancelled. The operation of that law was as follows:—A report of the investigation was sent to the; Board of Trade, and upon that report they decided the question without examining any more witnesses. The Mercantile Shipping Committee had addressed a very strong remonstrance on this subject to the Board of Trade. He would suggest that the proper tribunal to refer these inquiries to was the local marine board, and that where appeals should be necessary they should be made to the High Court of Admiralty, assisted by the Trinity Masters, where the proceedings would be conducted before the public. The Board of Trade had given up their power of suspending the certificates of masters and mates, but by the Bill they would have an appellate jurisdiction. He thought that no tribunal ought to have the power to sit and judge in private on the conduct of any officer, end thus arrive at a decision which might injure his character or prospects for life.

MR. COLLIER

, observed, that there was a great deal in what had fallen from his learned Friend; but he thought they might pass the clause without determining the question he had raised. There was much inconvenience in the law as it stood, on account of the concurrent jurisdiction of the several courts of inquiry.

MR. HENLEY

said, he held that the clause would add another to the curious anomalies which already existed. Nautical questions, with which the local marine boards had some acquaintance, were sent before a magistrate, who know nothing about them, and the Boards were restricted to cases of immorality or drunkenness. Some of the proceedings to take place under the Bill savoured too much of the Inquisition. It was monstrous also that a master or mate should be compelled, under pain of fine or imprisonment, to answer a series of searching questions which might criminate him. As to the engineers, any question relating to their professional conduct should be judged by a scientific person.

MR. AYRTON

said, that he trusted, before the right hon. Gentleman extended such an anomalous and fantastic system to another class of the community, he would seriously consider the consequences. It would be establishing a system of close courts, quite contrary to the English law, which expressly declared that no man should be deprived of his character and his living without a fair trial.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the clause did that which, as he understood, his hon. and learned Friend desired. He understood him to say that the local marine board ought to be the tribunal to investigate the conduct of engineers, as well as of captains and mates. If an engineer were charged with drunkenness, the local marine board would be quite competent to try such a charge by itself; and if they found that it was true, the Board of Trade could withdraw his certificate of sobriety. When it was a charge of incompetency from want of professional knowledge, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, the local marine board ought to have the assistance of engineering assessors. As the clause, however, only applied to engineers, whatever provisions might be made as to captains and mates, it would be convenient to reserve the gene- ral question until the Committee came to Clause 22. They were provided with a clause to meet the difficulty.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 11.

Clause 12 (Third part of Act to apply to Fishing Boats, Lighthouse Vessels, and Pleasure Yachts).

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of the clause. It proposed to apply the third part of the principal Act, with the exception of certain clauses, to all sea-going ships exclusively employed in fishing on the coasts of the United Kingdom. The interpretation clause of the principal Act defined "ship" as a vessel not propelled by oars. He wished to know whether the clause would extend to every fishing-boat which ever hoisted a sail.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, when the Merchant Shipping Act passed, the owners of fishing-vessels desired to be exempted from its provisions, but they had recently made application that they might be brought within the operation of certain provisions of the Act which related to discipline and questions of wages—to place, in fact, all sea-going fishing vessels under the same law as merchant vessels. In fact, the object of the clause was nothing more than to enable sailors to recover their wages by a summary mode against owners and captains; and, on the other hand, captains and owners would have a summary remedy against sailors,

MR. W. S. LINDSAY

observed, that the term "sea-going" was well understood.

MR. LIDDELL

said, that he was surprised that no provision was inserted in the Bill giving to some authority a greater power to deal summarily with cases of desertion. The Select Committee recommended that such a power should be lodged in the hands of the shipping master.

MR. CHILDERS

suggested that the word "registered" should be inserted before "sea-going ship exclusively employed in fishing."

MR. HENLEY

asked, whether the clause would be confined to decked vessels?

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the object of the clause was merely to enable agreements between masters and men to be enforced by a cheap and summary process, and that in respect to such an object it could make no difference whether a vessel was decked or open. No doubt it would practically be most felt by the owners and crews of decked fishing smacks.

MR. HENLEY

said, he could not say he was satisfied. The clause related to many other things besides agreements between masters and men, and the introduction of the word "registered" would not meet the difficulty. For instance, he wished to know whether fishermen taking apprentices would come under the Act, and whether they would thus have to make those returns about their crews which were required from sea-going vessels.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he could give no further explanation, but he would consider the propriety of inserting the word "registered," which would limit the operation of the clause to vessels of fifteen tons and upwards, in bringing up the Report.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 13 to 19 inclusive.

Clause 20 (Recovery of Wages, &c. of Seamen lost with their Ships).

MR. HORSFALL

said, he had hoped that the law would have been amended which enabled sailors to recover their wages, whether the ship was lost or not, or whether they abandoned it upon a supposed emergency. The underwriters or the owner had to bear the loss, and why should not the sailors take their share of the risk? The effect of the clause would be to render seamen apt to abandon their ship instead of standing by her to the last.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

did not exactly concur with the hon. Member for Liverpool in his approval of the maxim, that freight is the mother of wages. The sailor was not a partner with the owner, but the servant of the owner; If a ship was lost, the sailor ought not to suffer the loss of his wages. He engaged to serve the owner for wages, and was entitled to be paid for those services during the time his services were rendered. If sailors abandoned their vessels unnecessarily, the law could be enforced against them.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the owner might insure his freight as well as his ship. There was, therefore, no pretence for the alteration suggested.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 21.

Clause 22 (Power of cancelling Certificate to rest with the Court which hears the Case).

MR. HENLEY

said, he intended to move an Amendment; but as the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) had also an Amendment upon the same subject, he would defer his own for a time. His intention was to deprive magistrates of the power of suspending or cancelling the certificates of masters or mates, because before magistrates no charge was preferred, and therefore the parties were not put upon their defence.

MR. COLLIER

said, that provision was made for the trial of cases under the Act by the local marine board, by magistrates, by the Naval Board, and by the Admiralty Court, and other courts and tribunals. The suspension of a master or mate was a matter more peculiarly within the cognizance of the local marine board than two justices, and therefore the jurisdiction should be intrusted to the former. He proposed to strike the word "magistrates" out of the clause.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he could not assent to the Amendment. The inquiry before magistrates was in the nature of an inquest, to ascertain the causes of any casualty, but in the course of that inquiry it might appear that misconduct on die part of the master or mate had led to the misfortune. In an inquiry, instituted with the twofold object of ascertaining the causes of a wreck and the conduct of the officers, it was necessary that it should be conducted in a judicial spirit. To combine the necessary nautical knowledge with a just protection of the interests of those inculpated by the inquiry, a nautical assessor and a magistrate were selected to constitute the tribunal. The cases ought not to be referred to the local marine boards, because the persons composing them were often shipowners, who might themselves be interested parties, if the origin of the casualty in any way turned upon the unseaworthiness of the ship. For these reasons he must decline to leave out the word "magistrates." With regard to the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), he thought it would be very unjust to prefer a criminal charge in the first instance against the master of a ship, because the Crown would then be bound to follow up the inquiry in the spirit of a prosecution. Great advantages had resulted from these preliminary inquiries. Lights had been put upon stations where the necessity for them would never have been discovered but for the information thus obtained; surveys had been undertaken, and other facilities afforded for navigation which had entirely grown out of these investigations. It was a mistake to say that a master or mate had not full notice of all the points to be raised against him. Immediate steps were taken to give notice to all those inculpated of the points to which the investigation would be directed, and in all cases of wreck the officer in charge must know that it was probable his conduct would be impeached. Although the proceedings were not conducted strictly in accordance with criminal law, justice was better done than if the inquiry assumed the shape of a prosecution. If it transpired in the course of the investigation that the officer had either failed in his duty or been guilty of neglect, the Board of Trade at once withdrew the certificate of competency which they had previously given. He thought that a more lenient course than the one which was adopted in the navy, where an officer was at once put upon his trial; and he was quite sure, in the interests of the public, that the inquiry before the magistrate and nautical assessor was the most desired method that had been yet proposed.

MR. HENLEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had answered by anticipation the substance of his Amendment, but he wished to test the accuracy of his figures. From the wreck returns of the last three years—

MR. MILNER GIBSON

observed, that he had taken the figures for six years.

MR. HENLEY

said, it was not usual to deal with returns other than those of which the House was in possession. From the wreck returns of the last three years it appeared that out of the total number of 3,965 wrecks and casualties the Board of Trade had only seen fit to order sixty-six inquiries, or at the rate of one inquiry out of sixty casualties. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had no right to put into his mouth a statement which he had never made, that the captain, or mate, was put on his trial for every loss. The right hon. Gentleman stated that these inquiries were in the nature of an inquest; but at inquests it was not usual to subject the man accused of murder to cross-questioning and cross-examination; he was told he might stand aside and be silent if he liked. The magistrates and assessors, moreover, were not to inquire and report merely, but actually to pronounce sentence; and everybody knew that an inquiry was conducted in quite a different spirit when it was prelimi- nary and when it was final. He should be deceiving the House if he said that his experience of the working of the present system of inquiry had removed the objection which he entertained to it in theory. The right hot Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had conveyed to the House the impression that out of sixty-six cases which had been investigated there were very few in which masters or mates had been criminally affected; but no less than forty-six of those cases resulted in either the cancelling or suspension of certificates, or in reprimands; so that the greater number had ended in a penal dealing with masters or mates. If an inquiry of the kind was merely an inquest, a man ought not to be condemned on its result without further trial. Again, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the local marine board as at present constituted was not a satisfactory tribunal. Nor, on the other hand, was a stipendiary magistrate the functionary whom he should select to preside at such an inquiry. The person whose duty it was to decide on the evidence given in cases of the kind ought to be a man with a thoroughly judicial mind, assisted by a naval officer of experience. He thought that much laxity had been exhibited in the way in which evidence had been taken at some of those investigations, and that questions had been asked of persons in charge of vessels the answers to which afforded ground for condemning them.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that for many years great anxiety had been manifested on the part of some Members of that House that there should be frequent inquiries into the causes of loss of life at sea; and it having been suggested to the Board of Trade that many casualties took place because ships went to sea in an unsea-worthy condition, they determined, when the Merchant Shipping Act was passed, to put an end to the reproach that such cases escaped notice. It was determined that the officers of the Customs and the Coast Guard should always, in the first instance, take up the case where it occurred; and so far as he knew or believed, in every case of loss of life on the coast since the passing of that Act, there had been immediate local inquiry instituted under a competent person on the part of the Government. The result of these inquiries was communicated to the Board of Trade; and if the circumstances were such as seemed to render a public inquiry necessary, the case, was investigated and evidence taken before a sti- pendiary magistrate and a naval assessor. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) considered that an investigation which might result in penal inquiry, ought not to be conducted in the manner of an inquest, but as a formal trial, analogous to a court martial. In theory, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but in practice it would be found that his proposal would cause great additional inconvenience and expense to masters and mates. There was no doubt that one of the first questions that arose in those inquiries was as to the conduct of the master. Another question that invariably presented itself was as to whether the ship had gone to sea in a seaworthy state. It could not be tolerated, therefore, that such inquiries should be conducted by a body appointed by shipowners. The question, then, was whether in the experience of the last eight years they could find that any injustice had been done; and so far from that being the case, he was informed that all parties concerned were agreed that the present mode of conducting these inquiries was a proper one. The present system was, that the Board of Trade, upon the report of the magistrates, could withdraw certificates; and as he understood the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, it was, that the magistrate should withdraw the certificate, and the Board of Trade should have power to mitigate the sentence. He personally thought that there was great advantage in having a public inquiry, and that the existing system did not operate to the prejudice of the parties more immediately interested.

MR. HENLEY

said, he had now heard for the first time, and with great surprise, that masters and mates were satisfied with the existing system. Certainly, when he was at the Board of Trade, a very large deputation waited on him, and expressed the greatest dissatisfaction with the tribunal. He had been misunderstood when it was supposed that he desired that there should be a second trial after an investigation had been held; what he had endeavoured to impress upon the Committee was, that these investigations all turned upon the conduct of the masters and mates, and it was immaterial to say that an inquiry so conducted was not the same thing as a trial. He thought it would be more satisfactory if the court were constituted with more than one naval assessor.

MR. AYRTON

said, he shared in the astonishment which had been expressed at the authoritative statement that the tribunal constituted by the Merchant Shipping Act had given satisfaction. The important question before them was, whether that tribunal was a proper one to have the power of depriving masters and mates of their livelihood. The treatment which mariners received in having their most important interests dealt with by such a tribunal, could only be explained by the fact that but few of them had votes; and it contrasted strongly with the treatment which bankrupts received when the power of deciding whether they were fit to carry on business again was considered. It was protested that no single judge should have such power, and that the accused should have the privilege of a jury. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some pledge to the Committee that he would reconsider this question, and bring up a clause constituting a tribunal on a basis which would give security and satisfaction to those whose character and means of livelihood were to be placed under its jurisdiction.

MR. HORSFALL

said, he also shared in the surprise expressed by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that the tribunal in its present form gave entire satisfaction to the masters and mates in the mercantile marine. On the contrary, a very large deputation from that body had represented that they were dissatisfied. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might, with a good grace, yield so far as to add to the stipendiary magistrate two assessors; the whole difficulty might then be got over. It was due to the right hon. Gentleman to say that when he asked whether the deputation to which he referred could point to any case where injustice had been done to any master or mate, the reply received was that they could not, but they knew that a general feeling of dissatisfaction pervaded the mercantile community.

MR. CHILDERS

suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn then, and brought forward at some future time, in an altered form.

MR. COLLIER

said, his proposition was to simplify the law. As it stood at present, in some cases the local marine board had the jurisdiction of granting and suspending certificates; in others the magistrates. In each case there was an appeal, practically, to the Board of Trade. What he proposed was that the jurisdiction should be given exclusively either to the marine boards or to the magistrates. His proposition was that, of the two, the local marine boards should have the jurisdiction.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the clause might very well be omitted from the Bill. It did not set up a new court but simply affirmed that the court, such as it was, which heard the case should sentence. Those who heard the evidence and observed the demeanour of the witnesses must be better qualified to pronounce sentence than those who merely read a report, which was the duty of the Board of Trade. If it was the wish of the Committee, he would not insist on the change proposed, but leave the courts to proceed as at present. When an engineering question was involved, there would be an engineering as well as a nautical assessor; and if one nautical assessor was not thought in an ordinary way sufficient, he should have no objection to another. These were points of detail.

MR. R. HODGSON

said, he hoped the clause would not be omitted.

MR. AYRTON

thought such great powers as the clause gave should not be vested in one magistrate only. He thought the magisterial court ought to be strengthened.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) would be a most extraordinary termination to the discussion.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that if the master or mate got a copy of the original depositions on which the investigation was ordered, he thought it would meet the view of the right hon. Member for Oxford-shire. He had no objection to strengthen the court by giving a second nautical assessor, and he would make that provision in a subsequent stage of the Bill.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had made so important a concession as that of allowing a second assessor. All that he desired was that the master and mate should be put properly on their defence. If he gave an assurance on that point, he would not press his Amendment. He thought that the power of examination should be limited, and that the person respecting whom the examination was made should be present at it.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, it was not the recent practice to examine the master. He was told that he might make any statement he pleased; but he was not subjected to a cross-examination upon it.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

said, that it was a very common practice to examine and cross-examine the master. He thought, if a power of appeal was granted, it ought to be to some public tribunal.

Amendment, by leare, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23 (Offences by British subjects on board foreign ships on the high seas to be tried as if committed on board British ships).

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to ask for some information as to the object of the clause.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, it was framed to meet a class of cases of which there had been a recent example. Some English sailors left their own vessel, went on board a French ship, sufficiently distant from the Essex coast to be upon the high seas, committed a violent assault, and then returned to their own vessel. It was only reasonable, to prevent such offences being committed with impunity, that the clause should be inserted.

MR. AYRTON

said, the clause had nothing to do with British shipping, and ought to be omitted. He protested against such an off-hand mode of dealing with great legal principles. Any passenger on board a foreign ship might be prosecuted for an offence under the clause, while every one else on board was not liable; and if the question happened to be one of assault, he would have no means of obtaining the attendance of witnesses from on board a foreign ship to show that he was first assaulted, and that all he did was to act in self-defence. It was not clear whether the offence was intended to mean an offence against English law, or against the law of the country which claimed jurisdiction over the vessel where the transaction occurred. At least, there should be some reciprocal treaties with foreign countries before such a sweeping clause was adopted.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he also concurred in the expediency of omitting the clause. He would also suggest that before the Bill was reported the right hon. Gentleman should consider the propriety of extending the power of inquiry to the case of wrecks off the coasts of British possessions.

MR. COLLIER

said, he would recommend the postponement of the clause; because it had a much wider application than the evil which it was intended to meet. It was also calculated to lead to international difficulties; because an act might be held to be an offence by the law of one country, while according to the law of another it would be no offence at all.

Clause postponed.

Clause 24 postponed.

Clauses 25 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 32 (Penalties on drunken or disorderly Passengers).

MR. AYRTON

remarked, that the clause delivered passengers up to captains in a somewhat summary manner. If such powers were to be given at all, they should be given with great precision, so that passengers might not be subjected to unnecessary annoyance.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the clause was taken from the Railway Acts, and it had not hitherto been found practically inconvenient.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 33, 34, and 35, were also agreed to.

Clause 36 (Pilotage—Part V. of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854).

LORD HOTHAM

said, he should oppose the clause, his object being that the subject of pilotage should not be included in the Bill. The measure under consideration might be taken as the offspring of the Committee of 1860. Now, although the question of pilotage formed a separate item in the Report of that Committee, yet the only inquiry made into it was by questions put in the cross-examination of the hon. Member for Sunderland. So superficial, indeed, was the inquiry, that from the two great estuaries of the Mersey and the Humber not a single witness was summoned before the Committee. Pilotage had always been considered a matter of national concern, and accordingly steps had been taken to keep up an adequate supply of competent pilots at various points on our coasts. Three years ago a new Pilotage Board was formed at Liverpool, to which was committed not only the old docks of Liverpool, but likewise the new and important docks of Birkenhead. It was called the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Now, a body of that description, consisting as it did of commercial men of high and independent position, was, he contended, quits as well able to conduct satisfactorily the pilotage of the Mersey as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could pos- sibly be, assisted by any number of gentlemen in his office. The same observation applied to the Commissioners by whom the pilotage was managed at Hull, and he could state that, from all he had been able to ascertain on the subject, their duties were efficiently discharged. He found, for instance, that in the case of 23,983 vessels which had in the last six years entered the lower district of the port of Hull, only one accident occurred; and he knew that there was no foundation whatever for the imputation that a dearth of pilots prevailed in Liverpool. Be that, however, as it might, all that the parties whose interest he represented required was, that inquiry should precede legislation; and with this object in view he proposed that Clause 36 be left out of the Bill.

MR. COX

said, he thought it was very desirable that the system of compulsory pilotage should be abolished. Between 8,000 and 9,000 barges plied for hire on the Thames, and every day three or four, if not five, of them were injured in some shape by vessels coming from Gravesend to London Bridge. Where it not for the present pilotage law, the owner of a barge thus injured would be entitled according to the common law of the land to require compensation from the owner of the vessel that had injured the barge. But the pilotage law exempted the owner of the vessel from all liability, in consequence of his having being obliged to employ one of the compulsory pilots, and the owner of the injured barge had only the pilot to look to for compensation. The futility of such a resource was evidenced by what recently happened to one of his constituents. A barge worth £140 or £150, belonging to that constituent, was run down, and, upon endeavouring to recover compensation from the pilot employed by the owner of the vessel that occasioned the damage, he discovered that the pilot lived on a second floor in a back street in Gravesend, and was utterly incapable of paying even a shilling of compensation. In the course of a twelvemonth 1,500 at least of these accidents occurred. But what was the law in the event of a vessel being injured by a barge? The owner of the vessel could sue the owner of the barge for compensation. Did the President of the Board of Trade approve of such unfair distinction made by the law between rich shipowners and bargeowners? In common justice the shipowner should be obliged to resort for compensation to the free waterman whom a bargeowner was obliged to employ, and not to the barge-owner, so long as the law lasted which made pilots and not shipowners answerable for injuries to barges?

MR. LIDDELL

said, that the natural consequence of the present most unjust law was that the shipowner was obliged to take a pilot; and so long as he was obliged to take a pilot he must be necessarily relieved of any liability for accidents which might arise when the vessel was in the charge of such pilot. With respect to the present clauses, he objected to them because they did not go far enough. He wished to see it left to the shipowner's discretion to take a pilot or not, according to his judgment; and he would remind the Committee that the sense of responsibility resting upon the masters would always induce them to take a pilot where it was necessary. The present law on the subject of pilotage was anomalous, inconsistent, and incomprehensible, and was founded neither on justice nor reason. There were some cases, as in the Bristol Channel for instance, where, one pilot being quite sufficient to do the work, the shipowner was compelled to employ two. Danger arose from the system of compulsory pilotage, and he knew at least one instance in which a ship had struck through stopping to take on board a pilot. If a ship was bound from Newport or Cardiff dawn Channel, the same pilot who takes her out of her own port is not allowed to take her out of danger, but at a given place a Bristol pilot steps on board and supersedes him, notwithstanding that there might be a gale of wind blowing, and the vessel might be in the most imminent danger, in order that the privileges of the Bristol pilot might not be interfered with. It was also absurd to allow the captain of a ship having a valuable cargo on board from any port in the Baltic to enter the port of London without employing a pilot; while the same captain, bringing the same vessel with an equally valuable cargo of wine from Oporto or Lisbon, could not enter the port of London without being compelled to employ a pilot. Again, though coasters are exempt from compulsory pilotage, a vessel returning home in ballast from the Port of London to the North is obliged to take a pilot at Gravesend as far as Orfordness, though the captain may be thoroughly competent to conduct his ship. The pilotage charges pressed very heavily on the small class of ship-owners, who were the least able to bear them. In the case of two vessels trading with St. Michael's in the fruit trade, and having a tonnage of 96 tons and 140 tons respectively, the pilotage charges had amounted to 9 per cent on the gross earnings of the first, and to 15 per cent on the gross earnings of the second; while the pilotage charges on a large vessel of 612 tons, coming from Manilla, had only amounted to 1⅛ of the earnings. In making pilotage compulsory, all that was done was to force those who did not want pilots to pay for those who did want them. It was a mistake to suppose, that if compulsory pilotage was abolished, the supply of efficient pilots would be less. As an illustration, he might mention that at Falmouth, where there was compulsory pilotage, there were but thirty-six pilots, while at Cork, where it did not exist, there were 103 pilots; while the rates at Cork were less than half what they were at Falmouth. The Cork pilots, moreover, went out further to seek for ships than did those of Falmouth; as might, indeed, be supposed, for the tendency of monopoly was to make men lazy. In the Ports of the Tyne and Wear, where the taking a pilot is optional, the supply of pilots is abundant at all times, and the service admirably performed. Through the legislation of Parliament the shipowners were now exposed to the competition of all the world, and therefore he thought that they ought in justice to be relieved from these petty local restrictions.

MR. CLAY

was convinced that the clauses under discussion, though they did not propose to abolish compulsory pilotage, would lead to that result. He would not now argue whether the change would be right or wrong; but he thought that a question of that magnitude ought not to be decided by clauses which did not pretend to decide it, or without being preceded by an inquiry.

SIR HENRY STRACEY

said, he was of opinion that compulsory pilotage bore hardly on shipowners. It was not to be supposed that any man, having his property embarked on board a vessel, would employ an inefficient captain to command the vessel, and therefore it was a hard case to subject him to compulsory pilotage. Although his constituents lived on a dangerous coast, he had received no representation from them against these clauses, and he should certainly give them his support.

COLONEL CLIFFORD

said, that in his district the question was not one of changing the status of pilots, but a question of annihilation. The Isle of Wight pilots would find pilotage abolished. After all, the pilotage was no burden on the shipowner, as in the end it fell on the consumer; and he doubted the economy of the abolition, for the loss of one cargo of great value would cover an immensity of pilotage charges.

MR. COLLIER

said, that the clauses were very valuable; and although they did not amount to an abolition of compulsory pilotage, he hoped that they would lead to it. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that there had been no inquiry upon the subject; but the fact was, that the question had been examined by a Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Sunderland, who took a great deal of evidence, and reported that they had arrived at the conclusion that a system of voluntary pilotage might safely be established in most parts of the empire. They added that where such a system now existed pilots were more abundant and efficient, and the rates were generally lower than those which prevailed where pilotage was compulsory.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

sad, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Collier) stated that the shipping interest was that to be principally considered m this matter; but that there was, above and beyond all, a public interest, on behalf of which, as well as on behalf of the import ant body of pilots whom he represented, he asked leave to make a few observations. There were three principal objections urged against the present pilotage system. First, that under it prevailed certain anomalies and inconveniences; secondly, that among persons qualified to pilot vessels, there ought to be free competition, just as among butchers, bakers, and such like tradesmen; and thirdly, that upon the east coast and elsewhere a voluntary system of pilotage did exist, and answered so well that it might well be made general. And this afforded the solution of the question he had often asked himself in wonder, why he found the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) leading the attack upon what he was pleased to call the monopoly of the present system? His hon. Friend the opponent of monopoly, the champion of free trade! He put it to the House, when they found his hon. Friend—the last living Protectionist—the man who preferred wars to treaties of commerce, and who was generally the supporter of monopolies and the upholder of cherished abuses—opposing something which he called a monopoly, whether it was not probable that either upon investigation that would turn out to be no monopoly, or else, being a monopoly, to have something in it so inherently good as to command the support of the House for the very same reason which secured to it the opposition of his hon. Friend. But upon the east coast, from whence came his hon. Friend, there was a system of quasi voluntary pilotage. It would not be difficult to show that differences existed which rendered it by no means a natural consequence that this system might be safely extended to other districts. But he begged the especial attention of the House to an argument constantly used by those who desired such extension. It was said by them—"The abolition of compulsory pilotage will do no harm. It has done no harm on the east coast, and why? Because ships still almost invariably take a licensed pilot in pilotage districts, inasmuch as the underwriters will not insure ships without a clause in their insurance binding them to do so." Well, but if this was the case, and if the desired object was that a pilot should be employed, why interfere with a system by which due care was taken that only duly qualified persons should be put on board, by which order and regularity was obtained, and a good supply of competent persons secured? It was said that this was a matter which might be left to be settled between the shipowner and the underwriter; but in the case where not only property but the lives of many thousands of Her Majesty's subjects were concerned, was it not well that some superior power should exist to exercise supervision and control over these regulations? Human nature was weak, captains were ordered to avoid every possible expense to their owners; and if left to be a matter of bargain, greater risks would be run. The principle of free trade was not called in question at all. Grant that there ought to be free competition in all ordinary occupations, but this was no ordinary occupation; it was the occupation of skilled men acting under authority and control. Would hon. Members wish to have free competition in the police force, and the streets of the metropolis guarded by a voluntary police? Well, the pilots of the Channel in whom he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was especially interested, were the police of the Channel. They acted under strict regulations. Each must have served two years as mate of a vessel. Each had left his occupation in order to become a pilot; and if you altered the conditions under which they entered the service, the only fair way would be to have a real free trade—to sweep away all restrictions and regulations and rates of pilotage together, and let these men go into the market with their capital and skill, and make the best bargains they could. This would hardly content the shipowners. The question of compensation would also have to be seriously entertained. He was not there to contend that there were no anomalies and no inconvenience in the present system. Nothing was perfect in this world; but, to correct and remove such anomalies, the pilots and the pilotage authorities desired nothing better than a full and fair inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) had said there had been such an inquiry. He utterly denied it. True, a Committee had been appointed early in 1860 to inquire into the various burdens upon merchant shipping. This Committee reported upon a great number of subjects, and amongst them the subject of pilotage. In the course of evidence certain questions were asked concerning pilotage, but the matter was never fully gone into, and upon that Committee was no one to represent the Channel pilots, who never imagined that they were to be attacked. In answer to certain questions, Mr. Green and the late Mr. Dunbar, among others, stated their entire approval of the present system, and their belief that increased loss of life and property would follow its abolition. But at last there arose a mighty witness, Captain Sullivan, of the Board of Trade, with a strong bias against compulsory pilotage. Captain Sullivan, being an experienced man, capable of navigating a ship, and ready to do so, in any waters, believed that everybody else could do the same. He certainly went fully into the question, and gave evidence against the present system. But no opportunity of replying to his evidence was given; not one pilot was examined, and the Trinity House authorities were not heard. Did any one ever hear in this country of condemning people without hearing their defence? The elder brethren of the Trinity House put in one short statement (which would be found in the Appendix) to the effect that no such thing as compulsory pilotage really existed now, inasmuch as any master or mate might present himself for examination, and, on passing, would be qualified to pilot his vessel without a pilot. If, therefore, he neglected to do this, the law stepped in and obliged him to take a competent person, it being fair to suppose that he was not qualified, or was ignorant of the particular negotiation. The Trinity House, a nonpolitical body, composed of men who had themselves been masters of vessels, was peculiarly well fitted for the management of pilotage matters, and their management was excellent. But it was said that damage was done by ships with pilots on board, for which the owners of such ships were not liable, on account of the pilot being forced upon them. But the pilot was liable to a civil action, and moreover gave a bond for £100 to the Trinity House, and was rendered doubly careful by the fear of losing his licence. Damage done above Gravesend was by a different class of men, who might be fit subjects for inquiry, but must not be confounded with the Channel pilots, who during the last sixteen years had conducted an annual average of 4,000 vessels, with only one fatal accident. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) knew that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did not wish to injure these men, of whose value he was aware. He could not, of course, vote against his right hon. Friend, nor could he vote against the noble Lord and those with whom he had been acting upon this matter, and he should therefore abstain from voting. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) knew the pilots of the Channel well. They were an honest and intelligent class of men, following the duties of their laborious profession with punctuality and with diligence. They were valuable to the merchant shipping, and valuable to the Royal Navy, when their services were required. Let the House take care how they drove from the service a class of men whom it would be found difficult to replace. These men feared no inquiry; nay, they courted inquiry into their character and capacity; and remembering how highly they were prized by the late Duke of Wellington, and what care he bestowed upon them in his capacity of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, they looked with confidence to the present Lord Warden, his noble Friend at the head of the Government, feeling sure that he would never give his consent to any measure which, by injuring their pro- fession, would not only deal unfairly with vested interests, but would inflict a real and lasting injury upon the merchant shipping of this country.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he was glad to find that one hon. Member had been added to the band of Protectionists; for a more determined Protectionist speech he had never heard. His hon. Friend, however, had taken an exaggerated view of the question. All that was proposed was, that vessels should not be compelled to take pilots under circumstances where they were not required, and that every competent man might have it open to him, upon passing an examination and obtaining the proper certificate, to act as pilot. The hon. Member for Sandwich had forgotten, that although by the Bill powers were given to the Government to deal with abuses that might be hereafter shown to exist, yet that no decision affecting local or vested interests could be taken without again coming to the House. As he had been wrongly supposed to have impugned on a former occasion the pilotage of Liverpool, he would take that opportunity of saying that the pilot system of that port was admirably conducted. There was a sufficient number of pilots, they possessed excellent vessels, and they were always forthcoming in the worst weather. One gross and glaring abuse of the present system ought to be remedied. A ship was compelled to take a pilot; and as long as he was on board, and the vessel was in narrow waters, the owner was exempted from all liability for accidents. If the vessel ran down another, the owner of the vessel so injured had no remedy or ground of action, except against the pilot. The Trinity pilots had a fund among themselves, so that if one of their number were proceeded against for damages, his wife and family were maintained while he went to prison and was "whitewashed." The question really seemed to be whether the safety of the ship or the interest of the pilot was the principal consideration. It used to be supposed that pilots were made for ships; but as they were now dealing with the question, it appeared as if ships were made for pilots. He believed that in places where pilotage was voluntary the service was better done, and at a cheaper rate, than where a compulsory pilotage existed.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he should support the Bill. The effect of the clause might be to introduce the thin end of the wedge, as it was called, into the system of pilotage, but still it was doing so in a way absolutely called for by the wants of the country. He believed that the great majority of the leading shipowners were opposed to the present system of compulsory pilotage, although individually, and as compared with the smaller shipowners, they derived great advantages from it. He could not agree with the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding that accidents were very rare. On the contrary, one had happened last year near Hull, which attracted a great deal of public attention, and had since given rise to most expensive litigation. In perfectly still water, and in broad daylight, a vessel moored close to the wharf was run into by a foreign steamer and sunk with her valuable cargo. The steamer had a pilot on board, whom the master was compelled to take; and, after very full investigation, she was found to have been entirely innocent. The unfortunate owners of the stationary vessel, therefore, not only lost their ship and cargo, but were mulcted besides in the costs of the action. The Bill in its present shape would give the Board of Trade power to inquire into such cases, and he therefore supported it.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he had stated distinctly that in speaking of the number of accidents he was guided altogether by the information which he had received. He would make inquiry, and admit his error if he found that he had unintentionally put forward any misstatement. After the strong opinions which hon. Members had expressed with regard to compulsory pilotage, he was surprised that none of them had proposed clausesgiving effect to those views.

MR. BLAKE

said, the rumours of dissensions in the Government were certainly strengthened by what had taken place that evening. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had been unable to take more than a few minutes' repose without finding when he woke up the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugesseii) in fierce contest with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. If that right hon. Gentleman did not consent to an inquiry into the effect of the clauses, he might be responsible for heavy losses to life and property which he would regret to the end of his days. Until harbours of refuge were established, there could be nothing more important than an adequate supply of skilled pilots. But the tendency of particular clauses of the Bill was to discourage this useful class. He believed that the Bill had been too hastily prepared, and although there were some provisions in it which might be considered good, there were those exceptions which he had pointed out, and which ought to be omitted altogether. If the present pilots were thrown out of employment, it would be most disastrous to them and their families. He did not, however, mean to say that a system of compulsory pilot-age should be kept up for the benefit of these men; but what he thought was, that they would have to return to the present system when it had been broken up, and then they would not be able to find the same class of men for the duty. On the whole, he would suggest that these clauses should be postponed, in order that further inquiry should take place.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he thought that the noble Lord would do well not to press the House on the point of compulsory pilotage, which had attracted a great deal of public attention. It would be better for the noble Lord to join the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in bringing the question before the House in the manner proposed by those clauses. If his noble Friend should persist in going to a division, and if he gained a victory, the only consequence would be more excitement than there was at present, and the question would be brought forward in a more aggravated form. There was no doubt that the system of compulsory pilotage had arisen from a desire on the part of our Government to protect the mercantile wealth of the country on the dangerous waters which surround our coast; but since the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and the skill and scientific knowledge of navigators had increased, there was less necessity for that system. All that the clauses now objected to sought to do was to provide a means of applying the knowledge of the Board of Trade to those cases, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would either abolish compulsory pilotage or preserve the Bill as it stood. The hardships which had been referred to in the course of the debate, and the remarks of Dr. Lushington in a recent judgment, showed the necessity of a remedy for the existing state of things.

MR. HORSFALL

said, it was his intention to support the clauses in the Bill as they now stood, and he should do so for the reason that they would insert the wedge into the question of pilotage. He also agreed that compulsory pilotage ought, in some places, to be abolished, and in some not, and the clauses would bring that question under the consideration of the Board of Trade. What was the proposal before them? Why, that when any complaint was made to the Board of Trade, whether of compulsory or voluntary pilots, an order should be issued for an inquiry; and then, when the Board was prepared with the information, it should be sent before a Select Committee, in order that the pilots might be heard by counsel. He thought that every representative of the pilots in that House ought to vote for the clauses in the Bill; for the question simply was, whether an opportunity should be afforded to the Board of Trade to inquire into the defects of the pilotage system and to have them rectified, or whether the system should remain as as present, some portion of it compulsory and some voluntary, but with defects in all.

MR. LINDSAY

said, it was well known that at ports where pilotage was not compulsory the supply of pilots was greater and better—the effect of competition. He had listened to the speeches of the noble Lord opposite and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), and they were the same as adduced in years gone by, the doctrines of which had been happily exploded. They had ample evidence of what would be the effect of abolishing compulsory pilotage. At present, where it was not compulsory, the men were much more attentive to their duties, and to be found at a greater distance at sea; and further, they were more numerous, and their charges were lower. On the other hand, where the system was compulsory, the pilots were apt to lie by in bad weather, and then jumped on board when a ship was out of danger, and claimed the pilotage. The only objection which he had to the whole of the Bill was, that it did not propose to sweep away the system altogether. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with Falmouth, the Downs, Yarmouth Roads, and the Isle of Wight; but why did he not grapple with the question boldly, and sweep the compulsory system away altogether? He felt convinced that that would have tended to the interests of the pilots themselves, and hare improved their condition. It would also have tended to the interests of the shipowners, and, above all, to the interests of the public at large; and if the House would support him, he would, on the bringing up of the Report, propose clauses which should entirely abolish compulsory pilot- age. Dealing with the question as proposed in the Bill was only half doing it, and that was unsatisfactory. They would have to deal with the question again before long, for they had abundant evidence before them to show that the system at present in force should be swept away altogether.

MR. HENLEY

said, the desultory course the debate had taken had made it difficult for him to understand what they were really debating about. No hon. Gentleman, with the exception of the Member for Liverpool, had dealt with the subject immediately before them. After the speech he had just heard, all doubt he might have had about voting for the clause was swept away. Whether pilotage ought to be compulsory or not he would give no opinion, but it was plain that that was a very grave question and one involving the liability of the shipowner for damage done. He had never known a question of such serious importance disposed of by provisional orders, and his hon. Friend might well doubt whether Liverpool would be safe under the Bill. He (Mr. Henley) did not like the system of provisional orders to be extended beyond due limits; and he thought the Bill went beyond that. The clause affected interests secured under charters and Acts of Parliament; and even with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed for sending the matter to a Select Committee, the questions at issue were too large and too important to be safely dealt with by provisional orders. As far as he could see, he did not know what abuses the Bill dealt with, unless, indeed, compulsory pilotage was regarded as an abuse.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he should not have risen but for the expressions used by the hon. Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Lindsay), which must give very unnecessary pain to that very valuable body of men, the pilots of this country. Whatever opinions might be entertained as to the abolition of the present system, nobody had alleged that the pilots did not give satisfaction to those who employed them, except the hon. Member for Sunderland; and even that hon. Gentleman must have often congratulated himself that his property at sea was in the hands of good and faithful pilots. Yet that hon. Member had asserted that under the compulsory system this class of men were indolent and inattentive, and that they must be placed under the non-compulsory system before they could be kept up to their work. He had the honour of representing a large body of pilots, but not because he was their representative so much as a naval man did be take an interest in them. However, he was not going to oppose his right hon. Friend's measure. It was a painful matter to those men; but there was great good sense among them, and he believed they felt that they would have justice done them. In certain difficult parts of the Channel, as well as at Liverpool and elsewhere, it was most important that there should be a superior class of pilots, and he did not believe that any petitions would be sent in for the abolition of the system existing in those places. He should be sorry to see anything done that would at all tend to deteriorate the present class of pilots, upon whom, in the Channel, the safety of Her Majesty's ships so often depended.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he had stated no more than was, contained in the Report of the Commissioners themselves, and quoted the passage in which it was stated that in one port where the pilots were unlicensed they were much more vigilant than in a neighbouring port where the pilots were licensed.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he thought that compulsory pilotage should be abolished. At St. Ives there were no licensed pilots, and he was informed by those who were well acquainted with the subject that there was no difficulty there in obtaining pilots or assistance to vessels in distress, while at Penzance, where there were licensed pilots, the same readiness was not exhibited.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he hoped the noble Lord would not press his proposal for the omission of the clauses to a division. Those clauses did not maintain, or abolish compulsory pilotage, but they enabled different localities to make such changes in their pilotage system as they thought advantageous, without the necessity of resorting to the trouble and expense of passing a private Bill through Parliament. The provisional orders would have to be confirmed by a general Act, and any petition against a provisional order would be referred to a Select Committee, so that private interests were effectually guarded. He could not, therefore, conceive any reason why the Committee should object to persons receiving the advantages which the Bill provided, with a due regard to existing interests and the circumstances of particular cases.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 27: Majority 111.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 struck out.

Clause 47 agreed to.

Clause 48 (Receiver may appoint a valuer in Salvage Cases).

MR. CAVE

said, that alarm was felt at the Receiver of Wrecks having power to appoint the valuer, and that there was a wish that another valuer should be appointed in conjunction with him on the part of the owners, in addition to an umpire, He did not attach much weight to to this objection, as he thought the valuation would be mere evidence, which the owner might rebut, and the court would be the umpire. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would state if his impression was correct, as this would remove the uneasy feeling to which he had referred.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the value put on a wreck by the valuer appointed under the provisions of the Bill by the Receiver of Wrecks, would not be binding, but mere evidence, which might be rebutted in Court.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 49 to.51 agreed to.

Clauses 52 and 53 postponed.

Clauses 54 to 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 (Orders in Council to be published in London Gazette).

MR. HENLEY

asked, why it was necessary to give the clerks to the Solicitor to the Customs, who was a well paid officer, the power to appear in court as counsel or attorney. It was hard enough to have legal proceedings instituted by a Government office, but harder still to have the proceedings conducted without those forms and regularities which professional men knew so well how to exact. There were many hundreds of penalties, and, unless he heard some good reason, he should vote for the omission of the clause.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the clerks having been a long time in the office of the solicitor of the Board of Customs, were thoroughly conversant with the law on the subject, and the Customs authorities told him it would be very convenient to have this power.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought the clause should be struck out.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he had no objection to postpone that and the two following Customs clauses.

Clause postponed.

Clause 62 (20 and 21 Vict. c. 43. s. 3).

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the effect of the clause. It proposed that where any man was informed of or indicted, it should be sufficient to state the number of the section of the Act under which the indictment or information was made, instead of stating the offence. Now, they would find that one of the sections of the Act contained no less than fifty-one separate offences; and suppose an unfortunate man should be informed against, and the case should be conducted, not by a professional man, but by a Customs clerk, what a position would he not be in, and what a nice position the magistrates would be in, who would be called upon to decide the case on a clause which contained several offences, for every one of which there was a penalty attached to the extent of £100. There were other clauses relating to misdemeanors which were highly objectionable, but as these clauses would be postponed he would not say more than that he thought they must have been shoved in by the Solicitor of the Customs, who said, "Here are a number of clauses; never mind the offences so that we have somebody to convict." But that would be a sharp way of doing business, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman could not know what the effect of these clauses would be. As to Clause 63, which would enable magistrates to send doubtful cases to the Superior Courts, he thought it ought to be extended to those persons who might he convicted on information or indictment.

Clause postponed; as was also Clause 63.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 (Power to Shipowner to enter and land Goods in default of entry and landing by Owner of Goods).

MR. LOCKE

said, his objection to the clause was that it would permit a ship-owner to land goods on a wharf without giving notice of the ship's arrival to the consignee, and enabling him to take his goods from the ship. By the custom of the port of London for several centuries, every consignee of goods brought into it was entitled to forty-eight hours' notice to take them out of the vessel in which they were brought. But of that privilege the shipowners wished, by this clause, to deprive consignees. He proposed to prevent the shipowners doing so, and on behalf of consignees moved an Amendment to the effect that the liabilities of shipowners to consignees should continue in as full force for twenty-four hours in the case of a steam-ship and forty-eight hours in the case of a sailing ship (exclusive of a Sunday or holiday) after the mooring of the ship at the place of discharge, as if such goods had not been landed or unshipped.

Amendment proposed, In page 23, line 13, after the word "expressed," to insert the words "being subsequent to the commencement of the legal delivery of the ship's cargo at her place of discharge: Provided always, that the liabilities of the shipowner to the parties to such charter party, bill of lading, or agreement as therein expressed, and his obligations thereunder, shall continue in the same manner and in as full force and effect for twenty-four hours in the case of a steam ship, and forty-eight hours in the case of a sailing ship (exclusive of a Sunday or holiday), after the mooring of the ship at the place of discharge, as if such goods had not been landed or unshipped.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, be must oppose the Amendment. The object of the clause in the Bill was to enable shippers and shipowners to give effect to their own agreements both as to the time of delivery and the rate of charge. They were competent to judge of their own affairs without being nursed by a clause in an Act of Parliament; but if no agreement as to the time when the goods should be taken out of the ship were made, then the Bill required that the goods should be discharged within a reasonable time, in order that the space in the river and the docks might not be taken up by the needless detention of vessels. The proviso now proposed by the hon. and learned Member would establish an enduring responsibility on the part of the shipowner which was quite unprecedented.

MR. AYRTON

said, he should support the Amendment. Under the operation of the clause as it stood, goods might be hustled on the wharves without the consignee being aware of their arrival. He would suggest that a certain time should be specified in the bill of lading, within which the merchant should take charge of his goods, instead of using the word "forthwith."

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, it was for lawyers to decide what was the mean- ing of the word "moderate." All that was proposed by the clause was, that whatever happened to be the agreement between parties, they should be at liberty to carry it out.

MR. CAVE

said, this was a lawyer's objection. No mercantile man would dream that "immediate" meant anything than with all convenient speed. The change in the law was necessary, because the law, as it stood, could not be observed, and was habitually broken with the consent of all parties—a very unsatisfactory state of things. The Member for Southwark had done what he did two years ago. He had made a speech for the plaintiff in the case of Wharves v. Docks, and had tried to divert attention from the point by alleging that this was a quarrel between Wharfingers and Dockowners. It was no such thing. These clauses were introduced at the instigation of the Customs for the despatch of business. The House affirmed the principle two years ago. By this means, the practice of London would be assimilated to that of the Outports, and the law to the laws of almost every Continental nation on this subject. For two years past this measure had been discussed in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette and other papers. Petitions in its favour had been sent in from all quarters to the Board of Trade; and he believed, that while the law in its present state was acceptable to a few, the change would give satisfaction to the public in general.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 131: Majority 117.

House resumed.

Committee, report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.