CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS (re- committed) BILL.— [Bill 46.]

§ MR. HUMBERSTON
, in the absence of Mr. Liddell, moved the omission from the clause of the words "person or persons." The object of the alteration was that the testing machines which were to be established under the clause should be in the hands of public companies or bodies, and not in those of private individuals. He believed it was the wish of the trade generally that such an alteration should be made in the Bill.

§ MR. AYRTON
hoped the words would not be omitted, because if they were, a serious injustice would be done to the very respectable persons engaged in the manufacture of chain cables and anchors. Those manufacturers were in the habit of testing their own work, and sending it forth with a guarantee of its fitness for the purpose intended. Other people engaged in the same trade made and sold bad and unsound chain cables, and it was necessary to prevent the continuance of that evil; but in doing so they should not so alter the Bill as to prevent those who had earned a reputation for doing right carrying on their lawful business. Moreover, in his 504 opinion greater responsibility attached to an individual than to a company, which was the creature of law and without any responsibility whatever.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, that the point now raised had been carefully considered by the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, and they were unanimous in thinking that the same rule, whatever it might be, should be applied equally to persons and companies. They saw no distinction between a private partnership and that description of partnership known as a joint stock company. Any body of persons could, if they thought fit, by adopting certain forms, constitute themselves into a joint stock company; and it seemed to him that the principle of disqualifying private partnerships from being licensed to test chain cables must also extend itself to partnerships known as companies. The Committee considered that they must either exclude both or retain both, and they decided in favour of the Board of Trade granting licenses to companies, persons, or individuals of whom they approved. But there were other considerations which rendered it necessary that the clause should remain as it stood. It was requisite that after a certain date no chain cable should be sold in this country which had not undergone the test of a testing machine, and they ought, therefore, to throw no obstacle in the way of establishing such machines, especially as there might be a doubt whether there would be a sufficient number for the wants of the trade. That was a reason for retaining the words which it was proposed to omit. He thought it would be extremely impolitic to strike them out of the clause, and he should object to their omission. The Select Committee viewed the possibility of the manufacturers themselves testing the chains which they had made or in which they were interested. Security would be given for the efficiency of the test, because another clause provided, first that the testing machine should be certified to be efficient, and secondly that the testing operations should be carried on under some public officer, who should be responsible for their being honestly made. He hoped the Committee would support the decision of the Select Committee, which had fully discussed this particular point.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
hoped the Attorney General would give the Committee his opinion on the effect of the clause. It appeared to him, that accord- 505 ing to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the words objected to were surplus-age, inasmuch as any body of persons numbering seven could form themselves into a limited joint stock company, and could if these words were omitted exercise the powers given by the Bill. Under those circumstances, it might meet the general wish expressed by the chain cable makers in the country if they struck out the words as proposed.

MR. HENLEY
thought that the reasoning of the hon. Baronet conclusively showed that they ought to support the recommendation of the Select Committee. The hon. Member said that private parties consisting of seven in number might form themselves into a company with "limited" stuck to their names and avail themselves of the powers of the Bill. In that case they might get a company of seven persons, with no responsibility at all, instead of private individuals who were responsible for their actions. He (Mr. Henley) thought that was a great change for the worse. He confessed he had not great faith in this legislation—he very much doubted whether it would do any good; but if the Bill passed they ought to give every facility to respectable persons to set up testing machines. They ought to try and prevent a monopoly in these machines, which would be good neither for the buyers nor sellers. He should much prefer to have a substantial responsible man though his name might be "John Brown," than one of those companies that were so readily got up now-a-days with the word "limited" stuck to their names, without any responsibility at all.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, that since the Bill passed through the Select Committee he had been waited upon by a deputation representing all the large manufacturers of chain cables and anchors in this country, with the exception of one firm, and they were in favour of these particular words being struck out of the clause, although they admitted that it was beneficial to them to have the privilege of testing cables and anchors on their own premises. Lloyds' Committee had also intimated their wish that the words should be struck out, and they had decided that in future they would not accept tests from any private manufacturers, and that all cables and anchors must be certified by a public board. He felt bound to mention these facts; but if it was the feeling of the Committee that 506 the clause should pass in its present shape he should not offer any opposition.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, that the Select Committee were engaged two hours in discussing this clause, and that they unanimously decided that the words "person or persons" should be introduced as well as "company;" because several respectable chain cable makers stated that it would be a great inconvenience to them if they had to send their chains to be tested by a public machine. He should vote for the clause as it stood.

§ MR. LIDDELL
rose to defend the Amendment of which he had himself given notice, although unfortunately he did not arrive in time to move it. The professed object of the measure was to secure a good article, and that was the reason why he wished to see the Amendment adopted. It was obvious that the testing authority should be an independent body who were wholly above the suspicion of being actuated by any motives of private interest, and for that reason it was desirable that these words should be removed from the clause. The mode of dealing with the precious metals appeared to him to be a somewhat analogous case. The precious metals were assayed by the Goldsmiths' Company, who affixed their stump upon them. The purchaser of gold and silver had therefore the security of such stamp to satisfy him that the article in question was such as was represented. Here the value of a public proof was clearly shown, and there was no reason why a similar arrangement should not be adopted in the case of chain cables and anchors. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be assented to.

§ MR. RICHARD HODGSON
expressed a hope that the Committee of the House would not overrule the opinion of the Select Committee upon the point under consideration. The great objection to the supposed working of the Bill was the absence of good testing machinery; it was, therefore, an important object to provide a sufficient number of testing machines. Now, if this proposition were agreed to, it would have the effect of limiting greatly the number of testing machines. There was a discretionary power given under this Bill. No obligation would exist for the erection of testing machinery. A chain manufacturer by this Bill would not be compelled to erect a testing machine, but he would be allowed to do so if he pleased under certain conditions; first, he must 507 obtain a license from the Board of Trade; next, he must submit to the inspection of a supervising officer from the Board of Trade.

MR. HENLEY
said, that the arguments used in regard to the striking out of the words, went upon the supposition that those testing machines were to be private machines. But it should be recollected that the Bill provided that a public officer should be appointed to see the working of this machinery. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) as to the Goldsmiths' Company, did not properly apply here. He (Mr. Henley) did not think that this was a bit more private test whether the machinery was erected by an individual or a company, inasmuch as there would be a public officer present to see it put in force. If they were to strike the word "companies" also out of the clause, and leave all these matters to be done by public bodies, there would then be some consistency in the arguments urged; but, at present, he confessed he was at a loss to see any.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, it appeared to him that the Committee had really only one point to decide, and that was in what manner the most efficient test could be established. He had been a Member of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and he was bound to say he preferred the Bill in its original state, believing that it was better calculated to promote an efficient mode of testing chain cables. But, since then, the position of affairs had become altered. In the first place, they had had the opinion of all the principal chain makers in this country, with but one exception, that the proposed mode of testing these cables was unsatisfactory. Well, then, assuming that which was generally assumed in this country, though he confessed he thought it was an error, that majorities were always in the right, it might be reasonably supposed that the majority of the chain cable makers were the best able to form an opinion as to the most effectual mode of testing the article. But they had the opinion of Lloyds' expressed on this subject—a very high opinion it would be admitted—and Lloyds', as he understood, declined to accept the testing system in the shape proposed by this Bill. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had further informed them that the Board of Admiralty were opposed to the proposed system. If, therefore, they were to pass this Bill in its 508 present shape, it was obvious that this principle of testing would prove objectionable to the great majority of chain makers, and to the Board of Admiralty. He should certainly much rather see adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, that the companies also should be left out of the clause.

MR. HENLEY
It is no suggestion of mine.

§ MR. BENTINCK
understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he considered the omission of the companies would be a better mode of proceeding on this subject. It appeared to him that there would be a difficulty in finding a sufficient number of testing machines. He should certainly be glad to see the proposition of the hon. Member adopted.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
said, he was sorry that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) was not in his place, because he was sure he would be able to offer some sound reasons against the adoption of the proposed Amendment. He (Mr. Thomson Hankey) certainly objected to the whole Bill. He objected especially to the retention of the word "companies." The great object was to secure the most independent body possible for the testing of those cables. He did not think it ought to be left to any individuals who pleased to set up a testing machine, inasmuch as it would be impossible to exercise such an efficient control over such persons as over public bodies.

§ MR. AYRTON
desired to ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whether he was responsible for this clause, and what its precise effect would be; for it appeared to him that the tester was not to be appointed upon the responsibility of the persons licensed to carry on the testing work, but by the Board of Trade? If that were the case, it followed that those who undertook the business of testing would incur no responsibility whatever as to the cables being what they were represented to be; and practically the responsibility would be thrown upon the Board of Trade or its officer. Supposing that the person appointed by the Government to inspect those chains had given an improper cer- 509 tificate as to the efficiency of certain chain cables, which afterwards broke, the Board of Trade might find itself, on the principle that an employer was responsible for the acts of his servant, placed in a very serious dilemma. Considerable inconvenience of this kind had already been experienced in the case of licensed pilots. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to explain the precise measure of responsibility which the Board of Trade were prepared to accept in such cases. Unless the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could give a satisfactory answer to the question, he thought the clause ought to be struck out.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
considered the word "resident" Inspector ought to be omitted from the clause. If it was retained it would tend to prevent the employment of men of a superior class, and would moreover add materially to the expense of the working of the Bill, because it would prevent one Inspector from superintending three or four joint stock or private testing machines in the same neighbourhood.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, this was not a Government Bill, but one brought in by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) which had been sent before a Select Committee, and now came before a Committee of the Whole House in its present form. He had not taken any practical part in the matter; but it was thought desirable by the Committee that some public officer should be appointed to superintend the operation of testing, in order to see that it was honestly performed, and that no fraud was committed. In order to provide for the particular difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), he had introduced a clause at the end of the Bill providing that chain and anchor makers, shipowners, &c., should not be relieved by the provisions of the Bill from any responsibility which at present attached to them in respect of any chain cable or anchor made, sold, or used by them. They would, therefore, retain their present responsibility even after the passing of this Bill. Without at all questioning the principle of inspection, he thought it was susceptible of improvement. The Bill had not become a reality till the present time, and they had not viewed it as one likely to become law, but merely as a matter under discussion. It was not entirely matured, neither had it been adopted as, or made in any way, a Government 510 measure. The House sanctioned its second reading, and on the part of the Board of Trade he felt it his duty, as it appeared to be the wish of the House that some legislation should take place on the subject, to assist in making it, if possible, a good working measure. He should be very glad to consider what Amendment could be made in the clause, and on the Report, if any different and better mode of inspection could be devised, either by the omission of the word "resident," or otherwise, he should be ready to consider it; but he did not wish to be a party to the overthrowing of the Bill. If they permitted the establishment of testing machines, he thought there should be some security, not only for the efficiency of the tests, but also their honest use. He did not wish to say one word against the principle of some kind of Government inspection, but he reserved to himself the right; of deciding whether the best mode was adopted by the Bill. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, seeing that the responsibility of the manufacturers and others was retained by the clause to which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) had referred, would not press his opposition to the whole of the clause.

§ MR. RICHARD HODGSON
said, he was surprised to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, because he had looked upon the Bill as a reality, and one that would pass into a law.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
explained. He stated that hitherto the Bill had not been considered a reality, but it had become something like it now.

§ MR. RICHARD HODGSON
said, that if he had wanted any explanation of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, he probably should have found it in the memorandum which had been that morning issued by an officer of the Board of Trade Department, which commented on the proceedings of the Select Committee, and also on the provisions of the measure. If he was wrong in ascribing the authorship of the document to that gentleman he was sorry for it; but the gentleman to whom he had particularly alluded was before the Committee, and it was then open to him, and that was the time when he ought to have stated his objections to the Bill, and not privately and by circular after the Bill had left the Select Committee, and still less should he have adopted the course of issuing the circular partially, sending several copies to a Member of 511 the Committee who was adverse to the Bill, and none to those who, like himself, (Mr. Hodgson) desired the Bill to pass. He (Mr. Hodgson) moved the clause in the Select Committee, to which an exception had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he could assure the Committee that he did not intend, neither did he believe he had affected, in the slightest, the present responsibility of the manufacturers or the shipowners. On the contrary, what he intended, and what he believed the clause effected, was the most efficient possible mode of supervision by an Inspector appointed by and responsible to the Board of Trade. He did not, however, under the circumstances, object to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) for striking out the word "resident" Inspector, provided the Inspector were appointed by the Board of Trade, and subject to removal by it, on a sufficient cause of complaint being made out against him. The clause followed the phraseology adopted by Lloyds' relative to the appointment of the Inspector at Newcastle, and he hoped the Committee would not alter it, otherwise than in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Peterborough.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
then moved the omission of the word "resident."

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not answered his question, and the clause to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred did not meet his objection. The question he put was, Whether the Government intended to undertake the responsibility of testing the chains, &c.; or whether it was intended to continue it as at present, on the manufacturers?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
thought that the clause required no Amendment in this respect. It was the most common thing in the world for a Government officer to superintend the performance of an operation in which the public had an interest. Thus, for instance, a railway could not be opened without a Government inspection. Nothing in the clause indicated that the slightest responsibility was to be undertaken by the Board of Trade or its officers; and, by reference to the 10th clause, it would be seen that any maker or dealer in chains and cables was not relieved from any responsibility which attached to him.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought that this clause was the valuable part of the 512 Bill. If they had a machine for weighing or testing, they should have some one to see that it was applied to properly testing or weighing the things which the machine was intended to test. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Peterborough was a good one. It was most difficult to tell what "resident" might mean. The clause the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to was a wonderful one. Hitherto, if a dealer in chains gave a warranty he was responsible, and he presumed he would continue under the same circumstances responsible.

§ MR. INGHAM
suggested that, to prevent misunderstanding, the same words should be employed here as were used in the section of the Mining Act under which Inspectors were appointed.

§ MR. CAVE
said, he quite approved of the Amendment, and had himself prepared one to the same effect, but he had no doubt that of his hon. Friend would do quite as well. It was absolutely necessary, especially as the first clause had been retained intact, including manufacturers, in conformity with an Amendment he had himself moved last year. The idea of every manufacturer having his own resident Inspector was like a distiller or brewer having his own private exciseman; and it would be impossible for the Board of Trade to work the Act satisfactorily with such machinery.

§ MR. HODGKINSON
said, he was quite unable to put any interpretation on the word "resident," and suggested that if it was to be continued in the Bill, they must have an interpretation clause.

§ MR. HUMBERSTON
pointed out, that the effect of the clause was to prevent any maker of chain cables or anchors from selling them unless they were previously tested and stamped. The Amendment ho proposed was to limit the clause to all seagoing vessels and coasters. The effect of the clause as it stood would be prejudicial to the trade generally in regard to the manufacture of small anchors for boats and river craft. In the case of boat anchors, for instance, it would press very harshly. The charge for testing was 20s. 513 a ton, but for a single hundredweight it would be 10s., and this would be a heavy charge on each anchor. He quite agreed with the Bill so far as it applied to seagoing vessels and coasters, to which he proposed that the clause be limited.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, he did not object to the Amendment.

MR. HENLEY
said, he did not object to the Amendment, but doubted whether they ought not to go further. Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter between this and the Report, and decide whether it was not desirable that the word "vessel" should be more strictly defined? There was at present no interpretation clause, and he would suggest the introduction of one to define the meaning of vessels.

§ MR. J. EWART
suggested, that the word "vessel" should be omitted, and that a provision should be made that anchors of a certain weight should be tested.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) worthy of consideration, and that it might be desirable to introduce an interpretation clause, describing the vessels whose chains and anchors were required to be tested, on bringing up the Report.

§ MR. BENTINCK
also approved of the suggestion. The question was one of a somewhat comprehensive character. The term "fishing boats" was almost as comprehensive as the term "vessels." The omission of the words "fishing boats" would not be sufficient.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
suggested the propriety of letting the clause stand over for consideration on bringing up the Report.

§ MR. LAIRD
preferred the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Liverpool.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
inquired whether the clause would apply to the sale of anchors to foreigners?

§ MR. LIDDELL
suggested the insertion of the words "United Kingdom" to meet the difficulty.

§ MR. RICHARD HODGSON
said, he could not recognize the propriety of any distinction being made between anchors and chains intended to be supplied to foreigners and those intended for English vessels. All chain cables and anchors should be tested and stamped for whatever service they might be intended.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, that he had sent a copy of the Bill to the principal chain- 514 makers at Newcastle and in Staffordshire, who held a meeting and appointed a deputation, which had waited on him. This clause was fully discussed, and they came to the conclusion that it should pass in its present form. He believed if anchors and cables were allowed to be exported without having had the test applied to them, it would be opening a door to the use of anchors and cables of an inferior quality in this country.

MR. HENLEY
said, he should be sorry to see the House admit a legislation authorizing the sale to foreigners of anchors and chain cables that were not deemed fit for our own use. It was like getting up two classes of razors, those for our own shaving being required to cut, but those for foreigners being intended only to sell. If we secured good articles for ourselves, we should give foreigners the game advantage.

§ MR. CAVE
said, he thought the trade of this country would derive great advantage from foreigners knowing that they could only get good articles here. He rose to ask, whether it would not be better to follow the original Bill, and to exempt ships of war and other public vessels from its provisions? It was well known that the Admiralty and other public bodies had their own testing machines in Government dockyards, and it seemed an unnecessary expense and trouble to oblige chains and anchors made for them to be sent also to a licensed testing machine. He thought the President of the Board of Trade should remember that such vessels were omitted from the former Bill, and were included in the present.

§ MR. HUMBERSTON
said, that after the intimation which had been given by the President of the Board of Trade, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
suggested that fifty tons might be the limit of the vessels whose chains and anchors should be required to be tested.

§ MR. BENTINCK
remarked that the limit of fifty tons would exclude a very large class of vessels.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
regarded the object of the Bill to be to give the public a guarantee that chain cables, when sold in the first instance, were made of good materials. To permit the exportation of chain cables without the test 515 mark, would be to open a shop on the other side of the Channel for the sale of a bad article. He hoped the Bill would pass in its integrity.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, that as he read the Bill, after a certain time, parties having untested chain cables and anchors would not be able to sell them without the mark; but he hoped the delusion or misunderstanding would not get abroad that this testing would give all the qualities and security required.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
observed, that at least this guarantee would be given to the public—that the chains and anchors which had undergone the tests were originally made of suitable material, and such as ought to be manufactured.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
So far as tensile strain went.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
thought the measure imperatively called for, and he hoped it would be applied to all anchors and chains, whether intended for exportation or not.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, that a chain re-tested was more to be trusted than one that had never been tried. After a time chains might become worthless, but in well-regulated ships the chains after a voyage were cleaned, put in a dry place, and ought not to be deteriorated.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, he had framed the Bill originally on the Admiralty standard, which had been tried for many years, and been found efficient. It was hardly fair, then, in the right hon. Gentleman to imply that the test adopted by the Government for the protection of ships of war, and troops sent in transports, would not work advantageously for the public.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
remarked, that a chain cable might stand the tensile strain, and yet not be in all respects a good chain.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
congratulated his hon. Friends the Member for Birkenhead and the Member for Portsmouth, on the great intelligence and zeal they had displayed in this matter. He believed such a measure was much wanted, and it would 516 no doubt, have the effect of saving life and property to a large extent.

CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS (re- committed) BILL.— [Bill 46.]—COMMITTEE.