SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 July 1873)

§ MR. NORWOOD
said, that no doubt before the next Session the House would have before it a considerable portion of the labours of the Royal Commission which had been appointed, and would then have trustworthy evidence upon which to legislate upon the larger question about which many hon. Members were so anxious. It was a source of annoyance to the commercial community that there should be so many Amendment Acts with regard to the merchant shipping law. At the present time there were no fewer than eight or ten statutes which had to be consulted before it could be ascertained what was the law with regard to merchant shipping, and the original Act of 1854 had been so amended that its authors could hardly recognize it. With regard to the Bill itself, he thought some of the clauses were improvements, whilst others, again, 691 were unnecessary or objectionable. He alluded especially to Clauses 10 and 11, which provided that every vessel should be supplied with sufficient boats, rafts, or other appliances for saving life. There was no objection to that provision on the part of shipowners, if only some rule was laid down to define what was the amount of such accommodation that a ship must have but the clauses as they stood loft the matter in an indefinite position, and if the question was to be decided by Board of Trade surveyors, there would be the most varying decisions, for it was well known that no two surveyors of the Board of Trade agreed in their reports. If the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department persisted with those clauses, he ought to lay down distinctly in a Schedule what amount of boat accommodation British ships must carry, and then the shipowners would have no objection to the clauses. The proposed new clause which related to the removal of wreck imposed such heavy responsibility upon shipowners that he thought no attempt to legislate in that direction should be made during the present Session. He submitted that it was not right for the legislature to impose a considerable amount of responsibility upon shipowners, and yet leave the requirements of the Act so indefinite as to render it impossible for them to know what was really intended. When shipowners knew what was really required of them, they would readily fulfil any duties the law might impose upon them, and he strongly urged the necessity for the consolidation of the law of merchant shipping to remove the confusion at present existing. He should not, however, offer any obstruction to the progress of the Bill.

§ MR. CANDLISH
concurred in the opinions expressed by his hon. Friend as to the vague and indefinite character of many of the provisions of the Bill, and suggested that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should place upon the Notice Paper, before going into Committee, such Amendments as would explain the various provisions referred to. The shipping interest would then be disposed to thank him for his measure.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,
on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes), gave Notice of the 692 intention of the latter to propose certain clauses in Committee on the Bill.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, from the peculiarity of the subject, each of the provisions of the Bill must necessarily be treated upon its own particular merits, and he, therefore, was not surprised that it did not give rise to any extended debate upon the second reading, because its provisions could much more usefully be criticized in Committee. The new clauses of which he had given Notice were partly Amendments of the clauses of the Bill, and partly additions to it. In Committee he should be ready to consider all that could be said for or against them; but he believed that most of them were far from adverse to the shipping interest. With respect to proposed clauses bearing on the removal of wreck, he was advised that the clause was justified by the circumstances of the case, and that it would be of great use to the shipping interest. He agreed with his hon. Friends who had spoken that the 10th clause as it stood was too vague and indefinite; but he must add that he did not pretend in the present Bill to arrive at final settlements of that or any of the other matters. The Bill was not intended to anticipate the Report and advice of the Royal Commission which had been appointed, whose evidence and advice he hoped the House might have the benefit of in reference to this subject. What he should propose, in reference to Clause 10 as it stood, was this—He wished at once to make two changes in the law as it had existed with respect to boats. That law was in many cases absurd and useless, for it required the boat accommodation to be in proportion to the tonnage of the vessel, and not to the number of souls on board. He should propose to alter that, and so far to adhere to the clause as it stood in the Bill; but he should not get rid of the present scale. His object was to enable the Board of Trade to make exemptions in cases where the present scale did not apply, and to take power to substitute rafts in lieu of boats. That was the clause which he should propose to substitute for Clause 10. In the present state of our knowledge he thought that would be a reasonable change in the law, and improve the system under which it was now the duty of the Board of Trade to act.