[BILL 274.] COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 02 August 1875 vol 226 cc379-431

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Charles Adderley.)

MR. E. J. REED

in rising to move, That the overloading of merchant ships cannot he effectually restrained unless owners and captains are prohibited from loading their ships beyond a load-line limit of safety which has either been sanctioned by the Government or submitted to the Government for record. said, his object in proposing that Resolution was to facilitate, and not to delay, the progress of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had informed them that public excitement had assisted in the production of this measure; but he (Mr. Reed) was inclined to believe that it was the result of the excitement, for he could not imagine a British Government in the present day withdrawing a Bill on such a question as that; while they secretly resolved to produce an arbitrary and absolute measure on the same subject at the first opportunity. He had no doubt, however, that the Bill was brought forward as a sincere attempt on the part of the Government to meet a great public necessity, although it had the disadvantage of investing the Executive Government with great arbitrary power without defining in any degree the manner in which it should be exercised. When it came under his observation, he felt that it was very desirable it should make provision for the regulation of deck cargoes and cargoes of grain, for the restriction of ships within a reasonable draught of water, when laden, and for a compulsory survey, and he accordingly gave Notice of Amendments on that subject. The Government had met the proposal not very handsomely or broadly, but very quickly, with the intimation that they would not be unwilling to entertain in Committee Amendments to regulate deck cargoes and grain stowage, and that announcement by the Government had been favourably received by the Opposition. It could not, however, be denied that one of the great causes of the loss of life at sea was the reckless overloading of ships, especially in the winter months, and, therefore, he, and those who were interested in the subject, had to Consider whether they were not bound to press upon the Government the necessity for the introduction into their Bill of some provision which would have the effect of preventing overloading. Those who sympathized with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) would also have been glad if the Government had intro- duced a clause dealing with the question of survey. The end of the Session, however, was approaching, and the Notice Paper was getting more and more crowded with Amendments upon the Bill, and those to whom this great public interest was entrusted had to see how far they could free the Government from embarrassment in the matter without compromising the object they had in view. Under these circumstances, therefore, the hon. Member for Derby and those who supported him were willing, although most reluctantly, for the purpose of facilitating Public Business, to forego the question of surveys and certificates, and he was certain that in doing so the House would see that they were making a great sacrifice. They were not disposed, however, to stop even there, for with respect to the question of the load line, also, they had asked themselves whether it was possible for them to meet the wishes of the Government and to aid them in passing the Bill. That question, however, was a totally different one, and it presented itself under two aspects. Some persons thought that the Government ought to ask Parliament to enact that an official maximum load line should be drawn upon every sea-going merchant ship; but such a proposal would undoubtedly give rise to a great deal of very reasonable opposition and discussion, and if persevered in, it would evidently cause discussion upon refinements and distinctions as to which they could not hope to secure general agreement in a short time. He therefore felt that it ought not to be raised during the present Session. There was, however, another proposal with regard to the load line, which he believed was altogether unobjectionable, and that was that the load line to be drawn upon the ship's side should be that which was known as "the owner's load line." He therefore now asked the House to declare that no ship should be allowed to proceed to sea with cargo or human beings on board unless she bore upon her side a load line drawn by her owner beyond which he himself did not propose to load her. This proposal was a very moderate one, indeed, it seemed to recommend itself to the House by many favourable considerations, for it had the advantage of having already received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, and had been inserted in the 33rd clause of their original Bill, It would be a great error to assume that allowing the shipowner to place that line where he pleased would afford no security against recklessness. At present, there was no check whatever except that which was supplied by the vigilance of the representatives of the Board of Trade, or rather of an absent Member of that House (Mr. Plimsoll), who had representatives at the ports, through whom the Board was put in motion. But supposing the owner was compelled by Act of Parliament to paint a load line on his ships, and to send a record of it to the Board of Trade, the Department would by that means be informed that the line was either a reasonable or proper one, in which case it would have no need to interfere, or that it was the contrary, and allowed for excessive loading; and then the Board could inform the owner that if he loaded the vessel to such an extent, they would not permit it to go to sea. At any rate, the Board of Trade would be advised beforehand of the necessity of looking after the ship; and by this legislation, the owners would be made instruments of the Government in guarding against their own misdeeds. This would not be the only advantage gained by the proposal, for a painted line would enable officers or men before joining a ship to ascertain to what extent she was to be loaded; while in ports where overloading had been habitual on the part of certain owners, those persons would, by the publication of the load line be brought under the moral influence of the people among whom they resided. He preferred educative arrangements to harsh laws for the regulation of trade. He thought that many men who overloaded their ships did not know the danger they incurred; and that they and others would cease to overload if they had to do it in the face of day. Whenever they endeavoured to legislate on this subject they were met by the presentation of pretended difficulties, which were no difficulties to those who were masters of the subject, and he hoped he should not be thought rude in saying that the Board of Trade sometimes erred in deferring to the representations made to them. On a late occasion, after he (Mr. Peed) brought forward the subject of a test respecting iron, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade entered into communication with those whose interests would be affected by the adoption of the proposition, and the adverse answers he received were printed and circulated among Members of the House. Again, the Department created a difficulty with reference to grain cargoes by writing to Lloyd's and obtaining in reply one of the silliest letters he had ever read, which also was circulated among hon. Members of the House. There was no necessity whatever for eliciting these obstructive views from persons outside, whose interests were adverse to the public interest, and parading them before Parliament as reasons against the legislation which the public interest demanded. The function of Government should be to tread them down. He denied altogether that the opinions of the secretary of Lloyd's, or even of the shipowners, were the opinions which should mainly guide Parliament in the matter. It was the duty of Parliament to protect the public interests, and he hoped it would not be induced to defer to such considerations. He regretted that legislation was constantly hampered by the presentation of such diverse opinions put forth in opposition to Motions put upon the Paper of the House. He hoped the Government would accept the proposal, for he could not find a single reason against it. Adverse opinions had been expressed with regard to a load line, but not against that which he was advocating, and he thought there would be a unanimous opinion on that side of the House, shared in by a large number of Gentlemen on the opposite side, as to the reasonableness of his proposition. In suggesting it as a compromise, he believed that it would operate against the threatened sacrifice of life during the coming winter, and he hoped the Government would not refuse it. He believed it would have been open to the Government to have passed a measure against the sending to sea of rotten ships; and he therefore hoped the Government would not now call upon the House to divide against this moderate proposal. The proposal was presented with no hostile intention, and if the Government would fairly meet the suggestion, he believed that hon. Gentlemen on that side would aid in getting rid of all the outside Amendments, and endeavour to render the Government every aid in passing the measure. Should the Government not do so, however, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon his Amendment, with a view to ascertain who it was in that House who refused the people of this country, in regard to a question of life and death, so reasonable a concession as that which he now proposed.

MR. NORWOOD

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the overloading of merchant ships cannot he effectually restrained unless owners and captains are prohibited from loading their ships beyond a load-line limit of safety which has either been sanctioned by the Government, or submitted to the Government for record,"—(Mr. Reed,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

LORD ESLINGTON

said, he could see plainly that unless some proposal to fix a load line was adopted, the Bill would be overladen with Amendments, and in all probability would founder. He believed his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Heed) treated with something like contempt the Report of the Royal Commission which had considered the subject, but it might not be out of place to call attention to some of the evidence given before that Commission. One of the witnessses—a naval architect, and pre-eminent for his ability and experience—struck every Member of the Commission by the boldness with which he proposed Government interference. That witness was the hon. Member for Pembroke himself. Before noticing the evidence, however, he (Lord Eslington) wished to point out that the hon. Member in his speech had by no means explained or justified the Motion which he had submitted to the House. The Motion proposed, as alternatives—first, a load line drawn by the Board of Trade; and, secondly, a load line drawn by the shipowner; but the hon. Member had addressed himself to the latter only, which of the two did he wish the Committee to adopt

MR. E. J. REED

said, he thought he had explained fully that every owner would be at liberty to send to the Board of Trade a notice of the load line in order that it might be recorded.

LORD ESLINGTON

thought it clear that one of the proposals was that the Government should fix load lines. Now as to the evidence given by the hon. Member before the Royal Commission. When asked on what principle he thought it best to fix the load line, he replied— On the principle of the total displacement of the ship to the upper deck being reserved above the water. Question—" In what proportion "Answer—"I have not decided that. Question—"If you put a load line on the side of the ship which you would consider safe under all circumstances, and at all seasons of the year, would not a large proportion of the profits he lost?" Answer—"Yes, and not only that, but you would interfere so oppressively with the commerce of the country that you could not do it. Question—"Are you quite clear that the establishment of this load line might not operate as a temptation to shipowners to load their vessels up to that line under all circumstances?" Answer—"I am not clear that it would not so operate. I think, perhaps, it would, but that fear should not prevent the Legislature from extending its protection when necessary for the safety of life. The hon. Member himself impressed upon the Commission the difficulty of fixing a load line; but now he came to the House just at the end of a Session and asked it to engraft upon a merely temporary Bill, a provision imposing upon Government surveyors, of whom they knew nothing, and who might be either competent or incompetent, the duty of fixing a load line. It would not be right for Parliament hastily to adopt such a proposition. A step in this direction was one which it would not be easy to retrace. The hon. Member for Pembroke also pointed out to the Commission that in the matter of the load line there were two great dangers to be guarded against, the one arising from bad materials and the other from the great tendency to build long ships; and he laid down the most important maxim, that the only safe mode of fixing a load line was on an accurate calculation of the strength of a ship and of the strain she had to bear. The hon. Member added that it was easy to calculate the strength of a ship, but when they came to calculate the strain, that was a matter of extreme difficulty, and on cross-examination he told them that no pains had yet been taken by naval architects to raise a discussion on this point, and that, except in "Naval Science," the subject had never been treated of, so far as he knew. Yet the hon. Member now proposed that they should cast the duty of fixing a load line on the Government surveyors. He might further refer to the opinion given by Mr. Robert Duncan last year before the Scotch Institute of Naval Architects—an authority almost equal to the hon. Member for Plymouth—as to the difficulties connected with a load line, and he would again urge that they should not be asked now to settle off-hand a question which required the fullest and most careful deliberation. He (Lord Eslington) did not think the House was justified in conferring any such power upon Government surveyors without full discussion. Turning to the other alternative proposal of the hon. Member, he thought the House might fairly take it into their consideration. If they adopted the shipowners' load line they would be adopting a proposal which the Government itself made in its previous Bill, because the two proposals were almost identical in form, and certainly in their working. That would enable the shipowner to emancipate himself from the arbitrary supervision and thraldom of the Board of Trade, which most seriously hampered and confined him in the conduct of his business.

MR. NORWOOD

said, that happening to be the author of what was commonly called the "shipowners' load line," and having introduced a Bill before Easter on that subject, he wished to be allowed to say a few words, especially as what he was authorized to say on behalf of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) might obviate the difficulty pointed out by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eslington) and commend the principle of those clauses to the Government. It had occurred to him as a practical shipowner objecting as he did most strongly to anything like a fixed compulsory load line, that some middle course might be adopted which, without relieving the shipowner from one iota of his responsibility, would give both to the seamen and the shippers a proper index of the extent to which he proposed to immerse his vessel. In framing his Bill he had called to his assistance the hon. Member for Pembroke, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), and the hon. and learned Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley); and they claimed that the Government, in the re-committed Bill, had virtually adopted their proposals. He thought it would be only a reasonable requirement on the part of the seamen when engaging to serve in a vessel, that they should have an intimation made to them of the extent of the draught to which the owner claimed to load her. The maximum draught to which she was to be loaded on the coming voyage ought to be stated when the vessel entered out at the Custom House; and also to be inserted in the ship's articles, as a condition of the engagement, so that, if it were afterwards exceeded, that fact should absolve the crew from any penalties for declining to complete the voyage. The opinion he had formed and expressed years ago remained unaltered, that it was unwise to meddle unduly with the details of the business of the shipowner, because it would destroy his judgment, fetter his hands, and make him careless in the discharge of his duties, while, on the other hand, it would give the public a false sense of security. He believed that the proper course was to place the strongest amount of responsibility upon those who conducted the business of shipowners. The course of legislation pursued up to the present time was wise and sound. They had not improperly trammelled the shipowner, and at the same time they had taken measures to prevent the evil which might be done by careless or fraudulent shipowners, sending vessels away in an unseaworthy state. That legislation had been eminently successful. In the last two years 558 vessels had been arrested as unseaworthy, and 515 of them had proved to be so. That was a proof of the efficacy of the law as it stood, but also that unseaworthy ships formed a small proportion of the gross amount of British shipping; in fact, only about 1 per cent per annum; and if they took the voyages of those ships at four or five in the year, that would show that the number of unseaworthy ships discovered by all the care of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Derby was only about one-quarter per cent per annum of the sailings of British tonnage. He did not wish to recommend the adoption of any scheme of load line which, by requiring the sanction of the Board of Trade, would relieve the shipowner of his just responsibility. His hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke was prepared to accept the Amendment to his Motion which was pointed out by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eslington), in whose general views he (Mr. Norwood) concurred. He should propose, therefore, the omission of the word "either," and then of the words "sanctioned by the Government or." If the Government assented to that proposal, every seagoing ship, after a time specified, should be marked by its owner with a load line, and a distinct notice would thus be given to all parties concerned as to risk which they were likely to incur. One important result would be that a proper regard for their own interests would be insured in the case of our seamen, with respect to whom he might observe that one of the great disadvantages to which they were now exposed was, that they were so protected by the law that neither shipowners nor seamen could make their own engagements. Formerly a seaman walked round the docks, looked at a vessel, and if he liked her went on board, saw the captain, and engaged himself; but now all was managed by Government officials, at shipping offices, and many men engaged without taking the trouble even to see the ship upon which they were to sail. They took no reasonable precaution to protect their own interests. He wished to make seamen capable of looking after their own interests, and he thought that the having a load line would tend in that direction, but he did not think that the Government should be called upon to give their sanction to the load line. He was as anxious as anyone could be not to offer the slightest obstruction to the Government, and he begged leave to move, in conformity with the views which he had expressed, as an Amendment to the Motion of his hon. Friend, the omission of the word "either."

MR. BENTINCK

said, that the Government had brought in a Bill which failed to deal with the causes of loss of life at sea, and then the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) brought in a Bill which run upon one topic, and also failed to deal with the great majority of the causes of loss of life at sea. Now, there was a Bill before them which was introduced by the Government in consequence of a popular cry. The hon. Member for Derby seemed to think that the overloading of ships was the chief cause of the loss of life at sea, though the evidence before the Committee showed, that that was by no means the case, and that, on the con- trary, the loss of ships was more frequently due to light loading than to over loading. He heard with regret the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr E. J. Reed) say that this was a matter of life and death, and therefore he hoped that the Government would make certain concessions. If that meant anything, it meant that the Government were inclined to maintain a system which resulted in loss of life at sea; when, of course, they were as anxious as everybody else to do all they could to save life. This was a temporary measure, and the suggestion was, that they should come to some arrangement about the load line, but he did not think that the best thing would be to refer the whole thing to the Government. Probably, instead of attempting to define what should be the load line, it would be better that they should merely adopt the rule that there should be three inches of freeboard to every foot of submersion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought that, before all things, it was most important before going to a division that the House should have a clear understanding of the exact nature of the issue which it had to decide. For, whereas when they came down to the House it was exceedingly doubtful from the terms of the Notice placed on the Paper what that issue was, after the speeches they had heard and the whispers which had been passed about the House, it seemed to him that they were in greater perplexity than ever. The difficulty which he felt when he saw the Notice in the first instance was this—he did not feel clear whether it was intended as a Resolution to be adopted with some additions in the Government Bill in Committee, or whether it was to be understood, according to a more natural interpretation, as a counter proposal to be submitted to them, and upon which a vote was to be taken which, if favourable to the Amendment, would lead to a rejection of the Bill. He could not but perceive, if the question was simply one for the introduction into the Bill of a clause for a load line, it was hardly necessary to move any Amendment at that stage, for it would have been competent for any hon. Member to make that Motion in Committee. On the other hand, when he came to look at its language, he saw that, on going into Committee on a Bill intended to restrain by one process the sending of unseaworthy ships to sea, the House was called upon to affirm that the sending to sea of unseaworthy ships could not be restrained except by another and a particular process. Therefore, it seemed a proposal intended to be brought into competition with that of the Government, and that the effect would be to strike out of the Government Bill those parts which related to the powers to be given to the officers of the Board of Trade, and in lieu of them to adopt some form of load line. That was the first proposition as it stood upon the Paper, but there was a third difficulty which had been raised in the course of the discussion. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Peed) proposed that the House should declare that a load line was necessary, and that it should be either a line sanctioned by the Government, or submitted to the Government for record. But when the Government began to examine that proposition with a view to see whether it could be properly incorporated with their measure, they had their attention directed to the difficulties which would arise from the introduction of a load line sanctioned by Government. The hon. Gentleman, however, when he came to make his speech, threw over that load line altogether, and appeared, though not very clearly and formally, to withdraw that part of his Amendment, and to trust to what was called "the owners' load line," which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) supposed would still be submitted to the Government. Now, the House ought to understand on what it was going to vote. The objections to a load line sanctioned by the Government were of such a nature that it would be quite impossible for them to accept it at such a time, and with such little opportunity for discussing it. Whether they could adopt the lesser proposal of a load line to be submitted to the Government for record was a serious and an important question also, on which he wished to say a few words. But first he would remark that the uncertainty of the proceeding which the hon. Gentleman himself had indicated, furnished strong grounds why the House should pause before adopting the proposal to which the hon. Member had at last brought himself. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would once more remind the House of their posi- tion. The Government began by the introduction of a Bill of considerable length and of many clauses, dealing with a number of different subjects. Among those clauses, no doubt, there were some relating to fixing a voluntary load line. Upon that Bill notice was given of an enormous number of Amendments, and with respect to these clauses in particular, many different Amendments had been put down. He did not profess to be at all familiar with the subject; but, as far as he was able to collect, there were very different principles on which they were to proceed in fixing a load line. The more one examined the difficulties, the more they seemed to demand careful and elaborate discussion. In the first place, he was informed that there were serious scientific difficulties as to the principles on which a load line could be fixed—whether we should take the rough and ready line suggested by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) of three inches of freeboard for every foot of immersion, or whether we should adopt some principle of ascertaining the cubic contents of the ship, and saying how much there should be below and how much above water. Again, there was a question whether there was not an error in a certain mode of measuring, by measuring upwards or measuring downwards; and a great number of questions of that sort of scientific character were all questions upon which controversy had been going on, and might be expected to go on, for a considerable time. Besides that class of questions, there were a vast number of other considerations to come in when we had to mark the load line. If every ship was built in the same form, and was going to undertake the same kind of voyage, at the same time of year, and with the same kind of cargo, then we could draw a line, the same as on river ships, of a very simple character, and say—"That is the load line for the ship to have." But when we remembered that a ship might have to cross the Atlantic in winter and to go to the Mediterranean in summer; that voyages would be made under different circumstances; that one ship was built on one form and another on another; we should see that the load line would not only vary in different ships, but in the same ship would have to be altered. All those differences would have to be fully discussed. Well, then, having introduced a Bill of a very complicated character, when the Government saw the Paper loaded with Amendments they found it necessary to withdraw it. But they had since, especially with reference to the exigencies of the coming winter, introduced a short Bill which did not profess to deal with the whole subject; which did not touch the load line or other large questions—matters that would have to be dealt with next year—but which, by conferring powers on the Board of Trade, provided a temporary remedy for that part of the difficulty which could be easily dealt with. Upon that the hon. Gentleman proposed that they should take up this question of the owners' load line, arguing that because it was part of the Bill introduced at the beginning of the Session, there could not be any difficulty in the Government adopting it. But the argument was not all self-evident. In the first place, the Government clauses were not discussed, and the point was one which justified discussion. And, besides, what would be the effect of adopting the principle of a load line to be recorded by the Government They would put to the owner the question—"Where would you like to mark the load line of your ship "One man would wish to be within the limits of safety, and would fix the line low. His competitor, who was going to engage in the same kind of voyage, would wish to carry a little more cargo, and would put his line somewhat higher. They would equally come to record their load lines. What was the Government to do Give a certificate that these lines had been so recorded Hon. Members would remember the observations made in the case of a Bill of a different character—the Friendly Societies Bill. In that case, it was pointed out that the endorsement would virtually give a Government sanction to the societies' rules. And what the Government were asked to do now would be construed as giving a Government sanction to the load line which was to be recorded by the Government. Was it to be supposed that a seaman going to sea in a ship with a load line recorded by the Government would not say—" That's all right" We knew what seamen were, and that they would readily fall into such a trap. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he would not call it a trap; but it would be a sort of promise held out to them, and seamen would probably go to sea relying with full confidence upon the principle thus acknowledged, accepted, and even recommended by the Government. It might be asked—" If your argument is worth anything, how came you to put such a clause as this into your own Bill "The question was a natural one, and the answer was, that in the Government Bill there were two other clauses to which as yet no reference had been made in that discussion, which had rather a material bearing on the question. They were the 41st and 42nd clauses, which went by the name of the liability clauses, and under the second of those clauses the shipowner was held by his agreement with the seaman to contract with the seaman that the ship was and would continue seaworthy. Now, if they allowed the shipowner to mark his own load line, were they going to restore these liability clauses If they did, the Bill would be on the footing of the original Bill introduced by the Government; but it would be a very different measure from that which the hon. Gentleman now suggested. If they were going to authorize that kind of mark, where would be the security Though it afforded a convenient point of departure, it was impossible at that time of day to adopt altogether the rule mentioned by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), for in a large number of cases, shipowners would be very unfairly restrained from making voyages of a certain character. Again, if the restriction were applied, it would be applied to British ships which would be in competition with foreign ships. Foreigners, being under no such restriction, would not only carry off our trade, but our sailors and our ships too; for British ships would be so hampered that they would be transferred to a foreign flag. Where would they be in that case Was the clause intended as a substitute for the proposal of the Government; and, instead of giving these powers to the Inspectors of the Board of Trade, were they to trust to this load line? ["No!"] Then the load line was to be in addition to the powers of the Inspectors, and it was necessary to consider what would thus happen. In proposing to give these extraordinary powers to the Board of Trade officials, the Government were taking upon themselves, for good reason, a serious re- sponsibility, and, speaking as a representative of the Treasury, he felt that it was rather a serious possible financial question. If ships were stopped which ought not to be stopped, and if a case for redress could be shown, the Treasury must have the burden, and they must, therefore, take good care what they were about. The Government offered to run this risk for a short time, in order to show their desire to introduce safeguards for human life; but they must, on this account, be additionally cautious as to the effect of other complications. The Government Inspectors would know that if they stopped a ship they would run a serious risk of involving the Government in financial responsibility. Then, if there was to be a load line the Inspectors would know that a primâ facie argument would be ready against them in a Court of Law—that the load line had been accepted by the Government. ["No!"] Well, recorded by the Government. Were the Government to record a manifestly absurd load line? If not, what would be the result? Ships would sail, and sailors would be told, as the poor members of Friendly Societies were told—"It's all right. The load line has been recorded by the Government." The ship would be ready for sailing, not sunk below the load line, and the Inspector would think—"If I stop that ship the onus of proving something wrong in a Court of Law may be difficult and serious." Supposing the load line had been drawn somewhat too high, and the case came to be tried, would not a Court of Law attach considerable weight to the arguments adduced by the shipowner—"I was never cautioned, never told there was anything wrong about the load line. How can you find me guilty if I have kept within the load line?" Thus the load line clause would weaken the hands of the Inspectors, and might also add to the risk of the Treasury being called upon to pay for the detention of a ship. The other day he heard a curious case in which a ship was laden with grain, with water ballast at bottom. When the vessel had taken in as much grain as, together with the water ballast, sunk her down to the point at which she appeared to be safe, more grain was taken in, and the water was pumped out, the effect of which was—as he was told—to make her top-heavy. He gave that as an illustration of the difficulty of fixing a load line. The whole question was one which should be fully discussed and considered. How could that be done, when they remembered it was the 2nd of August There was another point for consideration. This exceptional legislation was being introduced for a present emergency with reference to what might occur during the coming autumn and winter; yet nobody proposed that the load line should be marked immediately—not till January 1. Would it not be wiser to leave this difficult question over, until the House was able to deal with the whole subject next year, and to discuss the liability clauses along with it Again, in speaking of the second reading, he was under the impression that the title of the Bill narrowed the power of the House to discuss other questions in Committee, except the powers of the officers of the Board of Trade, without an Instruction. Seeing on the Paper Instructions upon several subjects, he had said that the Government could not accept those involving a load line and survey, not because they objected to these proposals in themselves, but because the discussion would occupy a great deal of time. With regard, however, to instructions relating to grain loading and deck cargoes, he agreed to discuss them; but he now found that all these matters might be discussed, without any Notice whatever, in Committee. That being so, he was at a loss to know why, if the hon. Member did not wish to obstruct the Bill, he had moved this Instruction in the form of an Amendment upon going into Committee. The effect of carrying the Amendment would be to stop for the time the progress of the Bill, for it would be practically laid aside, and then would arise the question of again taking it up. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman would lose nothing by deferring any question till the House was in Committee and knew what practical proposal the hon. Gentleman had to make. At present the House was asked to vote upon an ambiguous Amendment, rendered doubly ambiguous by the rumours which the House had heard as to what would afterwards be proposed. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the House should now go into Committee on the Bill. The proposals of the Government which would lead to discussion could then be considered, and the hon. Member for Pembroke might bring forward any proposal he pleased.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

thought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly done justice either to the Amendment or the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), who had expressly stated that he had no wish whatever to obstruct the Bill, and that he did not intend his Instruction to be taken as an alternative to the Government proposal. His hon. Friend's idea was that, considering the feeling that existed, the House at that stage could better express an opinion upon the load line than it could do in Committee. The hon. Member for Pembroke and his Friends, especially the hon. Member for Derby, had shown a very wise discretion in not pressing forward their proposal in reference to the survey of vessels, for it would not be wise to enter upon any discussion of that subject at that period of the Session, and in the present excited state of the country. With regard to the immediate question before the House, his hon. Friend had acted in a most conciliatory manner, as he had made great concessions, and now only asked for what was termed the "shipowners' load line," and he thought the Government would show a wise discretion in adopting the suggestion. He was surprised that the Government had not met his hon. Friend more than half-way, as the proposal was almost indentical with a clause of the amended Government Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, had opposed the suggestion, and in doing so, when he said his hen. Friend's proposal would end in luring seamen to their destruction, was in reality giving that as a description of a clause contained in the Government measure.

THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER

explained that the clause must be taken in connection with the two liability clauses which followed it.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was unable to see any connection between those two liability clauses and that which had reference to a load line; and, with regard to the former, if the Government would add them to the Bill, even at this period of the Session, he would give them his hearty support. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to his hon. Friend's proposal was, that recording the load line would involve the responsibility of the Board of Trade; but his hon. Friend had agreed to withdraw from the Amendment the words involving that suggestion, and now it was only proposed that the shipowner should make his own load line and submit it to the Government for record. For his own part, he thought it was more convenient to discuss the question now than to defer it until the Bill was in Committee.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, the last speaker was mistaken in supposing that either of the alternatives in the present proposal was identical with that of the Government regarding the load line. The Government had not proposed either that the load line should be sanctioned by Government or submitted to the Board of Trade for record. They proposed that a voluntary load line should on every voyage be fixed by the owner of the ship, and that this load line should be described in the form of entry outwards, and in the articles of agreement with the crew and in the official log-book; but care was studiously taken that the Government should have nothing to do with fixing or accepting the load line. It was intended to be a sort of contract between the owner and the crew, that the owner did not intend to load beyond it, and that if he did, it would amount to absolute fraud.

MR. SAMUDA

Appealed to the hon. Member for Pembroke to withdraw the Resolution, and in Committee to propose the second part of it. It must be apparent that the remarks contained in the first part of the Resolution became entirely useless when they were apart from the words which the hon. Member had agreed to expunge. The two proposals which they had come down to the House to discuss were antagonistic to each other. One might be termed, for the sake of argument, the load line of the hon. Member for Derby, which it was impossible to adopt, and the other was the load line of the shipowners, which might be adopted with advantage. He agreed, however, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the second part of the proposal of the hon. Member for Pembroke could not be accepted pure and simple, but it was valuable if taken into consideration with other matters. The owner's line, when re- corded, was the expression of a deliberate intention on his part how deep the ship should be loaded. If the ship left port with a different and deeper load line than that recorded by the Board of Trade officers, the owner would have departed from the conditions he entered into with the passengers and crew, and he would be liable for it if, in his greed for gain, the ship was lost or wrecked. The marking of a load line, however, would not save a single life, and he would vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Pembroke. Nothing could be more absurd than the idea that those who voted against that proposition voted in favour of consigning people to death. The Government had promised to take into their consideration the expediency of dealing with the question of insurance in such a way as to compel shipowners who insured their ships to be themselves interested to the extent of one-third or one-fourth in the policy. If that was done they would themselves act as a sort of police to guard and protect their own property. That, he believed, was the only means of preventing the loss of life at sea, and would do more to preserve life than could be effected by any army of surveyors, or any regulations with reference to overloading or deck cargoes. He had long lived in the hope that such a plan would be adopted by the Legislature. He thought the House would do well to pass the Bill of the Government with the Amendments of hon. Gentlemen as to grain cargoes and dock cargoes. The question about marking a load line would require a great deal of consideration, for if the Legislature simply passed a law requiring the marking of a load line, or were even induced to adopt the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk, many shipowners would immediately endeavour to evade the law by altering the construction of their ships. He could see no necessity for pressing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pembroke, and hoped the House would go into Committee on the Bill as soon as possible.

MR. MAC IVER

hoped the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) would not press his Motion to a division, because he (Mr. Mac Iver) could not help feeling that the House would be asked to decide the question of load line upon what was really a false issue. He thought that, in most instances, shipowners and captains might reasonably be allowed to load their vessels as they pleased; but that the responsibility of determining a load line should be placed upon the shipowner, and that a public record of what was intended would operate as an effectual check in regard to overloading. This had always been his view, and was expressed in the load line clause which he suggested by way of Amendment upon the former Government measure. He desired again to press this view on the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the present Bill, in the hope that he could see his way to the adoption of what some people would regard as a compromise, but a compromise which he (Mr. Mac Iver) thought was not merely a temporary, but, perhaps, a permanent solution of the load line difficulty. The proposal could do no harm in the meantime, and a year's experience would show whether anything further in the direction recommended by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) was necessary or desirable. But he (Mr. Mac Iver) had more faith in the prevention of overloading by placing reliable evidence in regard to the facts within the reach of all interested, than by anything in the nature of hard-and-fast rules.

MR. E. J. REED

said, he felt that, as a division was desired by the House, to take it at that time, even if it were successful, would delay the Bill. He therefore would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Preamble postponed.

Clause 1 (Appointment and powers of officers having authority to detain un-seaworthy ships).

MR. RATHBONE

proposed, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 6, that after the words "Board of Trade" there should be inserted— So soon as may be after the passing of this Act, "but before the 1st of September, 1875, shall make and issue regulations for the purpose of regulating the carriage of deck cargoes and cargoes of grain, and with respect to the marking of British ships for the purpose of showing the draught of water.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he would suggest to the hon. Member that the present was not the most opportune moment to introduce the Amendment which he had moved.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he had no desire to take a course which was out of Order or in any way to delay the progress of the Committee. His sole object was to settle the principles upon which the House wished the Government to proceed before the details of the measure came to be considered. Before officers were appointed to discharge certain duties the Committee ought to decide what the officers would have to do. They ought to lay down certain principles, and then lay down the lines on which those principles were to be carried out. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had given Notice of certain Amendments with regard to deck cargoes, but the effect of some of those Amendments would be very injurious. One of those Amendments provided that when the load line was once marked, it might be altered on giving notice to the Registrar, and there was nothing to prevent that alteration taking place just before the sailing of a vessel. Then, with respect to deck cargoes, the clause relating to them might have this effect. A ship might leave Calcutta with a cargo worth £250,000. Every arrangement might be perfectly in order and strictly according to law; but if the captain at some intermediate port should take in a case of goods and place it on the main deck, he might by that simple act vitiate the insurance and ruin the owner, and the shippers of the cargo would have no claim on anyone but the owner who had been thus ruined.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member was out of Order in referring to Amendments which were not under consideration.

MR. RATHBONE

said, that, in addition to the fact that a great many blots existed in the Bill as drawn, it was clearly impossible in the short space remaining of the present Session to pass a detailed measure dealing with a vast mass of technical details. He thought on the whole that the Government would do well to postpone dealing with deck cargoes and load lines until next Session, and to employ the interval in making such inquiries as would render it easy to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the question, and meet the regulations upon the subject existing in foreign countries. If they did so, he would do his best to assist them in the matter.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

, while thanking the hon. Gentleman for the assistance he tendered, said, he could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that he did not think it would be advisable at that particular stage to enter upon a general discussion of the Bill, or to anticipate the new clauses which would be proposed while the Bill was in Committee. For himself, and speaking in his capacity of President of the Board of Trade, he confessed he should be afraid to assume the responsibility of drawing up regulations to meet such difficult points as deck cargoes and the loading of grain. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman to proceed first of all with the proposals of the Government as embodied in the Bill, and then to introduce any new proposition which he might think desirable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. EDWARD JENKINS

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 6, to insert after "order," the words "in the form of Schedule A to this Bill annexed." The Government were asking arbitrary powers almost without precedent—the Bill, indeed, might be called the Merchant Shipping Coercion Bill—and he thought it was only right that the Government should state to the House the form of instructions under which the new surveyors of the Board of Trade to be appointed under the Bill were to act, what the number of the surveyors was likely to be, and what would be the probable amount of their salary. He held that some such Amendment was absolutely necessary. It was also essential that rules should be laid down for the guidance of the surveyors, and that they should not be left to act entirely upon their own discretion. Properly defined rules would not only be a guarantee against any abuse of power on the part of the surveyors, but they would also be a guarantee to the country that the Board of Trade intended to carry out the extreme powers for which they were asking, honestly, and not allow them to remain in abeyance.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, after the word "order," to insert the words "in the form of Schedule A to this Bill annexed."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

thought the demand reasonable. He should like exceedingly to know what class of persons were to be appointed as surveyors, and what would be their pay. He did not intend to reflect upon the surveyors of the Board of Trade. They did their duty to the best of their ability, but in common with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), he very much doubted whether they were exactly the right class of persons to whom to entrust such extreme powers as those proposed. It was a very serious responsibility to give to unknown persons the right, on their own responsibility, to stop ships which they thought were unseaworthy. Very few persons ought to have such a vast power vested in their hands.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) merely proposed that the order issued by the Board of Trade for the appointment of the surveyors should be in a special form, which was hardly a matter of much moment, neither was it possible to say what the intended form would consist of. The Government intended to appoint officers authorized to detain ships suspected of going to sea in an unseaworthy or dangerous state; but it was equally impossible to say how many of those officers would have to be appointed, what would be their salary, or from what class they would be selected. These were all questions which would have to be determined by circumstances. This much, however, he could say, that it was the intention of the Government to place them in all the principal ports of the Kingdom, and, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned the other day, Lloyd's had already in the handsomest manner offered the Government the assistance of some of their own men. Although it was impossible as yet to state what the exact qualifications of the new surveyors would be, he believed they would be found perfectly fit for the discharge of their duties.

MR. GOSCHEN

, in spite of what had been said by the President of the Board of Trade, expressed a hope that before the Committee finished the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman would give them an approximate idea of the number of ports and the number of officers they intended to appoint, in order that hon. Members might form some idea of the scope of the measure.

MR. T. BRASSEY

contended that the powers given under the Acts of 1871 and 1873 were amply sufficient to accomplish all the objects contemplated even by the hon. Member for Derby. He held that no further legislation was' required. The difficulties which remained related not to legislation, but to administration. What was wanted at all the large ports was a high officer acting for the Board of Trade—a man of high social position, of great experience, capable on the one hand of acting as the friend and sympathizer of the seamen, and on the other as the adviser of the shipowner. Six or seven had been stated as the probable number of these superior officers; but on considering all the circumstances of the case, he had arrived at the conclusion that 12 were necessary, and he hoped the Government would not be niggardly in the matter of salaries. With respect to subordinate officers, they might be appointed to less important places.

MR. MAC IVER

said, he would press the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for more definite information, because it was not a pleasing prospect for shipowners to have their property and the lives of their crews handed over to nobody knew whom, with powers to do nobody knew what. High-class surveyors, specially appointed, might afford some reasonable relief to the permanent officials of the Board of Trade; but the new surveyors should have their headquarters in London, and there ought not to be too many appointments, or they would fail to get the right men. The Act of 1873 had done a certain amount of good, but it had been almost exclusively enforced against the poor man's ship, to the destruction of the coasting trade of the country. Increased powers were not required by the Board of Trade. What was required was that the existing powers should be more judiciously administered; and the way to do this was by strengthening the Department in London by the addition of a few first-class surveyors entrusted with the supervision of that particular duty.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he intended to support the Government Bill as it was brought in. This was no mere Party question, and ought not to be made one. Government had been compelled by public opinion to bring in the Bill, and it was the duty of those who had special knowledge of shipping to support the Government. For his own part, he did not see how the Government were to do much more than the Bill promised. It was all very well to talk theoretically upon so complicated a subject, but what was wanted was the advice of good sound practical business men, who knew really what they were doing. The determination of the number and the selection of the surveyors must be left to the Government, who could be called to account next year if they abused their powers. He hoped the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) would not press his Amendment.

MR. ROEBUCK

was of opinion that the Government itself had not gone about this matter in a businesslike manner, and he characterized the Bill as having the aspect of despotism, and as nothing less than despotism, in respect to the power which it gave to the Board of Trade. An uncertain number of unknown men were to be appointed surveyors. There were to be no rules laid down for their conduct or guidance. Any one of the lot might, upon his own individual opinion and responsibility, and because he thought danger to life might be involved, stop a ship from sailing. That, he repeated, was nothing more nor less than a piece of despotism. Who were these men to be Did they expect to get first-class men for such a service Was a man likely to lay aside his other business in life for one year in order to serve under the Board of Trade Could they offer them large enough salaries to induce them to do so He was afraid they could not, and the result would be the appointment of mere third-class men. And what would happen then Why it might be that a merchant had a large ship with a valuable cargo about to sail upon a distant voyage. Well, one of these surveyors, who might possibly see some gain to himself by taking the action, might say that he did not like the ship, that it was not properly laden, that it was dangerous to life and must be detained. And what would the merchant do then? He would simply put £100, or, if that would not do, £200 into the man's hand and the ship would sail. The consequence would be that from one end of the Kingdom to the other there would be such an outcry as had never been heard, and all this would be the result of the cowardly conduct of the Government in bringing forward such a Bill as they had before them, instead of waiting till the question could be taken up properly. The Government asked for despotic powers, and the House was willing to give them, because they intended to place the entire responsibility on the Government. That was all very well, but what good would that do after the mischief was done? The whole trade of the country would be turned topsyturvy for the next six months. He said that the best thing the Committee could do under the circumstances was either to strike out from the word "whereas" to the end, or to take the Bill as the Government brought it in, and not to attempt to tinker with it, for it was idle to introduce merely a few Amendments into it.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was not justified in reproaching the Government with cowardice in the matter. If there was cowardice at all, it consisted in the fact that what they were doing, they were doing in an absurd manner. They were dealing with a great question, simply because of pressure from without, got up by excellent and well-meaning persons, who knew nothing whatever about the subject. So far as that was a matter of cowardice, the hon. and learned Member himself, in common with the whole House must share in it. The whole matter ought to have been postponed till a proper Bill could have been introduced.

MR. E. J. REED

said, the Government was being reproached for not having done what no Government could do—namely, discard the legitimate outcry of the country for legislation to protect the lives of the people. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield would seem to imply that what had taken place outside the House was mere vulgar clamour. That was not the case. There was no man in that House less disposed to take part in any merely popularly-concocted clamour than himself (Mr. Reed). He held, and it had been over and over again admitted, that seamen lost their lives at sea from neglect and from the cupidity of a certain class of shipowners. That being so, the people had a perfect right to come to the House and ask for protection and redress. When the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield spoke of the Government legislating out of fear, he (Mr. Reed) replied that the Government had no option in the matter. Great difficulty had, in fact, been experienced within the last week in preventing Palace Yard being filled with the working men of the country. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That was the fact, and he and others had had the greatest difficulty in preventing them from coming there and demanding legislation upon the matter. He said it was idle to reproach the Government for doing what they were forced to do by the excited voice of the country. He maintained that the Government ought to have been prepared to inform the Committee what number of surveyors they intended to appoint, and they would make it a condition that that information should be given on the third reading.

MR. GORST

said, that as hon. Members would have the whole of the autumn in which to tell their constituents their opinions on the subject, he hoped the Committee would not be led astray into irrelevant discussions on the conduct of the Government or of the House, as it was necessary they should proceed in a business-like way to pass the best Bill that could be framed at such a late period of the Session. A proposition to schedule instructions to be given to the officers of the Board of Trade could not be entertained, because in adopting such a suggestion the House would be usurping the functions of an executive Department.

MR. WHITWELL

said, it was most important that the surveyors should be men of great discretion and ability.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that, in his opinion, there was not the least necessity for forcing such a schedule on the Board of Trade. He would point out that many half-pay officers of the Navy would be ready to accept these appointments. The proper course for the Committee to take now was to throw upon the Board of Trade the responsibility of selecting suitable persons to perform these duties.

MR. EDWARD JENKINS

said, that the observations of the Treasury Bench only made it more necessary that the Government should give the Committee some idea of the nature of these instructions. He should feel it his duty to divide the House on his Amendment.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 176: Majority 150.

MR. EDWARD JENKINS

, in moving an Amendment of great length providing for the appointment of Temporary marine inspectors to be appointed, and employed only from year to year, or any less period designated in the order, and defining their duties in detail, said, if the Government were prepared to explain what course they proposed to take in reference to deck loading and grain cargoes, he would leave the Amendment in their hands.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

, in reply, said, that the question of grain cargoes and deck loading could be best discussed in the clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), and he therefore hoped the Committee would not waste time on the matter at present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. NORWOOD

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 7, the omission of the words "or otherwise," and explained that his object in so doing was to restrict the appointment of the special officers under this clause to the staff of the Board of Trade. He could conceive nothing more objectionable than that surveyors of Lloyd's or any other insurance association should be appointed to carry out the provisions of the Bill. There was an immense amount of rivalry between the different associations, and it would be very awkward to ask the officer of one association to adjudicate on a ship insured in another company.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

pointed out that the effect of the Amendment would be absolutely to restrict the choice of these officers to the staff of the Board of Trade. He was glad that the hon. Member had such confidence in the staff; but it would be impossible to get all the officers from their present staff to carry out the powers given by the clause. There might also be most desirable men obtainable outside. At the same time the officers appointed would be strictly responsible to the Government.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that all the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Norwood) was anxious for was that the persons employed to carry out this Act should be appointed by the Board of Trade and paid by them.

MR. BATES

agreed with the hon. Member for Hull, that it would be wrong for any person remaining in the service of Lloyd's to be employed in carrying out this Bill; but if he left that service there could be no objection to his being so employed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER

explained that all he had said was that Lloyd's had very handsomely offered the services of their officers to the Government for the purposes of that Bill, but he had not stated that their offer had been accepted. There was much force in the remarks which had fallen from hon. Members on this subject; but it must be remembered that the Board of Trade would be responsible for the conduct of all the persons who might be employed by them to enforce the provisions of the Act. It was necessary that the Board of Trade, for its own protection, should have officers in whom it could place confidence, and therefore it was most desirable to give a power of appointing any fit person—it might be a harbour-master, for example—although he might not belong to the staff of the Board.

MR. COLLINS

pointed out that the objection to appointing Lloyd's inspectors was that they would always be under a suspicion of being influenced by considerations unfair to the rival associations.

MR. DILLWYN

considered that the Board of Trade ought not to appoint such persons as harbour-masters to be Inspectors.

MR. E. J. REED

opposed the Amendment on the ground that its effect would be to narrow the choice of the Board of Trade, and therefore to narrow the operation of the clause.

MR. WILSON

considered that the turning clause of the Bill, and unless the power given to the Board of Trade was properly carried out, the whole thing would end in dissatisfaction and failure. For that purpose they should keep the supreme power in their own hands, and not delegate it to Lloyd's or any other association. If the authorities at Lloyd's were to be brought into the Bill as surveyors they might not be inclined to look with a great amount of favour on vessels which were not associated with them. As to employing harbour-masters and that class of persons for this purpose, it was out of the question, for it would never satisfy the shipping community. The persons appointed should secure the confidence, not only of the shipowners, but of the seamen and all other persons concerned. At all the great seaports the officers selected should be men of high capacity, belonging to the permanent staff of the Board of Trade, and if some half-dozen such were appointed to undertake the surveyorship of the whole Kingdom, a lower class of men under the supervision of the former class, might be appointed for the inferior ports.

LORD ESLINGTON

advised the House not to accept the Amendment, the Bill being only a provisional and temporary one, and the great difficulty of the Board of Trade being to obtain a sufficient number of qualified men. He regarded the staff of Lloyd's, whose services had been offered, as a very valuable body of men.

MR. MACGREGOR

urged the withdrawal of the Amendment, and expressed his belief that the surveyors at Lloyd's were an able and well-qualified body.

SIR ANDERW LUSK

said, that the shipping interest of the country was next in importance to the agricultural interest. Some ships were worth £100,000, and property of that kind ought not to be placed at the arbitrary control of a Lloyd's surveyor or any other man who had not much to do but find fault.

MR. E. J. REED

maintained that it would be impossible for the Government to carry out the Bill without the powers proposed to be conferred on them by that clause. He regarded the set that had been made against the surveyors at Lloyd's as very unfortunate, for he knew nobody from whom the Board of Trade could turn for assistance with such confidence as to that body.

DR. KENEALY

supported the clause, thinking that the Government ought to be trusted with the power of saving the lives of men who had been so long ruthlessly sacrificed by ship-insurers. He did not profess to know much about the matter, but he had always understood that the gentlemen connected with Lloyd's stood first in all mercantile matters, and he believed the Government could not get better assistance than that of those gentlemen.

MR. NORWOOD

said, the powers in the Bill were more enormous than had ever been asked for by any Government Department. They were extraordinary and despotic powers, and should be entrusted only to men who were independent of any trading company, and exclusively in the service of the Government, and who were not likely from their position to be actuated by influence of any kind, or to be tampered with.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that in the discussion of this Amendment the real foundation of the Bill was forgotten—namely, the responsibility of the Government. The point was not, as the hon. Member seemed to suppose, that certain persons were to be chosen either from harbour-masters or from Lloyd's, but whether the Government, having undertaken a difficult and dangerous responsibility, were not to have an absolute and free choice of agents to defend them from the consequences of the acts for which they would be liable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAC IVER

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment empowering the Government to— Demand a statement in writing from the master of any ship entered outwards at a British Custom House of the maximum load line to which the ship is, under ordinary circumstances, intended to be laden. There was not the smallest difficulty in establishing a load line. It was what shipowners did every day in the conduct of their business. There was an inferior class of steam vessels which to his knowledge were habitually overladen. The expenses of the voyage were nearly the same whether the cargo was a small or an excessive one, and there was thus a dreadful temptation to overload. The question was one of greater importance than deck cargoes or stowage of grain. If the surveyors were empowered to require from the owner of the vessel a declaration of the depth to which he intended to load her, such a power would be most efficacious, and would be in complete harmony with the Government Bill. He threw out these observations for the consideration of the Government, but he did not propose to move his Amendment.

MR. T. E. SMITH

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "British," so as to empower the officers of the Board of Trade to stop foreign as well as British ships which were leaving our ports in an un-seaworthy condition. An Act had been passed to that effect by the Canadian Legislature; and the provision was one which ought not to be left out of a Bill of this character. If the Amendment were not accepted, unscrupulous owners would mate a pretended transfer of their ships and sail them under a foreign flag in order to escape the provisions of the Act.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that a provision empowering the officers to be temporarily appointed by the Board of Trade to stop foreign ships would be a very dangerous one, and might lead to unforeseen complications. He therefore opposed the Amendment.

MR. MACGRGOR

thought it would be a pity if British ships were placed in a worse position than foreign ships; but in any case, our seamen ought not to be sent out in unseaworthy vessels.

MR. GORST

hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn, because it would not be well to press upon the Government powers which they did not wish to possess. He thought, however, that it was a matter which the Government might well consider during the Recess, with the view of seeing whether they could not introduce something about it into their larger measure. Without some such provision, how could foreign ships be prevented from overloading Their own Governments could not prevent them from overloading whilst they were in British ports.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn, and that the Committee would meanwhile steer clear of the question of foreign vessels.

DR. KENEALY

trusted that the Amendment would be pressed to a division.

MR. MACDONALD

observed that hon. Members had been discussing the measure as if it were to last for 40 years. As to the question of transferring British ships under foreign flags, if it should be found, at the opening of next Session, that a large number of ships had been so transferred, the offenders could be spotted and dealt with then.

MR. WILSON

supported the Amendment, urging that we must have power to deal according to our laws with foreign shipping in English ports.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MAC IVER

moved an Amendment providing that no inspection nor certificate of survey or classification nor marked load line should in any way relieve shipowners of any responsibility to which they would otherwise be subjected.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

pointed out that the hon. Member's Amendment referred to things which were absolutely not in existence. General Government inspection, certificates of survey or classification, or marked load lines were not in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

moved an Amendment to the effect that the stevedore and his assistants and all persons employed in the loading of the ship should be deemed to have impeded the officers if they refused to give information, or gave false information as to the loading of the cargo. The hon. Member observed that greater danger arose from bad stowage than from overloading, and the stevedores ought to be bound to furnish all proper information as to stowage.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, the Amendment proposed to create an offence that was not ascertainable. How could you prove that a man was possessed of information which he refused to give?

MR. MACGREGOR

said, the stevedore was the only man who could give the required information.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, the Amendment was unnecessary to get the required information.

MR. GORST

said, the Proviso, if adopted, would subject the stevedore to a species of torture to obtain information he might not be able to give.

MR. E. J. REED

quite agreed with the ton. Member for Youghal as to getting information about stowage, but be hoped he would not press his Amendment, because it was a matter of detail which might be left to the Government.

Amendment negatived.

MR. NORWOOD

, who bad given Notice of an Amendment providing that the Inspectors should act upon ocular demonstration only, said, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Ship to be detained on complaint of crew).

On the Motion of Mr. D. JENKINS, Amendment made in page 2, line 7, by leaving out from the word "or" to "seamen," in line 8, both inclusive.

MR. NORWOOD

, who had an Amendment on the Paper in reference to frivolous objections by seamen, inquired what security the Government proposed to take to prevent such objections

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed that the Amendment just agreed to would afford some security. An aggrieved shipowner would have his remedy against the Board of Trade, and the Board against those who had unnecessarily set them in motion.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Short title), agreed to.

Clause 4 (Duration of Act).

MR. T. E. SMITH

suggested that this clause should be postponed until the consideration of the new clauses.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he could not assent to the course proposed.

MR. BENTINCK

said, the discussion on the Bill had clearly shown the great inconvenience arising from, as had been stated, "legislating under the dictation of a mob in Palace Yard." The Committee ought to take care not to do anything likely to drive the Mercantile Marine to embark under any foreign flag.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause (Commissioners to be appointed with the same powers as Board of Trade of dealing with unsea- worthy ships), (Captain Pirn), by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed new clause (Loading of grain), (Mr. Edward Jenkins), by leave, withdrawn.

MR. NORWOOD

moved the insertion of a new clause under the head "Scales of feet and load line," the first being as follows:— A scale of feet for the purpose of denoting the ship's draught of water shall he marked on each side of her stem and her stern post. The hon. Member explained that his object was that a ship should be marked with her draught of water stem and stern and amidships, at which latter point also a disc or other mark should be placed, the centre of which should indicate the point down to which the owner claimed immersion. Those details were to be given to the Custom House, and entered on the ship's register, as also in the articles entered into with the crew. He thought that information would be very valuable in enabling the crew and others concerned to judge more correctly of the ship's safety. He also proposed that a crew should be discharged from all responsibility under articles if the owner sent his ship away with her load line immersed. The operation of the clause would commence on the 1st of January, and he thought it would dispense with the necessity of any supervision being exercised by the Board of Trade, as the seamen themselves would virtually act as inspectors. Indeed, he disclaimed the slightest idea that the Board of Trade should incur any responsibility in connection with the supervision of the load line. There were several sub-sections in the clause dealing with the matters he had referred to, but he would abide by the result of the first which he now submitted to the decision of the Committee. He contended that the clause would meet the necessities of every case and prevent overloading.

MR. E. J. REED

said, he was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull, and to take a division upon it as conclusive of the question of load line. He thought that hon. Gentleman was entitled to credit for having proposed a clause of this nature. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have understood his (Mr. Reed's) remarks earlier in the evening, for that right hon. Gentleman had dealt with points on the question of load line which he (Mr. Reed) had not raised and which he maintained were not raiseable on this occasion. The Committee were simply asked to say whether it was reasonable or unreasonable to require a load line to be marked on ships. It did not matter how the owner put a load line on his ships as long as it was put there. The Government ought to compel every owner to place upon his ships a load line indicating the maximum he would claim for himself, and by which he would be willing in all circumstances to abide. If that would meet the views generally of the persons interested he saw no reason why the Government should not accede to the proposal; but he trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Hull would consent to fix an earlier period than January, 1876, and that the clause would be made to come into operation on the 1st of November next. The clause had been drawn with great care, was sound and simple in its provisions, and he believed that if adopted it would do much good in the course of the coming winter in the way of affording protection to the lives of seamen.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, the Committee must feel indebted to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) for the manner in which he had treated this subject. The question was reduced to a clear issue—namely, whether the Government should or should not undertake the fixing of a load line in every case, but he found that there was no agreement between any two persons as to what should be the proper load line. There had been a gradual change of opinion on the subject; the more people reflected, the more the impossibility of any fixed standard was perceived; and the hon. Members for Hull, Pembroke, and Derby, did not agree as to the course which ought to be pursued. The proposition now was, that there should be a voluntary load line prescribed to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade. ["No, no!"] Yes, that was so; but there was this material difference between that proposition and that contained in the Government Bill, that the latter carefully avoided anything like a recognition of any load line on the part of the Board of Trade, whereas the proposition of the hon. Member for Hull implicated the Government in the load line to be fixed. He maintained that it would be a fatal mistake for the Government to prescribe the point in every vessel down to which she might in every voyage safely load, because by so doing they would remove responsibility from the shipowner, and cast upon themselves a presumption of responsibility which they could not really discharge. To affect a guarantee would only render the lives of seamen still more unsafe. He, therefore, could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull. Even supposing the hon. Member was to drop his proposition, and ask the Government to introduce their own clauses from their former Bill, he should advise the Government not to accept that course; because, although they might find supporters enough to carry it, yet opinion differed so much in detail that it was one of those points which should be fully debated before it received the sanction of the Legislature. The Government thought there ought to be a line on every ship voluntarily marked on every voyage, fixed by the shipowner; that would be a record between the shipowner and the crew, and render him liable to a charge of fraud, if he allowed his promised load line to be immersed. It would be declared in the entry outwards, and be entered in the home log and be a record against him in ease of casualty, and would establish a self-acting system of check, under which shipowners would cease to overload their ships. It would be impossible, within a few months, to get a load line put upon the whole of the 26,000 English merchant ships that were scattered all over the globe. The action of the clause would therefore not be immediate, and it would not be in time to lessen the dangers of the coming winter. He hoped that in the complete measure of next year this point, as well as many others, would be satisfactorily settled.

MR. NORWOOD

explained that his clauses had been most carefully drawn, being almost identical with the clauses of the Government Bill, and that they would not throw the slightest responsibility upon the Board of Trade with regard to the load line. He only desired that the delineation of the load line adopted by each shipowner should be made in a manner satisfactory to the Board of Trade officials.

MR. GOSCHEN

thought that, as the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Hull approximated closely to that of the Government in the Bill which had been withdrawn, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade ought to meet the proposal half-way, so as to arrive at a satisfactory compromise. It, however, seemed that the right hon. Gentleman had been so impressed with the criticisms made upon his own proposal that though the House appeared to be nearly unanimous in wishing to deal with the question of the load line, he himself seemed indisposed to accept the passing of his own clause unless after careful discussion. Hon. Members opposite would admit that every disposition had been shown by the supporters of the views of the hon. Member for Derby to arrive at a compromise on all burning questions, in order to pass a satisfactory Bill that Session, and he ventured to appeal to the Government whether, if they saw the Committee were willing to deal with the question of the load line without a prolonged discussion, they could not relieve them in regard to it? If the Government objected to the clause of the hen. Member for Hull, would they again propose their own clause and stand by it If the Government should determine to oppose the fixing of a certain load line, he believed that they would be opposing themselves to the general feeling of the Committee on the subject.

LORD ESLINGTON

said, he was convinced that of all the modes of fixing a load line, the one here proposed was the best, coinciding, as it did, with the recommendation of the Royal Commission that responsibility should be thrown on the shipowners, and he thought it would be wise on the part of the Government to accept it either wholly or in substance. As the load line was acknowledged to be an experiment, he thought it was particularly appropriate that it should be embodied in a temporary measure.

MR. HERSCHELL

said, that the advantages of the Amendment more than counterbalanced the objections which had been urged against it. He was strongly opposed to a compulsory load line, and to anything which would relieve the shipowner of full responsibility; but as the general feeling of the Committee evidently appeared to be in favour of such a proposition, he hoped the Government would either agree to the proposal under discussion, or would insert a clause authorizing the Board of Trade to frame regulations with respect to a load line. If the record were entered at the Custom House, it would give information to the public as well as the Board of Trade.

SIR JOHN HAY

really hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, or re-introduce the clause from their own Bill upon this subject. It would be most advantageous that a load line should be tried experimentally before the general question was discussed next Session. The danger of overloading arose chiefly in regard to ships homeward bound, and a load line would restrain the agent from overloading in a foreign port.

MR. SAMUDA

said, there appeared to be such a general agreement of opinion with reference to the principle of this Amendment, that he ventured to make another appeal to the Government in favour of an owner's load line. There was a clause in the Bill which would require very little change in order to remedy the existing defect of the Bill. A load line marked by the voluntary action of the shipowners could do no harm, and would certainly do some good. He would accept it in the broadest form, and leave it the Government to draw up the clause themselves. By throwing the responsibility of load lines on the shipowners themselves, they would be adopting the best mode of proceeding, and let them be accountable in purse and person to those who suffered by their negligence.

MR. BATES

suggested that the words "to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade "should be omitted. Those words would take away all responsibility from the shipowner, a course which he decidedly favoured.

MR. T. BRASSEY

said, he should not have signed the Report of the Commission against a fixed load line had they not been assured by the permanent officials of the Board of Trade that they might rest assured that the powers conferred upon the Department by the Act of 1873 for the purpose of preventing overladen vessels from proceeding to sea would be exercised with such vigour that overloading would, in future, be entirely prohibited. The event had proved that the Act had been less successful in checking overloading than in dealing with vessels having defective hulls, and he therefore supported the Amendment. He was of opinion that the shipowner's load line would be very-valuable, as indicating to the officers of the Board of Trade what were the intentions of the shipowner, and enabling the surveyor to issue his prohibition when he saw that there was a risk of a ship being overloaded. He would also suggest the desirability of inserting a Proviso to prevent the evil of overloading ships in foreign ports. If the load line of the ship at a foreign port were duly notified to the Consul before sailing, there would be available information which might be brought before a Court of Inquiry, in the event of the ship being lost. As a proof that some such precaution was necessary, the owners of a great number of ships which took cargoes from the Black Sea, and were lost in the Bay of Biscay, were allowed to escape the ordeal of an inquiry, because no information was obtainable as to the condition of the hull or the extent of loading.

MR. DISRARLI

said, there were three modes of dealing with the question. First of all the load line might be defined by the Government; secondly, it might be defined by the shipowner without the sanction of the Government, but with a record kept by the Government; and thirdly, it might be defined by the shipowner, without any record at all on the part of the Government. On the first point it was unnecessary now to express an opinion, and it was not one which need be argued at this moment, for all those who had given attention to the subject—and he flattered himself that they were now the large majority of the House—must feel that it was not the least difficult of the questions connected with the administration of the Mercantile Marine. It was a question which would require long discussion and very patient debate; and he did not think the country would be satisfied if they arrived at any conclusion upon it in haste or excitement. With regard to the second proposition—namely, that the shipowner should define a load line, and then that the Government should be required to record without sanctioning it, that appeared to him to be extremely dangerous. He thought it would have a tendency to give a false authenticity to the process, and that it would lead to public deception, which would be of a dangerous and in some circumstances of a ruinous character. The third proposition was now before the House—that Parliament should call upon the shipowner to define his load line, and to take the consequences, if it could be shown that his definition was not founded upon trustworthy circumstances and conditions. Speaking generally, that was the policy which Her Majesty's Government adopted in the conception of their original Bill, and he must confess, feeling still as he did how much might be said in favour of a load line, that he was very anxious to see it satisfactorily arranged. He thought that calling upon the shipowner to define his own load line and to accompany that duty with certain conditions and regulations was a course which they might adopt at the present moment. He must say, however, that as far as he could form an opinion he could not sanction the adoption of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). There appeared to be in it many points which were objectionable, and it was a proposition which, under any circumstances, would require great consideration and criticism. In the first place, he objected very much, if this course was adopted, to the Board of Trade being at all called into action in the matter. His hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates) had called attention to one sentence in the Proviso—namely, "The Board of Trade may exempt any class of ship from the requirements of these sections or any of them." That was a responsibility which ought not to be forced upon the Government at this moment. It was a greater degree of responsibility than ought to be imposed on any Government, and what he was prepared to suggest for the adoption of the Committee was a course which he believed, on the whole, would meet the exigencies of the case. It was that the Government should be permitted on the Report to bring up a clause conceived in the spirit of their own proposition in their own original Bill, and accompanied with such other clauses as might be thought expedient. If his proposal were accepted by the Committee, he should be prepared to carry it into execution, and if not—which he should much regret—he should feel it to be his duty to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I can see that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be gene-rally satisfactory to the Committee, especially as I believe that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to compare more closely the clauses proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull with the proposals in the Government Bill, he will find that there is not such a great difference after all as he appears to think. [Mr. DISRAELI: They are diametrically opposite.] It appears to me that it would be the more convenient course if we were, having disposed of the amending new clauses on the Paper, to report Progress, and if the Government should bring up the new clauses which they propose, because the Committee must be aware that in matters involving considerable detail such as this, it is much more convenient that they should be discussed in Committee, rather than in the whole House, where it is not convenient to discuss details. The right hon. Gentleman says it would cause great delay; but I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman and the House must be prepared to take the consequences of the position in which we find ourselves. It is no fault of the House—the fact of our having to consider a supplementary Bill introduced at short notice, and introduced in the way this has been. And even if we should have to sit one or two days longer in consequence of reporting Progress, I must say that it still appears the better course. I do not see how it can cause any great delay. The House is almost unanimous on the subject, although there are some points of difference in detail. We may have some discussion, but if the new clause of the Government is conceived in a proper spirit, it may be disposed of in a very short time. I believe it would not take more than one day, if the right hon. Gentleman will take the course I suggest. If the Government choose to adopt that course, I shall advise my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he should be delighted if the Government took his clause and amended it. It had been criticized by the Prime Minister, though in fact it was not only in substance, but in its very terms a clause which had been adopted by the Board of Trade from the Bill he (Mr. Norwood) had introduced.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. J. REED

then moved the insertion of the following clause:—

(Deck cargo.)

"No deck cargo shall be carried on board any British ship, except acids and other chemical substances which are unsafe to he carried below, and except such cattle and other live stock and other matters and things, and in such quantities as the Board of Trade shall, by special licence or under general regulations to be issued by them from time to time, permit. A ship carrying deck cargo contrary to the provisions of this section shall not be deemed to be seaworthy."

New Clause (Deck cargo,)—(Mr. Reed,)—brought up, and read the first time.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

, in opposing the clause, said, that in the great majority of cases dangerous deck-loads did not leave, but were imported to this country. They must trust to the countries from which these dangerous deck cargoes come to deal with the subject. No doubt agricultural machines were sometimes put on deck when they ought to be stowed away through hatchways large enough, or in pieces; but Government had at present power to stop ships which were improperly loaded. To specify particular things which might to any extend be carried on deck would cause the double mischief of limiting the discretion of Government, and inviting special abuses.

MR. BECKETT - DENISON

thought it would be very desirable if some general rules on the subject of deck loading were framed. Unless there was some general understanding at the different ports with respect to what deck cargoes would be allowed and what deck cargoes would not be allowed, a great deal of irritation would be the result.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the subject was a very important one, and not easily to be disposed of. The question was whether deck loading made a ship unsafe. If the Government felt that they could not deal with the question then, it might be considered on the Report. This question of deck loading had attracted more attention than any other which had been considered, and the time at the disposal of the Committee was not sufficient to give it the consideration its importance deserved.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that the question was full of intricate perplexities. He had been a Member of a Committee to inquire into this and kindred subjects for three or four months, and they were unable to come to a conclusion upon it or even to agree as to what the upper deck was. He, therefore, hoped—knowing with what difficulties the question was surrounded—that a Committee of the Whole House would not attempt to decide upon it hastily.

MR. T. BRASSEY

said, that if the Committee had not come to a decision the Royal Commission had. They had reported against deck cargoes of timber, and as to other deck cargoes in the Canadian Mutual Insurance Clubs there were certain rules regulating the carrying of deck loads, and he could not see why such rules should not be accepted by the House of Commons, as tending to promote the safety of life at sea.

MR. SAMUDA

said, that timber cargoes had been condemned by the Commissioners, but they were very different from other cargoes which were carried on deck, and to which the clause would apply. He suggested that it would be better if it could be made the interest of the shipowner himself to prevent the carrying of deck cargo by requiring him to state, when registering his tonnage, whether his ship was intended to carry deck cargo, in which case he should be compelled to pay tonnage dues to the amount of cargo that was to be so carried. Especial care should be taken that the vessel was fitted to encounter the extra risk, so that the owner might be indisposed to carry such cargoes.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he wished to point out to the Committee that the discussion upon the clause was running rather wide of the real question before them. The Bill of the Government was founded upon the principle of giving powers to certain officers of the Board of Trade to deal with ships outward bound, and that such officers were to exercise their important and responsible functions under the immediate eye of the Government. The Board of Trade would report what its officers did, and that Department would have immediate and ample powers for keeping its officers under its own control. The regulation of the deck cargoes outwards would come within the scope of the functions of the officers of the Board of Trade, and of course the Department would give proper instructions on that subject to its officers, and the latter would act in concert with the Department, and would prevent anything dangerous occurring with regard to deck loads in outward-bound ships. As far, therefore, as outward cargoes were concerned, there was no object in introducing into the Bill such a Proviso as was suggested by the hon. Member. The hon. Member's clause, however, had a further bearing, because he proposed that it should apply, not only to outward-bound, but to homeward-bound ships also. It was, however, a matter of considerable difficulty, as well as of delicacy, to deal with homeward-bound vessels, and the Committee would do well to pause before it proceeded to determine the question. It was only when a ship arrived in safety on her homeward voyage that it could be ascertained that the regulations as to loading had been violated, and it would be rather a hard thing to punish a man for having made a successful voyage. Therefore the object desired must be attained by one of two ways, either by enforcing by agreement with foreign nations the regulations under this Bill, or by making it the interest of the shipowner to carry out those regulations. But in order to do that, they would have to enter into the vexed question of tonnage and measurement, and to define what was, and what was not, a deck. Under those circumstances, therefore, in his opinion the Committee would be acting unwisely in hastily adopting this proposal, otherwise they would run the risk of endangering the national interests. Complaints with regard to deck cargoes of timber ships coming from America and Canada had ever since the Royal Commission sat been dealt with to a great extent by the legislation of Canada, and by the regulations which America had adopted. It should be remembered that homeward-bound cargoes could not be dealt with in a moment like outward cargoes. He, therefore, thought it would be very unwise to plunge into the question raised by the Amendment, and to settle it in the summary manner proposed. On the whole, therefore, he could not accept the hon. Member's clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked that it was no use punishing a man for having made a voyage in safety with a dangerous cargo, but it might as well be said that because no one was killed a man was not punishable for firing a shot in a crowded thoroughfare. The right hon. Baronet had stated that the difficulty had been met by the Government of Canada; but, as a matter of fact, timber came to England from places other than Canada, and to such places the legislation was not applied. The right hon. Baronet also opposed the proposal of the hon. Member for Pembroke, on the ground that it would interfere with the interests of the country; but if he meant by this phrase the shipowning interest, the objection was one which had no weight as compared with the importance of guarding the interest of the community generally. They ought to punish men if they endangered the lives of their crews. Deck loading ought to be prevented on all British ships coming from any quarter in the winter by a provision in the Bill.

MR. DISRARLI

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are arguing this question as if we were passing this measure in sæcula sæculorum, instead of a brief measure resting entirely on the confidence which the Government asks the House of Commons at an exigency, and which the House is prepared to grant. The hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford says—and it is very true—that the legislation of the Dominion of the United States has provided happily against abuses in the importation to this country of timber cargoes. Well, but there are other countries from which we import timber. Certainly. It requires no great geographical knowledge or commercial information to know that. But in an exigency like this we are governed by the information at our command, and it is a fact that from the Baltic Ports there are no abuses of this description. Practically, we have no abuses of this kind at all, and therefore we did not think it necessary that we should encumber this Bill by any powers to prevent them. The powers we have taken for dealing with export cargoes are not questioned, and we undertake to deal with them efficiently; but I really must call on the Committee not to accept an Amendment in this form.

MR. E. J. REED

said, he must ask the Committee to divide upon his proposal, for the reason that nothing stated by the Representatives of the Government had shown that it could have any other than a good effect.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 193: Majority 63.

MR. E. JENKINS

moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. DISRARLI

I hope the Committee will not consent to the proposal. I think it is, considering all the circumstances of the case, a most unreasonable proposal. There remain only two clauses of importance to be dealt with, and one of those—that of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell)—it is the intention of the Government to accept. I trust, therefore, the Committee will proceed with its labours and conclude them to-night.

Motion negatived.

MR. E. J. REED

moved the following clause:—

(Cargo of grain, &c.)

"No cargo, consisting wholly or party) of any kind of grain, corn, rice, paddy, pulse, seed, nuts, or nut kernels, shall he carried on board any British ship unless the same shall he contained in hags, sacks, or barrels, or thoroughly secured from shifting by hoards, bulkheads, or otherwise. A British ship carrying cargo which consists wholly, or partly of any such goods shipped in bulk shall not be deemed Seaworthy. The master of any British ship who shall knowingly allow any cargo or part of a cargo to he shipped therein for carriage, contrary to the provisions of this section, shall, for every such offence, incur a penalty not exceeding two hundred pounds."

The hon. Member said, the evil against which the clause was directed was one of the most frightful causes of marine disaster. The foundering of ships owing to it was as unnecessary as it was frequent, and there would be an easy method of securing safety if the clause were adopted. The Bill, as it stood, furnished no direct means of dealing with that evil.

New Clause (Cargo of grain, &c.)—(Mr. Reed)—brought up, and read the first time.

On Question, "That the Clause be read the second time?"

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER

said, that on the second reading of the Bill, he carefully pointed out the difficulties attending the subject; but he admitted it was one well worthy the consideration of the Committee. The Government had given their best attention to the subject; and, in consequence, a letter was addressed by the President of the Board of Trade to the Committee at Lloyd's for the purpose of obtaining information, and in reply the secretary stated that it was the opinion of the Committee that little could be done in stopping these shipments as at present conducted, unless it could be made to apply to the shipping ports, or otherwise it would materially affect the carrying trade of this country. There was great difficulty in dealing with the subject in a temporary measure. It had been effectually remedied on the other side of the Atlantic; but as regarded the grain coming from the Black Sea, the season arrangements had probably been already made respecting its shipment, and it would be impossible that any legislation which they might adopt in the present Session could be effective in preventing a very large proportion of that grain coming over in ships laden in a certain way. That being so, if the Committee passed the clause, the result would be that the moment a British ship reached the shores of this country laden with grain in a certain way, she would be rejected, while a foreign vessel similarly laden would have to be admitted. English shipowners would, therefore, be driven either to carry their grain under other flags, or to land and sell their cargoes in France or some other country. Besides, many other difficulties would arise in carrying out the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, and he had no doubt that the attention of shipowners and underwriters having been called to the matter, they would avoid the greater proportion of those terrible accidents which occurred in the course of last year; but whatever might be the case, the Committee would be acting hastily and unwisely, if they were to introduce into the present temporary measure a proviso of the kind proposed.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proposal, if adopted, would impede the British shipowner as com- pared with the foreigner, applied to the whole of this class of legislation. They were dealing, however, with British ships in order to save the lives of British seamen, so far as that could be done. The Committee of Lloyd's were keenly alive to the importance of the subject under discussion; and, as the Government in July last declined to make any representations to the Government of Russia, with a view to diminishing the risks attending the transport of grain, the Committee of Lloyd's were about to despatch their secretary to Russia in order to bring the matter before the Russian authorities. At the present moment, therefore, it was particularly important that Parliament should show its willingness to make some sacrifice of British interests, as such a course would not only induce other Governments to follow our example, but would greatly strengthen our position in demanding a settlement of the question. The necessity of some preventive legislation was proved by the report of the Committee of Lloyd's, from which it appeared that five large steamers were lost last winter laden with grain, in consequence of no precaution having been taken in the loading. One of them had previously carried a grain cargo properly stowed safely across the Atlantic; this time the precaution was neglected, and the loss of 28 lives and a valuable property was the consequence. Such was the report of the Committee of Lloyd's.

MR. RATHBONE

confirmed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen). He pointed out that the Cunard steamers and other vessels of the very first class were in the habit of constantly carrying grain in bulk, and doing so under proper and safe consideration. But if the clause were carried, all such vessels would be declared to be unseaworthy, which would be a very great hardship. For that reason he could not agree to the clause; but he did not deny that if proper time were given to them, that the Government would be able to draft clauses which would effectually prevent the abuses connected with the carrying of grain in bulk.

MR. BATES

said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke as to the manner in which he suggested grain should be carried. In his (Mr. Bates's) opinion, the safest way to carry cargoes of grain would be to put it in bags; lay a series of the filled bags longitudinally, and then other bags transversely over them, and fill in the interstices, or wells, with grain, the effect of which was to keep the bags snug and tight in their berth when the ship rolled in rough weather. As to sliding boards, so much relied upon by some hon. Members, he had no confidence in them as a means of securing the grain from drifting. He himself could never think of carrying grain in bulk for any consideration.

MR. E. J. REED

said, he was perfectly willing to omit the following portion of his clause:— A Britsh ship carrying cargo which consists wholly, or partly, of any such goods shipped in bulk shall not be deemed seaworthy.

MR. WILSON

said, he had great confidence in the sliding boards as a means of securing the grain, and he knew grain to be carried safely from the Baltic by such a means of stowing it. He considered the subject of grain loading more important than even the load line. He should most willingly support the clause of the hon. Member for Pembroke now that he was ready to strike out two lines, to which exception was taken, and he hoped the Government would see the absolute necessity of accepting it.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he should be able to vote for the clause of the hon. Member for Pembroke if amended by the omission of the words relating to the question of unseaworthiness, which might, in his opinion, safely be left to the Courts of Law.

MR. HERSCHELL

also supported the clause, as all it provided was that the cargo should be in some mode or other prevented from shifting. He would have the homeward vessels inspected, to see that the cargoes had been properly secured, and would levy a penalty upon those shipowners who neglected to take the same precautions as were taken in the case of outward-bound vessels.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

asked how they could ascertain that the cargo had been thoroughly secured at the foreign port.

MR. HERSCHELL

said, the Inspector could ascertain the fact.

MR. E. J. REED

hoped the Government would accept the clause. Indeed, his impression was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a promise to that effect.

MR. RITCHIE

could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the British shipowners did not dread being handicapped by being placed under these arrangements.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the discussion had shown a much more general feeling in favour of some legislation on this subject than he was altogether prepared for, and he, therefore, thought they ought, if possible, to meet the wishes of the Committee. The proposal of the hon. Member for Pembroke went too far, and therefore he should be willing to accept a proposal of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), which limited the prohibition to cases in which more than one-third of the cargo consisted of grain, coupled with the omission of the words in the proposal of the hon. Member for Pembroke which reated to unseaworthiness.

MR. E. J. REED

said, he would agree to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Clause amended by leaving out in line 5 the words—"which consists wholly or partly," and inserting "of which more than one - third consists."

Clause further verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to and added to the Bill.

On the Motion of Mr. HERSCHELL, the following new clause was agreed to, and added to the Bill:— (Penalties on sending unseaworthy ships to sea.) Section eleven of 'The Merchant Shipping Act, 1871,' shall be repealed, and in lieu thereof it shall be enacted:— 1. Every person who sends a ship to sea in such unseaworthy state that the life of any person would be likely to be thereby endangered, and the managing owner of any British ship so sent to sea from any port in the United Kingdom shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless he prove that he used all reasonable means to ensure her being sent to sea in a seaworthy state, or prove that her going to sea in such unseaworthy state was, under the circumstances, reasonable and justifiable; and, for the purpose of giving such proof, such person may give evidence in the same manner as any other witness; 2. Every person who attempts or is party to any attempt to send to sea any ship in such un-seaworthy state that the life of any person would be likely to he thereby endangered, shall he guilty of a misdemeanor unless he give such proof as aforesaid, and for the purpose of giving such proof such person may give evidence as aforesaid; 3. Every master of a British ship who knowingly takes the same to sea in such unscaworthy state that the life of any person would he likely to he thereby endangered, shall he guilty of a misdemeanor, unless he prove that her going to sea in such unseaworthy state was, under the circumstances, reasonable and justifiable, and for the purpose of giving such proof such person may give evidence as aforesaid; 4. The owner of every British ship shall from time to time register at the custom house of the port in the United Kingdom at which such ship is registered, the name of the managing owner of such ship, and if there be no managing owner, then of the person to whom the management of the ship is entrusted, by and on behalf of the owner; and in case the owner fail or neglect to register the name of such managing owner or manager as aforesaid, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred pounds each time that the said ship leaves any port in the United Kingdom after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, without the name being duly registered as aforesaid; 5. The term 'managing owner' in subsection I shall include every person so registered as managing owner, or as having the management of the ship for and on behalf of the owner; 6. No prosecution under this section shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Board of Trade; 7. No misdemeanor under this section shall be punishable upon summary conviction.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 281.]

House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.