HC Deb 06 August 1875 vol 226 cc617-25

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Adderley.)

MR. RATHBONE

said, he wished to express the feeling which he knew to be shared by those who had taken most interest in this matter, of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the unwearied attention which he had given to the maritime interests of the country, for his anxious desire to ascertain the right course and to take it, without any desire to obtain a temporary popularity. He firmly believed, had the right hon. Gentleman been allowed to bring his measure into Committee at the time the importance of the subject required, and to keep it before the House in the way usual when a measure of difficulty was really intended to be carried, that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to bring to a successful issue a Bill which would have done the Government more credit and the country more good than any number of "Play Bills," as one of their own supporters called several of their measures. As to what had been said of the want of public support, the country was quiet because it had confidence that the Government meant to do what was right, and he frankly admitted that this was its intention; but the country thought further that the Government had the power to do what it thought was right, and so undoubtedly it had. He strongly deprecated the effect on the character of the House of Commons of the importance—he might almost say the value—attached by the Prime Minister to the wild scene to which he attributed his power to pass the present measure through the House. If the Government had gone on steadily with their larger measure, they might have carried a much better and more complete Bill than the present could pretend to be.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he desired once more to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to Clause 3. He thoroughly approved the principle that the stowage of grain cargoes should be regulated, but he feared the clause as it stood would tend to drive British vessels out of the business. If Her Majesty's Government had accepted the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) he believed that their object would be secured, and the British shipowner would not be placed at such a disadvantage. Where additional safety was secured, though expense was involved, there was a corresponding advantage in insurance. For instance, the winter premium on grain from New York to Liverpool in bags was only about half that on grain in bulk. But as between a cargo of which the whole was in bags and one in which one-third was in bags, the difference in security was very small, while the difference in expense was very great. He still, therefore, hoped that in "another place" Her Majesty's Government would consider these points. He might add that he was not a shipowner and had no pecuniary interest in the matter; but as Chairman of a Marine Insurance Company he felt it his duty on this point to support the arguments which had been used by the shipowners. Before he sat down he would also urge Her Majesty's Government to put themselves at once into communication with foreign Governments—especially those of Russia, Turkey, and Egypt—with the view of inducing them to apply to all vessels loading grain in their ports the provisions adopted with reference to British vessels by the Bill now before the House. The object of the Bill was to save life; but if the provisions of the clause did not extend to foreign vessels it might change the flag of many vessels, and yet do little to save life. In the interests of the sailor, therefore, quite as much as in those of the shipowner, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to induce foreign Governments to apply the provisions of the clause to all vessels loading in their ports.

MR. E. J. REED

regretted that the hon. Baronet should have raised a discussion on the clause in a manner which showed that he had been very badly advised. That clause was the best considered in the Bill, inasmuch as it enabled shipowners to secure their cargoes in the best manner that could be without costing them even an additional sixpence. But even if it cost £500 to secure the cargo by proper stowing, they would be well expended in relation to the saving of life and property. He regretted that on the third reading of the Bill the hon. Baronet should have taken a technical objection on the authority of persons who had not even taken the trouble to read the clause to which they objected. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed an intention to bring in a clause regulating the stowage of grain. The clause now in the Bill had been modified in Committee, but it was not so perfect as might have been wished. It was, however, perfect enough for its purpose, and it would, he felt certain, do a great deal of good before the operation of the Bill ceased. He would join the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) in thanking the President of the Board of Trade for the zealous and devoted attention he had given to this subject. As, however, they had been told by the highest authority that the present Bill fulfilled the promise given by the Government, and would give satisfaction to the country, he wished to say that it would not have done so if it had passed in its original shape. Very soon after the introduction of the Bill, it was evident that it would not give entire satisfaction to the country; and during its progress through Committee, he might observe the Government had never appealed to its strong majority in favour of the life-saving clauses. Those had been introduced by independent Members on the Liberal side of the House; and in one case only had the Government appealed to its majority to aid in impeding the clause relating to the load line. In these remarks he had no desire to reflect on the opposite side of the House. All he complained of was that the Government had not entered into the matter with the spirit the House had the right to expect from it, and had only appealed to its supporters against the life-saving provisions. To the House, and not to the Government, would be due the credit of the most important enactments of the Bill when it had become law. He trusted the Bill, which it was understood would be brought in next Session, would be introduced in a different spirit from that in which the present Bill had been submitted to the consideration of the House. He desired to add, on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), that since the unfortunate incident which had occurred on the occasion of the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill, on the 22nd of July, he had done all in his power—exercising great discretion and great prudence—to aid the Government in the carrying of their Bill through the House.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he would not enter into a discussion as to the details of the measure. The remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had been partly answered by those of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed); and with regard to the part unnoticed, he (Sir Charles Adderley) was sure they all hoped and believed that foreign Powers would co-operate—and, indeed, they were already co-operating—with this country in its efforts to prevent the sending of ships to sea with dangerous cargoes. He thought there was no ambiguity in the provision as to "one-third" of a cargo consisting of grain. It did not mean a third in value, but a third in bulk. He would only state in one sentence what he conceived would be the duties—the anxious duties—that would be imposed upon him by the passing of this Act. He should conceive it his duty, as soon as the Bill passed, to proceed with the greatest care to make the appointments provided by the Bill. He might say he even intended to give his own personal attention to the carrying out of this system in the commercial ports of this country, in order that the country might feel that the Government would exercise these powers with the greatest care and precaution, and with a grave sense of the responsibility incurred under the Act. On the one hand, acting under that responsibility, it would be his duty to see that in no way should a great and important interest be injuriously affected. On the other hand, that assurance should be given to our seamen that on their be-half the powers conferred by the Bill would be at once prudently and energetically exercised. He had to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) for the kind remarks he had made respecting him (Sir Charles Adderley) personally, and he might be allowed to say of all those interested in the question, that the more they looked into what had passed this Session, the more he might hope to receive the same acknowledgment from others also. Those who had accused the Government of insincerity in this matter had been most unjust in their accusations. He defied any one to point out where he had failed in charge of it. Some had sneered at the Government as at last confessing that there were unseaworthy ships. They must be blind to the fact that all this legislation was based on that assumption. It was not the fact that had been in dispute, but the right and most effectual mode of treating it. On the postponement of the first Bill, when its protracted course had inevitably led to its being smothered with Amendments, Her Majesty's Government obtained these ad interim powers, and now had, besides, incorporated three or four of the most material provisions from the first Bill into the present measure. This Bill had become no inconsiderable measure on the subject. He pledged himself, not, indeed, that no unseaworthy ships should get out this winter, nor that there should be no casualties at sea; but to this, that every effort should be made to catch offenders and arrest them before they could get out to sea, and to make warnings and examples of them so as to deter all others from the crime of sending a crew to sea in an unseaworthy ship.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he was pleased to hear what had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and entreated the Government to exercise the extraordinary powers vested in them with the utmost possible caution. He hoped the persons to be appointed as surveyors would be selected with judgment, and that they would hear from the Board of Trade that their duty was not to earn their remuneration by constant interference, but to reserve the use of their authority for cases that decidedly required it. Especially he pleaded for forbearance with regard to vessels engaged in the coasting trade, which performed most valuable services to the public and were the best nursery for our seamen.

MR. GOURLEY

said, he had great pleasure in joining in the sentiments just expressed towards the President of the Board of Trade. He trusted the provisions would be carried out, not in a spirit of opposition to the shipowners, but in a true commercial spirit. He would be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in accordance with the promise or understanding of the previous evening, state what the Government intended to do with regard to ships carrying grain cargoes during the coming winter. He understood the right hon. Gentleman then to intimate that he thought vessels of not more than under 100 tons burden should be excepted from the provisions of the Bill. ["Agreed, agreed!"] Hon. Gentlemen might call out "Agreed;" but they must remember that Representatives of the shipowning interest in the House were very few, and had certainly a right to be heard. It should be remembered, too, that this Bill had been brought in and was being passed, not with a view to the protection of seamen, or with a view to the rightful protection of the shipowning interest, but in deference to a sensational agitation in the country. ["No, no!"] That was the view which he took of the matter. He would take the liberty of affirming that, notwithstanding all that had been said against shipowners, they were as anxious for the safety of sailors as any one else could be; while as regarded their supposed excessive gains, if the poor-houses at the shipping ports were examined they would be found to contain a large number of persons who had belonged to that class, and who had lost large fortunes in it.

MR. MONK

inquired whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any application to the authorities at the Black Sea and the Baltic ports with reference to grain-laden ships? Without proper regulations at the ports in those seas there could be no adequate security for life in the case of grain-laden vessels.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that as to the point which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had raised yesterday, Her Majesty's Government had taken the best legal opinion that they could obtain at the moment, and on considering the Amendment suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) they had arrived at the conclusion that there was no necessity for introducing it, the clause as it stood being perfectly clear. In the interval which had since elapsed the Government had further considered the point, and they remained of opinion that there was no necessity for altering the wording of the clause. As to the question of small vessels to which the hon. Member for Sunderland had referred, the Bill would of course not apply to small vessels navigating inland waters, but it would apply to small seagoing vessels, because it was of equal importance for the security of life that the grain put on board small vessels should be safely stowed as it would be in the case of larger ships. Although the wording of the clause was undoubtedly a little loose and vague in consequence of the short time the Government had had to prepare the Bill, and of their anxiety to secure the safety of sailors without causing commercial inconvenience, he thought its provisions were ample to compel vessels carrying grain to stow their cargoes in a manner that should be safe. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) had fallen into an error as to what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said as to grain and deck cargoes upon the second reading of the Bill. He had not stated that the Government would consider the matter, nor had he said anything to encourage the idea that the Government were prepared to deal with those points in Committee. All he had said was, that the Government would not object to those matters being discussed in Committee, and he had coupled that statement with a reservation which sufficiently indicated the difficulties which would attend an attempt to deal with both grain and deck cargoes, and that the Government did not intend to take the initiative with regard to them. The course he had then pointed out had been exactly followed by the Government, and the House, after hearing the subject fully discussed, had ratified the decision of the Government that it was not advisable in a temporary measure of this kind to deal with the very difficult question of deck cargoes. With regard to grain cargoes, that was a question newly raised, even since the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, and the Government had accepted a proposal which promised to be of great use, whilst it would cause very little inconvenience to merchant vessels. At all events, it was an experiment worth trying. Respecting other matters, he could not agree in the view which the hon. Member for Pembroke had taken of the history of the Bill. The proposal of the Government had been to limit the Bill to two clauses, which appeared to be the most pressing, and to exclude other matters on no other ground than that of the want, or supposed want, of time. It had seemed, looking at the Notice Paper relating to the original Bill, that if clauses such as those which had been agreed to had been proposed, they would have led to considerable discussion, and possibly have endangered the passing of the Bill. The clauses which had been added to the Bill had been for the most part taken from the original Bill of the Government, and when it was seen, on Amendments being moved, that the House was prepared to adopt, with slight modifications, some of the original proposals of the Government, the Government were, of course, perfectly willing to accept the additions. The hon. Member said they had given way after discussion, and he instanced the question of the load line and the Proviso fixing the 1st of January, 1876—afterwards altered to the 1st of November, 1875—as the time for bringing the provision into operation. It ought to be remembered that the hon. Member for Derby himself, in the Bill which he introduced at the beginning of the Session, fixed January 1, 1876, as the time for the coming into operation of the provision with regard to the load line. Therefore, it was not quite fair to seize every opportunity of that kind for the purpose of showing that the Government had tried to resist these provisions. They had done the best they could, and had met all suggestions in a fair and candid spirit. Where they had been obliged to resist they had given reasons which, upon the whole had been satisfactory to the majority of the House. They hoped that the discussion would prove useful in enabling them to deal with the subject more completely next Session; and while sorry at the abandonment of the original measure, he could not say that they looked to the history of the matter with the slightest feeling of regret as regarded the course of this short Unseaworthy Ships Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a third time and passed.