HC Deb 18 June 1875 vol 225 cc161-80

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Master and Seamen (Part III. of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854). Wages.

Clause 9 (Advance notes illegal).

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from the words "any document," to the word "advanced," in line 29, both inclusive.—(Mr. Hamond.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'any document' stand part of the Clause."

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that after the debate last night, the Government had decided to adopt as a compromise the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates), that "advance notes" should be to the extent of one month's wages in advance. The clause would then read as follows:— Any document authorizing or purporting to authorize the payment of money on account of a seaman's wages, excepting to the extent of one month's wages in advance, shall be void. The Committee were aware that the clause was inserted in the Bill on the strong recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, and with respect to preventing ships going to sea in a condition dangerously unseaworthy—a question upon which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had raised a great sensation in the mind of the public throughout the country—the Royal Commissioners felt that the anticipation of wages generally for debauchery at the moment of taking ships to sea was at the very root of the question. It was a fact that there were many cases in which parties received advance notes and shipped for voyages, who never intended to carry out their contract, and continued to evade it; many cases also in which the advance note was demanded as a right without being at all needed, and many cases in which it went straight to crimps, who finally turned out their victims to take charge of a ship so drunk and diseased that they had to be put on shore in going down Channel, and anybody got on board to take their place. The advance note had become a custom—a vicious custom—since 1850. It was recognized then by law, but had been since struck out of the Acts, and had now no legal validity at all. At the same time, there were such practical difficulties pointed out on the previous night in connection with the prohibition of all advance notes that the Government had come to the conclusion to adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, and that they should limit the amount of advance notes to one month's wages. He (Sir Charles Adderley) hoped the Committee would accept that concession on the part of the Government, who, at the same time, were not shrinking from the performance of their duty in their endeavours to pass this measure as it was recommended by the Royal Commission. The adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Plymouth, after the word "wages," in the clause would, he hoped, meet the wishes of the Committee; and certain words in the 2nd and 3rd sub-sections would then be omitted from the clause. By a provision in the Bill masters of ships would be enabled to provide and supply necessaries at starting on a voyage to sailors on reasonable

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

might say he was rather sorry that the Government did not on the previous night make a defence of the principle of the clause in reference to the advance notes. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if the Amendment was agreed to, it would be fatal to the clause, and if it was negatived, he would then state what was to be done. He (Mr. Knatch-bull-Hugessen) thought it rather unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not stick to his guns. He was reluctant to address the Committee on points that were technical of which he had no knowledge; and the reason why he now rose was a strong feeling in respect to the question of the advance note among his constituents. He was informed that there had been a regular trade carried on in the North of England in connection with the advance note system, and that persons who had no thought of going to sea entered into contracts, shipped as for the voyage, and when they had got as far as Deal, Walmer, or Dover, got landed there. When apprehended they were committed to gaol, and the expense of maintaining them there fell unfortunately upon the ratepayers. They did not care about spending some time in prison, because they regarded the bonus they had obtained by their fraudulent conduct as a sufficient compensation. By a Return made he found that in 12 months upwards of 80 of these persons had been sent to gaol in Sandwich for the offence of violating their contract, and the cost of keeping them was felt deeply by his constituents, inasmuch as there was no just reason whatever why this expense should fall upon their particular locality. During the same period, the number of committals for other offences in the same gaol was only about 10, and the House would therefore see that his constituents had reason for complaint. If the expenses were to be borne by the Mercantile Marine Board or any other Board, and not by the ratepayers, he should feel content, or else let the fines, which under the present law were paid into the Imperial Treasury, go to the assistance of the local rates of those places upon which the expenses of the maintenance of the imprisoned seamen fell. All he wanted was fair play. The Committee were told on the previous night that the abolition of the advance note system would be the cause of great loss and suffering to the poor wives and families of sailors. Whatever might be said in favour of the system, it was unfortunate that the money which should reach the wives and children of many of the sailors was spent in drink, owing, in a great measure, to the advance note system; whilst no one could object to a well-regulated system of advances, by which it should be made certain that the money advanced actually went to those wives and children. Referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not adopt it, instead of consenting to an Amendment which happened to come from his own side of the House, and which would practically continue and give a new status to the advance note system. For in directly legalizing an advance note to the extent of one month's wages, he was legalizing nineteen-twentieths of these notes, which seldom advanced more than that amount.

LORD ESLINGTON

, as one of the Royal Commissioners, felt responsibility for the recommendations in reference to the advance notes. He believed that the percentage of seamen who received a greater advance than a month's wages was extremely small, and therefore he could not agree to accept that as a concession. At the same time, he had never concealed from himself nor from any of the Commissioners the difficulty of carrying out the proposed recommendation. He regretted that it was so, and that the sense of the House of Commons had not been taken on the question of advance notes. He thought it would be satisfactory to the country and to himself if it had been so settled, because it was a question surrounded with difficulties which it seemed impossible to settle in the way proposed. It therefore might well be left to the Legislature to settle. It was, in his opinion, a question for the House of Commons to abolish the note.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was one of those who, on the previous night, made a proposal that a fortnight's wages be advanced, and on the whole he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had in some measure met the wish of the Committee. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) regretted that as regarded the foreign trade the question remained as it was. He thought that the reduction in the advance note might be made by degrees. He, therefore, proposed that the right hon. Gentleman should make the advance note for a fortnight at home and a month abroad.

MR. MACDONALD

said, he felt regret that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had abandoned the principle laid down by the Royal Commission; and he ventured to say that the course now taken up in reference to the advance note would be regretted by the country, and that if the right hon. Gentleman had adopted even the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) it would have been far more valuable. Suppose the man were to receive £20, the whole might be put into one advance note. He must say that the Government had abandoned the whole principle of the Bill on this subject. All that was now left was an illusion and a sham. It would be more honest to give up the whole question at the nod of the shipowners of the House, and say candidly they had done so. They would never have the condition of the seamen improved so long as the vicious and wicked system contained in the advance note system was allowed to remain. Sailors were apt to be imposed upon, and it was most important they should be saved from the intemperance connected with the system of advance notes.

SIR WALTER BARTTELOT

said, he was extremely surprised at the remarks which were made last night and to-day by the hon. Member for Stafford. On Wednesday the hon. Member said that of all classes in the world the working classes were people who could best take care of themselves, and yet now he said there was a portion of those working classes—namely, the sailors of this country—that required to be protected from drunkenness, and should be deprived of drink by the Legislature of the country. There was one thing which Members of his (Sir Walter Barttelot's) Party had often insisted on—namely, that there should be freedom of contract. Last night the President of the Board of Trade frequently told the House that we had been continually passing Acts of Parliament to deprive ourselves of the right of free contract. He (Sir Walter Barttelot) should like to know when those Acts were passed. There was, no doubt, the Truck Act, and the right hon. Gentleman introduced into a section of this Bill the most objectionable form of truck that could be. He was glad his right hon. Friend had thought it wise and prudent to modify that which he stated so decidedly last night. The only person he was sorry for was his right hen. Friend himself, who had found it absolutely necessary to reverse all that he stated last night, but who had now come to his senses, and acknowledged that free contract ought to be allowed between man and man.

MR. MUNTZ

thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates) would do very well for long voyages, but not for short ones. When a voyage was undertaken from Hull to any of the Dutch or Danish ports it frequently happened that the vessel was back again within a month. Sailors were not all so silly as they were represented to be, and could very well take care of themselves, and he did not see any reason for retaining that clause in any form now that its principle had been abandoned.

MR. BATES

considered a month's advance note not more than sufficient for sailors engaged in a voyage to India, round the Cape of Good Hope. By the Suez Canal route, Jack had many opportunities of getting ashore, inasmuch as a steamer made four or five voyages a year by this route, whereas by the Cape route he could only do so once in a voyage of perhaps 10 or 12 months. He was certainly opposed to the proposal that the note should not exceed £1, for it was necessary to remember that the mates and other officers applied more frequently for the advance note than the common sailors did, and to them an advance of £1 would be altogether insufficient. It had been asked if they were going to give advance notes for a month on short voyages, but it did not follow that they should do so from their arranging that the advance note should not be for a longer period than one month.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

was of opinion that the Amendment would altogether nullify the clause and throw discredit on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The action of the Government in this matter reminded him of the long pendulum of a cottage clock. Their first swing, as shown in the Bill which abolished all advances, went far beyond the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and now they had in the course of debate swung round to a point far short of that recommendation. Why could not the advance note be abolished, while the system of advances was retained? In that way the shipowner would only oblige the good men, and they would get hard cash; whereas all the remarks of the Commissioners related to the form of advance note, conditional on the seaman going to sea, which was cashed through the medium of the crimp and only enabled the sailor to get one-sixth of its value. He trusted the Amendment would be rejected.

MR. RATHBONE

expressed his regret that the Government had yielded on this point so far as to allow of an advance note even for a month. While agreeing with the opinions expressed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex, it had always seemed to him very doubtful whether it was wise to interfere with freedom of contract; but if we did so, we ought to give some direction to the shipowner as to the course he ought to pursue. The shipowners who gave advances in excess of those usually given in the trade, were those who provided inferior food or accommodation for the sailor, whom they sought to tempt by the amount of the advance. In his judgment the Amendment which the Government ought to have accepted was that of the junior Member for Hull (Mr. Wilson), who proposed that a fortnight's advance should be given in short and a month's advance in long voyages. It would be impossible to stop advances in foreign countries where such advances were legal, but still it would be well if some limitation were placed on them.

MR. HAMOND

said, he was ready to accept the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade, that advance notes should be in all cases limited to one month. He would therefore, by permission of the Committee, withdraw his own Amendment.

MR. T. E. SMITH

remarked that the Government had abandoned what would have been a great boon to seamen. He believed ships were lost soon after leaving port through the men being enervated by dissipation on shore. It was not so much that the men were drunk, as that they were in a state of semi-delirium tremens, the consequence being that, say on leaving the Mersey and getting into the Channel, they were unequal to the work required for the safe navigation of the vessel. He desired before the Amendment was withdrawn to direct the attention of the House to the difference between advances and advance notes. The latter could only be cashed under a heavy discount, and there was no such thing as advance notes in foreign countries, where, if an advance was made, the sailor received it in hard cash.

MR. GOURLEY

held that it was impossible to dispense with advance notes, although shipowners would be glad to see them abolished. He thought that one of the first things which ought to be done in this matter was to put a stop to crimps and crimp boatmen, by which means desertion from ships would be greatly obviated. He would express the hope that the Committee would accept the reasonable concession of the President of the Board of Trade.

LORD ELCHO

said, he was in favour of the clause being struck out altogether. He deprecated any interference on the part of the State between two grown men in their contracts and dealings with each other. To say they should not pay a sailor on the day before he sailed because the day after he might be unfit to navigate the ship, was like saying they should not pay a man his wages on Saturday because he might get drunk and be unable to go to church on the Sunday. It was a case of State-help versus self-help, and he respectfully entered his protest against all that kind of legislation, believing that they had no right to interfere in contracts between men, and believing that if they embarked on a dangerous course of interference they would do a great deal of harm. They ought to look for the safety of ships to other causes than this.

MR. STEVENSON

wished to get rid of advance notes altogether, and he hoped the Committee would reduce them to the smallest amount, with the view to the ultimate removal of the mischievous system. They were quite different documents from the monthly notes payable to the family of a sailor during his absence

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

said, he preferred the advance note to cash advances. At present the advance note was not a document of legal obligation. Advance notes or advances were given to enable sailors to pay what they owed on shore. Both were liable to great abuses, and he wished he could see his way to getting rid of them. The object, however, was a good one. It was to enable a sailor to live on credit whilst waiting for a ship. The evil attending them was owing to the improvident habits of sailors. During the strike at Cardiff a large number of sailors in the port waiting for ships were taken into different lodging-houses, where they were lodged and fed on the strength of those notes. What would sailors do unless they could obtain credit in the belief that either these notes or advances would be given to them? No doubt, the note had sometimes to be discounted at a heavy loss; but then the crimp had to protect himself against the chance of desertion on the part of the men and the advance note not being paid. The advance note was not payable till the sailor had actually sailed, but suppose instead of the advance note the sailor got an advance, the temptation to desert before sailing would be much greater, because when he had money in his pocket he would get rid of it a great deal faster, and perhaps find himself sooner in the prison mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.) The allotment note was, of course, a totally different thing, against which nothing could be said.

MR. T. E. SMITH

said, that this was not a question of interference with the freedom of contract, but the question was, whether they should give validity to a particular document connected with the payment of wages. Every assistance should be given in the way of getting good crews. The reason why shipowners could not get good crews now was this, that whereas formerly they could examine the men for themselves, they were now obliged to go before a Government officer with the whole pack of them, the officer knew nothing whatever about them, and the men came before him one after another like a flock of sheep. Ship-owners regarded that as a great hardship.

MR. GORST

contended that no special advantage should be given to advance notes, but that they should be left to the ordinary and usual law of the land. They were documents of which the law took no peculiar recognition, and the declaration in the Bill would prevent men making a contract which would be perfectly lawful in any other trade. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), that if the Committee attempted in any way to interfere with freedom of contract, they would get themselves into inextricable difficulties. While willing, however, to accept the Amendment of the Government, in his opinion the best plan would be to omit the clause altogether.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

rose simply to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for trying to meet the difficulties in this case in a kindly and friendly spirit. This was a matter which must be compromised in some way or other. We must learn to give as well as take.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

protested against some of the arguments used by his noble Friend (Lord Elcho), who seemed to have forgotten the principles which governed our legislation in the Factory and Truck Acts. The question was, whether any interference was required on behalf of the sailors, and if so he hoped that the bugbear of interference with freedom of contract would not prevent the House from interfering. He hoped that as the question had been fully discussed the House would now go to a division unless something tangible were proposed by the Government.

LORD ELCHO

said, there was the most marked difference in the spirit which guided Parliament at the time when Lord Shaftesbury introduced his factory legislation and Sir James Graham resisted it and now. Whereas the Liberalism of those days was in favour of the removal of restrictions on freedom of contract, except in the case of women and children, the Liberalism of these days was in favour of restriction upon full-grown men.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was very glad the Government had made the alteration proposed in the clause, though be thought the Act would have done very well without Clause 9. For the last 40 years the legislation between seamen and shipowners had gone on the assumption that all seamen were fools and all shipowners knaves. This Bill gave some liberty within the limits proposed, for treating both parties as fools it left them to do as they pleased within those limits. That was a return to a wholesomer state of things.

MR. D. JENKINS

thanked the Government for what they had done, which would be a great boon to seamen.

Amendment (Mr. Hamond), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, in page 3, line 21, after "wages" insert "excepting to the extent of one month's wages in advance "—(Mr. Bates), agreed to.

MR. GORST

moved an Amendment in order as he said to give effect to a recommendation of the Royal Commission. He understood the Royal Commissioners only wished to put a stop to advance notes, and not to stop advances in cash; and he proposed to omit from the clause certain words, with the view of leaving cash advances to seamen perfectly free from certain legal control, although advances on notes should be stopped.

MR. T. E. SMITH

thought that the Amendment was a desirable one.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he had no objection to it, because advances being made in money were simply in the nature of presents or loans which really required no legislation to empower, and which personal caution would keep within safe bounds.

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?

MR. MUNTZ

moved its rejection on the ground that it was uncalled for, unnecessary, and unwise; and the Committee ought to pause before they interfered in the way proposed with a very important interest.

MR. NORWOOD

said, the clause, as amended, was as unsatisfactory as it could be, it being "neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring." It gave statutable recognition to the system of advance notes, which had never yet been anything more than promises to pay, possessing no legal validity, unless accepted by the party on which they were drawn.

MR. MACGREGOR

said, if the clause was to be accepted at all, the compromise could not be more satisfactory; but he candidly stated that, while he appreciated the great amount of attention that had been bestowed on it, he thought it would be more satisfactory to the outside world if they abandoned the clause altogether. After all their fighting and wrangling, they had practically done nothing more than put things into the exact position they were in at present. No advances were given now for a longer period than a month, except in very exceptional circumstances, and these exceptional circumstances would be met by the provision that they should be allowed to advance more in cash. Therefore they were exactly as they were, and it was a pity they should go forth to the world and say they had done something when they had done nothing at all.

MR. T. BRASSEY

said, that if the clause had been modified according to the Amendment of the junior Member for Hull (Mr. Wilson) he should have supported it, but in its then emasculated state it was unworthy insertion in an Act of Parliament.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, he also felt compelled to vote against the clause in its amended form. He had expressed to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) his readiness to give his clause as it originally stood every support, but its character had been entirely changed. The Government had thrown over the Report of the Royal Commission, they had thrown over their own views, and had at the same time effected no practical solution of the question.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the Committee was wrong in assuming that the Bill would legalize advance notes, because there was nothing illegal in them. It was true they could not be sued upon, but there was no law to prevent the shipowner from deducting the amount advanced upon them.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, the clause initiated a very pernicious principle in our legislation. There was a growing feeling amongst the newly-enfranchised classes that they should come to Parliament and ask for protection for their special interests; but he had on all occasions endeavoured to point out to his constituents that the true course of freedom and independence was to have to do as little with Parliament as possible with regard to their private welfare. He should vote against the clause, as embodying that most mischievous principle of interference with the private affairs of people.

MR. BATES

contended that the clause with the Amendment which had been accepted by the Government would effect an important improvement in the law. As one of the largest owners of sailing ships in that or any other country, he could say that the custom now was in many cases of long voyages to make advances amounting to two months' wages, but under the clause it would be limited to one.

MR. HERMON

said, he should vote against the clause, on the ground that he was opposed to any interference with freedom of contract. It was absurd to say that a man who was capable of exercising the franchise was unable to make a simple contract for himself to the amount of about 30s.

MR. WILSON

supported the Amendment for the withdrawal of the clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the question of advance notes had for a long series of years been a source of difficulty in legislating for merchant shipping. The system of advance notes, however, was very different from that of advances; and the object in view was not to interfere with freedom of contract, but to restrain that particular instrument which was so liable to abuse. The Government, therefore, proposed to prohibit advance notes, but they found that the matter would have to be dealt with in a tentative manner, which they endeavoured to do by this clause in a form which would recognize the desirability of restricting, and, if possible, of ultimately putting an end to advance notes. If they were too far in advance of public opinion the law would probably be evaded, and the clause, while imposing some restrictions at present, might lead hereafter to further restrictions of the systems. If the Committee rejected it it would be construed by the public, after the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the advance note system was a good one, or that Parliament was unable to deal with it, although it was abundantly clear that it was a system requiring amendment.

MR. FIELDEN

objected to the clause, because of its interference with freedom of contract in a very serious manner. In this kind of legislation Parliament assumed that the workman was less independent than formerly, whereas they were getting more and more so, and this paternal legislation was less required than ever.

MR. MACIVER

expressed a hope that the division, if taken, would be upon the question whether the Report of the Royal Commission on this question should be uphold or not.

MR. E. J. REED

suggested that, in deference to the opinion entertained on his side of the House, and also to the opinion entertained generally on the Ministerial side, the Government should withdraw the clause.

MR. DISRAELI

I confess that when I came down to the House I was under the impression, after what happened last night, that the clause would not be insisted upon; but, in consequence of suggestions which were very freely given on both sides of the House, and certainly on the side opposite, it was supposed that the clause could be so modified that it would meet with the general acceptance of the Committee. My own impression has not changed upon it. It appeared to me that if we carried the clause, it should be as it originally stood in deference to the Royal Commission—and, as far as I am concerned, entirely in deference to the Royal Commission—because the principle is one which if it were introduced into general legislation could not be approved of, for it involves an interference with the freedom of contract, and I believe that the maintenance of freedom of contract is one of the necessary conditions of the commercial and manufacturing greatness of the country. Certainly, I was under the impression that the clause, as originally planned, was conceived in respectful deference to the Royal Commission—a Commission that was entitled to the respectful consideration of the House. Since then I have seen that clause modified and diminished in its effect and influence in a very remarkable manner, and now we are called upon to decide upon that clause. I must say, so far as I can observe the feeling of the Committee, that in its diminished and attenuated form the clause does not appear to me to have the confidence of either side. I should be perfectly prepared myself to support a clause on this subject conceived in the spirit of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Whatever might be my own opinions upon the subject, believing that it would be the predominant feeling of the Committee on both sides, I should be perfectly prepared to support that; but when I find the issue before us has assumed the character which the present clause has, and believing, as I do, that it is not sanctioned by the majority on either side of this House, I myself am of opinion that it would not be wise to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham.

Question put, and negatived; Clause struck out accordingly.

Clause 10 (Time of payment and effect of non-payment of wages).

MR. RATHBONE

moved an Amendment providing that in the ease of proceedings for the recovery of wages not exceeding £50 in amount, any Court of Summary Jurisdiction before which the case might in the first instance be heard, should have power to refer it to the Local Court of Admiralty for decision.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he could not recognize the principle proposed, which would partially abolish the jurisdiction of County Courts.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Settlement of wages).

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 13, to leave out "or state" to "superintendent," in line 14, with the view of rejecting the superintendent of Mercantile Marine as an arbiter in cases of dispute between master and man.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. PALMER

moved an Amendment to make it compulsory upon the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine to give a receipt for wages where a seaman was absent or incapable. As the clause stood it was only permissive.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 32, to leave out the word "may," in order to insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Palmer.)

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it was preferable to leave it to the option of the superintendent as to whether he would receive wages on behalf of absent seamen.

Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 116: Majority 135.

On the Motion of Mr. NORWOOD, the following Proviso inserted at end of Clause:— 11. In cases where any seaman shall refuse or neglect to receive his wages, it shall be lawful for the master or owner to deposit the same with the superintendent, and in any legal proceedings thereafter brought by such seaman he shall not recover costs unless the amount awarded exceeds the sum deposited with the said superintendent.

On Question, That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?

MR. BATES

moved its omission.

Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Certificates of Competency.

Clause 12 (Charges against officers).

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 12, to insert after "gross" the words "neglect of duty." Certificates were sometimes suspended simply on account of errors of judgment. That, he thought, was rather hard; but it was a different thing in cases of gross neglect of duty, which ought to be provided for.

MR. RATHBONE

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that in the case of a preliminary inquiry the introduction of the words would be mischievous.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that these words would involve an alteration of the existing law, which it was not desirable to do, except for sufficient reason. He believed that the word "misconduct" was quite sufficient to cover all serious cases of neglect of duty, and there was strong reason for using the same word that was found in the existing law.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was desirable to deal with masters and seamen on the same footing. That was done in Clause 13; but by Clause 17 a seaman guilty of "gross neglect of duty" would be liable to imprisonment, while the master would not be liable to imprisonment at all.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

denied that there was any inconsistency between the 12th and 17th clauses. If an officer had his certificate cancelled it was ruin to him for life, and a much severer punishment than could under the Bill be inflicted on a seaman.

MR. HERSCHELL

said, the only question they had to consider was whether the words "gross misconduct" covered the words "gross neglect of duty." Perhaps the difficulty would be got over satisfactorily by agreeing to the Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that duties were of various kinds. The neglect of some would certainly be gross misconduct; but the neglect of others, which were of a trifling character, would not amount to gross misconduct, and it would be unjust to punish both equally. He thought that "gross misconduct" would cover "gross neglect of duty."

SIR HENRY JAMES

believed everybody was agreed that neglect of duty ought to be punished, and therefore he did not see why the words should not be inserted, for the sake of clearness.

MR. NORWOOD

contended that the clause as it stood was a perfectly correct clause, and did not at all clash with that which followed it.

MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK

thought the case would be best met by inserting both phrases.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

suggested that the words to be inserted ought to be "such neglect of duty as should endanger the safety of the ship, passengers, or cargo."

MR. T. BRASSEY

said, that the Mercantile Marine officers would not object to the clause being amended as proposed, providing they were satisfied as to the competency of the tribunal before whom they were to be tried.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he would accept the Amendment.

MR. RATHBONE

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the clause as it stood. He thought the opinion of the Solicitor General was right, as the words "neglect of duty" might be misconstrued.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted.

MR. HAMOND

moved, as an Amendment, in sub-section 1, line 1, after "complaint," to insert, "on behalf of the Board of Trade." The object was that complaints made before the Courts against any officer in the Mercantile Marine should be only made with the consent of the Board of Trade.

MR. MUNTZ

trusted the Government would retain the clause in its present shape.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHARLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 18, after "England" to insert "any local Court of Admiralty jurisdiction or." His object was to put the County Court Judge with Admiralty jurisdiction on the same footing as the stipendiary magistrate. In many parts there was no stipendiary magistrate; but there were County Court Judges with Admiralty jurisdiction all round the coast. The offences mentioned in this section were only quasi-criminal—as, for example, tyranny, and required a more delicate investigation than a Police Court could always secure to the accused.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted.

MR. T. E. SMITH

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 16, to insert after "magistrate" the words "or failing these, justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions." It was very desirable that there should be some local summary jurisdiction.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

objected to the Amendment. It would be unwise and inexpedient that shipowners should try shipping cases in which they were personally interested.

MR. FAWCETT

observed that, if it was unfair and unwise for justices to act judicially in marine cases, it was equally unfair and unwise for them to act judicially in cases under the Game Laws.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. NORWOOD

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 30, to leave out "an assessor or" and insert "two or more," said, that the present mode of trying questions affecting marine officers was not a popular one. As the clause now stood "an assessor or assessors" were to be appointed to assist the magistrate in such investigations, and he proposed to amend it by inserting that there should be "two or more" assessors.

MR. CHARLEY

supported the Amendment.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

opposed it, observing that there were many cases in which a single assessor would be sufficient, while, if more than one were in every case required, it might be difficult in some cases not requiring them to find them. The sole object of these two clauses, in fact, was to take from the Board of Trade the duty of appointing assessors, which they proposed to transfer to the High Court of Admiralty. Such a high and independent authority he thought, might be safely charged with it. It also provided a more independent tribunal, for whose advice, but not co-operation, there should be this provision of assessors.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

thought that there would be no difficulty in finding plenty of assessors.

MR. GRIEVE

agreed with the course proposed by the Government.

MR. MAC IVER

supported the Amendment. Masters and officers of ships sometimes had the strongest reasons for finding fault with reference to the in-competency of the Courts which tried them, and the present clause would perpetuate their grievance.

MR. HERSCHELL

inquired who was to determine whether there should be one or more assessors?

MR. GOURLEY

hoped that the Amendment would be acceded to.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

did not see the necessity for always having more than two assessors.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

explained that the Court itself would apply for such assessors as were required.

MR. NORWOOD

said, that the questions to be determined upon these inquiries were of the most serious character, involving the character and future career in life, and every officer whose conduct was questioned would desire that there should be more than one assessor.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

observed that the present law was that the Board of Trade might appoint one or more assessors. No change on this point was proposed, but only a more independent choice of them.

MR. NORWOOD

said, that the present state of the law was most unsatisfactory, and required serious attention.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

promised that the clause should be so far re-considered that when two or more were appointed one at least should be an expert in the merchant service.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

suggested that as it was now a quarter to 7 it would be advisable to report Progress rather than attempt to proceed further with the Bill at present.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

assented to the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.