HC Deb 21 June 1875 vol 225 cc260-86

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 12 (Charges against officers.)

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, to leave out the words "an assessor," and insert the words "two or more."—(Mr. Norwood.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'an assessor' stand part of the clause,"

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would cause unnecessary expense to appoint two assessors in every case. Assessors were not always easily to be found; besides, it was useless to have two assessors, if the inquiry was such that it could be, and sometimes would be better, carried on with one. Two might always be appointed wherever necessary.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

thought a tribunal of such importance ought to have the advantage of more than one assessor, if its decisions were to have any weight. He could not accept the ground of expense as an excuse for depriving officers of the Mercantile Marine of the consideration they were entitled to when their conduct was called in question. He hoped the hon. Member for Hull would press his Amendment, and with every desire to support the Government in passing the Bill, he would support the hon. Member if he stood by his Amendment.

LORD ESLINGTON

observed, that there was nothing in the clause which would prevent there being two or three assessors, whilst it would ensure that there should be only one in cases in which there was no necessity for more.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, it was much ado about nothing. Cases where a man's personal liberty was involved were decided by one magistrate; and in this particular instance the point generally was not whether the certificate ought to have been suspended, but whether it ought ever to have been granted. In his opinion, the clause as it stood was amply sufficient for all purposes.

MR. LOPES

thought that the clause as it stood would meet every purpose that was required; whilst the Amendment would render it necessary to have two assessors, even in small and trifling cases where they were not required.

MR. NORWOOD

said, that the officers of the Merchant Service attached very great importance to this Amendment; because upon the result of these inquiries might depend their character and their means of livelihood. They would, however, be satisfied if the person whose conduct was in question was allowed the option of demanding a second assessor. Two assessors were required in the comparatively trifling cases which were brought before County Courts. He did not wish to press his Amendment unduly on the House, but he did think that for the sake of a £10 note a second auditor ought not to be refused.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HAMOND

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, sub-section 3, line 30, to leave out "of such skill and knowledge," and insert, "but who shall have no power to vote." The judgment should be that of the Court, the duty of the assessors being ended when the report was made.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

pointed out that that was already the case, the assessors being merely the advisers and assistants of the Judge. He was not aware of any cases in which they did vote or could vote.

MR. LOPES

regarded it as quite clear that assessors had no power to vote.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 31, after "knowledge" to insert— Whose qualification shall be at least twenty years' service at sea, five years of that time in a sailing vessel, and ton years as master in either steam or sailing ships in the British Merchant Service; and in all cases of a steam vessel being the subject of inquiry, one of the assessors shall have been ten years master of a steamship. The hon. and learned Member said, he did not in that Amendment go beyond the expressed intention of the Government, that the persons called upon to judge of the management of a merchant ship should be persons of nautical skill and of the necessary experience. The Committee however, were not told what their qualifications were to be; the only thing they were told was that the persons to be appointed should be chosen by the Judge of the Court of Admiralty. He held that some indication of the kind of persons to be appointed should be given, for the matter was too important to be left to the discretion of a Judge. An officer of the Royal Navy would be tried by a court-martial—that was, by his peers; but there was no process of that kind in the Merchant Service. Hitherto assessors had been selected from among officers in the Royal Navy, though they had no special acquaintance with the Merchant Service. Officers in that service felt very sore at this, and they feared that this system might still continue. The kind of skill to be met with in naval officers was not the kind of skill necessary for conducting a judicial inquiry in the case of merchant vessels. The officers of the Merchant Service, therefore, demanded as a matter of fairness that they should be tried by persons who had had the same nautical experience as themselves and in vessels of the same class. The Amendment he proposed laid down, he ventured to suggest, a fair qualification for the assessors, but he was ready to allow it to be modified.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, the Amendment had arisen in an over-sensitive jealousy on the part of the Merchant Service towards the officers of the Royal Navy. And yet he did not suppose anyone would have the officers of the Royal Navy altogether excluded from acting as assessors in any case. What, then, was the use of the Amendment? Some authority must be appointed to name the assessors, and it was thought that the High Court of Admiralty would be the best, instead of as at present the Board of Trade, which was the prosecutor. Suppose a boiler had burst, and that an engineer was wanted as assessor, would it be well to restrict the choice in the manner proposed by the Amendment—that the engineer must have been 20 years at sea, five in a sailing vessel? As the clause now stood, the Court could elect the fittest assessors for each particular case.

LORD ESLINGTON

did not agree with his right hon. Friend that this sensitiveness on the part of the Merchant Service had arisen from jealousy of the officers of the Navy. It arose rather from the circumstance that this was a matter on which their livelihood depended. He was of opinion, however, that if unnecessary restrictions on the choice of assessors were imposed, the object in view would be defeated, because competent men were not to be obtained every day.

MR. GOURLEY

supported the Amendment, as he doubted whether naval officers would always have that practical knowledge and intimate acquaintance with the coast where the accident to be inquired into might have occurred, that would qualify them to act as assessors.

MR. MAC IVER

also supported the Amendment. These Courts of Inquiry were often a scandal to justice. He did not believe there was any jealousy on the part of the Mercantile Marine with respect to officers of the Royal Navy; but he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was a fair and reasonable one, inasmuch as the object was to secure that there should be on the tribunal at least one assessor, who was practically acquainted with the working of the Mercantile Marine. There was a strong feeling against placing the decision of many important questions in the hands of a single stipendiary magistrate, who might have little or no experience, assisted by an assessor who, however able in other respects, knew nothing of the Mercantile Marine. He earnestly hoped the President of the Board of Trade would in some way modify the clause, so as to meet the very general feeling which prevailed on the subject.

MR. T. E. SMITH

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to the acceptance of at least a portion of the Amendment, and not leave the decision of important questions affecting the Mercantile Marine to naval officers only. The Mercantile Marine had a right to some distinct representation in the Court. Something should be done to give them confidence in it. He suggested that at least one of the assessors should belong to the Merchant Navy. That would, he thought, go far to meet the justice of the case. Officers of the Royal Navy had not always a knowledge of the particular circumstances under which the casualties to be investigated sometimes arose.

MR. LOPES

could not understand why any limitations should be placed on the exercise of the functions of the Chief Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in appointing assessors. No such interference existed in the case of the Home Secretary, who had to appoint stipendiary magistrates almost every day. He hoped the clause would be agreed to as it stood in this respect.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He did not know where the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) was born and bred that he should say that the way justice was administered in this country was scandalous. After all, suspension of a certificated officer was not so great a loss as was imagined, for very often a good ship was waiting for the person suspended when the time of suspension expired. He would rather have a clever young man with six than an old woman with 60 years' experience for surveyor or assessor.

MR. TORR

said, what was wanted was a good counsellor to assist the Judge. He would suggest the omission of the terms of service from the Amendment, so as to allow the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, as far as practicable, to select from persons who had acquired a knowledge of and concerning the Mercantile Marine.

MR. D. JENKINS

was in favour of one of the assessors being connected with the Mercantile Marine. He wished to point out that the clause made no provision for the appointment of an assessor with a knowledge of steam sailing in cases relating to steamers.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was in favour of the appointment of a tribunal in which the Mercantile Marine would have confidence. He did not think that would be the case here. An officer of the Royal Navy might be as good a sailor as ever went to sea, but he had no practical knowledge of the particular circumstances he might be called upon to decide. He would, therefore, recommend his right hon. Friend to re-consider the subject, and amend the clause in such a way as to give some guarantee that assessors appointed should really have practical experience in the matters which would be submitted for their judgment and decision.

MR. E. J. REED

said, he objected to the Amendment that whereas the clause did not exclude engineer officers the Amendment did.

MR. BENTINCK

condemned the Amendment on the ground that as drawn it would defeat its own object. By it a really competent man might be excluded if his period of service did not come up to the prescribed limit.

MR. NORWOOD

observed, that the word "suspension" of certificate in the existing Acts had been altered in the clause to "cancelled," and therefore it was desirable as officers of the Merchant Service attributed great importance to the formation of the tribunal, to be careful how it was constituted. Officers of the Royal Navy would not be able in many cases to comprehend the difficulties masters of vessels might be placed in, and he distinctly objected to their sitting as assessors.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that the High Court of Admiralty would be instructed by the Board of Trade as to the class of men to be selected as assessors, according to the nature of the investigation. While he could not accept the Amendment as it stood, he would undertake that when the Report was brought up it should be so far amended as to give the High Court of Admiralty the power to appoint in all cases at least one assessor connected with the Mercantile Marine.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, in that case he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. NORWOOD

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 32, to leave out "High," and insert "Local." He did so with the object of giving the appointment of assessors to local Judges of the Admiralty. It would also secure immediate inquiries, carried on at a small cost, by persons whose local knowledge would be valuable.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

thought it was desirable to carry out as far as possible the object of the Bill, which was to make the appointment of assessors as independent as possible, and especially to avoid appointments in localities with which the parties to cases for inquiry were connected.

MR. T. E. SMITH

expressed a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed, thinking that it would be almost impossible to get local men as assessors who had not some connection with the parties to the cases under investigation.

MR. LOPES

thought it would be much better that these appointments should rest with the Judges of the High Court of Admiralty, and then persons so appointed would be above suspicion.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HERSCHELL (for Mr. RATH-BONE)

moved an Amendment to the effect assessors in a local inquiry should not be chosen from among the assessors of the High Court of Admiralty, the object being to prevent assessors of the High Court having to sit there in cases which they had already heard.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHARLEY

moved, as an Amendment, that the list of assessors of the High Court should be advertised in The London Gazette. It was important that the panel selected by the Court of Admiralty to try these cases should be made public.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that would possibly preclude the appointment of the best man for a particular case if he were not in the advertized list.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HERSCHELL

pointed out that no provision was made for the appointment of assessors in a case in which proceedings were taken by persons independently of the Board of Trade.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that hitherto proceedings had been taken, and probably would continue to be taken, through the Board of Trade.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the clause clearly contemplated independent action.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he would look into the matter, and bring up words to make it clear.

MR. NORWOOD

said, it ought to be made clear that no proceedings could be taken except through the Board of Trade.

MR. CHARLEY

moved an Amendment to the effect that six assessors should be chosen by ballot from a list, and that each party should strike out the names of two, the remaining names to be the assessors to assist on the hearing of the complaint. He said that this was the system at present in force in the Court of passage, at Liverpool, which was possessed of Admiralty jurisdiction. His object was to get an impartial tribunal, and the striking out of the names was in the nature of a challenge, only more convenient.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. RATHBONE

moved, in page 6, line 29, after "made" to insert— Where the inquiry relates to a collision no assessor who shall aid the Court shall afterwards assist the High Court of Admiralty in hearing a case relating to the same.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it referred to circumstances which did not arise, as all cases of collision would ordinarily go before the High Court of Admiralty, and not be heard by local Courts. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool that it would be well to bring his proposal forward when the Committee came to consider the 47th clause, which related to inquiries as to wrecks.

MR. GORST

thought the Amendment was entirely beyond the scope of the Bill.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 222: Majority 73.

MR. CHARLEY

moved an Amendment giving the person charged power of requiring that he should be tried by a jury instead of by assessors. A similar power was given to the accused in the Labour Bills of the Home Secretary.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that there was a general willingness in the Mercantile Navy to accept, as the best tribunal, the stipendiary magistrate or County Court Judge, assisted by two assessors. One of the great objects in view was to prevent cases of this kind being investigated by those who had local interests, and upon whom local prejudices and influences might be brought to bear, as would be the case with a jury

MR. LOPES

thought the tribunal provided by the Bill was an excellent one, whereas a jury of shopkeepers, however estimable they might be, would be wholly unfitted to try questions of this kind.

MR. D. JENKINS

could hardly think the hon. and learned Member for Salford was serious in making the present proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SHAW LEFEVER

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 6, to insert the words "or suspended" after "cancelled." Under the existing law the Board of Trade had power to suspend an officer's certificate as well as to cancel it, and suspension was the course pursued in the great majority of cases. This Bill proposed to get rid of the power of suspending certificates, and only empowered the Court of Inquiry to cancel them. Such a provision would often prevent the Court of Inquiry from doing justice; and, moreover, it did not appear what would be the status of a man whose certificate had been cancelled, and who might apply for another certificate after a certain lapse of time.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

opposed the Amendment, and observed that if an officer's certificate was suspended for incompetency, it was surely absurd that he should at the end of the period of inaction, when he would probably be more incompetent still, receive it back again. He proposed, however, to accept an Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond), giving power to the Board of Trade to qualify the order by directing the defendant to apply at the time specified to be examined for a certificate of the same class as that cancelled, or to direct a certificate of a lower grade to be substituted for the one so cancelled. In this way the interval would be spent in practice, and the lost certificate regained on proof of competency.

MR. T. BRASSEY

said, that the change proposed by the Bill was recommended by the legal advisers of the Board of Trade, in their evidence before the Royal Commission.

MR. BENTINCK

said, a distinction ought to be drawn in cases where the certificate was cancelled for incompetency and where it was cancelled for misconduct.

MR. BATES

said, a captain who happened to get too much to drink when not on duty ought not to have his certificate cancelled; but if he got drunk on board his ship, or while on duty, not only ought his certificate to be cancelled, but he should not be able to get another.

MR. A. W. PEEL

said, he did not know why this power of suspension had been left out of the Bill.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, drunkenness in command of a ship was incompetency, and habitual drunkenness would be distinct proof of a captain's unfitness to command a ship.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HAMOND

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, sub-section 5, line 7, to leave out all after "fit," to end of sub-section, and insert— Or may, if it thinks fit, qualify such order by directing that the defendant may at the expiration of a certain time to be then and there specified, apply to be examined for a certificate of the same class as that so cancelled, or may direct a certificate of a lower grade to be there named to be substituted for that so cancelled. If the Amendment were adopted, the Court would have power to award different grades of punishment for different classes of offences, and the Court would in certain cases have power to punish instead of the Board of Trade.

MR. T. E. SMITH

, with reference to the proposed Amendment, said, he would move the omission of the words "to be examined," in justice to a large class who were entitled to certificates without examination.

Motion agreed to:

Words struck out.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. HAMOND

moved to leave out sub-section 8 in order to insert— The Board of Trade may regrant a fresh certificate to any person whose certificate has been cancelled, provided such person undergoes a further examination to qualify him for the same, and that a period of not less than twelve months has elapsed since the cancelment of his certificate and the period of his undergoing such examination. As the sub-section stood it gave the Board of Trade unlimited power over the decision of the Court without further inquiry.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that the eighth sub-section must certainly stand. The clause was a mere repetition of the existing law.

MR. NORWOOD

said, it appeared to him that the sub-section was perfectly right, and without the power it contained much injustice might be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. NORWOOD

moved an Amendment to the effect that the conduct of the inquiry and the evidence given before the Court should be as nearly as possible subject to and according to the laws of evidence and procedure in civil cases. At present the assessors "broke in" and asked questions which they had no right to put, whereby the course of justice was impeded.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the object which the hon. Member desired to secure had already been effected. The inquiry must be held in England before a stipendiary or metropolitan magistrate, and it would be in the nature of a civil proceeding.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that the Bill separated the inquiry into two parts—that which referred to the loss of the vessel, and next as to the conduct of the officer. What he feared was that the latter inquiry would be too strictly legal, and that the officer would not himself be allowed to give evidence. It was very desirable that the officers should submit themselves to examination.

MR. HERSCHELL

also doubted whether a person charged with drunkenness or incompetence, for instance, could give evidence. It would be more in the nature of a criminal than a civil proceeding.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

believed that these were all of the nature of civil proceedings, and that the officers concerned would in all cases have the right to be examined. If it were not so, the Bill would require to be amended. He would look into the matter, and see whether any Amendment was necessary.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he was satisfied with that assurance, and would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILSON

moved an Amendment to provide for the payment, by the Board of Trade, of the defendant's costs in case the charge made against him proved to be untrue.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

reminded the hon. Member that the Courts had full power to make such an award. If the Board of Trade was the complainant that body would have to pay the costs.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHARLEY

moved, in page 7, at the end of sub-section 8, to add— 9. No party other than the Board of Trade or the owner of any ship shall be at liberty to make any such complaint, unless he shall have previously given security to the satisfaction of the court to which such complaint is made to answer the costs thereof. His object was to prevent frivolous prosecutions, which were often made out of mere spite.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

did not think that the Amendment was necessary, for, as he understood, though complaints might come from other parties, the Board of Trade would be the sole promoter of proceedings.

LORD ESLINGTON

remarked that if it were laid down that the Board of Trade or the owner were the only parties at liberty to make complaints, a great many cases which might be known to sailors only would be excluded.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

observed, that the Amendment did not say that no one, with certain exceptions, should make a complaint, but that no one should do so without giving security for costs. He did not see, if this Amendment should be accepted by his right hon. Friend, why the owner of a vessel should be exempted.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he had no desire to prevent any person from making a complaint if he had grounds for doing so, but he thought it would be better not to press the Amendment.

MR. GORST

said, that in the case of a sailor the Summary Jurisdiction Act would apply, and he would be able to go before a magistrate. To make the Board of Trade the prosecutor, considerable amendment must be introduced into the clause.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that by the clause it was competent for any person to prefer a complaint without first applying to the Board of Trade.

MR. CHARLEY

said, the object of the Amendment was to meet cases where there would not be time to apply to the Board of Trade, and thereby prevent delay. He had no objection to leave out the words "owners of ships;" but he would persevere with it in its amended form. There was no doubt whatever that great hardship would be inflicted by leaving the clause as it stood. He himself knew a case where the captain of a ship was put to an expense of £30, caused by a vexatious prosecution brought by a sailor.

MR. CHILDERS

wished to have something definite inserted in the clause to show whether proceedings were to be confined to the Board of Trade or not.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, it was seldom or ever that proceedings had been taken in the past, excepting by the Board of Trade, and it had, therefore, not been thought necessary to insert any provision against frivolous complaints by individuals.

MR. CHILDERS

was not satisfied with the experience of the past as a guarantee against anything that might take place in the future. fie thought it should be put beyond doubt whether the whole proceeding might not be taken by any private person or whether it could only be taken by the Board of Trade. There should be no ambiguity on that point.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, as the clause now stood, no doubt, a private person might take proceedings; but, owing to the Amendment made by the hon. and learned Member for Sal-ford in the earlier part of the clause, this clause would require to be remodelled, which might be done on the Report.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, before parting with the clause, wished to have some distinct understanding as to the nature of the alteration to be made—whether it would throw open the complaint to all the world or confine it to the Board of Trade. For his own part, he preferred the latter.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

reminded hon. Members that the question had already been discussed in a fuller Committee than there was at present—namely, on the proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond) to confine complaints to the Board of Trade. The Committee was of opinion that complaints ought not to be confined to the Board of Trade, and the Amendment was rejected. He did not know that much alteration of the clause would be required. It had been drawn with the view that complaint might be made to anybody. He did not suppose these cases would frequently happen. It would be hard to an owner not to have his costs, and it would be equally hard on the sailor to deprive him of his remedy because he could not give costs.

MR. GOURLEY

hoped the President of the Board of Trade would maintain the clause, and accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford.

MR. RATHBONE

said, it would be by no means unlikely, under the clause, for complaints to be made out of spite, arising from quarrels between masters and men.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that seeing the feeling of hon. Members generally, he would accept the Amendment, with the omission of the words "or the owner of any ship."

MR. GORST

said, there were many reasons why it should not be permitted for seamen to call in question the competency of the master, and he was not disposed to admit the principle without further discussion and consideration.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

feared that the Committee was getting into a state of confusion, because while it had been decided that private persons might make complaints, there was no machinery provided for enabling them to do so. After a sailor had given security for costs, he could not give notice with respect to the appointment of assessors, that being in the hands of the Board of Trade.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

thought that the wording of the 3rd instruction might easily be adapted to the Amendment, by substituting for "the Board of Trade" the words "the person by whose application the complaint is made."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Discipline.

Clause 13 (Misconduct endangering ship or life or limb).

CAPTAIN PIM

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, fine 23, after "discipline "to insert— Any master or other person in command of a British ship, who, by neglect of the. load in taking-soundings shall cause the loss of the vessel then under his command and he convicted of the same, shall forfeit his certificate, and be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, if human life be sacrificed by the said neglect shall be deemed guilty of felony. There had been two recent instances of great loss of life from the neglect of the lead.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, there was no necessity whatever for the proposed Amendment, because the Bill already provided for neglect, including all such cases. By specifying particular kinds of neglect exclusion of others might be inferred.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WILSON

then moved the omission of the clause altogether, because it was so vaguely worded. It provided no machinery by which the charges could be made or the Act put in action.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

explained that nothing about a prosecutor was said in the clause, because, pursuant to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, the Bill constituted a public prosecutor in the shape of the Board of Trade, who in all cases would be charged with the duty of putting the enactment in force.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Mutiny).

MR. BENTINCK

moved, in page 8, line 10, to leave out "or without." He apprehended that one of the principal objects of the Bill was to save life at sea, and they must all admit that one of the most active causes of loss of life at sea was the want of discipline on board merchant vessels. Mutiny frequently involved the loss of the ship and also loss of life, and under this clause a person guilty of mutiny was to be sentenced to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, "with or without hard labour." To most men who misconducted themselves on board ship imprisonment without hard labour was not imprisonment at all, because they preferred idleness in prison to hard labour at sea, and he therefore thought that some punishment of a penal nature was necessary.

MR. COLE

objected strenuously to the proposed Amendment, thinking that a discretion ought to be left with the presiding Judge. At the same time, he considered the system of hard labour altogether wrong. ["Oh, oh!"] Perhaps those who cried "Oh" knew nothing about the matter. Hard labour, as prescribed by the Prisons Act of 1865, was entirely a mistake, the true principle being industrial labour. At Devonport Gaol they had given up hard labour, and the result was, that the prisoners were put to industrial labour, and taught trades, and went out into the world very different men from what they were when first imprisoned. A whole wing had been built to that gaol entirely by industrial labour, and with a great saving to the ratepayers. Under the present system anyone sentenced to hard labour was for the first three months placed to what was called "first-class hard labour," which was the greatest absurdity under the sun—he had to wind up a winch or go on the treadmill, or carry shot from one end of the prison yard to the other and then bring it back again. The whole system was fallacious.

MR. HUNT

agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the Judge ought to have some discretion; but with regard to Devonport Gaol, the fact was that the discipline at that gaol had been found so little deterrent that the Admiralty had been obliged to cease sending prisoners there under the Navy Discipline Act, and had sent them to Bodmin Gaol instead, where the discipline was more strict.

MR. COLE

said, the principle on which the prisoners were treated was identically the same in both gaols.

MR. NORWOOD

thought the Court ought to have the discretion of awarding or not awarding hard labour, as proposed by the clause.

MR. D. JENKINS

said, there might be cases where the extenuating circumstances were such that it was desirable not to inflict hard labour.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

pointed out that no change was made in the existing law by the clause, and deprecated the Committee sliding into a debate on prison discipline.

MR. BENTINCK

had no objection to substitute the words "industrial labour" for "hard labour," in the clause; but, in its present shape, the punishment proposed could not act as deterrents. He would not trouble the Committee to divide.

Amendment, by leave, with drawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (Combining to disobey); and Clause 16 (Assault on officer), agreed to.

Clause 17 (Insubordination, breach of discipline, and negligence).

MR. MACDONALD

said, that it was understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to lessen the penalties to which seamen would be subject, but instead of that, the Bill, and this clause particularly, inflicted more penalties and more punishments on seamen and apprentices. As a protest against this sort of legislation he would move the omission of the clause altogether. The system of increased punishment had rendered our Mercantile Marine more and more demoralized, and he thought the time had come to try some other policy than that of creating new forms of punishment with a view of improving the class for whom they were legislating.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked why the penalties imposed by the clause should apply only to seamen and not to officers. This clause was unnecessary, because if carelessness or drunkenness endangered life or property they were already punishable with other offences under Clause 13; whilst if they did not they could hardly be called criminal offences, liable to be punished by imprisonment. He therefore thought the sub-sections of the clause relating to those matters should be struck out.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

declined to accede to the proposal, because the crimes punishable by the clause were different from those in the clause already passed. That was why the penalties imposed by the two clauses differed in nature and application. In the one case the punishment was for insubordination on the part of seamen, and in the other for incompetency of officers to command. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) that the punishments should be made milder than they were. The Royal Commissioners in their Report especially pointed out that the discipline was becoming rather too lax for the safety of the service, and did not give sufficient control to masters over their crews as regarded danger to life and limb.

MR. COLE

supported the Amendment for the omission of the clause.

MR. FORSYTH

said, if the clause was retained, it would have to be amended in its phraseology. For the word "continued "there would have to be substituted renewed or fresh acts of insubordination.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, that the 13th clause exhausted all offences contemplated by the Bill, and yet the clause under notice provided that a sailor guilty of simple disobedience of orders, which might not lead to any harm, should be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be punishable with hard labour. He submitted that such an offence ought not to be punished with hard labour.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the Secretary of State had stated that the remedy for breach of contract should be by civil process, and also for the offence of disobedience; but, as regarded sailors, the right hon. Gentleman guarded himself, and said that the class of offences contemplated by the clause, considering the character of the employment of the sailor and the grave consequences that might result from disobedience short of loss of life or destruction of the ship, was a very serious one, and such as ought not to be allowed to go unpunished.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member that sailors, of all other classes, should be punished with hard labour for carelessness. Clause 13 provided a remedy for all such offences.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the offence of gross neglect and carelessness in a sailor was most serious, inasmuch as the destruction of life and ship might result from it.

MR. COLLINS

would not go the length that the hon. and learned Solicitor General went in saying that a sailor should be punished with hard labour for carelessness. What he would suggest was that four weeks' imprisonment, without hard labour, would be sufficient punishment for the minor offence, as there was a great difference between them.

LORD ESLINGTON

considered that it would be a great mistake to strike out the 17th clause, and that it was necessary to retain it in reference to the safety of life and property at sea.

MR. T. E. SMITH

contended that there were many cases of insubordination which might be contrary to the discipline of the ship, and which might be attended with considerable danger.

MR. MACDONALD

was of opinion that every punishment inflicted upon seamen would have the effect of preventing the country from getting good men to join the service. He would withdraw the Motion for the omission of the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Neglect to keep lookout.)

CAPTAIN PIM

proposed an Amendment providing that when a ship was in the vicinity of rocks or shoals it be the duty of the master to keep the lead constantly going.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

, in opposing the Amendment, said, the duty of keeping the lead going was only one among many duties, and it was unnecessary and undesirable to specify this particular duty. If duties were to be specified, it would be essential to have a complete list, or those not specified would be neglected with impunity.

CAPTAIN PIM

said, that the loss both of the Schiller and the Cadiz was clearly attributable to neglect to keep the lead going. This neglect was, in fact, the cause of innumerable shipwrecks, and he should feel it his duty to press the Amendment to a division.

MR. BENTINCK

protested against the Amendment being disposed of in so summary a manner by the President of the Board of Trade. In almost all cases of shipwreck in thick weather the loss was caused by neglect to keep the lead going. They were all aware of this, and he should vote for the Amendment.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 154: Majority 100.

On the Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Amendment made in page 9, line 15, by leaving out "with or without hard labour."

Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 19 (Desertion and kindred Offence.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

moved to reduce the period of imprisonment for desertion from six to four weeks, thinking that the penalty under this clause ought not to be more severe than it was under Clause 17.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

, looking at the aggravated nature of the offence, could not accede to the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Grieve) had given Notice of an Amendment to make the punishment three months instead of six weeks.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

moved an Amendment with the object of giving the magistrates a discretionary power to mitigate the punishment for failure on the part of a seaman to join his ship by imposing a fine of £5 instead of imprisonment with or without hard labour. It was desirable that discretionary power should be given in cases where men failed to join their ships for simple carelessness or because they got drunk on the proceeds of bank notes.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

pointed out that the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view was practically met by subsequent words giving the magistrates the discretion in such cases to mulct the offender to the extent of 24 days' pay.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HAMOND

moved in page 10, line 10, to insert— Any offence committed by any seaman or apprentice under sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, shall be entered in the log-book by the master within 48 hours after such offence may have been committed.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

thought there was no necessity for fixing so rigid a limit.

MR. BENTINCK

was of opinion that they got on better before the official log was invented.

MR. CHILDERS

did not think there was any occasion for the insertion of the proposed words. The present provision was quite sufficient.

Amendment negatived.

On Question, "That the clause be agreed to?"

MR. MACDONALD

moved its rejection. The clause was too vague and general in its character, and it would act unduly and oppressively on the seamen. These men fell into the hands of crimps, were kept in a state of drunkenness by the system of advance notes, and were then subjected to penal punishment for breach of contract. Contract had been pronounced, both by the Government and a Royal Commission, to be purely civil in its character, and he protested against any proposition which would render the breach of it criminal.

MR. MAC IVER

, in supporting the Motion, said, that there was every desire on the part of the magistrates to do justice to all concerned in the cases brought before them, but he thought that this clause would perpetuate the grievance which already existed—namely, that our seamen should be treated differently from any other class of those who laboured for the wealth of this country, and therefore, if the hon. Member for Stafford went to a division, he should cordially support him.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 20 (Power of arrest in cases of desertion.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

moved an Amendment with the object of doing away with summary arrest within Her Majesty's dominions, by requiring the warrant of a magistrate for the arrest of any deserter from his ship to be brought before him, when he might order his removal to the ship from which he had deserted or absented himself, but permitting his summary arrest in foreign States so far as the law of the place permitted.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 18, to leave out all the words after the word "offence," to the word "require," in line 26, inclussive."—(Sir W. Vernon Harcourt.)

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

admitted that the power proposed to be re-enacted by the clause would be a violation of the ordinary constitutional law, though it had been statute law for 20 years, but pointed out that the circumstances in which seamen were placed were of such a peculiar character as to justify a departure from the ordinary rule of law in cases of their desertion. The ship might be upon the point of sailing, and there might not be any magistrate at hand to whom to apply on the matter. Desertion might take place on various opportunities during a voyage. A seaman's desertion endangered the lives of the rest of the crew. It could not be dealt with as a common breach of contract, nor as amenable to common police arrangements.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

supported the Amendment, as there was not any place into which a ship could put where it would not be easy to find a magistrate to grant a warrant. Difficulty might be experienced in some parts of Ireland in arresting, without a warrant, sailors who had deserted, in consequence of the view the people might take of such a proceeding.

Question put, "That the words 'master or any mate' stand part of the clause."

MR. T. E. SMITH

urged the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Member for the City of Oxford to limit the operation of his Amendment to the United Kingdom, as the circumstances of the colonies were peculiar.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the Amendment, having been put, could not be varied.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 128: Majority 75.

On the Motion of Mr. GRIEVE, Amendment made in page 10, line 19, by inserting after "husband," the word agent."

MR. RITCHIE

moved the omission from the clause of the words "without warrant" with reference to the arrest of sailors guilty of desertion. His object was to prevent such a proceeding taking place within the United Kingdom.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 22, to leave out the words "without warrant."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question put, "That the words 'without warrant' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 137: Majority 54.

MR. CHILDERS

moved, in page 16, line 24, after the word "dominions," to insert the words "except in a British possession, in which the law may otherwise provide." Some such proviso was necessary now that we had given constitutional government to our colonies. Under the Act, a sailor who had deserted from a British ship might be followed 50 miles inland, arrested without a warrant, and brought before a magistrate. That law conflicted with the law in some of the colonies, and in a recent case a sailor thus arrested without a warrant and brought before a magistrate was discharged, because, according to the law of the colony, he had been arrested illegally. Such a capture might be resisted and blood might be shed, in which event the most injurious consequences might ensue.

MR. GORST

hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he saw no reason why this law, which was applicable to sailors deserting in the United Kingdom, should not also apply to similar offenders in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. There could be no doubt that the Act of the Imperial Legislature would override any law passed by the local Legislature of any colony with reference to this subject. Although this power of following and arresting a seaman was exceptional, it was necessary to enable trade and commerce to be carried on. While the captain was going in search of a magistrate, the sailor who had deserted might slip away and elude his grasp. If a man were arrested under this Bill, and could show that the arrest was unjustifiable, he could recover £20 from the person causing his arrest; while if a man were arrested under the warrant of a magistrate he would have no remedy.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he had heard with amazement the doctrine that an Imperial Act would override the Acts of a Colonial Legislature. He differed from his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who, he thought, had laid down the proposition he had in terms too large. The Common Law of England would no doubt prevail in any colony where there was no existing law, and so would a statute prevail in certain cases. But where representative Government had been granted to a colony, an Imperial Act could not override the law of that colony, so long as that constitution existed. He ventured to say that if any attempt to carry out this clause were made in a colony having a Legislature of its own, where arrest without warrant was illegal, any person who arrested a man without a warrant would be liable to an action for false imprisonment.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he was unable to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, because it had always been held that on certain Imperial questions the Imperial Parliament could legislate for a colony. At the same time, as a matter of policy, he put it to the President of the Board of Trade, whether it was desirable to enforce that change of the law on colonies which had responsible Governments, such as Canada; Australia, and the Cape? It was desirable, as far as possible, to limit Imperial laws to the United Kingdom.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

hoped the Government would accept the advice of the last speaker and not endorse the high Prerogative doctrine of the Solicitor General. It was exactly by such a dangerous assertion of power on the part of the Imperial Legislature that they lost their great colonies in America, and he thought the Crown Lawyers of the present day would have profited by that experience of the past. It was both unnecessary and impolitic to raise those questions in regard to colonies having representative institutions.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that they had already decided that that power of arrest without warrant was necessary in some cases, and, if it were abolished, he did not hesitate to say there would be no safety in the Mercantile Marine service. It had existed for 25 years without question and without abuse. The only point now in dispute was that raised by the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Pontefract, who wished to extend the words of limitation "so far as the law of the place so permits," so as to make them apply to a colony. He believed the law followed the ship, and that that would enable the shipowner to make an arrest in any part of the world under this Act. At the same time, he was willing to accept the words of the right hon. Gentleman, "except in a British possession in which the law may otherwise provide."

Amendment agreed to.

Words inserted.

On the Motion of Mr. HERSCHELL, Amendment made, in page 10, line 40, by inserting after the word "arrest," the words "in case the person arrested accepts the sum so imposed as a penalty."

MR. E. J. REED

said, that as the next Amendment was of considerable importance he would propose that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. DISRAELI

expressed a hope that the Committee would proceed with the Bill until 1 o'clock. If they did not, he should have to ask the House to sit at 1 o'clock to-morrow.

Motion negatived.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

moved, in page 10, line 41, to insert— Provided always, That no master or owner of any ship, nor any other person with respect to any ship, shall be entitled or allowed to proceed against any seaman or apprentice under the provisions of this section or of the preceding section, unless such ship shall at some time previously have been surveyed by a Board of Trade surveyor, or by a surveyor employed by the committee of management at Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping, by the Liverpool Underwriters' Registry of Foreign Vessels, or by some other British or foreign corporation or association for the time being approved by the Board of Trade, and shall have received a certificate of classification good for a certain period, which period shall, at the time of such proceedings, be unexpired.

The Amendment was required to protect seamen against the tyranny of masters and owners in the case of unclassed ships.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

thought the question could be more conveniently discussed when an Amendment of which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had given Notice came on for consideration.

MR. PLIMSOLL

recommended the withdrawal of the Amendment, in order that the subject might be fully discussed at a later stage of the Bill.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAC IVER

proposed the omission of the clause, and said, there was no first-class vessel that was not either classed or surveyed. He believed that under this clause a great deal of hardship would be inflicted on the true British sailor.

MR. RATHBONE

was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that all first-class vessels were classed and surveyed. To his knowledge numerous first-class ships were neither classed nor surveyed.

MR. MAC IVER

asked the hon. Member to name a single first-class vessel that was not either classed or surveyed.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, this was a most important clause, one affecting the lives and welfare of sailors, and he should certainly go into the Lobby and vote in favour of the hon. Member's Motion to omit the clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

remarked upon the importance of the Amendment, and should also support the hon. Member who moved its omission. It was a remarkable fact that although that clause was proposed for the sake of shipowners, no shipowner in that House had raised his voice in favour of it. The large and good shipowners did not care about the clause, because they were always sure to get good men to man their ships; but it was the bad shipowners that the sailors did not like to enter into contract with, and they were constantly punished for refusing to go to sea in their ships.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 121: Majority 50.

MR. T. E. SMITH

moved that the Chairman report Progress, observing that it wanted only 20 minutes to 1, and that the next clause related to the un sea worthiness of ships.

MR. DISRAELI

I will not oppose the Motion, because I wish to show the House that I am sensible of the courtesy which they have always extended to me.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.