§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 5 (Power to detain unsafe ships and procedure for such detention.)
§ MR. T. E. SMITH, in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, to leave 1148 out "British," said, he had never been much alarmed by the proposed legislation with regard to shipping, for he had felt sure that any system adopted by the House would be applied equally, and for the interest of the whole, and though there might be a loss to the consumers, he had not thought legislation would materially affect the shipping interest individually. His private opinion was, that if the House were to legislate in such a manner as that no fresh capital were to be put into the business for the next 10 years, it would be a great deal better for those who had capital in it now. He did not, therefore, think if the subject were treated on a broad and general principle, it would materially affect the interests of particular shipowners. But he did feel that a proposition which dealt in a very strict and severe manner with regard to British ships was likely seriously to interfere with the interests of British shipowners. He therefore proposed that this legislation should apply to foreign ships. To the objection that the House would go beyond its province in legislating for foreign ships, he replied, we already legislated for them in regard to passengers, and surely the lives of sailors would justify equal interference, and such interference as was already found practicable in Canada and in the United States. Many ships sailing under foreign flags were just the ships the House desired to deal with; they sailed under foreign flags to evade existing British regulations, and the number of such ships would be increased, if this legislation were confined to British ships. Again, the exemption of foreign vessels from our legislation placed British ships under special disadvantages in the competition for trade, and he would give as an instance the fact that the other day the case was brought before him of two ships loading for the same port. One was an English ship, manned by an English crew, which was, of course, subject to Government supervision; the other vessel, built in England, and with British seamen on board, was under the Russian flag. The latter of these was going to sea with six large threshing machines on deck, which the other vessel would not be allowed to carry. That was not fair competition, and he hoped the Board of Trade would be able to find a remedy. For these reasons, he 1149 would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, to leave out the word "British."—(Mr. Eustace Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'British' stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in opposing the Amendment, said, he would admit that the point raised by the hon. Member was of very great importance. There could be no question that vessels which were exempt from restrictive laws in this country were placed in a position of considerable advantage. That was so much felt in Canada that strong language had been used in the Dominion Parliament, and they had asked to be treated as foreigners, if the Imperial Parliament did not impose the same laws upon foreigners as upon British subjects. It was no doubt a hardship upon the British shipowner that he should be stopped from putting to sea because his vessel was overloaded, when by his side there might be a foreign ship still more overloaded which was allowed to go to sea. The case might be put still more strongly, for the foreign ship, overloaded as she was, might take on her voyage the very cargo which had been taken out of the British vessel and convey it to a foreign port. That was an advantage of a somewhat iniquitous kind, and as it involved danger to human life, it was not a very creditable kind of competition. It must, however, be borne in mind that it could only be maintained at a countervailing risk, and possibly loss. The first argument he drew from this difficulty was that nothing could show more strongly the dangers of over-interference with British shipowners. If we strictly refrained from interfering more than was absolutely necessary for safety, those who were free from interference were also unsafe. No doubt we should as far as possible make all necessary Government interference weigh equally on our foreign competitors and ourselves. What was the state of the law on this subject? As a general rule foreign ships in our ports were subject to our municipal law, and their crews were amenable to our criminal law. Practically, however, our Courts did not deal with matters affecting the discipline and management of a foreign vessel, or any concerns 1150 of her own, but only with what might affect general law, and then only in extreme cases, and that with reference always to their Consul. When a foreign ship took emigrants from an English port the Government saw that our rules were observed; but it was our own interest which was then looked after as it was when a foreign State took precautions against the landing of infected emigrants upon its shores. The English Government also surveyed foreign passenger steamers going between two English ports. The proposition, however, of the hon. Member for Tynemouth went much further. He proposed to say to foreign ships—"We will detain you, if we think you overloaded or in any way unseaworthy, and you shall not drown your men by running risks which we do not allow our ships to run." But that would be a great stretch of assumed jurisdiction over foreign subjects, and it would be a strong measure, in order to enforce it, to inflict penalties upon foreigners. They had been told that Canada dealt with foreigners in the same way as with Canadians; but Canada might venture to do things under cover as a colony which England, as the first maritime nation in the world, could hardly do without giving rise to disputes, and even running the risk of war. It would open the door not only to disputes, but to acts of retaliation. The Chilian Government only last year, after the loss of the Tacna, imposed a law for interference with our ships, and nothing but our stout remonstrances caused that law to be dropped. How could we, within the space of a few months, remonstrate against and enact against others such interference? How would English shipowners, moreover, like their ships in French, Spanish, or Italian ports to be subjected to be overhauled by the surveyors of those Governments as to the mode in which they should be loaded, equipped, and manned, according to whatever laws they chose to lay down, before they were allowed to enter or leave their ports? He knew the narrow jealousy with which our maritime superiority was regarded in some parts of the world, and would be sorry to see our ships under the control of foreign surveyors. If the proposal were agreed to, we must be prepared for retaliation, which would inflict far greater injury upon the multitude of British ship- 1151 owners than could occur to any foreign State under the Bill. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) had given Notice of a clause which should empower Her Majesty by Orders in Council to impose our merchant shipping laws upon such foreign nations as were willing to accept them. Treaties might be immediately entered upon for this purpose. That was a safe proposal, which could give no offence, and would be more likely to carry out the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view than the Amendment before the House. Safe terms might be carefully proposed on both sides. Other countries were showing a disposition to follow our lead in regard to the measurement of tonnage, the rule of the road at sea, and other maritime subjects. They were proposing also to prevent the transfer of unseaworthy ships from our flag to theirs. He was willing, as far as could safely be done, to follow the views of the hon. Member, but he trusted the House would reject the present sweeping Amendment.
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, he thought that great hardship would arise if British and foreign ships were not placed upon the same footing. Two ships might be loading side by side, the British ship being prevented from going to sea because she was overloaded, and the foreign ship being allowed to go, although in an equally dangerous condition. The foreign ship might, moreover, take as many English sailors to sea as were in the British ship and drown them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would view the Amendment in a more favourable light, as he did not think the alternative proposition would be acceptable to his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. If his hon. Friend insisted that the same law should be applied to foreign shipowners as was applied to English shipowners, he should follow him into the Lobby.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, the British shipowner had a perfect right to expect of the British House of Commons that they should not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with foreign shipowners. There could be no doubt we had a right to exercise powers of inspection as to equipment and loading over foreign ships in our ports, and the only question was how far that right ought to be exercised. It would be wrong in the in- 1152 terests of English shipowners if we allowed foreigners to come into our ports and to load more deeply than English ships. He thought by leaving out the term "British" a great portion of the object of his hon. Friend, the Member for Tynemouth would be attained. He, however, would strongly advise the Committee to be cautious how far they legislated for foreign ships. He himself would not go further in this direc-than overloading and other cognate subjects. In supporting the Amendment, he must be allowed to express his great gratification at the evident interest which was now being taken in the subject.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, that he wished to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith); but he would like first to call the attention of the Committee to the wording of the clause as it stood in the Bill. It would be seen that in any case it was purely a permissive clause, and would not oblige the Board of Trade to deal with foreigners; but, on the other hand, if the Amendment were accepted, the clause would no longer, as was the case at present, specifically exclude foreign vessels coming into our ports from the operation of all such legislation. It was quite wrong that there should be any legislation for British vessels except such as could be equally applied to foreign vessels in British ports. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated what he considered to be objections to this Amendment; but he (Mr. Mac Iver) had no doubt whatever that the clause so amended could be worked without any of the disadvantages which the right hon. Gentleman feared. The President of the Board of Trade spoke of foreign nations retaliating; but he (Mr. Mac Iver) saw no ground for fearing retaliation so long as our British laws were reasonable and just, but, of course, if we made a law that was not reasonable, it could not be right in the case of either the British shipowner or his foreign competitor. The hon. Member for Tynemouth referred to the inspection of foreign emigrant vessels in our ports, and the President of the Board of Trade replied somewhat in this way—that we did that for the sake of the British passengers on board of those vessels; but was that 1153 a sufficient reply? Did not the fact remain that we do deal with foreign vessels, carrying emigrants from British ports in the same way as we deal with British vessels? And he would remind the Committee that there were instances where we equally interfered under other circumstances with arriving foreign vessels. It was not possible for foreign vessels to bring gunpowder or petroleum into the docks of Liverpool any more than it was for British vessels to do so. It might be said that these were precautions dictated by considerations for the public safety; but he replied that it did not matter what might be the considerations, the fact remained that we could do these things, and that we did them. He did not wish to detain the Committee, but he desired to say that another strong reason why foreign vessels should not be specifically excluded from our legislation was that we had to face the question of transfers, and the case especially of those who might be disposed to transfer unseaworthy British vessels to foreign flags. He assured the Committee that that was no imaginary case, for he knew of vessels, more or less doubtful, of which there were presumable reasons to believe that the money for them was found in Great Britain, but which were registered in Norwegian and other names. Therefore he thought it ought to be in the power of the Board of Trade to reach such vessels, and he begged to support the Amendment.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREheartily wished that the Amendment could be adopted, but doubted whether, as a matter of maritime policy, we could make these regulations as to foreign shipping lying within our ports. From time immemorial it had been the policy of the British Government to protest against any regulations imposed by foreign Governments upon British vessels in foreign ports, and it would not be wise to depart from that policy. He suggested, however, whether, by consultation with foreign Governments, these clauses might not be applied to the vessels of those countries in English ports, with the consent of the Consuls of those countries.
§ SIR JOHN HAYregretted that the President of the Board of Trade could only accept the new clause of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), 1154 which would hardly be sufficient for the object in view. A foreign ship might be perfectly unseaworthy; it might have been transferred the day before to a foreign flag; it might have British seamen on board. Why, then, should not the Board of Trade take upon itself provisionally to stop it?
§ MR. MACGREGORsuggested that foreign vessels should be surveyed only as to overloading, and not for structural defects. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) were adopted as well as that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, the difficulty would be met.
MR. GORSTsaid, he would point out that by the 3rd sub-section of the 11th clause there was a provision by which an English ship, which might while in port have become a foreign ship by transfer, should still be subject to English rules and regulations.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he would acknowledge the difficulties attending the question. It seemed unequal justice that foreign ships sailing from British ports should not be subjected to the same restrictions as British ships, and that thus not only life should be risked, but foreign shipowners should be enabled to compete on unequal terms with the British shipowner. It was almost impossible, however, to subject foreign ships to these restrictions under the present clause. From the point of view taken by its Mover, the Amendment appeared to be unanswerable; but, if our rules were to apply to all foreign vessels, it must be remembered that that did not confine them to all vessels starting from any of our ports. It would apply to any which came in either from stress of weather, or calling under the conditions of charter party, or any other transient cause; and, by the clause, all such foreign ships would become subject to the legislation of this country. His solution of the difficulty was to apply our municipal law to foreign vessels as far as we could by means of a separate clause.
§ LORD ESLINGTONthought it was scarcely worth while giving the Board of Trade a power which they would probably never venture to exercise. He was of opinion that if we framed regulations for our shipping which were found to be salutary, foreign nations would imitate us.
MR. WILSON, as a shipowner, said, he could not imagine a more dangerous practice than an interference with foreign shipping in our own ports. Shipowners were much divided in opinion on this question, and he for one hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would adhere strongly to the views he had expressed with reference to the subject.
§ MR. GOURLEYdeclared that the clause as it stood would handicap British ships by subjecting them to foreign municipal law.
§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsupported the Amendment. It was impossible that they could have restrictions and regulations applicable to British ships with the view of saving life and property, and exempt foreign ships from the same provisions in our own ports. He could understand free trade, and a total absence of all restrictions and regulations; but while such legislation applied to our shipping, it ought in justice to apply all round. It was said that foreigners might retaliate on our ships when they were in foreign ports, but so long as the object was the same as our own—the protection of life and limb—let them retaliate.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKadmired the good intentions, but not the law and the policy, of the hon. and learned Gentleman. By the repeal of the Navigation Laws we gave foreigners certain rights in our ports, which no doubt we had not in foreign ports. It was impossible for us to legislate for foreign ships. We had no right to bring foreign property under our jurisdiction, and if we attempted it we should fail.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think this was a case for retaliation. The object of the Amendment was simply to place foreign ships which came into our ports in the same position as our own. He could not understand why they should be treated differently, and he should therefore vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. A. PEELsaid, that if they made rules distasteful to foreign countries, foreigners might impose disadvantageous regulations on English ships in their ports. This was entirely a matter of conciliation and agreement, and resolved itself into a question of expediency. There were precedents to be found in the digest issued by the Board 1156 of Trade. Power was given by Order in Council to apply certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act to foreign ships by agreement with foreign Powers—with reference to collisions, for instance, and the engagement and discharge of seamen. This matter might be placed in the same category, and all distinctions might be done away with.
§ MR. D. JENKINSsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that as the strongest proof that what was proposed could be carried out without difficulty, he must be again allowed to refer to the successful working of the Canadian law with the United States. He must express his regret that the course adopted by the President of the Board of Trade left him no option but to take the sense of the Committee upon the question.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 89: Majority 70.
§ MR. PLIMSOLL moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 20, after "or," to insert "where any ship is." Its object was to secure that the provision of the clause relating to overloading and improper loading should apply to foreign as well as to British ships.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, it was useless to re-open a question which had already been discussed and decided. He had suggested a way in which foreigners might be treated with, which would come under discussion.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, that foreigners were surprised at the way in which this question was being treated in England, and they took care not to follow our example.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNApointed out that, as the law now stood, an English ship unfit for sea, if sold to a foreign owner, could not be stopped. He asked if there was no cause, however gross, that would induce the Government to interfere and stop a vessel, no matter what her nationality was?
§ LORD ESLINGTONhoped the President of the Board of Trade would take the subject into his consideration.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESproposed that there should be added to the Amendment words which would limit the effect of the hon. Member for Derby's (Mr. Plimsoll's) Amendment to foreign ships 1157
wholly or partially laden" in British ports.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this was a matter of some importance and some delicacy. The question was a difficult one to settle, as the Government had to steer between the Scylla of giving foreign ships an advantage over our own ships by imposing on our own ships restrictions which did not fall on foreign ships, and the Charybdis of so legislating with regard to foreign ships as to expose our own ships to retaliation in ports abroad. There ought to be time to consider this matter, and he would therefore suggest that both Amendments should be withdrawn. The Government would endeavour to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derby, in order as far as possible to deal with the case of foreign ships overloading in a British port.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he gladly accepted the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw his Amendment.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he would consent to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR HENRY JAMES moved, as an Amendment, that the word "shall" be substituted for the word "may" in the clause, his object being to cast upon the Board of Trade the duty of immediate action when they had reason to believe that a vessel was unseaworthy.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALargued that the word "may" in this instance was equivalent to "shall," and that the proposed alteration was unnecessary.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. T. E. SMITH moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 1, to leave out "three" and insert "seven," with a view to give the shipowner additional time to appeal against the report of a Surveyor of the Board of Trade.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYconsidered the extension of the time unnecessary. It would also inflict unnecessary expense on the shipowner. But if the shipowners themselves saw no objection to the delay, and hanging up a survey for so long in suspense, it was not for others to be afraid on their account.
§ MR. MACGREGORsupported the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to; word substituted.
§ On the Motion of Mr. T. E. SMITH, Amendment made, in page 3, line 7, by leaving out "twenty-four hours," and inserting "three days."
§ MR. GOURLEYproposed an Amendment, in page 3, line 10, sub-section 5, providing that in all cases where the master of a detained ship complied with the requirements of the local surveyor the latter should have power to release the ship.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that that was the wrong time to propose it. It would come more properly under the 8th and 10th sub-sections which dealt with the power of release; but certainly that power could not be entrusted to all and any surveyors, but only to the same officers who could detain: and any reference would now have to be made only to the district officer who could not be far off, and probably within a few minutes of time, by telegram.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would have no objection to insert the words at the close of sub-section 10.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD ESLINGTON moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, after sub-section 11, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(12.) In every case where the Board of Trade shall provisionally detain a ship, such Board shall forthwith deliver to the owner or master of such ship a statement in writing of the information upon which they have acted, and the name of the person from whom such information was received, and, if such information was given in writing, an entire copy of such writing shall be included in the statement so to be delivered.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he did not object to the proposed sub-section down to "and the name of the person," &c. If those words were omitted, he should not oppose the sub-section.
§ Words struck out.
§ Amendment, as amended, considered.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, a provision of the kind had been adopted in 1871, with the effect of stopping all information, and had been deliberately with- 1159 drawn by Parliament in 1873. He was now defending an action for libel because he had forwarded to the Board of Trade a telegram which he had received respecting a ship which was surveyed and reported to be seaworthy.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would, if acted upon, necessarily disclose the identity of the informant.
§ MR. T. E. SMITHsupported the proposal for the protection of the shipowners against rash and ill-considered information. He thought that the shipowner had a right to know who made the complaint against him.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Amendment only sanctioned the present practice of the Board of Trade of furnishing the shipowner with the information upon which they acted.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREopposed the Amendment as it would lead to the discovery of the name of the informant, and would thus tend to check the giving of information.
§ MR. NORWOODcontended that, in justice to the shipowners, the Board of Trade ought to be compelled to notify them of the information upon which they acted.
§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsuggested that the Amendment should be altered by omitting the word "information" and substituting for it "a statement in writing of the grounds upon which the Board of Trade have acted."
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYasked the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, promising that on the Report he would introduce into a prior clause, where it would be more appropriate, words which would effect the object he had in view.
§ LORD ESLINGTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, reserving to himself the right, if he did not approve of the words introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, to oppose them.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
§ MR. MAC IVER moved its rejection, on the ground that it would establish a most un-English system of espionage.
§ Motion negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
1160§ Clause 6 (Constitution of court of survey for appeals).
§
MR. T. E. SMITH moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from "experience" to "judge," in line 20, and insert—
And shall be appointed, one by the Board of Trade, either generally or in each case, out of a list of persons periodically nominated for the purpose by the local marine board of the port, or if there is no such board, by a body of local shipowners or merchants approved for the purpose by a Secretary of State; or, if there is no such body, by the Judge, and the other out of such list by the parties nominating same.
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYhoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and that the Committee would allow him to take the next three clauses.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Goldsmid.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 204: Majority 161.
§ MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he would move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. ["Oh, oh!"] The clause with which it was now proposed to proceed was one affecting the interests of the Courts.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in opposing the Motion, said, the Bill they were now discussing was a most important one to the shipping interest of this country. The division that had just taken place showed what the feeling on the subject was. He ventured, therefore, to appeal to the hon. Member who made the Motion not to press it. There were three clauses, and only two Amendments which they were anxious to dispose of that night, and he hoped the Committee, by its resolution to go on, would show the country that the House of Commons were not playing with the Bill. The hon. Member could hardly know the effect of his own Amendment, which would be to put an end to the Bill.
§ MR. NORWOODseconded the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Dundee would withdraw his Motion.
MR. GOLDSMIDdeclared that during the tenure of office of the last three Go- 1161 vernments it had been the practice to adjourn discussions in Committee on important Bills as soon after 12 o'clock as possible. ["Oh, oh."] That allowed a reasonable amount of time for any other Business on the Paper. But the present Government were constantly proposing to go on with important measures at a very late hour, which he considered most unsatisfactory, especially before Easter. He defended the Motion on the ground that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had voted in the minority.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLexplained that he had voted in the minority for the adjournment of the debate because he had sat there so many hours that he was tired. Moreover, he considered these three most important clauses, and hoped the Government would permit them to come fresh to the discussion.
MR. BECKETT DENISONremarked that when the Irish Church Bill, the Ballot Bill, and the Education Bill of the late Government were under consideration, they had constantly been in the habit of sitting in Committee until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he remembered divisions on the Irish Church Bill at 3 o'clock in the morning.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 198: Majority 169.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they had better either get on with their business or go to bed. It was perfectly clear that they would not be allowed to get on with their business, so they had better assent to the Motion.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.