HC Deb 18 July 1884 vol 290 cc1641-50
MR. MACIVER

, who was precluded by the Rules of the House from moving the following Motion, of which he had given Notice:— That, in the opinion of this House, the acknowledged failure of the whole of the shipping legislation of the last thirteen years, and the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill of this Session, in consequence of its having failed to obtain the support of any section of the seafaring or shipowning community, is evidence more than sufficient to justify the appointment of a Royal Commission, with powers to inquire both into the state of the Laws relating to shipping and also into the administration of those Laws by the Board of Trade; but that such inquiry should be of an independent character, and that the nomination of the Commissioners should be subject to the approval of Parliament, said, he wished to call attention to the subjects mentioned in the Resolution. In the first place, he could not make a greater protest against the shipping legislation of the last 13 years than that made by the Board of Trade itself—legislation which he had protested against not only in the present, but in the late Parliament. He did not even wish to put the case as strongly as Sir Thomas Farrer, because he thought that gentleman had probably unintentionally exaggerated the case against his own Department. Sir Thomas Farrer, in the Memorandum published last November, spoke of the legislation of the Board of Trade as an absolute and complete failure; and with that opinion he (Mr. MacIver) fully agreed; for there could be no doubt that the present shipping legislation was in a most unsatisfactory state. But he wished especially to distinguish between the Board of Trade legislation, and between some of the work done by the Board of Trade officers during the last 13 years, which he thought had had its good, as well as its bad, points. He had seen a great deal of the work of the officers of the Board, especially at Liverpool; but also elsewhere, and had uniformly found that those men could be trusted. In Liverpool the shipowners and others had been most fortunate in the Board's officers. He believed the Board's officers at other places deserved the same thing to be said about them. They had to perform their duties under very great difficulties, and the want of success which occurred was due to the legislation of the last 13 years. The reason that legislation was not merely a failure, but owing to the state of the laws was much worse than a failure, was because it was endeavouring to remedy that which was not a disease. In the proposals which were circulated by the Board of Trade last November, Sir Thomas Farrer said— Bill after Bill has been passed till the multiplicity of statutes, which were consolidated in one Act of 1854, has again become a scandal and reproach. No one who knew the facts of the case could find any fault with that statement. There were no fewer than 103 Acts upon the Statute Book at the present moment relating to Merchant Shipping—many of which, no doubt, were practically obsolete, and the result of the whole was mischievous. There were 538 clauses which imposed penalties of various kinds upon shipowners; and yet they had the statement published in official records that there was serious loss of life at sea which was preventible. While the law was wholly mischievous, he could not altogether agree with Sir Thomas Farrer's remarks about the absolute failure of the system. He believed the Board of Trade had done all they could by mischievous legislation, however unintentionally, in the last 13 years to prevent any reform in the Shipping Laws; but the common sense of the officers of the Board had lessened its evil effect. A remarkable Return had lately been furnished to the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. C. M. Palmer)—a Return of the loss of life at sea during the last six years ending the 31st December, 1883, and in that Return coasting vessels were not included. The result was, that during these six years, when 12,288 persons lost their lives at sea only seven steamers were lost which were under Board of Trade inspection. Nothing, he contended, would prevent loss of life at sea, except a proper system of inspection. The legislation which had failed had been based upon a completely erroneous idea—the idea that vessels were, for some reason or other, sent to sea to be lost. On that basis, they had had the whole of the shipping legislation since 1871, and the shipping class had been treated as if they were quasi-criminals, a course of proceeding which he objected to. It was not a fact that shipowners, as a class, wished their vessels to go other than safe; and the evil of which complaint might readily be made was the evil of ignorance, not the evil of deliberate intention to do wrong. To send a vessel to sea to be lost was just as bad as murdering a man to get money to which he was entitled; but, if that was done, the ordinary law in both cases was strong enough to deal with the offences. The plain truth was, that, in 99 cases out of 100, vessels were lost either by the unavoidable circumstances of dangerous navigation, or in consequence of errors of judgment on the part of those in charge. He was in favour of a proper system of inspection; but anything like a universal system of surveillance must break down, and weaken the surveillance which already existed. The time to survey a ship was not when she was on the point of sailing, but when there was some opportunity of knowing what was her condition. He was strongly opposed to the appointment of an army of surveyors; and what he should recommend was that, as far as practicable, in lieu of the harassing and uncertain system of inspection that now prevailed, shipowners should be induced to place their ships under the supervision of competent registered societies, such as Lloyd's, and that the laws should be such as to strengthen the power of these societies, and make them carry out the principle of inspection in a way that would be satisfactory to those who really understood the question. He had been in communication with sailors in all parts of the country, and he desired to refer to letters which he had received from two men who seemed to be representative men. One was the Chairman of the North of England Seamen's Protection Society, and the other was the Chairman of the London Seamen's Protection Society. The representation of these, and others competent to speak, showed that the sailor's first complaint was want of employment. He complained that he was robbed of his employment by the unfair competition of foreigners, and by the unfair competition of people who were not sailors at all. The next complaint of the sailors was, that there was not a good system of inspection. If the Board of Trade had done what the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) suggested, the law would have been in a much better position than it was to-day; but the Board of Trade had only partially adopted the suggestion. The Board of Trade ought to exercise greater care for the interest of sailors than it exercised at present. British seamen acquired a bad character which they did not deserve, in consequence of the employment of incompetent hands. What was the legislation which seamen would wish? They would desire legislation regulating the number of men to each ship, the kind of work they had to do, the load-line, and the construction of harbours of refuge. Much of the loss of life at sea was occasioned by the want of suitable harbours of refuge. Both officers and shipowners complained that there was so much legislation with regard to shipping that they did not know where they were. What was the position of the shipmaster when he made a mistake? Under the existing system, if, by a mere error of judgment, he gave, at the wrong moment, an order to port, when he ought to have starboarded, he might have his certificate suspended for three or six months, and then what happened? He might get his certificate returned at the end of the time; but, in the meantime, he was thrown out of employment, and he had been, probably, subjected to examination in a police court, under degrading circumstances. That was a very real grievance against the existing state of the law. He did not complain of proper punishment being meted out to men who deserved it; but he contended that, if a man was unfit to hold a certificate, it ought not to be suspended—it ought to be taken away from him. During the last six years the total loss of life at sea had been 12,288. About two-thirds of that loss had occurred in sailing vessels upon our coasts, and one-third in steam vessels. He wished to argue from that, that the very great proportion of loss of life at sea was due to the want of proper harbours of refuge, which were really necessary to save life. The loss of life last year in steamers was 840; while that in sailing vessels was 1,386; and he contended that a great many of those lives would have been saved if the vessels had been able to reach harbours of refuge on the coasts. He thought he had said all that was necessary to make it perfectly clear not only that the legislation of the last 13 years had hopelessly failed, but also why it had failed. He believed the interests of the seamen, the shipmasters, the officers, and their employers were very much in accord; and though the most misery, no doubt, accrued to the families of those whose lives were lost, yet it was a fact that shipowners were as much interested as shipmasters and seamen, and that they were equally anxious to do all that was possible to be done to prevent loss of life. With regard to the inquiry referred to in the latter part of his Motion, he would say that, in his view, the inquiry should be of an independent character, that the persons placed upon it should be men of impartial and unbiassed mind, and the nomination of the Commission should be subject to the ratification of Parliament. He would admit the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade must have in the appointment of right men on the Commission; but what he would urge was, that neither seamen, nor shipowners, nor the public would be satisfied unless the inquiry was a real one, with a proper and a wide reference, and conducted by those in whom the public very properly could have confidence, and he was sure the President of the Board of Trade would wish it to be of that character. He would point out those who should not be on the Commission, as they would, if they were, be judges of their own cause. He wished to speak with all respect of Sir Thomas Farrer, who, no doubt, had done his duty according to his lights; but as the Merchant Shipping legislation of the last 30 years had been, in great part, due to his exertions, he did not think that gentleman ought to be placed on the Commission. Then, with regard to Mr. Rothery, the Wreck Commissioner, from whom he had never received anything but personal kindness, he did not think he should be on the Commission. Coming to another name, that of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), he had every appreciation of him; but there were many shipowners who would not be satisfied with him as a Member of the Commission. There were many persons who thought that hon. Gentleman was not a perfectly disinterested individual in regard to this matter. Then there was the hon. Mem- ber for Carnarvonshire, who had been the junior Member for Liverpool in the last Parliament (Mr. Rathbone); he ought not to be one of the judges, for this reason—from his (Mr. Mac Iver's) own personal knowledge, he had long maintained cordial relations with Sir Thomas Farrer and Sir Charles Adderley, and, consequently, he was indirectly responsible for the legislation which had taken place. He would likewise mention another gentleman, Mr. Thomas Hughes Jackson, the present Chairman of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, who ought in no circumstances whatever to be on the Commission. There were few persons more popular in Liverpool than he; but his interests were not those of shipowners generally, as his firm were the principal partners in a Company which owned Spanish steamers, and his business was to run steamers under the Spanish flag with crews consisting of Spaniards. He (Mr. MacIver) had now said all he wished to say, and he hoped he had not spoken with any want of personal respect of any of those gentlemen. He had spoken of those he thought ought not to be on the Commission. What he had said of Mr. Jackson applied to him only on account of the Spanish objection. Speaking on behalf of his own constituents, he should be glad to see upon the Commission any gentleman of acknowledged position whom they believed to be impartial and independent; but the fear they had was that those whose shortcomings ought to be inquired into might themselves be appointed; and for that reason, therefore, they held that the Commissioners should not be judges of their own case.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that from the appearance of the House there was no great interest taken in the subject brought forward for its notice; and, therefore, he was not called upon to make any lengthened reply to the somewhat discursive remarks that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). Moreover, he failed to see any connection between the speech and the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Chamberlain) objected to the Resolution as it stood upon the Paper; because, in the first place, it was ungrammatical, and was hardly common sense; and, still more, it was entirely superfluous, for the facts contained in it were inaccurately stated. What he could deny was that the shipping legislation of the last 13 years had absolutely failed. On the contrary, that was not the case. He admitted, that there were defects in that legislation; and it was in consequence of those defects that he ventured to submit his Merchant Shipping Bill to the House during the present Session; but that was very far from an admission that the whole shipping legislation had absolutely failed. In his opinion, in the first place, the inquiries which had been instituted under Mr. Rothery's presidency in the Wreck Court, and also in the local Courts, had thrown a flood of light on this subject that was of the utmost value; and although, unfortunately, the loss of life was still very great, and beyond what it ought to be, yet it would have been much greater but for the efforts of the Board of Trade, and especially of the surveyors, who had so often detained ships until changes were made before they were allowed to go to sea. He knew that 800 ships had been thus detained; and in almost every case they had either not been allowed to go to sea at all, or had only been allowed to go to sea after they were altered to meet the rules required by the Board of Trade. Then the hon. Member went on to urge the abandonment of the Merchant Shipping Bill, in consequence of its not having obtained the support of any members of the ship-owning community, of the shipmasters, or of the sailors. For his own part, he (Mr. Chamberlain) denied that the hon. Member was entitled, in any sense, to speak in that way. He could say he had not found any single seaman, shipowner, or shipmaster who agreed with the hon. Member in the views he expressed on the subject; and he would probably be as entirely mistaken in saying that no section of these communities were in favour of the original Bill. On a former occasion, he (Mr. Chamberlain) had shown that several shipowners and seamen were strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, with the Amendments he had proposed to introduce; but he had no information that a large number of respectable shipowners desired that the Bill should not be proceeded with on the lines of the Amendments that were proposed. Coming to the shipmasters, he might say that he had received a resolution from a most independent body of shipmasters of Hull urging that the Bill should be pressed to a Division, and sent to a Grand Committee. With regard to the sailors, they were seldom at home, and they did not know how to make their opinions felt and known. He had been unable to find any persons in that rank of life who were justified in claiming to represent the opinions of the seafaring population; but he had seen numerous letters from individual sailors, and from many of them he had received a hearty "God speed!" and a hope that he would be successful in his legislation. The Government, he might say, had no intention of appointing such a Commission as that which was suggested by the hon. Member. As to the administration of the Board of Trade, he had been good enough to accuse the permanent officials for all the legislation which had been enacted. Nothing could be more unfair, for, after all, a good deal of the legislation, of which he (Mr. Chamberlain) complained quite as strongly as the hon. Member, had been forced on the House and the Board of Trade, and was not legislation of a character to which they gave a deliberate and full assent. The officials of the Board and the Parliamentary Chiefs of that Board pointed out, when the principal part of this legislation was before the House, some of the difficulties which had subsequently arisen. The hon. Member said that the theory of the Board of Trade had always been that the loss of ships was a crime, and that their object had been to penalize the shipowners. That was absolutely the reverse of the fact, and the legislation presented to the House was based upon the opposite principles. It was based on the belief that, in the great majority of cases, these casualties were due, not to wilful criminality on the part of shipowners—such an idea would be too horrible to entertain for a moment—but were due to ignorance, and sometimes, also, to negligence. It was the object of the Board of Trade, and equally the object he had in view, to make it the general interest of shipowners that their enterprizes should be conducted in the best possible way; and he believed that, when that was done, they would have cut at the root of this great loss of life. He never claimed, and never thought it was desirable to strengthen or increase the powers of punishment already possessed by law, and which he considered were quite sufficient to deal with these extremely rare and exceptional cases in which there might be wilful intention on the part of individual shipowners to cast the ship away. The hon. Member went on to say that the reform of the Board of Trade was necessary; but he did not point out in what respect he desired it to be reformed. He further said that the Board should substitute a survey by registered societies; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) had to point out that these societies were only societies beyond the entire regulation, supervision, and control of the public. Accordingly, he considered that the Board of Trade was the best authority for dealing with these shipping matters. Reference had also been made by the hon. Member to harbours of refuge; but that, to his mind, opened a very large question. It would be entering into a business which the Board of Trade could not undertake; one which would involve the expenditure of many millions of money; and it would be hardly possible to do so without knowing what the result would be. Indeed, for harbours of refuge to be really of any use, they must certainly be placed on the spots where danger was likely to arise; and, in that case, it would be necessary that they should be erected at almost every 10 miles of the coast. Even then they might not be found sufficient for every purpose, and they might be found of very little use in limiting or reducing the terrible loss of life that sometimes occurred. The wreck of the Royal, Charter, which involved the loss of hundreds of lives, for instance, took place within a very few miles of the great harbour of Holyhead. He came now to the conclusion of the hon. Member's Resolution, as to the nomination of this Commission; and as regarded the hon. Member's remarks upon that point of the case, in which he desired to know something of its nature, and had been good enough to give some advice as to who should and who should not be appointed, he must say he would have valued the hon. Member's observations the more if the hon. Gentleman had not insinuated that there was an intention on the part of the Government to appoint an unfair Commission, for the purpose of whitewashing what he was pleased to call the incriminated Department. He would point out to the hon. Member that there were two classes—there were two interests which would come under inquiry—the Board of Trade, whose administration had been severely criticized, and the shipowners, whose practice with regard to the management of their ships and insurance had also been the subject of complaint; and it would be necessary that the Commission should be one which would hold the balance as between the parties, and might be relied upon to make an exhaustive and impartial inquiry into both sides of the question. If the hon. Member's view were carried out, it would be impossible to put a shipowner on the Commission. That would be a mistake; but it ought not to consist entirely or mainly of shipowners. All that was necessary was that the majority of the Commission should consist of thoroughly well-instructed and impartial persons, whose opinion and report upon the facts presented to them would command the confidence of the public. If the hon. Member wished to know what sort of a Commission would be appointed, he would refer him to the Unseaworthy Ships Commission, appointed some years ago, and over which the Duke of Somerset presided, regarding which he had not heard any charge of partiality made. Accordingly, he hoped he would find Gentlemen as able and as well qualified as them. It was a matter of great difficulty and complexity; but the communications were still going on, and while he would be delighted to lay the names of the Commission before the House, he must say that, owing to the considerable correspondence which he had received, he might be unable to complete the list before Parliament was prorogued. He, therefore, found it impossible to give any pledge on the subject. In conclusion, he would say that he honed he had sufficiently answered all the points that had been raised by the hon. Member.