§ MR. NORWOODsaid, that he wished to call attention to the position of affairs with respect to the Merchant Shipping Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made an able and very lengthy speech on the second reading, and had advanced what he no doubt believed to be valid and satisfactory charges with respect to the conduct of certain shipowners. It had been impossible, at the late hour at which that speech had been concluded, to give anything like an answer to the statements and allegations made. Many of the statements, he was sure, could be disproved, or, at the least, materially modified; and he asserted, on the part of the shipping commerce of this country, that they were entitled to a very early opportunity of resuming that debate. He ventured to say that the onus of any loss of life, if it was true that loss of life did occur from preventible causes arising from delays in passing the Bill through the various stages, must not be laid upon the Representatives of the seaports, but on the Government, unless they took steps at once for the resumption of the debate. Not one of the shipowning Members of that House had been a party to the negotiations concerning the Amendments proposed in the Bill; and until they had seen the new clauses they were not prepared to say what position they were going to take. They must have an opportunity of expressing their views and those of their constituents.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not rise to continue the discussion on the Report of the Crofters' Commission. He only desired to point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and to the other Members who echoed the complaint he made, that they were entirely mistaken in supposing that the action of the Government in moving the adjournment of the House at the Morning Sitting had in, 1507 any degree prejudiced their position. If the Motion for the adjournment of the House had been made at the Evening Sitting it would not have enabled the hon. Member for Glasgow to bring forward his Motion, because the discussion they had at 2 o'clock this afternoon would have been resumed at 9 o'clock, and would have anticipated the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, so that the prospect of bringing forward that Motion would have been very slight indeed. In reference to the point that had been raised by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), he had no doubt that on an early opportunity after the Recess his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would be able to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the Merchant Shipping Bill. It was generally admitted by Members who spoke on. both sides of the House that a pledge had been given by the right hon. Gentleman that the fullest intimation respecting the communications going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France and other Powers should be laid before the House at the earliest opportunity, in such a manner as would afford hon. Members an opportunity of forming an opinion upon them. The protests which had been made by hon. Members on various sides of the House would bean assistance to the Government in forming an opinion on the difficult question they had under consideration. It had been generally admitted by those Members who had spoken that it was impossible for the Government to add anything, while negotiations were in progress, to the communication that had been made by his right hon. Friend. He now appealed to the House to allow the discussion on the crofters' question to come to a close, so as to enable his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make his promised statement on the proposed amendment of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was sorry to interpose at the present moment; but he thought the House ought to consider the position in which it stood with regard to the Merchant Shipping Bill. Certain grave and serious charges had appeared in the newspapers in reference to the shipping interest and various shipowners, and among others with regard to Captain Hatfield, a respect- 1508 able constituent of his. Those charges had been made, it had been ascertained, without any kind of notice or kind of inquiry into the facts.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is clearly out of Order in referring to a previous debate of the present Session.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member was explicitly referring to what passed on a previous occasion, and therefore he is out of Order.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was simply desirous to refer to a statement which had appeared in the newspapers; and although it was the same in all he could not say distinctly that it had emanated from the Board of Trade. Still, it stated, apparently with some degree of authority, that a certain speech was to be printed and circulated; and when one saw the same statement in all the newspapers one naturally had an assumption that it had been sent to those journals. He should like to point out to the House that whilst the proceedings in the House were privileged, and whilst it might be possible to make unjustifiable attacks upon individuals which might be believed outside, yet such libellous statements, if published in pamphlet form, would render their authors or publishers liable for the consequences. He felt, after the ruling of the Speaker, that he must not refer even to the newspaper reports of what was said on a previous occasion; but he now wanted to point out this—that this paragraph which had appeared in the newspapers with, so much apparent authority had since been contradicted; and it had come to his knowledge that one of the gentlemen who might have had recourse to legal proceedings against the Board of Trade would find himself in a difficulty, because of the withdrawal of what he thought really was the original intention. He would ask the President of the Board of Trade explicitly whether he did not at the present moment hold in his possession a formal request from Captain Hatfield to correct certain libellous statements which had been made, and whether he persisted in those statements, because he would take the liberty of saying that he knew Captain Hatfield to be an honest, straightforward fellow. He had lost certain ships, and he (Mr. 1509 Mac Iver) wished to know, with reference to these statements, whether it was not a fact—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is distinctly reviving a past debate.
MR. MAC IVERsaid he bowed to the Speaker's ruling, and could only express his regret that in his desire to say a word or two in justification of a man he knew well, and whom he thought had been unjustly attacked, he should unwittingly have called upon himself the intervention of the Speaker.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member had asked him a distinct Question, and he would answer it distinctly in two or three words. The hon. Member asked him to state if he had received letters from Captain Hatfield to set him right in regard to certain statements he had made. He had not. The only letter he had received was one which had been published in the newspapers, and which was so offensive in tone, that he thought it quite unnecessary to take any notice of it. But there was another letter published by the same Captain Hatfield, in which he practically admitted that he had had 12 ships and lost 11 of them in seven years.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he respectfully contradicted the accuracy of the statement. He had in his possession a copy of the letter which was sent to the right hon. Gentleman.