MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL.

HC Deb 27 July 1898 vol 63 cc7-67

The House entered upon the consideration of this Bill as amended by the Standing Committee.

Amendment proposed—

"To move the following new clause—

1. "(1) In every port where there is a local marine board the Board of Trade shall appoint and remove the superintendents, deputies, clerks, and servants of the Mercantile Marine Office, and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, shall determine the amount of their salaries and wages.
2. "(2) Save as aforesaid, a local marine board shall retain its powers and duties under section two hundred and forty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with regard to the Mercantile Marine Office.
3. "(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the powers of a local marine board to appoint and remove examiners to conduct examinations for the purpose of granting certificates of competence as masters or mates."—(Mr. A. Spicer.)

* MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment which stands in the name of the honourable Member for Monmouth Boroughs is out of order. There is nothing in the Bill relating to the constitution or powers of local marine boards, and the Amendment is not relevant to the Bill.

Amendment proposed— Page 2, line 37, after 'service,' add 'and all sums received in respect thereof shall be paid to the general lighthouse fund.'"—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)

MR. C. McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)

I beg to move the Amendment.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 3, line 18, after 'authorities,' insert— But in no case shall the light dues levied at any port under this Act for a single voyage exceed the net amount levied and paid for light dues from port to port on a single voyage before the passing of this Act, and no steamer shall be required to pay more than one shilling and fourpence halfpenny per ton, and no sailing vessel more than one shilling and one penny halfpenny per ton, in any one year."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

I beg to move this Amendment, which formerly stood in the name of Mr. Doughty, and he, being a Member for a shipping port, Sir, had, I presume, good reason for putting it on the Paper for discussion.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,) Croydon

My honourable Friend has shown discretion in not attempting to argue in favour of this Amendment. It would be extremely difficult for anyone who approves of the principle of the Bill to argue in favour of an Amendment which strikes at the very root of the Bill. We have established a uniform system, and the adoption of the Amendment of my honourable Friend would involve a return to the condition of things which we have abolished.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I do not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— Page 6, line 3, after 'scale of payments,' insert 'three farthings per ton for steamers and sailing ships employed in the Baltic trade, and not in any year to make more than six payments. A voyage is out and home one payment.'"—(Mr. Charles Wilson.)

MR. C. H. WILSON (Hull, W.)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

This Amendment is very much upon the same lines as the one which has just been withdrawn. The only difference is that the one which has just been withdrawn applies generally. My honourable Friend opposite desires to make an exception in regard to one particular trade. It is manifest that this also is a matter which cannot be considered in connection with this Bill. If every particular trade is going to be considered in the light of what it has paid before we should have to make a considerable addition to the payments of some claims, and possibly subtractions in others. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, I do not think we can accept the Amendment.

* SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

I admit that the general tendency of this Bill will be to reduce the dues payable by shipowners, but it is a Bill which carries with it some distinct disadvantages to them. Granted that there are some who will benefit by the reduction of their dues, the burden on certain other trades will be increased. The effect upon the shipowners in the port of Hull, many of whom trade only with the Baltic, will be to increase the dues paid by them not only doubly, but even trebly, and that will be a very great burden to them. I am aware that there is a power in the Bill to enable the Board of Trade to give consideration to such, cases, but I have not yet received—I hope I may receive today—a distinct and specific assurance from the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that the case of Hull, where I know with absolute certainty that hardship will occur, that this particular case will be considerately dealt with. This is just one of those exceptional cases which will have to be met by the special power given, to the Board of Trade by the Bill. I submit that this is one of the cases of special hardship under the Bill where, so far from giving benefit, it doubles and even trebles the dues made payable by certain shipowners, and I trust that it will be favourably considered, and that the President will give the House a clear declaration to that effect, otherwise, even now, I shall oppose the Bill.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I did not enter very fully into the merits of the Amendment when the honourable Member proposed it because he did not make a speech in doing so; and I therefore followed his example. It is possible that there may be some cases of considerable hardship in the operation of the Bill, and my honourable Friend knows that I have inserted an Amendment which will enable them to be dealt with as special and urgent cases. With regard to the Baltic, I have made very close investigation, as far as I can into the matter, and I find that although undoubtedly there is a largely increased charge involved, yet any incidents which have been brought to my knowledge have shown that so much would be saved in other voyages as to leave a balance to the good at the end of the year. The honourable Member for West Hull gave me three instances of hardship. I went into the whole question of how much they paid during the year under the old system, and how much they would pay under the new, and I found that in the case of each vessel there would be a considerable saving under the new Bill as compared with the old. The fleets of which the honourable Member is the happy possessor will, in the long run, save something like £4,000 a year.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

While I do not contest what the right honourable Gentleman has said with regard to particular vessels trading in the Baltic, I think he will admit that there may be cases which may be very hardly dealt with. It is the merit of the new scheme that it leaves a large discretion to the Board of Trade, and I hope, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman will bear in mind that while in particular cases—probably in the majority of cases —there may be no hardship in the long run, still, those who trade wholly in the Baltic will suffer rather than gain by these rules. I think, however, it is a matter which must be determined entirely by experience—which time gives. I hope in the meantime the Board of Trade will watch these cases with an open mind and deal with them in a spirit of equity.

SIR J. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

I am very glad indeed to hear what the right honourable Gentleman has said on this question. I am informed that the Bill will increase the burden on the coasting trade, and I hope, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman will give consideration to this point before the Bill becomes law.

SIR H. SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central)

I should like to say one word in support of the observations of the honourable Member for Islington [Sir Albert Rollit] in regard to the trade in the Baltic. There cannot be the slightest doubt as to a very heavy loss falling on steamers engaged in the timber trade. At present such a steamer of 1,000 tons pays £1 8s. 2d. in light dues; while under this Bill it will pay £11 9s. 8d. on the round voyage. As such vessels can only make six voyages in the year the exemption after six payments is of no use to them.

MR. C. H. WILSON

It is quite true that the firm with which I am connected obtains a considerable amount of reduction in the light dues to be paid; but I think, Sir, that is hardly a fair way of treating the subject.

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The honourable Member is not entitled to speak more than once.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I think the answer of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is not quite sufficient. There are many of us who are averse to trusting to the discretion of the Board of Trade on this subject. We look at the matter as one of principle, and the conditions laid down should not be left even to a person so eminent as the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment is not one of general application to the principle of the Bill, but deals with a special grievance. My opinion is that the Bill will not only inflict considerable injury on the trade referred to in the Amendment, but upon many other trades as well, because my conviction is that the scale of charges is altogether unscientific. But the question I have to consider is whether I should vote for the removal of this special grievance. I am sorry to say that I cannot do that. My object is rather to keep alive all special grievances which exist under the Bill, because my final object is to destroy the Bill, and put the light dues on the Consolidated Fund.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed— Page 6, line 9, after 'tugs,' insert 'and.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I beg to move the Amendment

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 6, lines 9 and 10. leave out 'and vessels engaged in collecting and carrying fish to port.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I beg to move the Amendment.

Question put.

Agreed to.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I beg to move— Insert after the word 'yacht,' 'except when such tugs and yachts have been laid up for six months or longer.' As I read the Bill a yacht or tug, although laid up for a year or two, will still be charged a shilling per ton, because the payment is an annual one, and does not depend on the voyage. The Bill should make the point clear, which I do not think it does at present. When a tug or yacht is laid up for a year, then the annual payment should not be exacted. I therefore move to insert after the word "yacht"— except when such tugs or yachts have been laid up for six months or longer.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

It is clearly the intention that a tug or yacht which does not go on a voyage for 12 months shall not be liable. So clear are the Board of Trade on this point that I am told that if any owner by mistake pays for a tug or yacht which does not go out for 12 months he will have the money returned.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

After the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman I will not proceed with the Amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— Page 7, line 2. after 'passengers,' insert 'mails.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I beg to move the Amendment.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 7, line 4, after 'made,' insert 'provided that a new vessel shall pay only one penny per ton for each month after the commencement of her first voyage till the first of April following.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I beg to move the Amendment.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 7, line 8, after 'cargo,' insert 'or in the case of an unregistered vessel, in accordance with the Thames measurement adopted by Lloyd's Register.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I beg to move the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I would like to point out to the right honourable Gentleman that the Thames measurement is unknown to the law, and the charge on a vessel during the transitory period would be considerably more than if her registered tonnage were ascertained. I would suggest that some deduction should be made.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

My honourable Friend will sea that it is impossible to avoid something of this kind. I am, however, prepared to consider the point and consult with the honourable Member on the subject.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 7, line 13, leave out 'Her Majesty's ships.'"—(Sir A. Rollit.)

* SIR A. ROLLIT

I beg to move the Amendment.

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The honourable Member cannot move the Amendment on the Report stage, as its effect would be to impose a charge upon the revenue.

Amendment proposed— Page 7, line 19, after 'ballast,' insert 'on which no freight is earned.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I beg to move the Amendment.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 7, leave out lines 22 and 23, and insert 'vessels for the time being employed in sea fishing or in sea fishing service, exclusive of vessels used for catching fish otherwise than for profit.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I beg to move the Amendment. I may, perhaps, point out that this will exempt all vessels engaged in fishing operations.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 7, lines 20 and 21, leave out 'the voyage only,' and insert 'their own use on board.'"—(Mr. C. McArthur.)

MR. C. MCARTHUR

I beg to move the Amendment.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 7, after line 27, add 'yachts and pleasure boats of under five tons registered shipping tonnage.'"—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I observe that the honourable Member for St. Pancras is not present, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment.

Question put.

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Insert after clause 5 the following clause— On proof to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that a British ship has during any financial year carried, in accordance with the scale and regulations to be made by the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Treasury, boys between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, there shall be paid to the owner of the ship, out of moneys provided by Parliament, an allowance not exceeding one-fifth of the light dues paid during that year in respect of that ship. Provided that no such payment shall be made in respect of any boy unless he has enrolled himself in the Royal Naval Reserve, and entered into an obligation to present himself for service when called upon, in accordance with rules to be issued by the Admiralty. The scale and regulations aforesaid may be modified from time to time by the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Treasury.

"This section shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and five, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise enact."—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I have now to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of this new clause. As the House well knows, the question of the declining number of British seamen in our mercantile marine which has undoubtedly taken place during the last few years is a matter of considerable anxiety to those who have the best interests of the country at heart, and many suggestions have been made with a view of endeavouring to check the decrease. There is no doubt that the recent criticisms which have been passed on the mercantile marine are justified by the figures bearing on the subject. In 1891 there were 41,590 British sailors on board British ships, but in 1896 there were only 35,020, showing a decrease in five years of 6,570. In 1891 the number of foreign petty officers and seamen on board British ships was 13,432, in 1896 the number had risen to 14,469, an increase in five years of 1,037. Thus the decrease in British seamen during those five yeans has been 15 per cent., while the increase in foreign seamen is 8 per cent. Sir, it is not an agreeable thing to know that no less than 30 per cent, of the petty officers and seamen on board British ships are foreigners. I do not dispute the fact that in a very large number of cases those foreigners are very good seamen; but I think we should prefer that our ships were manned by British seamen. And, Sir, a. very disquieting feature of the decline is that the decrease is most marked among the younger men. In 1896 there were 3,981 fewer sailors under 25 than in 1891. It is hardly necessary for me to enlarge upon the fact that such a state of things is dangerous to our commercial interests and national position. The Naval Reserve, as the House knows, is dependent upon having a large field of selection in the mercantile marine, and the mercantile marine itself is largely interested in having a plentiful supply of British seamen, so that in case the Reservists are called out it may not be dependent on foreigners to man its vessels. Now, this is a very important consideration. I would have the House bear in mind that if the Reservists are called out the mercantile marine will be left almost entirely in the hands of foreign sailors. This is a danger which I think the House ought to support the Government in endeavouring to some extent at least to remove. Now, this falling-off in the number of British seamen is not, I am informed——

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

When the right honourable Gentleman uses the term "British" seamen,, does he include Lascars?

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

No, Sir, I do not. This decrease in the number of British seamen is not, I am informed, in consequence of any lack of boys. I believe it is true that there are certain parents who are unwilling to bind their boys by indentures, but the real difficulty is due to the reluctance both of shipowners and masters to carry boys, as they find, speaking generally, that for the first year, at any rate, they are of very little service, and cost almost as much for maintenance as full-grown sailors. Now, Sir, can anything be done—can any step be taken—in the direction of remedying a state of things which I believe the House of Commons unanimously deplores? The matter is one which has received the anxious consideration of the Government, and especially my own anxious consideration as head of the Department which has charge of all matters affecting the mercantile marine. Sir, it appears to us that the Bill now before us does afford an avenue by which at least something—I believe a good deal—can be done to remedy the existing state of things. When this Bill was before the House on the Second Reading stage, and in the course of discussion in the Grand Committee, many appeals were made to the Government to contribute to the light service in respect of the ships of Her Majesty's Navy. Well, Sir, I did not disguise from myself the fact that many arguments adduced in favour of that proposal were arguments of considerable weight; but the proposal was negatived for this reason, among others, that the Royal Navy existed very largely to protect the interests of the mercantile marine, to which it renders very important services. It was held that this was a fair equivalent, and that the Navy ought not to be called upon to pay light dues. Well, Sir, it strikes me that possibly we might be able to reconcile these views, and at the same time do a considerable amount of good in the direction which we all desire—that of securing a larger employment of British sailors in the mer- cantile marine. Cannot the Government, supposing they give a large sum of money upon this Vote, if necessary, on the one hand, on the other hand ask the mercantile marine to render to the Royal Navy, which exists so much for their protection, some corresponding service? The training of boys to join the Royal Naval Reserve, as proposed, will not only be helpful to the Navy in supplying it with recruits for service when required, but would be also greatly helpful to the mercantile marine itself. By assisting and helping national defence, the shipowners in the mercantile marine will not only be providing for their own safety in times of danger, but also for the efficient supply of British seamen, well trained to man their own vessels. I will give to the House an outline of the Government proposal and scale, and I may observe, with regard to the scale and recommendations, that there are certain matters in them upon which we shall be glad to avail ourselves of the advice of those connected with the mercantile marine. I merely give this as a sketch; details we may have to reconsider. We propose to give an allowance equal to 20 per cent, of the light dues at the end of each year— during which the vessel must not be less than nine months with articles of agreement running—to the then owner of the vessel, provided it carries on each voyage; "boy sailors," according to the following scale: under 500 tons, one boy; over 500 tons, and under 1,000 tons, two boys; over 1,000 and under 2,000 tons, three boys; and an additional boy for every 1,000 or portion of 1,000 tons. It will not be essential, in order to obtain a share of this deduction, that the full complement of boys should be carried by any one vessel; it will be for the owner to decide as to the number of boys that he will carry, and he will get a proportionate allowance for the carriage of each boy. In order that the allowance may be obtained, each boy sailor must be a British subject; not being a Lascar, he must be ft deck hand; he must be medically examined by an Admiralty surgeon or agent, and certified to be sound, and likely to grow into an efficient volunteer of the seamen class Reserve, and he must be enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve, and enter into an agreement to present himself for service when called upon, in accordance with the rules issued by the Admiralty. He must be over 15 and under 18 years of age at the time of the first enrolment, and under 19 at the time of signing an agreement for any voyage in respect of which the allowance is claimed. No allowance will be granted in respect of any "boy sailor" over 19 years of age, or for a longer period than three years from the date of the first enrolment as such "boy sailor." The superintendent of a mercantile marine office, upon being satisfied as to the age, nationality, and physical fitness of the boy, will issue to him a book containing a description of his appearance, and blank spaces for recording his employment. This book the boy will produce to the superintendent of a mercantile marine office on every engagement and discharge, whether in the foreign-going or home trade, in order that the necessary entries may be made therein. There shall be no enrolment, nor will there be any allowances made in the case of boys carried as apprentices or midshipmen, with the view to being specially trained as certified officers, nor in respect of boys carried in the engineers' or stewards' department. All claims for the allowance will be examined by the Board of Trade before payment is made. That is, generally speaking, the outline of our proposals. With regard to the Admiralty regulations they are not yet definitely drawn up, but I understand that my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty proposes to open a new class for these boys, which will be entirely separate from the existing Royal Naval Reserve. If this proposal is accepted and followed out in its entirety the number of boys who would be carried would be 16,150, and the amount of the grant would be £62,559. The Royal Naval Reserve, if the scheme were availed of by the shipowners, would receive an accession of this number every three years—that is to say, that 16,150 boys would be turned out every three years as fully equipped sailors and members of the Royal Naval Reserve But as 2,000 boys are already carried in our merchant ships, the number of boys added to the Naval Reserve would be 2,000 less than the number which I have quoted. I am perfectly well aware that it would not suit every shipowner to take advantage of this proposal, but I think and hope that shipowners will be actuated not only by financial considerations, but also by considerations of patriotism, of he national safety, and their own interests; because it is quite clear that if they accept this proposal, and adopt it, they will be rearing up a large number of boys who, in the future, will become efficient sailors, and be very valuable in their ships. A boy in his first year, I quite concede, is of very little use, but if he is a sharp youth in his second year he is as efficient as any sailor on board. [Oh, oh!] Honourable Members do not seem to think so, but I say that a sharp boy with 12 months' service on board one of these ships will, if large enough, be efficient as a seaman. But assuming that the scheme were taken advantage of to the extent of only half, and that only 8,000 boys were added to the Reserve; every three years, that would be a most important addition to the force. I feel it is a plan that, is to be tried as an experiment, and it is to be tried for six years, but I hope the result will be such as to make the Government continue either the same scheme, or replace it by something better at the end of that period. There is no compulsion attached to it at all, and I hope it will be availed of by the owners of the mercantile marine. It remains, of course, to be seen if it will be a success or not, but whether it is successful or not I hope the House will see that the Government has made an attempt, and a sincere attempt, to deal with an evil, which is a real evil, which is likely to become, if not now, in the near future, if it is not remedied, a national danger.

MR. BRYCE

Any scheme which has the air of giving a subsidy is apt to be looked upon with a certain amount of distrust. This is, no doubt, a practical endeavour upon the part of the Board of Trade to deal with what is unquestionably a real evil, and which may become a great danger, and the Government, of course, must make its case; but I think that a closer examination of this proposal may dispel the presumption, which otherwise might militate against the scheme. The Board of Trade in this case is endeavouring to deal with a real evil, which may become a great danger. The subject is not a new one— it engaged the attention of Lord Spencer and myself, and we were hoping to be in a position to lay some proposal before the House with regard to it, but it was frustrated by political events. The question has been a very serious one for a long time, and I am glad that the Board of Trade and the Admiralty have now turned their attention to it. It is quite true that the supply of British seamen for the mercantile marine is not what it ought to be, and that there has been a progressive diminution of the British subjects employed in it. That is, of course, an evil. I believe that a large proportion of the foreign sailors employed in our mercantile marine are Norwegians, and they make excellent sailors, and are efficient in every way; but they are foreigners, and we could not rely upon them in the same way as we could upon our own men on the occasion of national danger. There is, both in the ease of the Admiralty and the mercantile marine, a case for endeavouring to remedy this evil. One of the causes why there is this diminution in the number of sailors in the country is, I believe, the fact that our fishing population is not so large, relatively, as it used to be, owing to the substitution of new methods of fishing, in place of line fishing, which has led to a diminution it is impossible to resist, but which has the effect of diminishing the number of seafaring men upon whom we could rely in the event of the outbreak of war; for this reason there is a strong primâ facie case for doing something in this matter. I should prefer to see it done rather on the ground of naval interest than upon the ground which the right honourable Gentleman has given us. The Royal Navy ought, in any case, to be exempt from light dues.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

Pardon me, I did not place more importance on the question of the mercantile marine. This is not a contribution in aid of the mercantile marine; it is primarily for the purpose of increasing our Naval Reserve, but at the same time it benefits the mercantile marine.

MR. BRYCE

I am very glad to have that explanation from the right honourable Gentleman, because what he said as to the interest of the mercantile marine is perfectly true. It will be in the interests of the shipowners themselves that they should carry out this scheme. I do not refer to the details of this scheme. I reserve those altogether, and should not venture to express an opinion upon them until I had an opportunity of hearing some honourable Gentlemen who were conversant with the subject. All I can say is that it gives the shipowners an opportunity of employing a larger number of boys in the mercantile marine, and having a larger number of British subjects in it. Of course, the details will be a matter for discussion when the House goes into Committee upon the clause, but I believe it is in the interests of the mercantile marine, as much as it is to the Royal Navy, that it should have a larger number of British sailors; and it is to the interest of the country that, at the time of the outbreak of a war, we should be able to strengthen our Royal Naval Reserve in the manner intended by the scheme. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has proposed this scheme as an experiment, and clearly it must be experimental. It is impossible to see how it will work, and it is impossible to see how the difficulties and details can be overcome, and until we see the rules of the Board of Trade and Admiralty we cannot give an opinion; it seems, therefore, that a wise discretion has been exercised in making the clause temporary. It is to be in force until 1905, and then it will be within the power of Parliament either to continue this method, or, if this method has been investigated and found to be of no use, to take some other method of strengthening the mercantile marine and the Royal Naval Reserve; but taking the outlines of the scheme which seeks to procure this important object I think it is one which deserves the favourable consideration of the House, and it will certainly receive my support.

The Bill was then recommitted, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.

(In the Committee.)

A new clause— Page, after clause 5, insert the following clause— On proof to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that a British ship has during any financial year carried, in accordance with the scale and regulations to be made by the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Treasury, boys between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, there shall be paid to the owner of the ship, out of moneys provided by Parliament, an allowance not exceeding one-fifth of the light dues paid during that year in respect of that ship. Provided that no such payment shall be made in respect of any boy, unless he has enrolled himself in the Royal Naval Reserve, and entered into an obligation to present himself for service when called upon, in accordance with rules to be issued by the Admiralty. The scale and regulations aforesaid may be modified from time to time by the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Treasury. This section shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and five, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise enact."—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

* SIR J. COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

. Perhaps I might say one or two words upon this clause. I must congratulate the Government on their attempt to reduce what is, and has been, a very serious state of things, and a great evil. I think that the Government are to be highly commended upon the manner in which, they have sought to deal with it. The only point that I have to make upon it is that it is rather difficult to discuss a question of this kind without the details which can only be produced by Admiralty memoranda. The only difficulty likely to arise is the difficulty after training the boys. With regard to the use of arms, that is a matter which must be considered; but that is a matter I am not going into now. Whether this scheme will work or not will largely depend upon the method by which it is dealt with in practice. There ought to be no difficulty at all. To my mind, the most important part of this clause gives hope of the effect upon the mercantile marine. I think the advantage to be gained by this clause is a great deal more to the mercantile marine than to the Navy, which, in itself, is a great national and important consideration. It is most important to remember that while on the one hand you propose, in time of war, to recruit your Navy from a Reserve, which on the other has itself been drawn from the mercantile marine; but the importance of this clause, to my mind, is the effect that it may have upon the mercantile marine. I trust the Government will be successful in this measure, and I see no reason why it should not be.

SIR F. EVANS (Southampton)

The honourable Member need not trouble himself whether this scheme will go down with the mercantile marine, or as to whether it will be successful. I can tell him it certainly will not. I hope, before I sit down, to have been able to prove to the House that the result of the adoption of this clause would not only stop the mercantile marine doing anything at all, but would have the effect of stopping those apprentices which the mercantile marine already take. I presume this clause was made by the Board of Trade to induce us to take boys on board of our steamers. Of course, we have had no opportunity until the present moment of knowing what the scheme was going to be. Now, just across the Table of the House is to be discussed one of the most important changes which it has been proposed to introduce in connection with the shipping interest for very many years. It is impossible in this short space of time to find out what would be the effect of it. I should tell the House, with regard to the fleet, with which I have a great deal to do, that in order to earn a one-fifth part, or 30 per cent., of the light dues, we should have to carry 120 boys; that is to save what would amount to £700 or £800 a year, our share of the light dues, and the cost to us would be between £3,500 and £4,000 a year. The President of the Board of Trade says this is not a contribution to the mercantile marine. I also echo that, and I hope that I have proved that it is not one in any shape or form. Shipowners of this country are only too happy to agree to some scheme which will assist the Navy of the country, but in this we do not assist the Navy, so far as I can see, but only incur a very heavy expense. I would like to give some details as to that. If you take boys they are to be deck hands; they are not to be engaged in the engine room, and are not to be stewards' boys, but they must be deck hands. Now, in connection with deck hands, we come into contact with the Board of Trade, and all their rules. We have to feed the boys, we have to find them food and light cabins and space—all very proper rules. Now, the result of this is that these boys take up the room of nearly a ton and a half in our ships, cubic measurement, cubic space. They will take up a certain amount of cubic feet of room, which otherwise would be taken up by the cargo. Taking the feeding of the boy at the lowest estimate, which I may say is about 1s. a day—that is £18 a year. You deprive us of the space of a ton and a half of cargo, which I estimate at £15. You cannot get below that estimate—that is £33—and over and above that there are other expenses; but say that it only amounts to £35 a year, and we have got to carry 120 boys; to earn this deduction, multiply the 120 by the 35, and you find the gross loss is about £730. What I complain of is this: I was the only shipowner who got up the other day and asked the right honourable Gentleman not to put this provision in this Bill; I was the only one who knew of it at that time, but we have had some days' grace since then, and a number of shipowners and others interested in the shipping world have come up to look into this question, and no doubt this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade will have an opportunity of hearing what they have to say to it. I have taken the view of certain shipowners. The first one, a very large shipowner, said, "I will never carry one boy on my ships under this scheme "; and then there is the case of another large shipowner, very well known to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and he said he would not carry a boy under this scheme. No matter how many cases of inquired into, that was commonly the reply of the shipowners, "We will not carry a boy"; and, if that is the case why do you press this on us? Why do you not call the shipowners together, and ask us to consult with you? We are always anxious to do what we can to assist the President o the Board of Trade. He has never found us wanting when he asked us to come forward and assist him, and yet, when a great change of this kind is being made by way of attempting to find a means of helping the Navy, we are not consulted. I say it was very necessary that we should have been consulted, and that he ought to have called us together. For a long time we have been anxious to work with the Board of Trade, in order to do good to the Navy, even a the loss of a certain amount of money But we have been presented with a scheme which, first of all, will prevent us doing anything, and, next, will stand in the way of those reforms we are anxious to bring about. It is most unfortunate that this scheme should have been brought in, and brought in in his way.

MR. McARTHUR

I desire, in the first place, to express my personal views on this subject, and, in the second place, the views, which are identical with my own, of the shipowners of Liverpool. In the first place, I need scarcely say we regard this proposal as in principle a most valuable one. It is a lamentable fact that in the mercantile marine British sailors are to a large and constantly increasing extent being displaced by foreign sailors, and we are thankful to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for having taken this matter in hand, and proposed something which, although it may not be perfect, seems to go some way towards remedying this evil. We consider that this proposal, if it were properly carried into effect, would be a benefit to the mercantile marine. It would provide an adequate supply of British sailors, and would be a benefit to the Royal Navy, because it would increase the Reserve. It would also be a benefit to our juvenile population by providing for them a means of entering an honourable profession, which they at present do not possess. But I am sorry to say that, when we come to consider the form in which the proposal is placed before the Committee, we cannot give it our entire approval. In the first place, I do not see any real connection between carrying boys for the merchant service and the payment of light dues, and the remission of one-fifth stands in no just or necessary connection with the cost of the service to be given. Supposing a ship were to earn the full amount of dues she could earn in a year, and the remuneration was sufficient, which I do not think it is, no objection could be taken; but we have to consider the case of vessels that do not pay full dues—sailing ships and cargo steamers, that go on long voyages and only once or twice in the course of a year call at a port in the United Kingdom. These vessels would only mean a fraction, perhaps one-fourth, of the light, dues they earn, so that the carrying of these boys would be a constant expense, while the remuneration would be a variable amount, dependent upon the number of boys in the ship and the amount of light dues it might happen to incur. This seems to me to be a very strong objection to the clause, and if it is to be at all admissible it will have to be amended so as to provide, instead of— An allowance not exceeding one-fifth of the light dues paid during the year in respect of that ship, An allowance of one-fifth of the maximum light dues which could have been paid during the year. I desire now to turn for a moment to a consideration of the question of remuneration itself, and, in fairness to all who have practical knowledge, I maintain that the remuneration is inadequate for the services proposed. I agree with the honourable Member for Southampton in his estimate that thé lowest sum for which a boy sailor can be maintained for a year is £18. A vessel of 500 tons is required to carry one boy, and the remission amounts to £6 17s. 6d. A ship of 1,000 tons would have two boys, and the maximum amount she could earn would be £13 15s., and the cost of maintaining the boys would be £36. In a ship of 2,000 tons the maximum amount earned would be £27 10s., and three boys would be carried, who would cost £54; and so on with larger vessels. These figures support my contention that the remuneration is entirely inadequate for the service the shipowners are asked to perform. Another point in which shipowners consider that this proposal is defective is that it does not apparently provide for apprenticeship. There is a strong feeling that the boys should be indentured, so as to prevent their running away and taking service as ordinary seamen just when they are becoming useful.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

That is a detail left open for consideration.

MR. McARTHUR

It is a most important detail. A further objection we entertain to this proposal is that it will tend to perpetuate the payment of light dues, which has been considered by the shipowning community to be a great injustice. If in the future there should be a further demand for the abolition of these light dues, we should be met with the objection that they could not be abolished, because this scheme has been adopted, and the system could not, be disturbed. I object altogether to this proposal as a substitution for a contribution to the light dues from the Royal Navy, and I am strongly of opinion that as the ships of the Royal Navy, in common with the ships of the mercantile marine, benefit by the lights, the Navy ought to contribute its fair share towards the cost of maintaining the lights. On all these grounds it appears to me that the best course for the Government to take would be to withdraw this clause and discuss the matter on its merits, apart altogether from light dues, and after consultation with the various interests concerned, I can assure the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that shipowners, as far as I know, are in hearty agreement with him in his intentions, and they do not desire to make this an opportunity for creating unfair terms; they only desire some system in which they can co-operate heartily with the Government in giving it a fair trial, and it is to be hoped that will be done. But, if this clause is persevered with, it appears to me that it will be absolutely necessary to amend it in the way I have suggested.

MR. C. H. WILSON

As a practical shipowner, I only express the feeling of shipowners generally when I say that if the good which the President of the Board of Trade suggested would really be the result of this Measure it would receive the unanimous support of the shipowners of this country. We want to increase the number of British sailors, not only in the interests of the mercantile marine, but in the interests of Her Majesty's Navy. Starting from the first point, the question is asked, "Why are not British sailors increasing in number?" I answer that it is a question of £ s. d. When foreign sailors are in competition all over the globe with British sailors, at about one-fourth less wages, it is very difficult for the British shipowners to cope with that competi- tion, and difficult, to a certain extent, not to take advantage of it. Take the case of the town of Hull. There we have altogether 400 or 500 boys in orphanages and other institutions training for sea; but when they are ready to go to sea it is almost impossible to find openings for them. The shipowners, who have the keenest competition with the foreigners, do not want supernumerary hands on board their vessels. Boys are a good deal of trouble, and officers do not like to take them. Altogether there are so many difficulties in the way that, speaking as chairman, of one of these large orphanages, I can say that hardly any of the boys go to sea. Ships will take a certain number of boys, but I believe that they are used in a way which would not come under this Resolution; that is, they are used in, the engine-room. But another result would follow, which is not contemplated in this Resolution. Where are we to draw the line between men belonging to the ship and boys added to it? The clause will bear inducement to shipowners to knock off a sailor and employ a boy. There is nothing in this Resolution to prevent them doing that, and the consequence will be that the mercantile marine will be to that extent less seaworthy than it is today. Take the Baltic trade, with which I am specially interested. Going back to the Crimean War, the Admiralty had to come to Hull to get their officers ranked as pilots for ships employed by Sir Charles Napier. What happened then might happen again, and the Admiralty would be to a certain extent dependent upon Hull. What is the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade doing to encourage Hull shipowners? The dues paid at present by Hull steamers of 1,000 tons engaged in the Baltic trade amount to £23, but under this Bill that amount would be multiplied by three, or, at least, would come to £66. Is that, to begin with, an inducement to a shipowner to put extra boys, who would be practically useless, on board his vessel, for the benefit of the Navy? It is true the shipowners will get one-fifth of that £66, but that is little more than £13, and what good will that be compared with the cost of maintaining two boys on board the ship? The thing is absurd, and although we acknowledge, as we must do, that the intentions of the Admiralty and of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade are in the right direction, still we maintain that the right honourable Gentleman has been misled by the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. If the right honourable Gentleman had taken the despised shipowners into his confidence he could have put before the country a proposal that would have been of some benefit to the mercantile marine, and to the Royal Navy. This Measure is foredoomed to complete failure, and that being the case is it wise on the part of the Government to persist with it? If the Government want to do something for the mercantile marine and for the Navy they should do the proper thing. Let the Admiralty find the means for training for the see a certain number of sailors from boyhood—4,000, 5,000, or 10,000 would be the proper number. Take these boys when they leave the institution, and train them up, give them food and proper attention, make men of them, and draft them into the mercantile marine as a Naval Reserve with power to call upon them when required. You would then get an efficient body of well-trained sailors, instead of these boys, a large number of whom, in all probability, would leave the sea, and go into land employment, and so be practically wasted. There are reasons almost in every direction in opposition to this scheme, and I think it would be wise on the part of the Government to withdraw it. I think, too, the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade ought to do the mercantile marine community and the Navy the honour of calling representatives into conference with him. We will do what we can to promote, what is really an object of national importance, the increase of British sailors in the mercantile marine, and the use of these men as a Naval Reserve in the interests of Her Majesty's Navy. I think the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when he analyses his own scheme, will acknowledge that he has been misled by the information of the Board of Trade officials—who ought to know better—and he will see also that it is doomed to failure, and had better be withdrawn, and something more substantial put in its place.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,) Hanover Square

I do not intend to discuss at this moment whether this scheme is foredoomed to failure, as the honourable Member for Hull [Mr. C. H. Wilson] says, or whether it is not so foredoomed. What I rise to do is to answer the extraordinary theories put forward by the honourable Member for Hull. The Government are proposing a scheme to increase the numbers of British sailors in the mercantile marine, and the honourable Gentleman opposite speaks as if we were acting in an entirely different direction. The honourable Member spoke as if the Government were to be patronised by the mercantile marine. He said in effect, "If you propose something that suits us extremely well we will be good enough to consider it." I maintain that the present scheme was expressly meant to assist the mercantile marine. [Cries of dissent.] I say it is. It offers to take money out of the general taxpayers' pocket in order to put it into the pockets of the shipowners.

SIR F. EVANS

I would remind the right honourable Gentleman that his colleague, the President of the Beard of Trade, has distinctly stated that this is not a contribution to the mercantile marine. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was not in the House when that statement was made.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

But I know what my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade said on the subject. The object of this Bill is a double one, but it is in the main intended to increase the number of British sailors in the mercantile marine, thereby offering, no doubt, a larger area from which we can draw Reservists for the Navy. I say frankly, I should never have approved of this scheme if its object were simply to increase the Naval Reserve. If that were the object of the Government, I can imagine it would have been possible to devise more practical and more attractive schemes. What the Government are anxious to do—and it is an object with which I am sure the whole House and the country will sympathise—is to assist in arresting the decline in the numbers of British seamen.

SIR F. EVANS

Why not have consulted us?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

The honourable Member asks: "Why not consult the shipowners about this proposal?" Year after year has gone by, and what proposals have the shipowners made for arresting the decline in the number of British seamen serving in the mercantile marine?

SIR F. EVANS

We have never been asked.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

The shipowners have treated this question as if it were the business of the country, and not theirs, to look after the interests of the mercantile marine. What other industry in the country does that? What other takes up that attitude? The honourable Member [Sir Francis Evans] speaks as if there were no objection to taking boys; but he also talks of each boy occupying a ton and a half of extra cargo space. But I ask, are the shipowners satisfied with working their ships as they are worked by foreigners? As a matter of fact, it is out of the way of the ordinary functions of the Government to propose a Measure of this kind.

SIR F. EVANS

Why do you do it?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

Does the honourable Member argue that it is the business of the Government to assist to increase the number of British sailors in the mercantile marine?

MR. C. H. WILSON

Yes, certainly.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

The shipowners argue that it is the business of the Government to assist the mercantile marine in this way. I have never heard it put in so crude a, form. The honourable Member for Southampton has put forward his calculations as to what the cost of the boys will be; but he forgets that in the second or third year these boys become useful, and will probably save the wages of a man.

SIR F. EVANS

I assure the First Lord of the Treasury that I did not mention the question of wages. In such a case I should, of course, have to pay wages.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

My honourable Friend will pardon me if I ask him a question. Are the shipowners going to make this simply a question of pounds, shillings, and pence?

MR. C. H. WILSON

I have distinctly said so.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

Are they going to say that, because they do not get a certain sum of money, they will do nothing in the matter? The honourable Member's figures are exaggerated, but is it not a question of immense importance to shipowners that the number of British sailors should be increased?

MR. C. H. WILSON

The shipowners cannot afford to do it in competition with foreign ships.

THE CHAIRMAN

It would be more convenient if the right honourable Gentleman were allowed to finish his speech without interruption.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

I agree, Mr. Lowther, that it would be more convenient, but, at the same time, these interruptions draw out in a curious way the views of honourable Members opposite. It now comes to this: that they say they cannot meet foreign competition, and that, therefore, they ought to be subsidised by the country at large in order to be able to meet the foreign competition.

* SIR C. CAYZER (Barrow-in-Furness)

May I ask if the right honourable Gentleman is aware that many foreign Governments subsidise their mercantile marine?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

I am aware of that, and there are many others whom they also subsidise; but I am not aware that it was ever proposed to subsidise British shipowners, because they cannot otherwise meet foreign competition. The Government have brought forward this proposal with the object of increasing the number of British sailors in the mercantile marine. For years the number of British seamen in the mercantile marine has been going down, yet shipowners have never put forward any proposals. They have gone on from year to year, remaining absolutely passive in the matter, and when now the Government bring forward a well-meant proposal, the first Measure we have introduced, and one which we believe is calculated to benefit the shipowners and increase the number of British seamen in the mercantile marine, we are met by the opposition of some, although I hope not all, of the shipowners.

SIR F. EVANS

I really must put the First Lord of the Admiralty right in regard to one or two important statements the right honourable Gentleman has made. I stated that the shipowners were not willing to make this a matter of £ s. d., and that we were not afraid to lose some money on behalf of the Government.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

On behalf of the Government?

SIR F. EVANS

Yes, on behalf of the Government. The right honourable Gentleman said that my figures were exaggerated. Let me say that I did not think a charge like that could be made against us in this connection unless the right honourable Gentleman was prepared to substantiate it. I get as many men as I want to go to the Royal Naval Reserve, and I keep their pay going all the time. That was done, not for the benefit of my company, but for the benefit of the Navy; and I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will see that such a charge as he made should not have been made. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said that I was guilty of gross exaggeration, but my figures were perfectly correct. The amount we have to pay in light dues during a year is £3,785; and if we were to save one-fifth of these dues they would amount to £750 a year. I have put them at £35 a piece, because I, at any rate, know it will cost that much, although it has been estimated that they will cost £50. That will make something like £3,700. I think the First Lord should accept my statements, and not say they are exaggerated unless he can prove it.

COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)

I have spoken with one of the largest shipowners in the kingdom on this matter, and he stated that if the Government would grant a reduction of 20 per cent, on the light dues, he and his company would carry what they call boys before the mast. That gentleman has got all he asked in the shape of 20 per cent, and he is prepared to verify his words. I also laid before one of the largest shipowners in the city of London this morning the Government's proposal, and he, too, said that under these conditions—whether it might pay him or not he did not know, and he did not particularly care—his mind was made up, and he would be pleased to carry these apprentice boys. There is no question that our leading industry is the shipping industry, and it must be prepared to make some sacrifice if it is to maintain its position. There is one argument in regard to this proposal which occurred to my mind on the remarks of the honourable Member for King's Lynn, namely, that this proposal was going to stereotype the light dues. If this is so, then it will be fatal to it, for I agree with the honourable Member for King's Lynn that these light dues ought to be paid by the country and not by the trade; and if I thought that this little clause was going to stereotype the light dues out of the pockets of the shipowners I would not support it; but I fail entirely to see how they would be stereotyped, for, in the first place, they are going to get 20 per cent, off the light dues; and secondly, the proposal is only for a limited time. I can quite appreciate the argument of an important shipowner like the honourable Member for Southampton; and I am perfectly certain that if he wished to produce an increase of boys for the Royal Naval Reserve I do not think he would have much difficulty in doing so. The question of indemnity should be brought out, as well as the number of boys in the engine-room; you must double the number if necessary; but it is essential for us to have a proper number of men to handle the engines in the Royal Navy, as well as in the mercantile marine. I do not think there is really anything more to be said, except that I would appeal to the House not to take this purely as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. Shipowners will have our own native sailors, and that will redound more to our credit than to see ship after ship leaving port with nothing but foreign sailors on board. If we only get a chance of carrying these boys to sea, I am sure the scheme will succeed; whereas, if we are thrown back on Scandinavia and Germany, I shall dread the future of our mercantile marine. I remember a case where four vessels were despatched to America in which the only Englishmen were the captain and chief mate. There was not a single Briton besides. Now we are going to have a class of men introduced upon whom we can rely; and notwithstanding what my honourable Friend says I predict that before this scheme is in operation a couple of years its benefits will be seen and proved. At any rate, give it a chance. Supposing it were allowed to run, say, for six years, if it turns out a failure at the end of that time it can be stopped. For these reasons I am thoroughly in favour of this clause; and if the House adopts it, it will have gone some way towards meeting the shipowners.

* SIR C. CAYZER

I regret I cannot support my honourable Friend in all his conclusions, but I am sure, Sir, that shipowners throughout the country will welcome very heartily any Measure that will make provision for an adequate supply of seamen to fill wastage in the Naval Reserve; but I doubt whether the proposal comes in the right form by attaching the condition of making rebates to shipowners in respect of light dues. It appears to me that if this proposal were carried out it would admit the equity of these dues, and I for one am of opinion that the light dues should be a general charge to the country. If they were a general charge to the country, lighting of our coasts would be more effectively administered, and possibly there would be less loss of life through the want of effective lights. If, however, it were insisted that the payment should be made from the light dues, I for one should not object to rear apprentices, provided that the conditions are sufficient and are such as are likely to attract apprentices to our ships. Of course we have not been able to consider all the conditions which have been put before us only this afternoon. To my mind many of these conditions would effectively stop the object of this proposal. I think the chief articles of the agreement should make the service continuous, and not for nine months carrying boys as apprentices. I see this has since been granted. But as regards payment, will what has been proposed be a sufficient inducement, when you consider the competition which our large foreign-going steamers have to contend with? I think we should look more to the coasting trade and to the smaller ships of the country for rearing the men required; and we know well that men reared in coasting ships make the best sailors. Now, what would be the attraction to the steamship owner to carry these men? For a foreign or coasting vessel the payment would not exceed £4 yearly per boy. It is a most important subject, and I regret that it should have been brought down here at the last moment. If the shipowners had been consulted, I am sure better conditions could have been devised, even if the payment came under the head of light dues. If it is intended as a quid pro quo for the payment, which, undoubtedly, should be made by the Royal Navy towards the maintenance of the light dues, I object to it as such. The Navy have the service of the lights, and I do not see why shipowners should be taxed twice in this respect. You have as much right to ask the shipowners of this country to pay the Admiralty gas bill. If the Navy render service to the shipping industry they also render service to every other industry in the country. This should not be made a set-off, and the Navy ought to pay a fair contribution towards the maintenance of the lighting of our coasts. The conditions which have been put forward are such as would require consideration, and although shipowners throughout the country are equally desirous with the Government of increasing the number of British seamen it can only be effectively done by agreement with them. It would conduce to the attainment of this end if the President of the Board of Trade, instead of making these conditions final, would consult the shipowners in order that they might be put into a more acceptable form.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

They are the general outcome of what was discussed, but I shall be very glad to consult the shipowners on the subject as far as possible.

* SIR C. CAYZER

I am pleased to hear that statement, because before, if a Division were challenged, I should certainly have voted against the proposal; but after what my right honourable Friend has said I shall certainly support the new clause, as I believe, if these conditions are extended, it may have the result, in a partial degree, but not to the extent which my right honourable Friend indicates, of raising 16,000 boys; but even if it is only one-third of that number the increase will have a beneficial effect.

DR. CLARK

I regret when this matter was before the House before that the President of the Board of Trade did not adopt my suggestion in regard to sailers and tramp vessels. However, I think the clause is a very wise one, and I thoroughly support it. It is only the thin end of the wedge, and, in my opinion, it does not go far enough. I think I may point out this to those gentlemen here who only represent one section of the ships, namely, the steamboat owners. This is not for you. We have two classes of vessels—sailing vessels and steam vessels. To the sailing vessels it is a very valuable boon. They have the seamen, and steamships I have got the advantage of them. Sailing vessels are bound to be a benefit to the steamers, for it is the former which have the best facilities for training seamen. We are told that boys are troublesome and a nuisance; but do not forget that in these sailing vessels there are royals and topgallant sails, which can only be handled by boys. One argument advanced is that the contribution proposed will not be enough towards the cost of the boys. Well, if it is not enough you do not need to carry them. This is an attempt to subsidise sailing vessels which fulfil certain conditions, and I should have liked the Government to have subsidised steamers which carry a certain number of officers and men and comply with all the requirements which allow them to carry the blue ensign. We are told, finally, that this proposal will bolster up the present light dues, and that the burden of them will be transferred from the shipping interest to the general community. Well, we have tried that before, and it has not been a success; and you are not going to do it at the present time. You are not raising the question de novo. In any case it won't do any harm to the steamer owners, and I cannot see any reason for the opposition they have made to it. It does not affect them. If you get sailing vessel owners to increase the number the result is that you get more seamen to be transferred from the sailing vessels to the steamers. If they do not pay as much they pay their share. It is a very serious problem, because we are changing from the old-fashioned sailing vessels to have our work done by steamers. The old sailing vessel becoming extinct, you cannot find sailors, and you thus become dependent upon Germany and other countries, where sailing vessels abound, for that valuable article. The sailor is the only man we can depend upon, for instance, for fishing around our coasts. Sailing vessels are the nurseries of the ocean, and they deserve every encouragement we can give them.

SIR J. JOICEY

I am rather surprised at the sentiment expressed by my honourable Friend who has just sat down, that this is to be a very great boon indeed to small sailing vessels. Now, if my information be correct—and I believe it is, as I have it from gentlemen who have large interests in small vessels—I am told that instead of this being a boon to them it will considerably increase the dues paid by these small vessels.

SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS

No, no!

SIR J. JOICEY

I am told that these small sailing vessels run all round the coasts to the Baltic, to the very districts where there is to be a considerable increase of dues. Therefore I assure my honourable Friend that there is no boon in this matter to the class of interests named. But to take the Bill as a whole—the clause as a whole—I am afraid you will find that it is anything but a boon to the special class of interests which my honourable Friend put forward. We all have an interest, undoubtedly, in increasing the number of our sailors. In these days, when we have a sudden increase in our naval power, it is absolutely necessary to have an increase in our sailors from which we can draw for the Navy; but I am bound to say that the First Lord of the Admiralty, in attempting to put the responsibility of making this provision, is not taking the right course. He rather sneers at the increase of the outlay it will involve; but who is to pay for it? I protest, not the shipowner. Why not the general taxpayer, who gets the benefit of it? Whenever my right honourable Friend makes a demand, and gets millions and millions in response, he seems to make light of it. Well, Sir, I would rather take the opinion of my two honourable Friends below me and of my Friend opposite as to the success of the clause. These gentlemen are authorities on the question of ships, and no one in this House will deny their capacity to speak on a matter of this kind. They say that this scheme will prove a failure, and I am rather inclined to think that is true. When you are inclined to put an idea like this into the Mercantile Marine Bill you must consult the shipowners, as, unless the shipowners are prepared to work with you loyally, the project will fail. Therefore I say we ought to consult them now, before passing this Measure into law. I think my right honourable Friend said it will assist the shipowners. The object of the clause may indirectly assist the mercantile marine; but, undoubtedly, the main object is to assist Her Majesty's Navy, the object being to get sailors. If, then, that is the main object the Government ought to pay for it. It should not be got out of private enterprise. Now, Sir, I am not going to discuss this Bill further in connection with this clause; but I will make this one declaration, that the way in which these dues are levied is certainly most unjust. You are taking a burden off one shoulder of the shipowner to put it on the other, because you have not a sufficiently large representation of small shipowners in this House. I will only add, Sir, as I am informed by gentlemen who are able to judge, that this is a bad Bill, and I trust it will never become law.

* MR. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

I am most keenly interested in this subject of the employment of boys in the mercantile marine, which is both for the benefit of the Admiralty and of the shipowners. I also have the honour of representing the shipping interest in Liverpool. I am in no way advocating anything which is unworkable, and in speaking here today I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman not to press this clause, and I do so for this reason: it will not have the effect which he desires, but will rather prejudice its accomplishment. If I thought for a moment that by passing this clause its object would be carried to a successful issue I should give it a hearty welcome. My honourable Friend the Member for the Exchange Division thought it possible that ships might not earn the ordinary amount of their dues, and yet having engaged the boys to the end of the year it might turn out at the end of that time, when they looked for a rebate of their dues, that the cost of the boys far exceeded any advantage they might have gained. My honourable Friend referred to an amendment of this clause by substituting for "light dues paid" words to the effect that the shipowners should have one-fifth of the maximum chargeable amount which could have been earned. Well, unless these words are excepted, there would clearly be a very serious injustice done; and as regards these ships the clause would certainly prove unworkable. As I understand it the right honourable Member is unable to accept this Amendment, I believe, owing largely to the forms of the House. That seems to me to show the propriety of withdrawing the clause.

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I told my honourable Friend that I could not possibly accept it for financial reasons; but there was another reason I mentioned, namely, that it would not be in accordance with the Resolution passed in Committee.

MR. LAWRENCE

Well, that may be a very good reason, but I still say this is a matter so important that it ought not to have been brought on on a Wednesday at the end of the Session upon a scratch Debate. We are all ready enough to facilitate the passing of Acts of Parliament which will turn out to be useful; yet with all our care we often fail, but here we have a clause in black and white which will evidently do nothing. I therefore urge honourable Gentlemen— speaking as I do, not as a shipowner—to consider well their decision, and to do nothing to prejudice the great question which we all have so much at heart. My right honourable Friend quotes the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs, but there are many shipowners who do not agree with the figures of the honourable Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. I would only add that, having heard the information which gentlemen from various parts of the country have communicated as to the propriety of inserting this clause, it would be an appropriate thing to withdraw the clause and bring in, instead, a Bill at the beginning of next Session, when the whole problem can be fairly and fully discussed.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough)

Sir, I am at a loss to understand why the Government has introduced the clause at all. Apparently shipowners do not require it, and I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that the seamen do not require it. There has been considerable talk about the scarcity of British seamen, but I venture to say very respectfully that gentlemen who talk about the scarcity of British seamen know nothing whatever about it. I am constantly visiting ports, and I have had conversations with a large number of officers throughout the year, and if you take a ship in port, say in the Tyne, or North Shields, you will find that for every one man engaged there are 20 or 30 bidding with him for that solitary berth. It is altogether a mistake for shipowners, or for anyone else, to say that there is a scarcity of seamen. I candidly say so because I am in a position to prove it. The great trouble our men have is to get employment. I know that in the majority of shipping ports if a man is able to get employment within five or six weeks after leaving his last vessel he thinks himself very fortunate indeed. Why, then, should the Government wish to provide so large a number of men for the mercantile marine, when we have not employment for the men we have already? The right honourable Gentleman no doubt says we want British seamen. Well, are parents likely to be anxious to send their sons away as professional seamen when there is the prospect that as soon as they have obtained their able-seaman's certificate they are not able to get employment? Besides, the salary is so small that it is not sufficient to keep a man. Although I do not wish to make any unfair charges against members of the shipping community in this House, I do say that there are some shipowners who pay their men as low as £3 per month in their steamers. That would not be a bad thing in itself if it were only for continuous employment; but when you consider that the average employment is for voyages lasting from six to seven weeks, and when you take into account the interval between leaving one ship and joining another, you will find that these seamen do not get more than about seven months' employment in the year. I repeat, it is altogether a mistake to talk about providing more men for the mercantile marine. I should like to see the Government build more ships before seeking more men. If they had followed the recommendation of the Committee and insisted that every ship should carry a proper complement of men it would have been more to the purpose. That would have been satisfactory to owners and men alike; but this proposal pleases neither. But there is another part of the clause, Mr. Lowther, which seems somewhat strange to me, and that is the condition that the owners shall not have this money unless the apprentices join the Naval Reserve. Now, I want to know why seamen should be the only class of workmen who should be forced into the service of the Government. It seems to me like conscription to say that a lad shall not go to sea unless he says he will join the Naval Reserve. Tell me why seamen should be compelled to join the Government service any more than any other class of men. You might as well say the same of men on shore and give them a bounty, and demand that every apprentice you take into your works shall join the Militia. Well, I believe that employers would object to any such proposal; and on behalf of the seamen I enter my protest against this clause. As it stands the argument is utterly nonsensical. Again, if it were insisted that every seaman should have a. certificate before going to sea as a qualified seaman, shipowners in their own interest would provide themselves with apprentices without any such bounty as this being offered. But supposing this proposal is carried and the shipowners commence to carry apprentices, I want to know what is to be the outlook of these lads. The shipowner does not always require them. He engages hands in Hamburg, Rotterdam, or Amsterdam for a few shillings cheaper. I do not say this of all shipowners, nor do I charge my honourable Friends with it. I want to clear them from any imputation of that sort. But there are a certain number of "tramp" vessel owners with whom that is a system, and I am afraid the right honourable Gentleman has not done much to change it. The system prevails still that these vessels on arrival at those foreign ports discharge their crews whom they have engaged at £4 per month and take on the foreigner instead at £3 per month. Will the right honourable Gentleman insert a further clause in his Bill to stop this system, so as to give the British seaman an opportunity of retaining his employment? I think the Government has made a mistake in bringing forward this clause, and I hope the House will reject it.

* SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

Sir, I am bound to protest against the statements of the honourable Member who has just sat down. I sympathise strongly with his trade union grievances, but that is no reason why I should support him when he comes here today and tries to prevent the Government taking the first step in a direction which I am sure will be welcomed throughout the country. I agree with my honourable Friend from one point of view; but, Sir, we have to consider this proposal in itself, on its merits, as it comes before the House. It is no new proposal which is being forced on the House in the last days of the Session; but has been adopted after long negotiations by the Government, after considering suggestions emanating from all quarters, and after it has been approved in the Press, when it was argued in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill three or four months ago. My honourable Friend speaks of it as a new matter. Why, it has been under constant discussion for the last four years at least, and we have been rather slow than otherwise in taking this step. The First Lord of the Admiralty, it is thought, throw cold water on it, but has now slowly followed the opinions of the country. Those who have taken an interest in this question ought to give the Government their heartiest and warmest support. A great deal has been said of the injury this will do to the shipowners. How are they damaged? On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed a view in favour of exempting shipowners from light dues, and I would even go as far as this, that I would exempt them from the light dues altogether, as I think it is a charge which should be borne by the country. I would also exempt them from the consular charges upon certain conditions, although I should want something from them in return. But that is outside the present Bill, and we have to consider where they would be damaged as regards the future in accepting the principle of this clause. Now, Sir, I do not think it would injure them at all. There is nothing compulsory about it. They need not carry the boys unless they like. They are not forced to do so; and therefore I cannot think that they have any proper or legitimate grievance upon which to base their opposition to the clause. Then there is another question. It is said that it will preclude them from raising the larger question of the abolition of light dues in the future. But if you are going to consider this question generally and take the result of public discussion, it is much more likely to help it forward next Session. They will be in no worse position by accepting this principle at the present time. The honourable Member for Southampton comes down and says the clause will be a failure. Of course, we are all looking at it from different points of view. I should not have thought myself that my honourable Friend's arguments would be conclusive. I should not have thought that many of these steamers were filled up to so narrow a point that the carrying of the boys would have been so serious a matter. I certainly should never have thought that the mail steamers would have run so near the mark as that. Of course we are in a difficulty; laymen in this House must be in a difficulty, more or less, in meeting the arguments of shipowners in a matter of this kind; but my honourable Friend's grievance is not so great as he imagines, for although these boys are not equivalent to able seamen, they would count in the Board of Trade returns as equivalent to a fixed number of able seamen. I take it that the effect of this clause will be to increase the number of able seamen, for at the end of two years two of these boys, I suppose, would count at least as one able seaman.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I have spoken to those specially qualified to speak on the point, and I am told that many of those young men—they are rather more than boys—would be quite as efficient and would be counted as ordinary seamen, and that certainly after two years there would hardly be one of them who would not count as an able seaman.

* SIR C. DILKE

Well, I was putting it even lower than that.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

This is a very material point. The right honourable Gentleman says that after three years boys can be counted as ordinary seamen. That is to say, the expenses would be less, because the boys would be able to undertake the duties of ordinary seamen. The object of this clause is to increase the number of seamen.

* SIR C. DILKE

I never heard it alleged that the object was to increase the total number of seamen. The effect it is intended to secure is the increase of the British element among our seamen. That, I think, is the object as it was explained by the President of the Board of Trade. However, it is quite clear that there is a considerable amount of opposition to the proposal on the part of a number of the shipowners; but I cannot think, in this resistance to the Board of Trade, that they are wise in their generation. This clause is only the thin end of the wedge; but by driving it home it will do much to strengthen the arm of our marine service. Therefore I regard it as most foolish on the shipowners' part to oppose what is really in the national interest.

* SIR E. HILL (Bristol, S.)

I venture to congratulate the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on having recognised the necessity of doing something in order to increase the proportion of the British seamen employed in merchant vessels. I think it is distinctly a step in the right direction. The clause may not possibly go as far as some would wish; but it is, at all events, a sign of recognition by Her Majesty's Government of a subject which requires very serious consideration. I, Sir, have looked for several years past with considerable alarm at the increase of foreigners employed in our vessels and the corresponding decrease of British sailors. It is true that we have lost the nurseries of seamen which we formerly possessed in our sailing fleets. My honourable Friend thinks it would be a good thing to encourage the employment of seamen in our coasting trade, and no doubt it would. Again, our fisheries are being rapidly monopolised by steam trawlers. Every week I see steam trawlers being built, and so supplanting the old type of vessel. That is all in the direction of depleting the ranks of really good sear men. But, then, it is suggested that foreigners are engaged in British vessels because they are cheaper. That, Sir, is a mistake, as, so far as I know, when British and foreign seamen are engaged together in a British vessel each gets the same wages. It is quite true that abroad foreign vessels flying a foreign flag often pay their men less wages than we do.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

What I said was that British vessels pay less wages in Rotterdam and Hamburg than they do in England.

* SIR E. HILL

I was not talking of Rotterdam or Hamburg. What I say is that when a seaman signs articles in England, be he British or foreigner, he receives the same wages. As I have said, however, I know it is a practice with foreign vessels to pay a less rate of wages than British owners do. Well, Sir, I think everyone will agree that it is extremely desirable to replace the foreign element in our vessels by British seamen, and I am quite sure that most shipowners will welcome and give preference to the British sailor over the foreigner as far as possible for his reliability alone. Mention was made of the decrease of our natural nurseries of seamen; but in this connection one thing has been overlooked, and it is of serious importance. Not only are we lacking in this respect, but there is the fact that a great source from which we derive our seamen is Norway, and there also steam vessels are being supplanted by sailers. The time seems to be not far distant when the sailing vessel trade will be wholly absorbed by the steam vessels. I do not think this is the time when I would be justified in discussing whether or not the Royal Navy should pay any part of the light dues. I would only mention this, that when I had the honour of being on the Committee of the Mercantile Marine Bill —although we were unanimous in our report—it must not be considered that the shipowners were agreed that the Navy should be exempt. We were compelled to consider many matters in connection with that Bill, and compromises were needful. It is a Bill which will be a very great advantage to the mercantile marine of this country. I do not think the public have any right to expect the British shipowner to take boys from a patriotic principle. If the British mercantile marine is not manned by British sailors, the time of emergency may come when the Royal Navy will require to supplement its crews from the mer- chant vessels and then they might find there were no sailors to be had. That is a reason, at all events, why we should encourage the shipowner to take British seamen. There is another thing to be considered, and that is you have no reasonable prospect, if you engage your boys for four years, of keeping them. They will go two years, and then a boy, under the present system, has only to say to his master, "I don't wish to serve you any longer," and his indenture must be cancelled. I should like to see some guarantee given by the Naval Reserve that would remedy this evil. On all these considerations, therefore, I hope that this clause will be passed, even if it is with some modification. I thank the President of the Board for his efforts to remedy a state of things which is by no means desirable either for the shipping community or the country at large.

On the return of the CHAIRMAN at twenty-five minutes past three,

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Sir, this proposal, although it appears to be somewhat small, is of the very greatest importance. I hold that to train the boys properly in the mercantile marine the only chance is to get them young, and I am glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty recognises this principle. The only point that has arisen in my mind as to the proposal now before the Committee is whether the scheme will work. I came here the other night prepared to gather light from the wise men of the shipowning class. I have heard of shipowners who run ships, and of shareholders who run companies, and I say that those interested in shipowning require unanimity. I admit that I know less about the matter now than I did before hearing them. I must remark here, Sir, that a certain amount of misapprehension has arisen from this clause. It has nothing to do with the lighthouse fund, and it is, in fact, an extra Naval Vote. It has nothing to do with outside contribution. I rather expected the First Lord of the Admiralty would have given us some views of the Admiralty, but I suppose he will do so when he comes to reply. The working of this clause will depend on two sets of rules, one to be made by the President of the Board of Trade, and the other by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The First Lord of the Admiralty did not tell us the rules that he proposes to lay down, because it is manifest that upon these rules the success of this experiment must depend. Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the right honourable Gentleman, and it is that from my point of view all the rules ought to be made by the Admiralty. However, this question is for the Admiralty itself; but I should prefer that this rule should be made by the Admiralty, and not by the Board of Trade. Now, Sir, this is really a new Naval Vote for a specific purpose, and a very good purpose, for the purpose of increasing the number of boys between the ages of 15 and 19 in the mercantile marine. I wish to enter my caveat against one statement of the President of the Board of Trade, a statement which has been exploded, that there are only 35,000 British seamen in the mercantile marine. That is a fallacy, and has been repeated again and again; and if he had taken the figures he would have seen that there are 178,994.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

I gave the figures of 1896 and of 1891 for the purpose of comparing the number of British seamen and the number of foreign seamen employed on those ships in 1896 and 1891. I did not say there were not other ships.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

The question is a, very important one, and I should not like it to go forth on the authority of the President of the Board of Trade that there are only 35,000 British seamen in the mercantile marine. The numbers merely include those who, in the language of the Registrar, are technically so-called sailors, able-bodied seamen, ordinary seamen, and boys; they do not include stokers, carpenters, quartermasters, masters, and mates, who together would more than double the numbers. I very much doubt that the total numbers have diminished at all taken together. The figures only represent those who serve for one day in one year, and I am perfectly convinced that there are over half a million British sailors, if fishermen, colonial sailors, and the Navy are included. I do not go further than that. The right honourable Gentleman calculates that he may get 16,000 boys. Here a very serious question arises, whether £4 per annum for each boy—which is what the estimate works out at—will pay the shipowners; but, at any rate, the experiment is one to which everybody must wish well. I was glad to notice that the right honourable Gentleman is prepared to consider modifications in his scheme as time brings experience. There is one other point, if boys are got it will be necessary to recast the Royal Naval Reserve. You must make a new and special class, and I do not see exactly where you are going to place the boys who will be put into this new class. I earnestly trust that this experiment will not be allowed by the First Lord or the Admiralty to interfere with the marvellous success of the Naval Reserve. Now, all I wish to say is, that this experiment can do no harm. I am not sure that the scheme quite recognises the principle of catching the seamen young, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will bear this in mind, that he will not depart from that principle in regard to the Britannia and the Navy generally. If this scheme does work well, it will be a very great advantage to the mercantile marine itself, and I hope also to the Royal Naval Reserve. Under these circumstances I think the President of the Board of Trade is entitled to credit for the courage with which he has made this extremely novel experiment, and I shall certainly support him.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

Mr. Speaker, the idea is this: these boys will be taken from the age of 15 to 18 or 19, and I agree with the honourable Member that nothing in this proposal must interfere with the present system of the Naval Reserve. That system is working well, and I would be unwilling to make any change which would in any degree weaken that system. What we wish to do by this proposal is to increase the area of seamen, sailors, and others on whom we can draw. During the first three years, while the boys are serving in the mercantile marine, the Admiralty have nothing to do except to keep a register of the undertaking that these boys will belong to the Naval Reserve. They are the material which is being prepared for the Naval Reserve.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

At the expense of the shipowners!

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

No. Besides, I believe the shipowners want a Naval Reserve as much as any other class. As a seafaring nation, we should increase the number of our seafaring men, and no artificial method on the part of the State in bringing up men for the mercantile marine can possibly be of assistance unless that body works cordially with the Admiralty. That being so, at the end of three years the 8,000 boys who will have acquired the qualifications for the Naval Reserve, which is insisted on, would be, in consideration of their having been to a certain extent paid by the State, bound as a matter of promise and undertaking to join the Naval Reserve. For three years they will have been passive members of the Naval Reserve, liable to take up their active duties at the expiration of that period. They will be liable to be called on to drill for 28 days, and they will have to go to sea for six months as seamen of the second class. In fact, they will be trained in precisely the same way as the Naval Reserve are at present, and when they will have reached the necessary age they will be treated in precisely the same way as any other sailors willing to enter the naval service. Let me repeat that we are not going to treat these boys as Naval Reserve men for three years; they will not be substantially in the Naval Reserve until after three years have expired. My honourable Friend has spoken of stokers, and I may tell him that, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, we will be prepared to extend the Naval Reserve system. At present I am not prepared to say that stokers should not be in the Naval Reserve.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

The honourable Member for King's Lynn has spoken of the shipowners as having shown, in the past, a want of unity, but I am glad to know that the shipowners are becoming alive to the desirability of exercising as much co-operation as possible on Bills of this character and generally. The First Lord of the Admiralty has just referred to the co-operation of shipowners with the Navy, and we all hope that such will always be the case. He said, if I took his words correctly, that the shipowners wanted the Naval Reserve as much as any other class in the country. On the other hand, I think the shipowners will require more reciprocity both from the Admiralty and from thy general community. For instance, in relation to this Bill, instead of the mercantile marine bearing the whole charge of the light dues, it seems to me that it would be more just if a contribution had been promised towards that fund by both the President of the Board of Trade and the First Lord of the Admiralty in consideration of the just requirements of the shipowners. Now, I wish to give further credit to the right honourable Gentleman for having proposed this clause with the object of benefiting two important rational classes. In the first place I think it will tend upon the whole to give a better element to our mercantile marine in securing the employment of more British seamen, who have been comparatively lessened owing to the decrease of the coasting trade and sailing ships, to the better education given abroad, and, in some cases, to misconduct, and I hope there is an improvement in these directions. I think, in order to tend towards the improvement of the Naval Reserve, and also benefit the mercantile marine, that this clause is worth consideration. But, Sir, when we consider the mode in which it has been proposed and is practically to be worked, I think some difficulties present themselves. Why have the Government not dealt with this matter directly instead of dealing with it through the medium of a Light Dues Bill? Why, what connection has this with the question of light dues? If it be proposed to the House on the ground of strengthening the Navy it would be a different matter; but what I think is the general difficulty in. connection with this Measure, is that it will introduce new anomalies and inequalities into the shipping trade. It will, while carrying some benefit to certain classes, also bear a great burden on other classes. While the large liners may be benefited, the cargo ships and tramp ships as a whole will not receive any benefit in proportion to the large interests they represent in the mercantile marine. It is quite true that such ships pay a large aggregate of the light dues, but on the other hand, their individual benefit under this clause will be small, owing to their smaller tonnage and consequent less light dues to be paid. There is one thing on which I think there should be a clear understanding in connection with the light dues fund. It has hitherto been the practice to have a system of set-offs. It has been said that while the Navy makes no contribution to the light dues, many special services are rendered to the mercantile marine which are a set-off. I think it should be made perfectly clear today that we do not take this proposal as in any sense a substitute for the duty of the Admiralty and the community in relation to the question of making a contribution to the light service. If the shipowner is benefited, on the other hand the Navy will be very largely advantaged; and as to the estimate of £4 which has been mentioned, I think anyone who has any practical acquaintance with shipping cannot do otherwise than feel that this is ridiculous on the face of it. What will the shipowner have to do under the scheme of the right honourable Gentleman? He will have to employ untrained boys, and he will have to teach them; and as soon as they become competent the Government will have the first call upon their services, and, as I think, under the Act, will be at liberty to call for those services at any time. There is one point on which I should like the right honourable Gentleman to afford information, and it is this: does the Government propose to take the whole of these boys, or exercise its own will with regard to the proportion to be taken? There is another point which I think is of practical importance, and that is the difficulty which shipowners have in dealing with boys, in training them first, and then losing their services as soon as they become valuable. How far the condition that they are to enter the Royal Naval Reserve will prove a check upon such desertions is also a question. I can say the difficulty of retaining boys when they are bound, and have acquired some knowledge of seamanship, has been the chief obstacle in the way of their employment. Two or three years ago I was present at a distribution of prizes at the Royal Naval School at Greenwich. There were two boys who had distinguished themselves; they took prizes, but were disqualified, physically, from entering the Royal Navy. I thought that was a good opportunity of making an experiment on my own account, and I asked them if they would like to go into the mercantile marine, and what they could do. Their answer was that they could do everything that a seaman could do, except that they had not the requisite strength at the wheel, and would require assistance. That difficulty was got over, and they came to my firm; but as soon as they were getting to be practically useful on board the steamers those boys left the ship on the ground that they were not receiving seamen's wages. The school was excellent, and my disposition was to encourage those two boys, who had done well at the school. They had every inducement to do their duty, they certainly had good treatment, and yet as soon as they became really useful they left because they were not receiving seamen's wages. I only point that out as one thing we have to contend with, and I hope that in the regulations for the Naval Reserve some check will be adopted to prevent that which may deprive the proposal of much real practical value. I think the shipowners as a whole will be disposed—though I think it will benefit some, and that some will be, again, completely left out in the cold—will be disposed to entertain favourably this proposal as an experiment. But I repeat that the Bill does not do them justice; and I had hoped that even at the last moment that part of the proposal of today, of uniting the Navy to the mercantile marine more effectually, would have been accompanied by some offer of a contribution or grant on the part of the Government to pay some proportion of the cost of that light service which the proposal now made has passed over entirely—those lights which are essential to the Navy, which the Navy uses, which are as useful to the Navy as the mercantile marine, and without which navigation by either would be impossible, and that the Admiralty would have offered to bear its share of the cost, and to take from shipowners an unjust incidence of taxation which is not only disadvantageous to them, but which they believe to be thoroughly unjust, and to be taxation of a class for the benefit of the whole community, which is much better able to bear the burden.

MR. BRYCE

Sir, I have only two or three words to say to explain why, in case the two honourable Members for Liverpool, who have just spoken, also my honourable Friends on this side, the Members for Hull and Southampton, should divide against this clause—why I should feel bound, nevertheless, to vote for the clause. I do not think that we have lost at all, but that we have very much gained by the criticism that we have had from the shipowning Members of the House; and, in particular, I think that the Members for Southampton and Hull did not deserve the reproaches— were not justly reproached by the First Lord of the Admiralty. This is brought forward as a business proposal, and my honourable Friends were perfectly justified in criticising it as a business proposal, and I think it is for the benefit of the Committee, and of the Board of Trade itself, that the criticism of the honourable Members for Southampton and Hull should be heard, and that we should know now the view which many of the shipowning Members take. Nevertheless, those criticisms do not convince me that the proposals made may not have some practical result. It is said the proposal is not logical, because it ought to have been made by a separate Bill, and not contained in this Bill, dealing with lighting. In this House, Mr. Lowther, we are nothing if not illogical, and it would have been a pity if the Government had waited to make this proposal until at some future Session they had introduced a new Bill dealing with the question at large. I think, therefore, they have been well advised to take this opportunity of bringing forward this proposal, and I cannot refuse to vote for the clause, on these simple grounds: that it is a voluntary clause which no shipowner would accept unless he pleases; that it is an experimental clause which is avowedly brought forward only to be tried; and that it is a temporary clause, which will not last beyond six years. There is great force in the criticisms of my honourable Friend the Member for Southampton, but he will notice that it is in the power of the Board of Trade to modify the scale of regulations contained in the clause, and no doubt, if the scheme is not found to work on the present scale of regulations, they will exercise that power. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the importance of the scheme which the clause suggests, and the very real danger to the mercantile marine and Royal Navy of the diminishing supply of seamen, I cannot refuse to give my support to the clause.

MR. WARR

Perhaps the fact that I represent one of the Divisions of Liverpool may be deemed sufficient excuse for my saying a word, and it shall be only one word, on the subject of this clause. I have received a communication from the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, and I gather that the proposal which is embodied in this clause does not meet with their immediate approval, on the ground that there is an absence of information as to the scale and regulations under which the abatement will be made, and on the ground that they fear the abatement will benefit some classes of shipowners, and that others will not benefit in the same proportion, and especially they refer to the possibility of sailing ships—the owners of which are entitled to every consideration—and ships not belonging to regular lines, which they think will not benefit in the same proportion as the regular liners. Well, if it were a question of applying minute criticism to the operation of this clause, it would very likely be right that one should associate oneself with the very able criticism that one has heard from the honourable Member for Islington; but, for my part, notwithstanding all these doubts of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, and the doubts which have been suggested in the House, I have not the slightest hesitation in giving my most hearty support to the clause, because I think it is one which we should judge broadly — judge by the principles involved in it. The principle which is involved in it is one which should receive our most hearty approval, because it gives an encouragement to shipowners to em- ploy on their ships British boys, who are eventually to be British sailors, attached to the Royal Naval Reserve. Mr. Lowther, I think it is high time that such a principle was in force; and it is a principle, the adoption of which in this Measure will help those of us who believe hat encouragement should be given to co-operate with the Government in the training of boys who are afterwards to be enrolled in the British Reserves. I feel quite satisfied that such a proposal as this ought to be welcomed by every shipowner, and that it is destined to bear very good fruit in the future.

MR. WARNER

Sir, I only want to ask two questions on this matter. I think it is a matter of great importance to everybody that the Naval Reserve should be as strong as possible. The great fault strikes me as being that it does not give any encouragement to the employment of trained British seamen on merchantmen. Now, the British seaman is said to be kept out of it by low wages on account of foreign competition, but making a lot of apprentices will rather lower the wages of British seamen than increase them, and I know it will be rather detrimental to the number of British seamen serving on merchant vessels than increase them. Of course, if you create a glut in the market you will have plenty of men, but I do not think that is the way you ought to set about the matter. I think something should be done to encourage the British seaman. Then there is one other point, and that is that light dues will relieve certain ships very much more than others. A tramp going a very long journey and touching very few British ports, and sailing ships which will take a very long time to go a journey, will have very much more relief than those which are coasting about from one British port to another, and they will only have the same encouragement to carry boys, as ships going from one British port to another will have. I hope the Government will do something towards encouraging these ships also to take boys, or modify the regulations in such a way that there will be greater encouragement to those who do not get the same help in the way of light dues.

* SIR C. CAYZER

I should like to clear up one point, and it is this: I think it is generally agreed in this House that shipowners represented here are most anxious to carry out the object of this clause, but the sense of the Debate is that the conditions and scales and regulations put forward here for the first time today will make it impracticable to carry into effect all that is desired, and therefore I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether the scale of regulations and conditions under which the boys will be carried, will be submitted to the shipowners before they are fixed.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

Sir, I think this has been a most interesting Debate upon a very important subject, and that, practically, all issues that can be possibly raised in regard to this matter have been raised, and very fairly put from both sides of the House. I think now, after honourable Members have discussed the question in the manner I have mentioned, that we might be allowed to come to a decision upon the subject. I do not think the Government have any reason to complain about the general view which has been taken by the House with regard to their proposals. No doubt, Sir, there has been a difference of opinion between shipowners in the House with regard to the success, the probability of success, of the proposals which have been made, but I think that only two representatives of shipowners in the House have spoken absolutely adversely to the proposals—the honourable Gentleman the Member for Hull and the honourable Gentleman the Member for Southampton. There have been many other expressions of opinion from shipowners, and from those who represent shipowners, and while they have made certain criticisms, some of which I cannot agree with, with regard to our proposals, they have, on the whole, welcomed the proposal as a step in the right direction. Then, with regard to the honourable Members for Hull and Southampton, while they have raised doubts whether this scheme will work, I do not gather from them that they will not on their part endeavour, so far as they can, to make it a success. I do not gather that they expressed absolute hostility to the proposal, although they doubt whether it will be successful. I shall look to them to help the Government to make it successful, notwithstanding the adverse views they have expressed. But, Sir, the great majority of the shipowning opinion in this House is in favour, at least, of trying this experiment, and I say, without hesitation, that this is an opinion which is shared very largely by shipowning communities outside. I have received many representations from those who are justified in speaking on behalf of the shipping interests, that these representations have been almost uniformly in favour of the proposal, although many of them asked for some modification. Sir, I think the honourable Gentleman the Member for Southampton rather exaggerated—I am sure unintentionally—what might be the cost to some shipowners of putting this clause in force. Be it remembered that this contribution is not to be simply a contribution for the one year in which these boys will be non-effective. It is to be a contribution which will be continued in the second year, when they will be fairly effective, and in the third year, when they will be wholly effective, and take the place of men. So that, while undoubtedly the first year will not be a year of success, so far as the employment of these boys is concerned, when it is found that in the second and third years these boys take the place of men, earning men's wages, and doing men's work, but still getting this grant, I hope shipowners will see that what it amounts to—although only a grant of 20 per cent, of the light dues—is really a grant of 60 per cent, of the dues for the first year, in which these boys will be non-effective. I cannot help feeling that, looking at it from this point of view, the shipowners will see it will be a great advantage in assisting the Government in this way. Sir, my honourable Friend who has just sat down, the last speaker, suggested that we should submit the regulations to the shipowners. Sir, I do not believe there has ever been a President of the Board of Trade who has been more anxious to take the shipowners into consultation in regard to shipping matters than I have. Again and again, when a question arose affecting their interests, I have asked them to consult with me, and those consultations have always ended in an agreement between myself, the Board of Trade, and the shipowners. And this is not only with regard to shipowners, but with regard to those who represent the seamen. I have taken every opportunity of consulting them, and I shall continue to do so. With regard to this scheme there are questions of detail, in connection with it which require further consideration. I have been anxious to inform the House generally upon it, but they are not stereotyped proposals, and I shall be very glad indeed to consult with shipowners, and to endeavour to secure their co-operation in making this scheme of ours a success. Sir, I do not know that it is necessary for me to enlarge upon this subject. Something has been said about anomalies. Of course, there are anomalies in this proposal, so far as the earning power of these ships is concerned, but I do not care what system you adopt, there must be anomalies in that system. If you were to sweep away the light dues altogether tomorrow it would be quite open for a shipowner who paid very small light dues to say he was not given nearly as much as the shipowners who paid very largely; and so with regard to any proposal which might be made in that direction there might, and there must, be anomalies. I do not expect that all ships will take these boys. I think that there may be ships where it will be inconvenient to take these boys, but I do honestly believe that there are a very large number of ships which will take these boys, and that in the end we shall secure the result desired by all classes of the community.

SIR F. EVANS

Mr. Lowther, this is far too important a matter for us to have any doubts at all as to what we are going to vote upon, and I do not agree at all with the statements that have fallen from the President of the Board of Trade in reference to the opinion expressed, even in this House alone. Only three steamship owners, I think, have spoken in this Debate.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

Four.

SIR F. EVANS

Oh, four; three of them directly against the admission of this clause; the fourth also spoke against the admission of the clause, and then he said he was going to vote for it—a staunch supporter of Her Majesty's present Government. But is it not a curious thing that in a clause like this, gravely affecting what is said on both sides of the House to be the greatest industry in this country—is it not a strange thing that the Member for Liverpool—a man eminent as a lawyer, I believe—should get up and say something in favour of the clause, whilst the shipowning community of Liverpool say they are not in favour of it and do not understand it. That is to say, we are absolutely asked to vote in favour of a clause affecting this great industry, and the principal shipowning port of the kingdom say they do not know what the conditions are. [AN HONOURABLE MEMBER made an inaudible remark.] I did not hear what the honourable Member said, but he seems to think my remark about Liverpool is not correct. I am quoting exactly what the honourable Gentleman the Member for Liverpool said just now. Now, I want to put right the position we take up. First of all, you can never say that any shipowners of this country have been unpatriotic, or have been unwilling to meet the Government, or the Board of Trade, in any great changes which they want to bring about. We are only too willing to discuss with the Departments these questions, and I am sure if war ever breaks out with this country you will never have reason to think that the action of the shipowners is wanting in any of those attributes which we expect from our countrymen. I object very much to the aspersions thrown upon many of us by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think that he ought not to have thrown them, and that they are altogether undeserved. We have done our best to help the Navy, and will do so still. I object to the clause because it greatly affects this great industry, because no notice was given of it, and its details are entirely unknown to anyone who has not heard them tonight. I do not think the President of the Board of Trade is justified in pressing us to accept a clause about which we know nothing.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

Sir, I am sorry the right honourable Gentleman, in replying to the Debate, did not take any notice of the questions affecting seamen m this matter. At the present time every man serving on board a British ship is supposed to have served four years, that is, before he is entitled to the rating of A.B. That is the law. Yet, in spite of the fact that there is a section of the Merchant Shipping Act which provides that they shall not be signed on as able seamen unless they have four years' sea service, every day there are scores of men engaged on British ships who have never been at sea before—serving with bogus discharges procured by boarding masters and crimps of the worst kind. I have brought this question over and over again to the notice of the right honourable Gentleman, and he takes no notice of it. Then again, Mr. Lowther, there is the question of the foreign seamen on board British ships. There are hundreds of foreign seamen signed on board British ships as seamen who cannot speak or understand a word of the English language. The Board of Trade officials have no right to sign these men on, because the Merchant Shipping Act provides that no man shall be engaged on a British ship unless he understands the agreement read out to him, and what he is signing.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I do not think those matters are relative to the clause.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

I am coming round to that. I am a sailor, and it may be a sailor's way, a long way, but I am coming to that. The object of this clause is to provide a larger number of men for the mercantile marine, so that when the Navy wants more men it will have them. Now I am going to do what I can to persuade boys, or the parents of lads, not to send them to sea. I am going to do all I can in that direction, and I am going to do more than that—I am going to advise them not to join the Royal Naval Reserve, because of the scurvy, mean manner in which the Admiralty have served the seamen in refusing to give

them a pension at 50 instead of at 60, as at the present time. Over and over again I have made an appeal to the Admiralty to give a pension at 50; but the right honourable Gentleman, the First Lord takes no notice. Yet they want, and hope to get, eight or ten thousand men out of this scheme by giving the shipowners a bribe. Well, that is the usual manner with this Government—to give a bribe to those who can do well without it. Every section who can well afford to do without a bribe get it; but the seamen who really need it do not get it, I would recommend that he puts in a clause that wherever the British shipowner paid a fair rate of wages and gave a preference to foreigners who can understand the English language, or to Englishmen, that their light dues should be taken off entirely. I am bound to say he would have the sympathy of both sides of this House. He would certainly have the support of the Conservative Party in this country, because they have been talking in the country about the Aliens Bill, and I do not see that there is much difference between the aliens who come into our workshops and those who come into our ships. If the right honourable Gentleman wants to make himself popular, I would recommend him to let it remain open tonight, and bring it up again in the form of an Act— one for the British sailor, so as to encourage the employment of Britishers, and, if not entirely Britishers, at least foreigners who can understand our language. Mr. Lowther, I intend to protest, and protest vigorously, against this clause, and the matter will not be decided without a Division, for I shall divide the House if I can get anyone to support me.

Question put— That the clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 37.—(Division List No. 262.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)
Allhusen, Augustus H. E.	Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)
Arrol, Sir William	Baird, John Geo. Alexander	Banbury, Frederick George
Ascroft, Robert	Baker, Sir John	Barnes, Frederic Gorell
Asher Alexander	Balcarres, Lord	Bartley, George C. T.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.	Baldwin, Alfred	Barton, Dunbar Plunket
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Oldroyd, Mark
Beach,Rt.Hn. SirM.H. (Brist'l)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	O'Neill, Hon. R. Torrens
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Green, W D.(Wednesbury)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)	Penn, John
Bethell, Commander	Gretton, John	Philipps, John Wynford
Bigwood, James	Gull, Sir Cameron	Pierpoint, Robert
Bill, Charles	Gunter, Colonel	Pirie, Duncan V.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Price, Robert John
Boulnois, Edmund	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Purvis, Robert
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.	Richards, Henry Charles
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Causton, Richard Knight	Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)	Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)	Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)	Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Brist'l)	Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)
Cayzer, Sir Chas. William	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)	Holburn, J. G.	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)	Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh	Rutherford, John
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Horniman, Frederick John	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)	Howell, William Tudor	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Clough, Walter Owen	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Jackson, Rt.Hon. Wm. Lawies	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Colomb, Sir John C. Ready	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonsh.)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.	Kenrick, William	Spencer, Ernest
Crombie, John William	Kenyon, James	Spicer, Albert
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.	Knowles, Lees	Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart
Dalkeith, Earl of	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Denny, Colonel	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)	Thornton, Percy M.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Doxford, William Theodore	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Verney, Hon. Richard G.
Drage, Geoffrey	Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Drucker, A.	Lorne, Marquess of	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Lowles, John	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Dunn, Sir William	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Wayman, Thomas
Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	McEwan, William	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Finch, George H.	McKillop, James	Whiteley.H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Malcolm, Ian	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Fisher, William Hayes	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
FitzWygram, General Sir F.	Milner, Sir Frederick George	Wilson, John (Govan)
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Milton, Viscount	Wylie, Alexander
Flower, Ernest	Monk, Charles James	Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Yoxall, James Henry
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	More, Robert Jasper
Gilliat, John Saunders	Morrell, George Herbert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Murray, Col. W. (Bath)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Goschen,Rt. Hn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)	Nicol. Donald Ninian
NOES.
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Davitt, Michael	Macaleese, Daniel
Barlow, John Emmott	Dillon, John	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Billson, Alfred	Donelan, Captain A.	M'Ghee, Richard
Brigg, John	Doogan, P. C.	Maddison, Fred.
Caldwell, James	Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)	Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Cameron, Robert (Durham)	Harwood, George	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cawley, Frederick	Joicey, Sir James	O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork)
Colville, John	Jones, David B. (Swansea)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)	Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Palmer, Sir Charles M.	Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Mr.Charles McArthur and Sir Francis Evans
Roberts, John H.(Denbighs)	Wilson Chas. Henry (Hull)
Robson, William (Westmeath)	Wilson, Frddk. W.(Norfolk)
Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Wilson, H.J.(York, W.r.)
Tennant, Harold John	Wilson, J.H. (Middlesbro')

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Question put— That this clause be added to the Bill.

Agreed to.

Question put— That I report this Bill as amended, to the House.

Agreed to.

The House resumed and the Bill was reported.

Question put— That this Bill be now read a third time.

Agreed to.