§ MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury if he will set down his Motion for a Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies for such a time as will enable it to be adequately discussed by the House; and if, in view of the public interest aroused in the proposed combination of British and Foreign Transatlantic steamship companies, he will extend the reference to the Committee so as to include an Inquiry into the effect which will be produced by such combination on British trade, and at the same time 427 strengthen the personnel of the Committee; and if he will accept the Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the Member for Merthyr.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to reply that it was very important the Committee should be appointed, but he could not give the pledge asked by the hon. Member.
§ SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Admiralty, before adopting in 1887 the policy of subsidising the best merchant steamers for war purposes, consulted the Board of Trade as to the probable economic efforts of depriving the British carrying trade in war of the vessels best suited to secure immunity from capture of passengers and merchandise; and, if so, whether there is any objection to the correspondence being laid before Parliament.
§ * THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.Correspondence took place between the Admiralty and the Treasury in 1887 and is published in a Parliamentary Paper (C. 5006, 1887). The probable economic effect in war time of the employment of subsidised steamers does not appear to have been discussed in the correspondence, nor, as far as I am aware, were the Board of Trade consulted.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, will he state what steps, if any, are taken by the Board of Trade to ensure the carrying out of the provisions of Section 25 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which requires that, when a registered ship or a share therein is transferred, the transferee shall not be entitled to be registered as owner thereof until a declaration has been made that no unqualified person or body of persons is entitled as owner to any legal or beneficial interest in the ship or any share therein; and, in cases where the Board has grounds for believing that such a declaration is false, are any, and, if so, what, steps taken by the Board to remove the ship or ships from the British Register.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, CentralThe steps taken in the case of a transfer of a ship or share therein are substantially the same as those laid down in the case of first registry. If there is any suspicion that any declaration made is false, careful inquiry is made and neither registry or transfer is allowed unless the registrar is satisfied of the bonâ fides of the transaction. If a British ship ceases to be owned by persons qualified by law to own a British ship she is at once removed from the British Register, and if British national character is improperly assumed the ship is subject to forfeiture.
§ COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, pending the Report of the Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies, and the Report of the Departmental Committee recently appointed by the Admiralty, the Government will take such measures as will prevent British steamships, suitable as cruisers or transports, being transferred to another flag when such a transfer would destroy their utility for the British Government at the outbreak of war with another Power; and, whether, if the law as it at present stands does not enable them to do this, the Government will at once bring in a Bill giving them the necessary powers.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have to say that my hon. friend's suggestion amounts to this—that we shall prevent a British subject from selling his property to a foreigner when that property is in the form of steamships. This question to which the hon. Member refers is no doubt, a serious matter, but so startling a change in our practice could not be attempted without the gravest consideration.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, does the Board of Trade take any steps to ascertain whether the declaration required by Section 9 (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to be made by any person claiming to be registered as the owner of a British ship, that no unqualified person or body of persons is entitled as owner 429 to any legal or beneficial interest in the ship, or any share therein, is in fact a true declaration; and, in case it comes to the knowledge of the Board of Trade that such a declaration has been made contrary to the true facts of the ease, what steps, if any, is it practice of the Board of Trade to take; and, will he further state what steps, if any, have actually been taken by the Board of Trade in eases of this kind.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURYes, Sir, great care is taken by the Board of Trade to secure the declaration to which the hon. Member refers is a true declaration. The declaration is usually made before the registrars of Shipping who are specially instructed to point out to declarants the consequences of a false declaration, and, if the registrar has reason to doubt the truth of the facts declared, he refers the matter to the Board of Customs who consult their legal advisers as to proceeding for the recovery of the heavy penalty prescribed by the Act.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESCan the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last paragraph of my Question?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to reply that it was not the duty of the Board of Trade to institute prosecutions.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a considerable number of steamships of large aggregate tonnage, engaged as well in the Atlantic trade as in the trade to Australia and New Zealand, and which are registered as British ships, are nevertheless owned entirely or mainly by citizens of the United States; and, if so, whether, having regard to Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which restricts ownership of British ships to naturalborn or naturalised British subjects, denizens, or bodies corporate established under and subject to the laws of some part of His Majesty's dominions, and having their principal place of business in those dominions, he can explain why the ships in question have been allowed to retain their British register.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe answer to this Question is in the negative. No doubt a considerable number—in some cases a preponderating number—of the shareholders in some companies qualified under Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to own British ships are citizens of the United States or of other foreign countries. There is nothing in the existing law to prevent that, so long as the body corporate owning the ship is established under, and subject to the laws of some part of the King's dominions, and has its principal place of business in those dominions.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government have now any information showing the nature of the transaction whereby a considerable number of British steamships, or shares of companies registered as owners of those ships, have passed into the possession, or under the control, of citizens of the United States; can he state the total number and total gross tonnage of the steamships affected by this transaction, and especially its effect upon the British register of those ships; and, will he further state whether any Papers relating to the subject will be laid before the House, and whether His Majesty's Government are taking, or propose to take, any steps, and, if so, what steps, with regard to this matter.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURYes, Sir, the Government is aware of the nature of the transaction to which my hon. friends refers. The information was given us confidentially, and I am not at liberty to make any public statement at the present moment with respect to the precise terms of the agreement or the number and tonnage of the vessels affected, but I may say that no change in the nationality of the ships is necessarily involved. Great care will be taken to prevent any infraction of the law. We have no Papers upon the subject which we can lay upon the Table, and I am not in a position to make any statement as to steps which may be taken by the Government other than those of which the House has already been informed in connection with the question of merchant cruisers.
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the White Star Company were required by their agreement with the Admiralty to give proper notice of their agreement with the American combination to transfer to that combination the control or a share in the control over or interest in ships subsidised by the Treasury under the agreement of 1887; will he state what is the effect of the agreement of this Company with the American combination on the rights reserved by the Admiralty to buy or hire these ships; and whether the obligation of the White Star Company to have half their crews of the Royal Naval Reserve will still hold good.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERAs I have already stated, several legal points of some difficulty are involved in this matter, and I should prefer not to express an opinion upon them. I have at present no reason to vary the statement which I made in reply to the hon. Member's supplementary Question on Friday last to the effect that hitherto the White Star Company do not appear to have violated the terms of their agreement with the Admiralty. The reply to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.
§ MR. CHANNINGDoes not the statement of the owners of the White Star Line, as disclosed to-day, show that there is a material alteration in the position with regard to the ships over which his Majesty's Government have the power of pre-emption?
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe Question of legal effect is one which I cannot answer.
* MR. ARNOLD-FOESTERThe Admiralty knows very well what are its rights after the agreement has been broken. The question of whether the agreement has, in fact, been broken, is one of these matters for legal interpretation, upon which, as I state just now, I am not prepared to express an opinion.