MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

HC Deb 16 November 1906 vol 165 cc226-92

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [15th November] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee)

Which Amendment was— In page 37, column 5, heading, after the word 'Beef,' 10 insert the words '(weight exclusive of bone).'"—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough)

moved to insert in Schedule 1, column 6, after the word "pork," the words "(weight exclusive of bone)." He did not know whether the Secretary to the Board of Trade realised the importance of this Amendment. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that upon many vessels the men were given a large amount of bone and they had no redress whatever. In the Mercantile Marine Committee's Report a much more liberal scale was laid down. In this matter the Board of Trade seemed to have whittled away the recommendation of that Committee. The question was thoroughly gone into and the shipowners agreed to this recommendation, and yet they found a Radical Government whittling down the recommendation of a Committee appointed by a Conservative Government. He hoped they would be told why the Board of Trade had proposed a more meagre scale than was recommended by that Committee. As the table stood the men might be given any quantity of bone and they would have no redress. He looked upon the matter as so important that he should be reluctantly compelled to go to a division if they did not get this grievance redressed. He would do all he could to help the Government to get this Bill through this afternoon, but he trusted the hon. Member would be reasonable, and accept his Amendment.

MR. JENKINS (Chatham)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 37, column 6, heading, after the words ' salt pork ' to insert the words '(weight exclusive of bone).' "—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

* THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport)

said he could not accept the Amendment, but he would undertake to ensure that instructions were given to the Board of Trade inspectors in connection with this new scale to see that there was no undue proportion of bone. It would be impossible to eliminate bone altogether from the meat rations, but he did not think that his hon. friend need have any apprehension in the future that there would be much ground of complaint on that score. The meat was shipped in the form in which it was packed, and there must be a certain amount of bone. The amount allowed was one pound of meat per day, and if that did not contain bone it would be impossible for a man to consume it in one day. The hon. Member had complained that they had whittled down the scale as recommended by the Committee. He-did not agree with him on that point, because where they had departed from the recommendations it had been a matter of give and take. This food scale represented something far more liberal than that which was given in the British Navy. ["Shame."] It was so liberal that it had been suggested that they were setting up a standard which was unduly high, and that they might have some protest from the Admiralty on that account. Therefore he hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

asked how could the Board of Trade look after this matter when the ships had taken their provisions on board.

MR. KEARLEY

said that so far as they could exercise jurisdiction over the mercantile marine they would take every care to see that the interests of the sailors were properly safeguarded.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 38, line 34, at end, to insert the words, '(7) A mixture of coffee and chicory containing not less than seventy-five per cent. of coffee may at any time be substituted for coffee in the proportion of five ounces of the mixture to four ounces of coffee.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he found that there was some more whittling down here, because there was to be 25 per cent. of chicory allowed.

MR. KEARLEY

said that as a matter of fact the coffee and chicory mixture would cost the shipowner as much as, or more than the pure coffee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 39, line 22, column 3, before the word ' when,' to insert the words ' to be considered equal.' "— (Mr. Lloyd-George.) In page 40, line 7, at end, to insert the words ' section one hundred and forty-four.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 40, line 12, in third column, to insert the words 'In sub-section (2) of section two hundred and forty-six the words ' and appoint and remove the superintendents, deputies, clerks and servants,' and in paragraph (a) the words ' the number of persons to be so appointed and the amount of their salaries and wages, and' and the word 'other'; and paragraph (c); and in subsection (3) of the same section the words "and appoint and remove all the requisite superintendents, deputies, clerks, and servants."' —(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said this Amendment raised by reference to the Act of 1904 a question in which he was interested. He was aware that this point would have to be raised in a more direct form upon a new clause which was to be moved, and he hoped that if they allowed this Amendment to pass without discussion it would not be taken that some of them on the Opposition side had nothing to say on the matter, because he desired to raise the whole question involved upon the new clause.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs)

said he assumed that the debate would take place on the new clause.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

did not know whether he would be able to speak on the subject of marine boards now. He was quite prepared to support this proposal provided he was able to move the Amendment standing in his name to abolish marine boards.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

said this Amendment was consequential by anticipation, and as it altered the method of appointment and dismissal of superintendents, deputies, clerks, and servants in the mercantile marine, it might interfere with the subsequent discussion of the question. The Amendment abolishing marine boards would be unnecessary if the power of appointment and dismissal was taken from the hands where it now rested, namely, the marine boards, and placed in the hands of the Board of Trade.

* MR. SPEAKER

I think it would be more convenient to take the discussion upon the new clause. If the new clause were not inserted, and these words were, the House would still have an opportunity on Report of setting the Bill right. I do not think any interest will be damnified by the passing of this Amendment.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he rose to support the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade that the appointments and dismissal of superintendents, deputies, clerks, and servants should be under the Board of Trade.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

thought the discussion was to be on the new clause, otherwise they would have two debates upon the same subject.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he thought Mr. Speaker's ruling was in the opposite sense.

* MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not out of order, but I would suggest that it would be for the general convenience if the discussion took place upon the new clause. The hon. Member's position would not be damnified by waiting until then.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 40, line 23, to leave out ' paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Amendment agreed to.

[The hon. Member for Middlesbrough had given notice to move the insertion of a "Third Schedule; Scale of Provisions for Lascar Seamen."]

* MR. SPEAKER

The new schedule standing in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is not in order, because there is no reference to a third schedule in the clause of the Bill, and lascars are specially excluded.

Amendment proposed— In title, page 1, to leave out the words ' 1901,' and insert the words ' 1900.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Amendment agreed to.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect to New Clauses, and of Amendments to the Second Schedule (Repeal) consequential thereto. —(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

New clause— '(1) The master of every British ship shall enter or cause to he entered in the official log-book, a statement, or, if there is no official log-book, cause a record to be kept, of every occasion on which boat drill is practised on board the ship, and on which the life-saving appliances on board the ship have been examined for the purpose of seeing that those appliances are fit and ready for use. ' (2) The master shall, if and when required by any officer of the Board of Trade, produce for inspection any record kept by him for the purposes of this section. '(3) If the master of a ship fails to comply with any requirement of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction for each offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.' "— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Brought up and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

said he wished to ask a question upon this clause. The Bill dealt with the official entry in the log-book. Might he ask if there was anywhere in the Bill special regulations as to the number of boat drills that must take place. The President of the Board of Trade arranged at first for a certain number of drills, and he seemed now to have omitted them from the Bill in its present form. Were there anywhere in the Bill specific regulations as to the number of boat drills that must take place. He thought this was a serious question.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said if his hon. friend would refer to a section in the principal Act he would find that they were bound from time to time to have drills. In the Committee upstairs it was thought that there should be some provision to enable the Board of Trade to exercise a certain amount of supervision over the way in which the section was administered. If, by an inspection of the log-books, it was discovered that there had been no drills, the section would come into operation and a prosecution would naturally lie. He thought the hon. Gentleman would find that the case was adequately met.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said he felt very strongly on this point. Anyone who had travelled in first-class ships like those of the P. & 0. in the East knew that the drills were regular, but anyone who had travelled in tramp ships, and in ships of less importance than those of the P.& O. and the Orient lines and the mail lines running to the East, knew that the drills were not so regular in the matter of closing watertight doors and the summoning of the stewards and the responsible sailors, on whom fell the labour of manning the boats and so on, and in these circumstances they were bound to have disasters. He therefore once more urged that adequate steps should be taken to see that the drill was specific and regularly carried out. It was by observation and experience that the men would be able to do the work properly, and he would bring the matter up again after the first year has passed.

* MR. CATHCART WASON (Orkney and Shetland)

said that instructions were given to have the boats periodically inspected. His contention was that, although instructions were given, they were not carried out. He thought the new clause would adequately meet the case, and he was grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for having accepted the Amendment.

Question, put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause— If a ship, British or foreign, arrives between the last day of October and the sixteenth day of April in any year at any port in the United Kingdom from any port out of the United Kingdom, carrying any heavy wood goods as deck cargo or (except under the conditions allowed by this section) any light wood goods as deck cargo, the master of the ship, and also the owner, if he is privy to the offence, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every hundred and fifty cubic feet of space in which wood goods are carried in contravention of this section. (2) The conditions under which light wood goods may be carried as deck cargo are as follows: (a) Each unit of the goods must be of a cubic capacity not greater than fifteen cubic feet; and (b) The height above the deck to which the goods are carried must not exceed:—(i) in the case of an uncovered space on a deck forming the top of a break, poop, or other permanent closed-in space on the upper deck, three feet above the top of that closed-in space; and (ii) in the case of an uncovered space, not being a space forming the top of any permanent closed-in space on the upper deck or a space forming the top of a covered space, the height of the main rail, bulwark, or plating, or one-fourth of the inside breadth of the ship, or seven feet, whichever height is the least; and (iii) in the case of a covered space, the full height of that space. (3) Provided that a master or owner shall not be liable to any fine under this section—(a) in respect of any wood goods which the master has considered it necessary to place or keep on deck during the voyage on account of the springing of any leak, or of any other damage to the ship received or apprehended; or (b) if he proves that the ship sailed from the port at which the wood goods were loaded as deck cargo at such time before the last day of October as allowed a sufficient interval according to the ordinary duration of the voyage for the ship to arrive before that day at the said port in the United Kingdom, but was prevented from so arriving by stress of weather or circumstances beyond his control; or (c) if he proves that the ship sailed from the port at which the woods goods were loaded as deck cargo at such time before the sixteenth day of April as allowed a reasonable interval according to the ordinary duration of the voyage for the ship to arrive after that day at the said port in the United Kingdom, and by reason of an exceptionally favourable voyage arrived before that day. (4) For the purposes of this section—(a) the expression ' heavy wood goods ' means—(i) any square, round, waney, or other timber, or any pitch pine, mahogany, oak, teak, or other heavy wood goods whatever; or (ii) any more than five spare spars or store spars, whether or not made, dressed, and finally prepared for use: and (6) the expression ' light wood goods' means any deals, battens, or other light wood goods of any description; and (c) the expression 'deck cargo ' means any cargo carried either in any uncovered space upon deck or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the ship's registered tonnage; and (d) the space in which wood goods are carried shall be deemed to be the space limited by the superficial area occupied by the goods, and by straight lines enclosing a rectangular space sufficient to include the goods. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect any ship not bound to a port in the United Kingdom which comes into any port of the United Kingdom under stress of weather, or for repairs, or for any purpose other than the delivery of her cargo. (6) This section shall (some into operation on the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.) —

Brought up and read the first time.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,

in moving the Second Reading of the clause, said that it introduced no new matter. It was simply a consolidation o£ Amendments introduced before.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time." (Mr. Lloyd-George.)

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he was bound to oppose the proposed new clause. As to its containing no new matter, he called attention to the conditions under which light wood goods might be carried as deck cargo. The clause provided that a ship should be allowed to carry seven feet of timber in the winter months. The present law only provided for three feet.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I did not say that the new clause does not alter the present law, but that it does not introduce new matter beyond that for which this Bill was originally framed.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he must invite the attention of the House to this matter. They had already had to complain of the manner in which the load-line was being altered to the great dissatisfaction of the men employed in the mercantile marine. He wished to know what justification there was for a proposal to increase the extent of deck loads in the winter months by an extra four feet. They had reached a stage when the loss of life at sea had fallen very considerably, and now they were going back to the old days and to allow ships to carry four or five hundred tons more cargo than before. In the summer they could have deck loads up to the funnel if they liked, but this was a proposal that in winter ships crossing the Atlantic might carry seven feet of deck timber. It was a monstrous proposal, and he hoped the House of Commons would not entertain it for a moment. Some people said that if they had a deck cargo of this kind the water would be trapped on the other side. All vessels had not a seven feet bulwark, and this would be above the bulwark. He read a few weeks ago of a ship in the Atlantic which was struck by a very heavy sea, which came on board and washed the deck cargo and five or six men overboard. He would move an Amendment substituting three feet for seven feet, to which he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would agree. The present law allowed three feet for deck cargo in the winter months, and that only applied to ships arriving at ports in the United Kingdom. He did not think that the shipowners could complain of that. He felt sure that the President of the Board of Trade had no idea of endangering the men on board our ships, but would go a long way to oppose anything of the kind, and if the matter was put t o him in a fair and reasonable manner he probably would not agree to any proposal which would endanger the lives of the men. The new clause would not be beneficial to the men in any shape or form. It might be an advantage to shipowners. Personally, he was of opinion that deck cargoes ought to be prohibited entirely. The decks of a vessel were made for the men to do their work, and when they loaded seven feet of timber on the deck a man in a dark night might fall down a hold five or six feet deep and break his leg or sustain other serious injury. In the night time when a man was walking on the top of a deck load of timber a heavy sea might come along and wash him overboard. He could have no protection on the top of the deck load to prevent the sea from washing him over. If he was in order he would propose to put in the word "three" instead of "seven."

THE CHAIRMAN

This discussion is on the second reading of the clause.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

Very well, I move that the clause be rejected entirely.

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

supported what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough. He himself was one of the crew in a vessel coming across the western ocean in the winter time with a deck cargo of seven or eight feet. The ship was drifting in the Atlantic Ocean for five days, and the crew had neither food nor water until they were picked up by a mail steamer. If the President of the Board of Trade was going to allow legislation to revert back to the bad old days, what was going to become of all the good work the late Mr. Plimsoll did for sailors? He agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that no deck cargo should be allowed in the winter time after the 1st October. The men who had to sail on ships, whether steamers or sailing ships in the winter time in the western ocean when there were deck cargoes on board, risked their lives and the well-being of their families, because they were-forced by circumstances to remain on the 3hips. They looked to the Government of the country to safeguard the lives of seamen so far as they possibly could. They had no desire to see shipowners injured, but when it came to a question of making money for shipowners at the expense of the lives of men, then they did desire to eater a protest against such legislation. Any man who had practical knowledge of the sea knew very well that sailing in the winter time and the summer time were two very different things. As a rule, in crossing the western ocean the passage was long and dangerous. It was almost always on the western ocean that they had these deck cargoes. They might have a few ships coming from the Baltic, but that was a short passage. He made bold to say that there was no place on which they had heavier seas than those which were encountered in the western ocean. The Government should be very chary about promoting any legislation which might injure the lives or limbs of the men who had to go down to the sea in ships. He supported his hon. friend in asking the President of the Board of Trade not to revert to the old state of thing which existed some years ago.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he sympathised with the objects of his hon. friends. After all, the first consideration ought not to be the prosperity of the shipping trade but the safety of the men engaged in it. If there was anything inconsistent between the two it was the prosperity of the shipping trade which should go to the wall. He did not think that anyone for a moment contested that point. At the same time they must adjust the balance between them. They must not put on unnecessary restrictions. It seemed to him that restrictions must not be put on which would handicap our trade in competition with that of other nations. He wanted his hon. friend to remember that the present restrictions which were imposed in 1876 and since made an enormous improvement in the size and the strength of the ships, and more especially in the width of the ships. There was the case referred to by the hon. Member opposite of a vessel which formerly had only 24 feet breadth of beam.

MR. JOYCE

Thirty-six feet breadth of beam with a 1,500 ton register.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said it was more than that now. When they had a great alteration in the method of construction allowance ought to be made for that in the Board of Trade regulations. There had been really no alteration in regard to old ships. He would put the case of timber ships, where there had been great improvement in strength and construction so that they might be loaded down to the load line. When that was done there was not the same danger as in the case of a ship carrying dead weight cargo. Therefore this difficulty did not arise; and the only question was the convenience and the dangers of working the ship from the deck. His hon. friend had said that if the load line was reduced the seas dashed over the ship and the sailors were swept overboard, but he understood that there was always a temporary rail fixed which was four or five feet above the cargo Was not that a protection to the sailors? His hon. friend had said that at the present moment when they loaded three feet of deck cargo, and the waves swept over the ship, the water was trapped, and therefore it was very much better that protection should be given when the cargo was on a level with the bulwarks, and then the waves would sweep clear over. The Government had made most careful inquiry into this matter, and they had come to the conclusion that instead of a danger it was a protection, and that it would not enable the profits of shipowners to be unduly increased. He could not believe that anyone would be so inhuman as to increase the dangers of the sea in order to increase his dividends to any extent.

* MR. CAIRNS (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

thought that his hon. friend had not stated fairly the effect of this clause when he said that they would have deck loads in future seven feet high instead of three feet. He called the attention of the Committee to the way in which the clause was framed. The last part of sub-section (2) (b) (ii) stated that— The height of the main rail, bulwark, or plating, or one-fourth of the inside breadth of the ship, or seven feet, whichever height is the least. If these words were read aright it would' be seen that the only case in which seven feet of deck cargo could be carried was when the bulwarks were seven feet high. He wanted to make sure that the Committee was perfectly clear on that point. He asked his hon. friend how many ships had got bulwarks seven feet high. They were mostly four to five feet high.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

What I referred to was the main rail and not the bulwarks.

* MR. CAIRNS

said that the main rail was at the top of the bulwark and denoted the height of the bulwark. He wanted the Committee to understand that financially this provision would make no difference to a shipowner, but it made a considerable difference to the consumers of wood in this country, because freights were fixed exactly by the expense incurred on a voyage. If the cargo of wood was limited, the price of wood must be higher; and he thought that the consumer of wood would get the first advantage if a larger deck load could be taken. He was sure the Committee would acquit any shipowner of a desire to put in jeopardy the lives of his crew. That would be a horrible charge to make.

MR. JENKINS

said that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee whether his information coincided with that of the hon. Member for Newcastle. He doubted very much whether any vessels had bulwarks seven feet high. He took exception to deck cargoes altogether. To his mind a ship was never designed to carry cargo on deck. The carrying space was in the hold. Would anyone put on the deck of a ship, apart from timber, cargo such as coal? The stability of a ship must be considered and the way in which it should be loaded. His own knowledge of a ship's construction led him to believe that the deck of a ship was never meant for that purpose. It was suggested that although a deck cargo might be carried above the main rail, yet there was a temporary bulwark. What was that? They simply got a few deal boards lashed together fore and aft. They could only speak of a bulwark in the case of a vessel with a well deck. He understood that the reasons assigned for this temporary bulwark was the safety of the men who had to patrol the deck day and night, and not for the purpose of carrying cargo. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to understand that timber could not be carried to the utmost capacity of the ship in the same way as dead weight cargo could be carried. Then, what about the top weight, if a ship was loaded inside and three or four feet of cargo was placed on the top of it on deck? He had seen steamers coming into port with a cargo of timber with a great list to port or starboard, and that was because the whole of the coal in one of the bunkers had been consumed. He also found that according to the Bill the covered spaces could be loaded. He always understood that the alley-ways were meant for the protection of the seamen, but if they were filled up with cargo the men who had to patrol the deck would be subject to being swept away when a heavy sea broke on board. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this question of deck loading and allow the clause to be amended or ended, and he would prefer the latter.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he knew of many cases in the Baltic trade where he had endeavoured to obtain compensation for men who had been injured in consequence of vessels carrying to foreign ports excessive timber loads such as would not have been allowed to come to the United Kingdom. He therefore thought he was entitled to resist this proposal. They expected more from a Liberal Government than from all other Governments. ["Why?"] Because the Liberal Government had sympathy with the working classes. ["Oh!"] He hoped, however, he should have the unanimous support of his Conservative friends, upon whom he did not cast any reflection. He would repeat, however, that they expected something better than this from a Liberal Government. Who had asked for this change? Could the right hon. Gentleman name any body of seamen who had passed any resolution asking that the deck load should be increased from three feet to seven feet because it would be more comfortable? Had any individual seaman put forward such a proposal, or had any officer or captain done so? It appeared that it was only the shipowners who demanded it, but he thought they might be satisfied with what they had obtained in respect to the load line and not come forward with this proposal to increase the deck load. It had been said that it would be better to have the timber up to the height of the bulwark but many of the ships only had a rail. In that case what would happen if the rail was washed away? The bulwark was a solid plate which was part of the vessel, but there was nothing to prevent the shipowners making the rail seven feet high and filling the space up with timber. What, in the case of a heavy sea breaking over the vessel, would happen to the rail? The deck cargo and, what was of infinitely more importance, the crew, would be swept into the sea. He was speaking of flush deck vessels with only a rail and no bulwark, and he had seen similar events happen in the case of cattle pens on the deck. He had seen a sea come on board and sweep the whole lot overboard as if they were matches.

* MR. CAIRNS

supposed that the hon. Member would admit that the open rail was never seven feet high.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he admitted that now it was never more than three feet or four feet, but if the shipowners wanted to take advantage of this clause there was nothing to prevent their making the rail seven feet high. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the shipowner would not do that, but the shipowners' business was to make profit by getting as much carrying capacity as he could out of the ship. He did not say that the shipowners were regardless of the lives and limbs of their men, but they took risks which the sea did not recognise. One did not go to sea as one went to church; at sea they met emergencies. Where was there any support for the statement that there was ample precaution in regard to this deck carrying of seven feet of timber and what precautions were to be taken for the protection of the lives of men? A temporary bulwark was no good, as it merely consisted of uprights with some planks fastened to them. Moreover, he might point out that while ships leaving the United Kingdom were not allowed to have more than three feet of timber on the deck during the winter months, ships going to Continental ports could carry larger deck cargoes. The result was that every winter lives were lost through the carrying of excessive cargoes of deck timber. He should stand by his original proposal to reject the clause entirely.

MR. BONAR LAW (Camberwell, Dulwich)

said it was perfectly easy to understand the ground on which this alteration was made. It arose from the difference of construction in the building of ships. Seven feet of deck cargo could now be safely carried by ships that formerly could only carry three feet. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough was really confusing two issues. If the hon. Gentleman could show that the increase of power to carry deck cargoes would add to the danger of the ship and increase the risk of loss of life on that ship, then he would have made out a very strong case, but he had done nothing of the kind. All he had done was to say that deck cargoes added to the discomfort and increased the danger to the seamen.

* MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

did not know what evidence the hon. Gentleman wanted. He had said that ships had been lost through carrying deck cargoes in the winter.

MR. BONAR LAW

said that that statement carried out what he had said. The hon. Member said that there had been losses through deck cargoes in the winter under the existing law. How did that affect the issue seeing that those cargoes were carried under present regulations?

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

pointed out that he had said that lives had been lost on voyages to continental ports.

MR. BONAR LAW

said that was a different issue. Was it proper to rely on the fact that ships had been lost in the timber trade. Could the hon. Member name any trade in the world in which ships had not been lost? Every shipowner would say that there was greater risk in the case of grain cargoes than there was in carrying timber. The seamen's lives were put before anything else, but the Committee must bear in mind that this was a risky trade and that risk could not possibly be avoided. If that risk was to be taken into account the only proper course was to refuse to allow any deck cargo to be carried at all, a course which nobody advocated. The hon. Member for Newcastle had said this was not going to do the least good to the shipowners, because the moment they could carry more cargo on a ship the freights would drop and the consumers would get the benefit. That was a fallacy. That argument was based on the fact that the shipowner got the same rate on the ship. It the ships carried more cargo the shipowner must get a larger portion of the benefit. Shipowners in the past had agitated to get the light dues made a national expenditure. They were very much interested because they thought it would affect their own pockets. But if this increased carrying capacity was to benefit the consumer so that the shipowners would not get any benefit out of it the same argument must apply to the payment of the light dues.

* MR. BRACE (Glamorganshire, S.)

said he desired to associate himself with the hon. Member in his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade not to press this clause. He had listened very carefully to the debate and he had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that a strong case had been made out against the proposal. He noticed that the hon. Member for Dulwich said that the difference in construction was the reason that the shipowners, or the Board of Trade on behalf of the shipowners, were making an application to this House to raise the standard from three feet to seven feet; while the President of the Board of Trade said that deck cargoes of seven feet could be carried with equal safety with those of three feet because of the advance of science in the construction of vessels. But Parliament ought to have some regard for the men who risked their lives at sea, and the genius of the race in ship construction ought to be; directed to constructing vessels which should give a lower percentage of loss of life than we now had. What they were asking for was not that the present percentage of accidents in the seafaring industry should be retained, but that the construction of vessels should be a means of reducing the present percentage of accidents. It was not fair to ask for an increased standard from three feet to seven because there had been an improvement in ship construction. One gentleman to whom he had spoken upon this Bill—an expert, though not a shipowner—said that this alteration was a very dangerous experiment to say the least, and that he watched with great apprehension the arranging of the standard, and that he would be watching with grave concern the percentage of deaths in consequence of the increased risk under which the sailors would have to work owing to the increase in the standard of deck cargo from three to seven feet. It was because he regarded it as a dangerous experiment that he said the Committee must not encourage it. His hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough had based his objection on what he knew from his own experience. If they were going to wait till they saw this new rule in operation, and a demonstration had been given of the increased risk to life and limb by a series of accidents, the Committee would have cause for regret. He thought there could be no doubt in the minds of hon. Members that this was a dangerous experiment, and, that being so, he appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to allow the clause to remain as it was now. The shipowners were getting very great advantages under this Bill and could afford to give this to the sailors. It was because the sailors were the men who would be called upon to risk their lives owing to the increase of the standard that he made this appeal.

* MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

thought the position taken up by hon. Members below the gangway was extremely remarkable. The House had, on the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade, repealed all the clauses which made any limitation whatsoever with regard to the amount of deck cargo that should be carried by ships coming to the country. At this moment they were in this position, that as long as the vessel's load-line was not submerged, the owner might load up as much deck-cargo as he pleased—the House having just abolished all the other former limitations in this respect. What the right hon. Gentleman now proposed in this new clause was a new but extended limitation. And, because hon. Members below the gangway thought this new limitation too wide, they were in effect proposing that there should be no limitation at all. He thought these hon. Gentleman would do well to consider a little more closely the real effect of the proposal they wore making. With regard to the clause itself, the hon. Member below the gangway, whose knowledge upon this subject was of an expert character, had said that the proper place for a cargo was in the holds, and that ships were not designed to carry cargoes on their decks. It so happened that he had had recently to go with some care into the question of the best form of construction in the latest designs of cargo boats, and he could assure the hon. Member that he was entirely mistaken if he thought ships were not designed to carry deck cargo.

MR. JENKINS

I was speaking of the upper deck.

* MR. BOWLES

said so was he, and the hon. Member was mistaken when he said that ships were not constructed to carry deck cargo. The hon. Member for Chatham, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, and the hon. Member for Limerick talked as though, and indeed directly stated that, a deck cargo was necessarily and always a dangerous and improper thing. He did not agree. He thought he could show the Committee in a few words that, as regards a large and increasing class of cargo boats at least, it was the exact reverse of the truth. The whole principle of the construction of cargo boats had changed enormously and would continue to change. Whatever might have been true years ago in 1876, when the present rules were framed, it was not and could not be true now, and it was less likely to be true as time went on. Let them take one of the most remarkable developments of ship construction, the turret ship.

MR. JENKINS

You do not carry cargo on a turret boat.

* MR. BOWLES

contended that cargo was carried on a turret ship. That was his point. The turret ship was a ship which, instead of having its upper deck stretching across to its sides, was built like a bottle having two shoulders and the turret in the centre. The shoulders were awash. The deck cargo on these boats was carried on the shoulders —on what was called the harbour deck. The height of that cargo was to be limited under this proposal to seven feet, a small limitation. He said without fear of contradiction that a deck cargo which was carried in that way upon the shoulders of a turret steamer, so far from being a danger to the ship, was the safest way in which any cargo could be carried in any form of ship. What was its position? If the ship was in danger it was the easiest possible thing to get this cargo overboard. It was not true as a general proposition to say that a deck cargo was necessarily and always a danger. He did not believe it was a danger at all. He believed a great deal of unnecessary alarm had been raised in respect to it, and he was quite certain that this clause, which, after all, had received the careful consideration of those gentlemen who were the expert advisers to the Board of Trade and who ought to know, and who did know, what would be the effect of what they proposed, was a clause which, might be usefully passed having regard to the very complicated conditions of the shipping industry, and also to what he agreed was paramount in this matter, namely, the safety of the persons concerned.

* MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

said he took it that hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in opposition to this clause recognised that one of the most dangerous things that they could do would be to reject it unless for very good reasons. He had listened very closely to the whole of this debate and he would be the very last person in the world to advocate anything that would increase the dangers to or jeopardise the lives of the sailors. He was not concerned with the origin of this clause. He was only giving his opinion from a practical shipowner's point of view The bulk of the arguments in the debate had been directed against the carriage of deck cargoes at all. But that was not the question before the Committee at this moment; because if hon. Members really meant that they wished to do away with the carrying of deck cargo altogether it only meant that they were going to place the whole of the timber carrying trade in the hands of foreign shipowners. He thought a much better case might be made out in regard to the increase of the cargo to moderate requirements. The real question before the Committee was not whether deck cargoes were to be carried at all, but whether cargoes of timber were to be carried under a limitation of three feet or seven. He had listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who had said that a shipowner might have a temporary rail built up to the height of seven feet, that timber could be carried up level with it, that the rail would not afford adequate protection from the sea, and that cargo might be swept away carrying seamen with it.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

I say that, deck loads are secured by means of chains affixed to ring bolts in the deck, find I say it is much easer to secure a load of three feet high than a load of seven feet high; that the strain which you have to meet is not so great; that the larger amount would result in several hundreds of tons more strain.

* MR. AUSTIN TAYLOE

said they were not dealing with heavy wood but light wood. The hon. Member had spoken of vessels, which had been lost in voyages to foreign ports, loaded with eight or nine feet of heavy wood deck cargo. That was a most improper proportion, but that was not the case here. It was limited here to light woods, and not to eight or nine feet but to the height of the bulwark. He thought in the case of a bulwark seven feet would be rather high; in more cases than not the height of the bulwark would be only four or five feet, and if they were going to have a light wood cargo at all, it would be less dangerous if the deck cargo were made level with the bulwarks than as it was to-day. He did not think they ought to do anything to make the calling of the sailor more dangerous than it was now, because it was one of the most risky of all callings. He would suggest that the true way to deal with this matter was to see that the security of the sailors was made greater by having adequate protection in securing the cargo. The fear arose much more from the danger of the deck being awash, but if it were awash the carrying of a light deck cargo was an element of safety. Wood after all was a light substance and it was a well-known fact that a vessel loaded with wood did not sink or founder so readily. Wood was one of the lightest cargoes to carry and one which least affected the buoyancy of a ship. Therefore he felt that this question of a wood deck cargo from the point of view of the bouyancy of the ship was not a danger; the danger arose from the men carrying their duties out with regard to it in wet and bad weather. That was the point to which the Committee should direct its attention.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

appealed to hon. Members to give this clause a Second Reading. If they did not there would be j no limiting provision at all, and ship masters would be able to load to any extent they chose. He suggested to hon. Members that the Second Reading of the clause should be taken now, and then hon. Members could deal with the specific questions that had been raised in Committee upon its details.

MR. JOYCE

said the argument put forward by the President of the Board of Trade was that owing to the modern construction of ships the danger would not be so great to the sailors through carrying this deck cargo as it had been in the past. If this clause were passed would it apply to all vessels or only to those ships which were built under the new rules? Would there be any differentiation between new ships and old?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he would rather postpone the answer to that question until they discussed the details.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he was not satisfied to let this clause go through quite so easily. He knew the forces which would be employed in the next stage of the Bill, and he wanted to get, on this stage, all he possibly could. He was fighting for a great principle. He was fighting for the lives of the men he represented and he would be less than a man if he did not fight every inch of the road. The hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool had spoken upon this matter, but not as a practical man. There were many who sat on the Government side who had had actual experience. He had had the experience of getting a deck cargo overboard, and he could assure the hon. Member that it is not so easy as he appeared to think. There was always the chance of a man's getting broken up—a broken rib or a broken leg—when trying to get a deck cargo clear of the ship. It is not like a ship lying in a dock steady and stable. When a cargo of timber was jettisoned it was generally with a heavy sea running. When the hon. Member spoke with regard to this matter he did not seem to understand the difference between a rail and a bulwark. There was a very great difference. The rail was a little light stanchion with a casing of wood over it. It was not for the purpose of securing the deck cargo. The whole thing would break away and go overboard if it was only secured in that way. A cargo of timber had to be secured by means of chains to ring bolts fixed in the deck, and the difference in the strains between a three feet deck cargo and a seven feet deck cargo would be tremendous when a ship was rolling about in a heavy sea. He did not speak of what he did not know, and he would like to point out to the hon. Member that the present law dealt with the foreigner equally with the British shipowner. If the foreigner wanted to come to a port of the United Kingdom at the present time he must not carry more than three feet of deck timber. He had been in a police court when the captain of a foreign ship was fined £100 at Cardiff for exceeding this limit; so that they were not giving any advantage to the foreigner in any shape or form. As a practical seaman and one who had come into close touch with captains, engineers, mates, and seamen, he said that they did not like deck cargoes. There were many reasons apart from the danger of the deck cargo's being washed overboard. It was impossible to get a level surface the full length of the ship. A space must be left for the steam winches so that men could do the work. It was not so bad in the summer months, because nights were light, and there were not the dangers, but in the winter months it would be shameful to go on board these vessels with seven feet of deck cargo. He could not understand who, at the Board of Trade, was responsible for recommending this proposal. Was the recommendation solely from shipowners? Generally, when he asked for any legislation in this House for the protection of seamen, he was told that there must be a Departmental Committee, which would sit for two Years inquiring into the subject and taking evidence, and then its recommendations would not be adopted. But when the shipowner wanted to increase the deck load he could go quite easily to the Board of Trade and say, "The construction of ships is altogether altered now, and we want to increase our deck loads," and the Board of Trade agreed to it. If the shipowners could get their recommendations so readily accepted, he would like to recommend a few things with regard to the manning of ships concerning which Committees had already made inquiries and recommended legislation. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted his support on this matter he could have it by promising to bring in additional legislation that where seven feet of timber was carried permanent bulwarks should be placed above and secured in such a manner as to make it absolutely safe for the men. He knew the shipowners would not agree to that because of the cost. Then why should the men's likes to be risked? He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider this matter. He was sure that if he took a voyage across the Atlantic or to the Baltic this winter in a vessel which had seven feet of timber for deck load he would support the view he bad put forward.

MR. LLOYD-GEOEGE

said he was thinking the matter out now and having a form of words drafted to give special protection in this matter. He was not sure he could accept the words suggested by his hon. friend, but he would have ready a form of words which he would propose to the Committee.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said he desired to intervene for one moment as one having taken a practical interest in the saving of life at sea for many years past and in other capacities considered the question of deck cargoes as affecting the safety of ships. There were two points with regard to the safety of seamen which were affected by the increased height of the deck load. One was the safety of the sailor as he went from one end of the ship to the other, and the second was the danger of the cargo going overboard. The added height of the deck cargo militated against the safety of the sailor in both these particulars. Therefore, it seemed rather a strong thing to make so great a change to the disadvantage of the safety of the sailor. It might well be asked why so great a change should be made by the Bill when all knew his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade was sincerely desirous of giving quite as much benefit to the sailor as to the shipowner. If it could be shown that the construction of ships made it safe to have a higher load, he would still not be convinced that a jump from three feet to seven feet was justified. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would sympathetically consider the difficult position in which those who had a special concern in the safety of vessels were and the desirability of rejecting a proposal to raise the limit of deck cargo from three feet to seven feet.

MR. E. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)

said it seemed to him that only really safe and instructive information could be obtained from naval architects, and he suggested that the President of the Board of Trade, when he made the Amendment which he was evidently going to make, should consult skilled naval architects of repute, who would have at heart the welfare of our trade and seamen and knew all the complicated conditions involved in the designing of vessels.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

* MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said he could quite understand the sensitiveness of the Committee about any change being made in deck cargoes which might affect or jeopardise the lives of the sailors, but the series of Amendments, the first of which he now moved, did not affect the question of wood carried on the open deck. Under the clause as it stood heavy wood goods could not be carried as deck cargo at all, and deck cargo as defined in this clause meant any cargo carried either in any uncovered space upon deck or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the ship's registered tonnage. He might explain that there were certain covered spaces upon the deck of a steamer which, being open at each end, were not included in the net registered tonnage of a vessel, and cargo carried in these covered spaces was, according to the definition of this clause, deck cargo. His Amendment would not allow heavy wood to be carried in open spaces on the deck at all, but it would give permission for heavy wood cargo to be carried in such covered spaces as were not included in the net registered tonnage of the vessel, but on condition that they were carried only on such class of ships as might be approved by the Board of Trade, and loaded in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Trade. He thought the Committee would see the essentially reasonable character of the Amendment. In these covered spaces at the present time any cargo could be carried—coal, steel rails, and cattle. But the absurdity of the position was that the wood fittings which had to be used for the purpose of accommodating the cattle might not be carried if the cattle were not there. His Amendment, if carried, would not allow heavy wood goods to be carried any more than was the case now upon the open deck. All it would do was to allow, under regulations which he thought would make it absolutely safe from the point of view of the ship and of the sailor, heavy wood goods to be loaded in covered spaces on the deck; forming part of the permanent structure of the ship, where much heavier cargo was loaded to-day.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— In line 4, after the word ' heavy,' to insert the words 'or light.'" —(Mr. Austin Taylor.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he was not sure that some kind of arrangement could not be arrived at as suggested by his hon. friend. He had gone carefully into the question, and he agreed that some words ought to be inserted in order to provide for the safety of the lives of seamen should there be any additional risk through loading up to seven feet. The matter, however, required very careful consideration. Perhaps he might be allowed on this Amendment to read out the words which he proposed to move later on. The words were, "Provided that regulations may be male by the Board of Trade for the protection of seamen from any risk arising from the carriage of goods at such a height; and these regulations must be complied with on the ship." If this proviso were inserted no harm would be done by accepting the Amendment, which would confine the extension to those ships which were adapted to the purpose. They had proceeded so far very largely on the principle of give and take with very good results, and he thought the representatives of the sailors might accept the amendment if the shipowners also agreed to his additional words.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

thought the compromise was a fair one and that it showed the advantage of having a matter of this kind thoroughly thrashed out. Although they had taken some considerable time over it, he did not think that time had been wasted; at least he felt satisfied he had discharged his duty, and if anything should happen to men through deck cargoes he would know he did his level best in fighting for them. But he thought the proposal of his hon. friend was of such a kind that it would meet the case. All he wanted to do was to safeguard the lives and limbs of the seamen, and he certainly fell in with the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. JENKINS

entirely agreed that, if deck cargoes were to be carried, it was far better that the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade should be adopted, but he called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that these spaces were not included in the net registered tonnage of the ship, and when these ships were constructed great care should be taken that no injustice was done so far as the tonnage measurement was concerned.

* MR. CAIRNS

said there were no two sides to the question that they must take every precaution for the safety of the sailors, and he would only say that most shipowners—and he could speak for himself—instructed the captain that, when loading timber cargo, before leaving port the stanchions all round the cargo must be up and the life lines fixed. They were perfectly willing that the Board of Trade should consult with those interested on the other side so as to come to some practical settlement in this matter calculated to ensure the safety of the sailors.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the proposed new clause— In line 4, to leave out the word 'or.' In line 5, to leave out the words 'any light wood goods as deck cargo.' In line 8, at end, to insert the words' (2) The conditions under which heavy wood goods may be carried as deck cargo are as follows:— (a) that they must only be carried in covered space, and (b) that they must be carried only in such class of ships as may be approved by the Board of Trade for the purpose; and (c) that they must be loaded in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Trade in respect to the loading thereof.' "—(Mr. Austin Taylor.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— In line 24, after the word 'least,' to insert the words 'Provided that regulations may be made by the Board of Trade for the protection of seamen from any risk arising from the carriage of goods at such a height; and these regulations must be complied with on the ship."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed new clause," — put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the clause he now moved to insert was at the suggestion of the Canadian Government, as the result of a case which arose quite recently. It appeared that an agent persuaded a number of compositors to emigrate to Canada on the representation that there was plenty of work for them. When they got there they discovered that they had been imported for the purposes of blackleg labour. There was a strike proceeding in Canada, and they had been engaged simply to fill up the vacancies created by the men who had gone out on strike. Naturally when the men discovered that this cruel fraud had been perpetrated upon them they were very indignant and refused to serve, and the Canadian Government were as angry as anyone. This clause was therefore inserted at their suggestion. He thought it would commend itself to the Committee, and it was with, great pleasure he moved its insertion.

New clause— The following section shall be substituted {or Section 353 of the principal Act, 'If any person, by any false representation, fraud, or false pretence, induces, or attempts to induce, any person to emigrate or to engage a steerage passage in any ship, he shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding £50, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.) Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

then moved a new clause dealing with provisions as to superintendents which, he said, was the result of an arrangement that had been arrived at with the shipowners of the country. Up to the year 1900 the superintendents were not merely appointed by the local marine boards, but were paid out of funds to which those boards contributed. In the year 1900, however, the whole charge was transferred to the Imperial Treasury. Since then there had been no reason why these marine superintendents should be appointed by the marine boards, because the whole burden of their salaries had been borne by the Imperial Exchequer. He did not wish to go into matters more than was necessary, as they had been enabled to arrange them very satisfactorily; but he would like to point out that it was an invidious position for the superintendents that they should be appointed, and liable to be dismissed by one body and paid by another. For instance, the Board of Trade might give certain instructions to the superintendents, and the local marine boards might take a totally different view with regard to the policy involved. He could not discuss any special instance, because it would be out of order. It would have to be discussed on the Estimates. But such a case was conceivable where the Board of Trade and the local marine boards might be at variance in regard to the instructions to the superintendents. Such a thing had happened. What was the superintendent to do in such a case? He was paid by the Board of Trade, but he was liable to be dismissed by the local marine board. Whose official was he? The Board of Trade had certain powers. They could suspend these 'local 'marine boards, but it was the kind of thing they did not want to do every time there was a dispute or difficulty with regard to the instructions that had been issued. He did not think it was fair to the superintendent; he ought to know whose officer he was. After all, the main responsibility for the Merchant Shipping Acts was with the Board of Trade. They had to answer to Parliament, who voted the money. The position was an anomalous one. He did not think there was another official who was appointed by one corporation and paid by another. He did not mean to say that the local marine boards did not choose the very best men they could, but there would be an advantage in having a body like this practically belonging to the Civil Service, with the same advantages to themselves and to the service. For instance, if a man did well in one district he ought to be promoted to a larger district in a more responsible position. If, however, it was a purely local appointment it could only be made by sanction of the local marine board, and naturally they would prefer to select a man in their own district. One knew that in the case of a local body, wherever there was an important appointment there was always great local and personal pressure to induce the election of some particular person. He did not think that ought to be the case with regard to these superintendents. They ought to be members of the Civil Service, and wherever a man did well in a subordinate position the Board of Trade should be able to say "Well done, thou good and faithful servant—go to Glasgow, or Liverpool." That was one of the two reasons, the other being that the present system sometimes placed the superintendent in the invidious position of hiving to defy one master or the other. The position was becoming rapidly intolerable, and it was much better that they should determine the matter once and for all. After talking the matter over with the representatives,' of the local marine boards, and the Shipping Federation, they had arrived at an understanding, and the removal of the appointment of superintendents from the local marine boards to the Board of Trade had been agreed to. He undertook that when advisory committees were set up under this Bill there should be a sub-committee dealing with local marine boards upon which there would be men, not only representing the Shipping Federation and the shipping combinations of the country, but also the local marine boards, as well as the sailors and the engineers, and that whenever any new departure of policy was suggested by the Board of Trade the opinion of these advisory committees should be taken. He thought that was exceedingly desirable. He was not going to express any opinion upon any new departure that had been initiated of late. But he thought these advisory committees would be very useful, and that the shipping community would be well advised in accepting the proposal. There would be men on the spot whose advice and opinion could be sought, and to whose opinion very great weight would attach. It would also be a great advantage that they should hear what the seamen had to say on the matter, and also the officers.

New clause— (1) In the United Kingdom, all superintendents. deputies, clerks, and servants in mercantile maxim offices shall be appointed and removable by the Board of Trade, and all superintendents, whether appointed before or after the commencement of this Act, shall, in carrying into effect the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, be subject to the control of and obey directions given by the Board of Trade, except as respects any matter which, under those Acts or any Order in Council made there under, are subject to the control of any other Government Department, and a power of removal by this section conferred on the Board of Trade shall be exercisable by the Board as respects superintendents, deputies clerks, and servants appointed before the. commencement of this Act. (2) In sub-section 1 of Section 244 of the principal Act the words 'such of the provisions of this Act as relate to their powers and duties' shall be substituted for the words ' this Act.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."

MR. BONAR LAW

said this was, he thought, the most objectionable part of a Bill to which he had very little objection. In a sense it would be a relief to have an opportunity to attack the right hon. Gentleman rather than continually to support him, as he had done hitherto. But in this House atmosphere told, and with the number of supporters he had behind him, it was obvious that he must make the attack somewhat milder than perhaps under other conditions he would wish to make it. The right hon. Gentleman had, as usual, made out a very plausible case. He had given grounds which were fairly strong for making a, change of the kind proposed, but he had not pointed out to the House what was the real and only reason for the proposal. It was not in the Bill when introduced. It never entered the head of the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, and it was somewhat suddenly sprung on them now. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed it in a very gingerly way. He had assumed that it would be out of order to discuss the very ground on which the change was to made. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman issued first one circular, and then, having to amend it a month afterwards, he issued another to the local marine boards which had statutory authority as great as that possessed by the Board of Trade. They threatened that they would not carry out his instructions. The right hon. Gentleman felt that he must get the matter put right in some sort of way. He was, to put it very mildly, in a hole, and he himself had not seen how it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get out of it with dignity. But he had done so. He called together the members of the local marine boards. They detested the proposals in the Bill, and they meant to fight them. They held all the cards, and they threw them down, and the right hon. Gentleman who had no cards got everything he wanted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Clever" It was very clever. How did he manage it? By carrying out one of the most successful games of bluff he had ever known. He would not discuss all the points which came before the conference, but he thought he could give a very fair summary of the discussion which took place. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that it was accurate. He called these gentlemen before him, and this he shrewdly suspected was what took place at the conference. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I propose to make a slight change which will be of administrative advantage in carrying on the work of the Board of Trade. I know you gentlemen do not like it, but I notice that on the Paper of the House of Commons there is a proposal to abolish the local marine boards altogether, which you would like less," and then he added—"This Amendment to abolish the local marine boards is in the name of a Labour Member." The right hon. Gentleman had reversed what had come to be regarded as the order of nature in this Parliament. Up to now, it was the Labour Members who had used His Majesty's Government, but the right hon. Gentleman for the first time was using the Labour Party to effect his purposes. He had succeeded. The hon. Member did not know that the members of the local marine boards were really very much to blame. They did not know the right hon. Gentleman as hon. Members did who had the honour of being his colleagues in this House. They did not know that he had many amiable qualities, and that the sense of responsibility made a great difference in his attitude on many subjects. They only knew him from his platform speeches. He appeared to them as a creature of almost superhuman energy who was prepared to eat the Church of England for breakfast, the House of Lords for lunch, and then to go with a good appetite for dinner. To a being of that kind what were the local marine boards? When he read the account in the Press of this conference between the right hon. Gentleman and the members of the local marine boards he was strongly reminded of another famous conference which was described, he thought, by Voltaire, but he was not sure about that. A cook summoned the poultry to a conference. He explained to them that he wished to treat them with every possible consideration. He said "I have called you together in order to consult with you as to the sauce with which you would like be eaten." There was some commotion, and a member of the deputation got up and explained that they did not wish to be eaten with any sauce. The cook was inexorable, and said "That is wandering from the question." Evidently, the right hon. Gentleman had not that trouble at the conference on the subject of the local marine boards. They discussed with them quite seriously the sauce with which they would be eaten. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was a compromise. If he ever had a dispute with anybody he hoped it would be settled by a compromise of the same kind. It was a compromise where the right hon. Gentleman got everything he wanted and gave absolutely nothing. He had told the House about the advisory committee. He knew very well that was promised at the time he introduced the Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

It is an advisory sub-committee of the local marine boards.

MR. BONAR LAW

said he was really surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have made that interruption. He had one object in introducing this advisory committee or it was a fraud. The object was to get advice on any subject relating to shipping with which he wished to deal. It left the position exactly where it was. He was bound to say that he thought a change of this kind made to get out of a dangerous difficulty, and to get over a state of matters which was strongly resented by the shipowners, was extremely objectionable, and if the shipowners had chosen to make this the battle ground of their opposition he would have supported them to the utmost of his power, for he felt that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman was so absolutely wrong that the issue might have been doubtful. It was difficult to prophesy about a thing which had not happened.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

What I said was that I was not sure that the local marine boards would not have been wiped out.

MR. BONAR LAW

I think as a matter of fact you are taking away from them all their powers and you might just as well wipe them out.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

No.

MR. BONAR LAW

Well, all the powers that they valued. A good fight could have been made for them. He did not intend to oppose the Amendment. At the same time he thought the step taken by the right hon. Gentleman was one which ought not to have been taken.

* MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said he could not allow the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich to pass without a few words of comment. He was present at the famous conference to which the hon. Member had alluded, and he could not admit that the parallel which he had drawn between that conference and the one between the cook and the poultry was applicable. He thought he detected a tinge of envy in the reference by the hon. Member for Dulwich to the mingled dignity and dexterity with which his successor in the office had emancipated himself from what might have proved to be an exceedingly embarrassing position. He thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have considered before making a speech which, while smothering the right hon. Gentleman with compliments, contained an extremely sinister and left-handed compliment to the shipping interest. The hon. Gentleman had insinuated that the representatives of the shipping interest had allowed themselves to become the victims of a clever artifice. On behalf of the shipping interest might he say that he did regret the circumstances which had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and which had led up to the position in which they found themselves in regard to this clause? The local marine boards had been closely associated with the commercial life of the country for, he thought, fifty years, and at the various ports they had been a most useful means in bringing shipowners into the loca1 commercial administration. No allegation had ever been successfully brought against them of failure in their duty.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

I have brought such allegations.

* MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said he was certain that the hon. Member would bring accusations against all forms of authority of which he did not approve. He did not think that the hon. Member could bring an accusation successfully against the local marine boards. They had in his judgment most successfully discharged their duties for all these years with assiduity and zeal and with great benefit to the ports in which they were located. He shared the opinion that this was not the most fortunate or happy moment to choose for taking away the powers of the local marine boards, but he did not desire to raise controversy on the point. Circumstances had to be faced. He entirely denied the construction which the hon. Member for Dulwich had put on the arrangement. They had now secured what he believed to be a reality in an advisory committee upon which the local marine boards would have representatives. His hon. friend said that it was open under the Bill they were now discussing to form an advisory committee. Of course it was open, but surely that was a very different thing from a binding and honourable understanding that a committee would be formed and that the local marine boards would be represented.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

Where will they be represented?

* MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said that was part of the understanding. They would be there to express their own point of view, and any departure of moment in the administration of the local marine boards would be submitted to them before it was put in operation. It was all very well from the Party point of view for the hon. Member for Dulwich to get up and tell the Committee that this was an illusory bargain, that really nothing had been conceded, beyond what was already in the Bill, and that the President of the Board of Trade had been the victor. He hoped the House would not be misled by the Party artifices of the hon. Member for Dulwich. He regretted that any of the powers of the local marine boards should have been taken from them, and he shared the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the manner of their taking off, but at the same time he claimed that they had received a valuable quid fro quo, and he trusted that the services of the sub-committee in future would enable his right hon. friend to be more happy in the orders he issued to these bodies.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he wanted to save the time of the Committee if he could. He had an Amendment on the Paper which he did not intend to press, but he would take this opportunity to say what he had to say, and afterwards withdraw the Amendment. The hon. Member for Dulwich had paid a very high compliment to the local marine boards. He himself had been a member of a local marine board for fifteen years, and he supposed that he was the only member of that board in the House of Commons at the present time. He could speak with personal knowledge of the work of these boards. In his opinion, a local marine board, as at present constituted, was a shipowners' society and nothing else. The Committee had not yet considered how these bodies were constituted. There were six members elected by the shipowners, and four members appointed by the Board of Trade. He knew of one case where the whole of the Board of Trade representatives were shipowners, so that practically the board was composed of shipowners. The hon. Member for the East Toxteth division of Liverpool had stated that no charge could be successfully brought against these boards. He had tried to bring a charge against them, and he hoped he had succeeded. He knew that the local marine board for North Shields at one time never had a meeting for five months, and it was not until he put a Question to the late President of the Board of Trade calling his attention to the fact, that it resumed its meetings. After that they did manage to have meetings. He was a member of a local marine board which he considered the best—not because he was a member of it, but because it was the only local marine board in the country that had transacted its business in a proper manner. He hoped he had proved by Questions addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, that, although local marine boards were in existence, they were not doing their duty. He would like to explain to the Committee the powers which were vested in the local marine boards. When the Act of 1854 was passed they were constituted to appease the shipowners of that time, and to get over their opposition to that measure. The Government consented to their being established, and the shipowners had to pay so much for every ship they "signed on." He reminded hon. Gentlemen who were interested in shipping that the seamen also had to pay on being engaged. He himself had to pay 7s. in one year as shipping fees. Every seaman engaged had to pay a shilling for engagement, and at the termination of the agreement he had to pay another shilling, so that the sailors and firemen were contributing towards the expense of the maintenance of the local marine boards and the mercantile marine offices, though they had no representation on the boards. It was only in 1892 that they obtained representation on the local marine Boards, and he was one of the seamen's representatives appointed. What were the powers of these boards, and how did they affect the situation? He was going to put the case by stating what happened to himself. When he took up the cause of the seamen and commenced fighting their battle he was engaged at the Port of Sunderland. The average wage at that time was £3 15s. 0d. a month. A captain who was engaging a crew wanted to pay £4, because he said he was desirous of having good men, and that he did not mind paying 5s. a month more if he could get a good crew. When the crew went into the office to "sign on" the deputy superintendent objected to the master of the ship giving them £4, alleging as his reason that if this master gave £4 other crews would demand the same wages. [AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?] That was just the question he asked, and he objected to the interference of this man. He reminded him of the fact that he was a Government official receiving payment from the State, and that it was no business of his to interfere in the bargain between the crew and the master as to the wages to be paid. Immediately he made that statement the official gave an order to a policeman that he was to be put outside. He might say that the members of the crew did not take that lying down. They said that, if there was any putting out to take place they would all have a hand in it, and while the controversy was going on the deputy superintendent changed his mind. That officer thought there might be a rough time, and the crew got "signed on" at £4 a month. What was the reason for the deputy superintendent's taking up that attitude? It was entirely in consequence of the fact that he held his position from the local marine board, and as shipowners constituted that board he thought he was serving the interest of the men who paid his wages and to whom he looked for promotion.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this official was instructed to do this by the members of the local marine board and to say that there was to be no increase in wages?

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

If the hon. Member will pardon me, I have not said that. If the hon. Member is going to object, let him challenge what I say and not what he thinks I have suggested. I say that the influence of the local marine boards over superintendents has been in the direction of compelling these superintendents against their better judgment to favour the side of the shipowners against the seamen.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

I do not wish unnecessarily to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in fairness I think I ought to point out that he is merely putting before the Committee his own construction of the influence of the local marine boards. He does not give any proof that the action of the man was due to the influence of the local marine board.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

said he did not know what more the ship- owners wanted. He himself had been for fifteen years a member of a local marine board, and he knew what happened there. He knew of a case where a deputy superintendent was required, and they applied to London for a man, saying in their application that they wanted a man who was favourable to the shipowners. He asked the hon. Member for Liverpool to take it from him that that was absolutely correct. He was making no charge against persons whom he regarded as some of the best Civil servants in the country. He made no charge against these men of doing anything wrong at all; what he wanted to point out was that the shipowners who did not pay their wages—the State paid them—might interfere and retard their promotion. The mercantile marine superintendents had to decide disputes between masters and seamen involving amounts up to £5. They were under the control of the local marine board, and might have to decide a case of a ship owned by a member of a board, and it was natural that they should be influenced by a desire to further the interests of the men to whom they had to look for promotion. In the administration of the Factory Acts would an ordinary working man be satisfied if an employer was in a position to say what the inspector was to do; or in the administration of the Mines Acts would a miner be satisfied if the mine owners were to supervise what the mine inspectors were to do? If they were going to have local marine boards at all let them have equal representation all round and for all parties, and not as at present local marine boards which were nothing else than shipowners' societies. Coming to the question before the Committee, he thought the hon. Member for Dulwich had a very weak case when he attacked the President of the Board of Trade on this matter. The demand of the seamen was that when a seaman was being discharged at the mercantile marine office and deductions were made from their wages they should have a right to call in a representative to present their case. The President of the Board of Trade thought that that was a very reasonable request, and said that he would consider the matter. But what did the local marine boards do? They became passive resistors and defied the law. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He maintained that the President of the Board of Trade was quite right in his contention that he had the power under the Act to grant this representation, but this clause had been put down to make the matter sure. A large number of seamen on board British ships were foreigners, who could not speak English very well, and many of them could not speak English at all; and he held that if these men were to put their case before the shipping offices, they should have a man to represent them.

THE CHAIRMAN

I really do not understand how this matter comes within the scope of the Motion before the Committee, which is, that the clause be read a second time.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

maintained that the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade that the seamen should be allowed to call in a representative to present their case was a reasonable one, and nothing would have been heard about it had not some members of the Shipping Federation made a great deal of noise about nothing.

* MR. BOWLES

said that in spite of the very able speeches to which they had listened hon. Members could not have thoroughly grasped the real meaning of this vital proposal. At this time of day they were used to the notion of the interference of officials of Government departments in industries of all kinds, out such interference was a recent thing in connection with the shipping interest, on which the prosperity of the country chiefly depended. It was not until 1850 that there was any interference by the State in regard to the contracts of employment of the shipping industry. That interference was made entirely on the ground that it had become necessary to defend British seamen, not against their employers, but against the crimps at shipping ports. In 1850 a Merchant Shipping Bill was passed, which, for the first time, laid down that a seaman was not to be engaged or discharged in a British port except before officials at a shipping office. These officials were to ascertain first of all that the seamen understood the contract into which they entered, and, secondly, that the terms of the contract had been carried out. That was a proposal against which not a single voice was raised; but it at once became apparent that it constituted an invasion of the undoubted rights of the shipowners. So far as the seamen were concerned it was all gain; but it was otherwise with the shipowners, who, while very ready to protect their men against the "crimp," felt that, unless precautions were taken, their business might fall entirely under the control of a centralised bureaucracy. That feeling was shared by the Liberal Government of the; day, and on the 20th June, 1850, Mr. Labouchere, then President of the Board of Trade, in introducing the Mercantile Marine (No. 2) Bill said that the main object of that Bill was the necessity of protecting the seamen from the system of "crimpage." And he went on to say:— He found that the principal objection entertained to the measure, and especially in the great outports, was that it would enforce a system of excessive centralisation, and would bring the shipping interest too much under the control of the Board of Trade sitting in London Now he felt that to be a question of great difficulty. He had no abstract reverence for a system of centralisation upon that, or any other subject; on the contrary, he was anxious to avoid as much as possible, and still less was he anxious for the patronage which the Bill would vest in the Board of Trade. He believed the shipping masters would have a most difficult duty to discharge; and he should be most happy to get rid of the appointment of those officers if he thought he could do so, without leaving local bodies destitute of any proper check, and without allowing them to become centres of abuse and agitation. He thought that, after a good deal of discussion with parties interested in the mutter, he had fallen on a plan which would prevent any system of centralisation, and would at the same time ensure an effectual check against local abuses. He proposed to institute Local Marine Boards in all ports having more than 30,000 tons of shipping engaged in the foreign trade. Mr. Labouchere then went on to say how these local boards would be constituted, and continued— He believed there would be no danger in allowing the local boards to nominate shipping officers, and in making the necessary arrangements for the establishment of shipping officers. It had been represented to him, and with great force as he thought, that those officers would be placed in a very difficult and embarrassing position, unless they could preserve the most cordial good understanding with the shipowners. He would, therefore, give the local board the power of nominating the shipping officers; but he would take a precaution against any abuse of that concession by requiring that no salary could be given to those officers without the express sanction of the Board of Trade, which would be responsible for the expense of that portion of the proposed system. He would also give the local board a concurrent power with the Board of Trade of instituting investigation into the conduct of all masters of ships against whom there was prima facie evidence that they had abused their powers. The Committee would see that the local marine boards were instituted in 1850, in order to prevent what he believed to be a real danger, the putting of the most delicate and important details of the shipping business under the permanent harrow of the Board of Trade. He said without fear of contradiction that these boards, so constituted, with fifty-six years experience behind them, had worked extremely well, and in the interests of everybody concerned. They had been perpetuated by every shipping Act passed since then, and had been conducted without any real complaint being made and substantiated against them. But, although those boards had worked to the satisfaction of everybody else, it had become perfectly well known that they had for some years past incurred the jealousy and hostility of the Board of Trade. He had shown that when the marine boards were first instituted, one was to be appointed in every port which had more than 30,000 tons of shipping; and making allowance for the increase of the mercantile marine of this country, if the Board of Trade had carried out the repeatedly expressed intentions of Parliament, they would have set up a local marine board in every port which had 200,000 tons of shipping to-day. Owing to the action of the President of the Board of Trade and his predecessors this had not been done, and a most anomalous state of things had been created.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

rose to a point of order. He understood the ruling of the Chairman a moment ago to be that they wore now discussing the question of whether the Board of Trade or the marine boards should appoint the superintending officers of those boards, and that everything else was irrelevant.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that was not the ruling. He was aware that they were listening to a rather long excursion into ancient history in the speech of the hon. Member, but he had not seen his way to call him to order.

* MR. BOWLES

said he desired to point out that this proposal of the President of the Board of Trade was not a mere afterthought as it looked to be, but was part of a studied policy which had been carried on for the last thirteen, fourteen or fifteen years by the Board of Trade, and which had largely defeated, and would now totally subvert, all the previously expressed intentions of this House. Because these local marine boards got into their way they had done everything they could to prevent new boards being appointed in ports which were certainly entitled to have them. Although Aberdeen with 115,612 tons of shipping entered and cleared had a local marine board, Southampton, with nearly 2,500,000 tons of shipping, in spite of the urgent requests of the port, had been refused one. Plymouth, with 306,276 tons, had a local Marine Board, while Swansea, with over 1,000,000 tons, had not. Greenock, with 152,870 tons, had a marine board, while Newport, with 1,854,310 tons, had not. Dublin, with 275,612 tons, had a board; Middles-borough, with 1,317,590 tons, had not. Sunderland, with 878,213 tons, had a board, while Manchester, with 1,814,968 tons, had not. Many of these ports which had not these local marine boards had urged the President of the Board of Trade to be allowed to have one, and it appeared to him that the refusal was the climax and consummation of a long campaign the result of jealousy of the boards, because they got in the way of the officials of the Board of Trade. There were seventeen local marine boards at this moment, the last created at Cardiff in 1893. There ought to be at least thirty-three. The present system, under which the control of the business of the mercantile marine offices and the appointment of the superintendents were vested, not in the Board of Trade but in the local marine boards, had worked admirably for over half a century, and in his judgment it ought not to be abrogated, He did not think that the statement that these boards had worked admirably could be contradicted. What were the complaints against them? Who had complained? Had the shipowners? On the contrary, the shipowners had always ' demanded an increase rather than a diminution of these excellent bodies. Had the captains of ships conplained?

* THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not see what this clause had to do with the creation of new marine boards.

* MR. BOWLES

was much obliged for the ruling, which, of course, he would not transgress, but what he said and must repeat was, that the President of the Board of Trade had not shown any cause for the policy he was adopting. He could not do so, because there did not exist one single good reason founded upon any ground of public policy or public interest for this astonishing revolution which was now proposed, at the last stage of this Bill. But although there was no public reason there was an excellent departmental reason, and to that reason he should like to draw the attention of the Committee before he sat down. For the last fifty-six years these local marine boards had been working, and for the last fifteen or twenty years they had incurred the hostility of the permanent officials of the Board of Trade.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON

asked whether it was in order to keep on making charges against the officials of the Board of Trade, who could not defend themselves.

* MR. BOWLES

said that last year the Board of Trade issued to these boards a circular ordering them to do something, which need not be referred to as it was of no importance—but the Board ordered them to do something which they desired them to do but which the local marine boards did not wish should be done. The result was that the seventeen local marine boards stood up against the right hon. Gentleman, and his department proved that his action had been ultra vires and quite improper, and made it plain that the right hon. Gentleman, who was so anxious to manage everybody else's business, had in this respect been quite incompetent to manage his own. The marine boards said that they were not going to carry out the orders of the right hon. Gentleman, which he had not the slightest power to impose upon them. It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that at the last moment when the Bill was in its last stage the right hon. Gentleman had cut the knot and said, "Very well, you boards point out that I have been making illegal and improper demands upon you, therefore I will abolish you altogether." That was not a proper way in which to make a vast change in an administration which had lasted for nearly sixty years. The Board of Trade, which had created these boards, was now seeking to destroy them; and the right hon. Gentleman was acting no better part than that attributed to Ugolino, who devoured his own children in order to preserve to them a father. The result would be that the whole shiping trade of this country, which was our most important industry, and the whole delicate machinery of our merchant navy would be handed over body and bone to the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. That was a vast change and he thought it an unfortunate one. It was a change which ought not to be attempted to be carried out in the casual, offhand and after - thought manner which the right hon. Gentleman was now pursuing. They had been told that the shipowners had agreed, but nobody, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich, could have any doubt about what the nature of that agreement was. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was going to appoint an Advisory Sub-Committee to deal with this matter, but there was nothing about that in the Bill, and even if it were true there was nothing in the proposal, because all the centralised committees in the world would never give back the local powers which were now being taken away. The superintendents would henceforward be the mere creatures of the Board of Trade. They would, indeed, in some cases, have the husk of a local marine board behind them, but, whatever those boards might say, and whatever the Advisory Sub-Committee might advise, the superintendents would be bound to obey the orders of those to whom they owed their appointments. If the shipowners or anybody else believed that the emasculation of these local boards was going to be made up for by a perfectly impotent and purely advisory committee in London they were mistaken. For his part, if they went to a division on this clause, he should certainly vote against it; because it carried out an enormous and far-reaching change; because it proceeded upon absolutely no ground of public interest or policy which had been or could be advanced; because it was the outcome of mere Departmental annoyance pitchforked into the Bill at the last moment; because it would upset the system which for the last half century had worked well; and because a proposal of this sort ought not in any case to be introduced and carried through the

House upon the very cursory remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of a Bill which did not itself foreshadow or hint in its previous provisions at any such proposal.

Clause read a second time.

Question put, "That this clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 24. (Division List No. 413.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Idris, T. H. W.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Jenkins, J.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Crean, Eugene	Joyce, Michael
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Crooks, William	Kearley, Hudson E.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Kekewich, Sir George
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Kelley, George D.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol. S.)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Delany, William	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Dillon, John	Laidlaw, Robert
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Barker, John	Donelan, Captain A.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)	Duncar, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lambert, George
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)	Lamont, Norman
Barnes, G. N.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Beale, W. P.	Elibank, Master of	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Beauchamp, E.	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lehmann, R. C.
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm)	Erskine, David C.	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Beck, A. Cecil	Everett, R. Lacey	Lewis, John Herbert
Bell, Richard	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bellairs, Carlyon	Ferens T. R.	Lough, Thomas
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Ffrench, Peter	Lundon, W.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)	Flennes, Hon. Eustace	Lupton, Arnold
Brace, William	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Flynn, James Christopher	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Branch, James	Foster, Rt. Hon Sir Walter	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brigg, John	Ginnell, L.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Brooke, Stopford	Glendinning, R. G.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. T. (Chesh.)	Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Abardeen)	Gulland, John W.	M'Callum, John M.
Burns, Rt. Hon John	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Killop, W.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Byles, William Pollard	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Cairns, Thomas	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Cameron, Robert	Hart Davies, T.	Marnham, F. J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Harwood, George	Masterman, C. F. G.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Meagher, Michael
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Haworth, Arthur A.	Menzies, Walter
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Hayden, John Patrick	Molteno, Percy Alport
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hedges, A. Paget	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Montagu, E. S.
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Henderson, J. M. (Abereen, W.)	Mooney, J. J.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Higham, John Sharp	Morrell, Philip
Clough, William	Hobart, Sir Robert	Morse, L. L.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hogan, Michael	Murphy, John
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Myer, Horatio
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Napier, T. B.
Cooper, G. J.	Hudson, Walter	Nicholls, George
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nolan, Joseph	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Vernery, F. W.
Norman, Sir Nenry	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Vivian, Henry
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Rowlands, J.	Walker, H. De R.(Leicester)
Nuttall, Harry	Runciman, Walter	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Sehwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Wardle, George J.
O'Dowd, John	Sears, J. E.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Seddon, J.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Shee, James John	Seely, Major J. B.	Waterlow, D. S.
Parker, James (Halifax)	Shackleton, David James	Watt, H. Anderson
Paul, Herbert	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Pearson, W. H. M (Suffolk, Eye	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Philipps, J Wnyford (Pembroke)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim S.)	Whitehead, Rowland
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Snowden, P.	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)	Steadman, W. C.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Radford, G. H.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Sullivan, Donal	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Summerbell, T.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Rees, J. D.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd)
Rickett, J. Compton	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)	Young, Samuel
Ridsdale, E A.	Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Torrance, Sir A. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)	Toulmin, George	J. A. Pease and Mr. Fuller.
NOES.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fell, Arthur	Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Percy, Earl
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Kimber, Sir Henry	Thornton, Percy M.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Valentia, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Liddell, Henry
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Bowles.
Doughty, Sir George	Morpeth, Viscount

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Herbert Levis)—put, and agreed to.

After the announcement of the result of the division,

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.; one of the tellers)

said he had to report that one of the hon. Members appointed as a teller, the hon. Member for Flintshire, did not act and that a considerable delay was caused by his absence.

A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. J. H. LEWIS, Flintshire)

was sorry to say that he did not have any notice and was not aware that he had been nominated.

THE CHAIRMAN

said he was aware of the delay and nominated another teller.

LORD R. CECIL

said he was only anxious that it should not be thought that the delay was due to any fault on his part.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,

in moving a new clause(Returns as to earnings of ships), said that though not exactly what he would have wished, the clause was the result of long consultation with the shipowners, and they had agreed to it in its present form. He appealed to hon. Members to let them get the Bill before five o'clock.

New clause— (1) The managing owner of every ship registered in the United Kingdom (not being a fishing-boat) shall in each year make a return to the Board of Trade at such time as the Board prescribe, showing the aggregate gross earnings during the preceding year of all ships so registered of which he is managing owner, and it shall be the duty of the Board of Trade to furnish the requisite forms to the managing owner of the ship. The Board of Trade shall not publish or disclose in any way any Returns made under this section or any summary of such Returns other than figures showing the percentage variations from year to year in the aggregate gross earnings returned, distinguishing if they think fit the coasting trade. Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Board of Trade from using the Returns to assist them in preparing periodical estimates of the extent to which the relation between imports and exports of the United Kingdom as a whole is affected by the freight earnings of shipping which reach this country. No person not employed by the Board of Trade in connection with the Returns shall be permitted to see any individual Return, and any person so employed who knowingly makes any disclosure of any matter which the Board of Trade is prohibited from disclosing under this section shall be guilty of a misdeameanour. (2) The forms shall be so framed as to distinguish between ships engaged in the coasting trade and other ships. (3) If the managing owner of a ship fails to make the Return required under this section, or makes a Return which is false in any respect, he shall be liable on summary conviction for each offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds. (4) Any owner of a ship or other person having the management of the ship or any interest therein, shall furnish j to the managing owner any information required by him for the purposes of the return, and if he refuses or neglects to do so he shall be liable on summary conviction for each offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds. (5) The expression ' managing owner ' means the person registered as managing owner under Section fifty-nine of the principal Act, and includes any person whose name is registered as ship's husband or otherwise under subsection (2) of that section."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)—

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. BONAR LAW

said the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly the fact, and he thought-he could promise that there should be no unnecessary delay on the part of his hon. friends in respect to discussions upon points in which they were interested.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause— Section seven hundred and forty-four of the principal Act (which relates to the application of that Act to certain fishing vessels) shall not apply to ships engaged in the whale fisheries off the coast of Scotland and registered at ports in Scotland, and accordingly there shall be added at the end of that section the words' and of ships engaged in the whale fisheries off the coast of Scotland and registered at ports in Scotland.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)—

Brought up, read the first and second times, and added to the Bill.

* MR. BRACE,

in moving a new clause limiting the deductions for propelling power space, said he was quite willing to make a bargain with the President of the Board of Trade. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept the clause, he would not inflict a speech upon the Committee. Even if the clause had to be explained it would have to be very briefly as he was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should get his Bill through before five o'clock. He moved the clause on behalf of the dock and harbour authorities, of the pilots, and of some shipowners who were not fairly treated under the present system of shipping measurements. The shipowners had had sufficient deductions allowed to them under the Bill, and the time had come when a stop should be placed on the extra deductions which they had enjoyed under the Merchant Shipping Acts, and would continue to enjoy under the main sections of the present Bill. It was only when one gave attention to this question and considered it closely that one discovered what an unscientific, illogical, and unjust system was in operation with regard to ship measurements. There seemed to be no system at all. Whether the Board of Trade had any rule or not he did not know, but there did not seem to be any. Why shipowners should be given deductions greater than the space they used he could not understand. It violated all the principles of trade and commerce of this country. Under Clause 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act if 13 percent. was required for propelling space they were allowed 32 per cent; if 40 per cent. was required for propelling space, they were allowed 70 per cent. Why should there be this allowance of more than was actually required? Surely in connection with the shipping industry there were other industries to be considered. Why should this extra space be given to the shipowners at the expense of the pilots and the dock authorities? Shipowners had not to meet the enormous liabilities that dock owners had to bear. As the dock authorities had to carry liabilities which the shipowners had not, he thought the time had come when the interests of the dockowners and those of the pilot should be considered as well as those of the shipowner. As an illustration of the extraordinary system in operation for ship measurements he would quote an extreme case. It was an example of the registration of ship measurements. It was in connection with a steam tug called the "Arcadia." The gross tonnage of that vessel was 179.85 tons, the deduction for propelling space was 152 tons, and the other deductions were 27.82½ tons, so that the total deduction allowed in connection with the propelling space and other things was close on 179.82½, which on a gross tonnage of 179.85 left just half a hundredweight for dock dues to be paid upon. Again there was another vessel known as the "Knightsgarth." That was a vessel of a gross tonnage of 2,655 tons, but the net tonnage was 1,645 tons, the water ballast space, 564 tons, being also exempted from dock and other charges. All this water ballast space was empty when the ship was loaded up, and although it enabled the "Knightsgarth" by reason of the bouyancy that she would not otherwise have, to carry many hundreds of tons more dead weight than she would otherwise carry, she paid nothing to the dock companies for it. It was because the Board of Trade had failed to deal with this question that he now brought it before the Committee. In 1901 under the powers which the Board of Trade had under the Merchant Shipping Act, they issued amending instructions to their surveyors which they said would prevent any vessel getting a registration of less than 40 per cent. gross. But he found hundreds of ships which had a total register of tons of less than 40 per cent. They thought, in connection with all shipping legislation, that, in addition to the ship-owners' case, the dock and harbour authorities and the pilots had a case as well. There were a number of ship-owners who were advantaged under the present system at the cost of other shipowners. Let them take the case of the s.s. "Greenhill." Her gross tonnage was 1,899 tons. The deductions for propelling space were 608 tons, the other deductions were 86 tons and the net register was 1,205 tons. The length of that vessel was 272½ feet. Another vessel sailing to the same port was the "J. Duncan." The gross tonnage of the "J. Duncan" was 1938 tons. The deductions for propelling space were 971 tons, and the other deductions 174 tons, making the net register 793 tons, although the length of that vessel was 297½ feet, as against the 272½ of the "Greenhill."

AN HON. MEMBER

Will the hon. Gentleman give all the measurements of the ships. It is not fair to give only the length.

* MR. BRACE

said that if hon. Members put a series of questions to him of a technical character he would in all probability be side tracked with this clause. He did not propose to be side tracked, and therefore he left the hon. Member to supply the other measurements if he pleased. To carry the argument a step further, to show that the dock authorities and pilots had a very strong case, he would take the ships that were cleared from the Penarth docks with the dead weight exported to register for the year 1880 as compared with the dead weight exported to register in the year 1905. In the year 1880 the total exports were 1,664,000 tons, the register to exports was 65½ per cent., and the average dues paid was 4d. per ton. In the year 1895 the total exports were 3,498,000, but the percentage to register to export had fallen from 65 per cent. to 45 per cent. and the average dues had fallen from 4.24d. to 2.22d. He ventured to use these-figures to show that the time had come when, the Board of Trade having failed to deal with the question, the House of Commons, when making a new Shipping Act, must include a clause which should put an end to these disastrous deductions. The dock authorities employed hundreds, if not thousands, of men, and they were spending millions of money. When these dock authorities were by Parliament given powers to make docks, they had certain obligations placed upon them; no matter what they did, they must carry out those obligations. In the case of many of the dock authorities the maximum limit of burden had been reached, and he therefore said on their behalf that the House had no right to place obligations upon them without giving the dock authorities, in some way or other, an opportunity of charging the people who made use of the docks upon the measure- merits upon which they ought to charge. In a communication with the Board of Trade, dated the 27th June, 1906, the Secretary of the Cardiff Pilotage Board gave particulars showing that there was a serious decrease of registered tonnage, and stated that in 1905 the registered tonnage in these docks was 11,805,009 tons as against 9,547,009 tons in 1895; that the pilotage fees received were £34,796 as against £34,831. That went to show that although there had been an increase in the tonnage of 1,258,000 tons, because of the deduction allowed by the Board of Trade to the shipowners under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the amount received by the pilots had fallen off, and although there was a substantial increase in tonnage, the pilot's fees were £34 less in 1905 as compared with 1895. The House must have some consideration for the dock and harbour authorities, and the pilots, as well as for the shipowners. It was because he believed the time had come when, by a clause in the new Act of Parliament, there should be, a limit placed upon the deductions allowed for propelling space that he asked the House to accept this Amendment. He was aware that a Committee had considered the subject, and that the majority of the Committee were not in favour of the clause; but he did not think that the hon. Member for Dulwich would tell the House that the dock authorities and the pilots had not a grievance or that this was a case with which the House ought not to deal. In the interests of the dock authorities, the pilots, and some shipowners, he ventured to submit the Amendment which stood in his name. He begged to move.

New clause— In ascertaining the regular tonnage of a ship the allowance made for the space occupied by the propelling power shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1900, in no case exceed forty per centum of the gross tonnage of such ship less the spaces allowed to be deducted by paragraphs (1) (2) and (3) of sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894."—(Mr. Brace.)—

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said his hon. friend had put his case very lucidly and very fully. He hoped his example in the latter respect would not be followed by other hon. Members, otherwise this stage of the Bill would not be completed to day. He sympathised with the hon. Member and with the object of his Amendment, but his difficulty was that it was rather too late to transform the Bill into a Tonnage Bill. They could not on the Report stage spring up and say, "We want to make this a Tonnage Bill." He admitted that there was a very strong case made out for the consideration of the whole question of tonnage. In fact the case made out by his hon. friend was absolutely irresistible. Something ought to be done, there was no doubt, but it could not be done this year, because the question was almost an international one and it had to be approached in a totally different manner. Next year the Government would probably consider it. He understood that the Mersey Dock Board meant to reintroduce a Bill which they had brought in two years ago, the introduction of which led to the appointment of the Committee to which the hon. Member had referred. Then they would come face to face with the question in a prominent form. That Bill would be sent upstairs to a Committee and considered. He did not think he ought to be asked to consider the question at the present stage of this Bill. He could not accept the responsibility of altering the law with regard to tonnage at so late a stage of the measure. All these things wore to the detriment of someone. If one vessel was undercharged it stood to reason that another must pay for it; therefore he thought the Government must consider the whole question. But they would require a better opportunity of doing so than now presented itself. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment, and that in the next hour the House would deal with the whole of the clauses that remained.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the case of the dock owners was quite unanswerable. He sat upon the Committee which considered the Bill of two years ago, and he regretted that the Government of that day threw it out after the very careful hearing that was given to it by a patient and conscientious Committee. He was specially uneasy because the Bill brought forward by the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board largely resolved itself into a quarrel between the Dock Board and the Cunard Steamship Company. The Government were then, as they were now, practically in partnership with that company. He was glad to hear what the President had said, because it had relieved him from the unpleasant duty of animadverting on the character of the Board of Trade Committee. He, however, blamed the Government for asking the dock companies to come forward at this moment. It was the business of the Government to have dealt with this matter in the Bill at the beginning. How did the matter stand? In 1899 a dock authority was told by Lord Morley, an extremely high authority in all matters of private legislation, that this was a matter which ought not to be provided for by private Bill but by public Bill. Mr. Ritchie, who was at the Board of Trade at the time, said he was not prepared to bring in a Bill. In 1900 Mr. Gerald Balfour, who was then President of the Board of Trade, stated that he was considering instructions to be given with regard to the matter, and he invited the dock authorities to come forward with their own Bills. In that same year the Swansea harbour authority got relief, and again Mr. Gerald Balfour twice repeated his practical order to the harbour authorities of the country to come forward with local Bills. He (Sir John Brunner) objected very strongly to putting on the dock authorities this enormous expense. It was the duty of the Government to settle the question once and for all, and not to compel dock authorities, many of them far too poor, to come up to this House and spend thousands of pounds every year. He was sorry his right hon. friend had refused to amend this Bill and get rid of the grievance. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would have the power next year to carry out his undertaking. Next year would bring its own legislation, and this matter might take six or seven weeks. To-day it could be done in five minutes. He could only hope that in the year to come the right hon. Gentleman would have the power to bring the injustice to an end.

MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)

said he only rose to corroborate the remarks of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down in reference to the the Committee which sat in 1904 to consider this question. The Committee, who were unanimous in their Report: said that they received no assistance whatever from the Board of Trade. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give a positive assurance that in the future the Department would be on the side of the dock companies.

* MR. RUSSELL REA (Gloucester)

said there were two sides to this question, and when it was stated that the matter could be settled in about five minutes now he thought that was not quite the fact. He would like the hon. Members who were not shipowners to consider the question. These spaces for water ballast, food, fuel, and propelling space constituted the non-earning parts of the ship. The water ballast spaces were constructed for the stability and safety of the ship. It had been the policy of the State to encourage shipowners to increase those spaces, and they were made and added to the ships at great expense, not for the purpose of profit, but for the benefit of the public. The shipowners in the past had been willing to incur this expense, but if they were to be taxed for it every time the ship entered a port they would not be willing to bear it in the future. It would be, he thought, a fair distribution of the public burden if the dock owners contributed one foot more berthing space or one inch more water. In the end there was no loss so far as these dock companies were concerned. What would have happened if the Government had not encouraged shipowners to construct double bottoms for water ballast? The ships would not have been constructed in that form, and the dock companies would be receiving just the same dues as now but on smaller and less stable ships. He should without any hesitation vote against this clause.

* MR. W. HOWELL DAVIES (Bristol, S.)

said he was glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that he would support the Bill of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board when they brought up their proposal next year to fix a definite percentage of gross tonnage as the basis of legal charge, instead of the net tonnage as was the custom now. He represented the dock authorities for Bristol, for whom he had endeavoured in various Acts to get some redress in this direction. If the President of the Board of Trade told the Committee to-day that he himself would bring in a Bill to deal with the question and not put it on the dock authorities, the hon. Member for South Glamorgan would no doubt be willing to withdraw his proposal. They wanted this matter settled on an equitable basis. Dock authorities in the last few years had spent millions of pounds in order to bring their property to such a condition of efficiency as would meet the requirements of modern ships, and he was quite sure that if the President of the Board of Trade, instead of hinting that each harbour or dock authority should seek to obtain separate powers, would offer to bring in a Bill himself, it would meet the case much more satisfactorily and get rid of what was felt to be a. growing injustice by dock authorities, and would secure a uniform custom throughout the | United Kingdom.

* MR. BRACE

said that after the explanation of the President of the Board of Trade and his undertaking that if the dock and harbour authorities brought in a Bill to remedy this grievance the Board of Trade would support it, he would withdraw the clause.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Support the reference to the Committee.

MR BRACE

Quite so. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the grievance of the pilots, and also deal with those little harbour boards who could not afford to come to the House.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

assented.

Motion and new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause— Sub-section one of Section twenty-one of the principal Act shall be read as if the following words were inserted at the end of that sub-section: ' and the registry of the 3hip shall be considered as closed except so far as relates to any unsatisfied mortgages or existing certificates of mortgage entered therein.'"— (Mr. J. Stuart.)

Brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

, in moving a new clause dealing with pilotage certificates, said the chief object of his proposal was to remedy a grievance. A shipmaster and the mates might pilot a ship up the Thames, if they had had a pilot's certificate from Trinity House, whereas one set of pilots only were permitted to pilot up the Channel and the Thames as far as Gravesend, and another set, the river pilots, then took the ship up to the Port of London. He did not know what was in the mind of those who framed the Act. They insisted that one pilot should not be allowed to pilot a vessel up the Channel and river because of the excessive strain upon the pilot in bad weather. In the interests of the pilots themselves, and in the interests of the vessel coming up the river, the Act divided the pilots into two classes, and every ship coming up the river which was not piloted by the master or the mate had to be piloted by two pilots. He was not an enemy of the shipmasters or the mates, but he did suggest that the small shipowners were practically able under the Act to get their vessels, through permitting the master and the mate to pilot them, up the Channel and the river at a reduced expense. The masters and the mates of those vessels received 40s. and 30s. respectively for the duty. The result was that while the Act prevented the pilots piloting the vessel up the Channel and the river because of the excessive strain, the men who had been on a long voyage, and had undergone the hardships of that voyage, came up the Channel and the river in the summer months and piloted their vessel to the Port of London, only engaging a pilot in the bad weather and in the winter months. If it was a fair thing to compel, because of the strain, the master of a ship to divide the work of piloting a ship where pilots were concerned up the Channel and the river—if that was a sound reason for dividing the pilots into two classes, it was also a sound argument for not allowing the masters and the mates to pilot the vessel up the river to the Port of London at all. On behalf of the masters and the mates of ships who objected to this position, and in fairness to the pilots generally at home, against whom a very unfair competition was directed, he appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to accept this Amendment. He also appealed to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support him in the endeavour to secure from the Board of Trade every sympathy for this clause. He was told that the Committee upstairs had given a decision in the matter, but if that were so he could give precedent for his Motion in the case of other clauses which had been accepted by the President of the Board of Trade. He did not put forward this clause upon the basis of its being a protection for a particular class of pilots. He put it forward in order to remedy an unintentional mistake in the framing of the Act, and to prevent a direct attempt on the part of shipowners to procure for themselves the piloting of their ships by masters and mates with very little expense. The whole position ought to be changed and the Committee would never have a better opportunity than the present for changing it. When they considered that the master and mate of a vessel had not to undergo the same stringent examination as a pilot, that a pilot had to serve seven years, and must be thirty-five years of age before he could obtain a pilot's certificate at all, and that masters and mates had to undergo no such severe training or examination, they would agree with him that the President of the Board of Trade in this particular case would do well to give a sympathetic reply—not a promise of action in the future, but a reply which would enable the Committee at this moment to incorporate into Clause 599 of the Merchant Shipping Act the words he now moved.

New clause— Section live hundred and ninety-nine of the principal Act shall be amended as follows:— Page 262, line 13, after the word 'pilot,' add 'but shall not be entitled to pilot that ship beyond the limits within which a licensed pilot is permitted to conduct ships unless that ship is engaged in daily trips for pleasure only during the summer season.' Section 604, page 264, line 23, after the word ' certificate,' add ' but the Board of Trade shall not grant a certificate to any master or mate authorising him to pilot any ship beyond the limits within which a licensed pilot is permitted to conduct ships, unless such ship is engaged in daily trips for pleasure during the summer season.'"—(Sir Gilbert Parker.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read the second time."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said this clause, which had been discussed in Committee, really meant that a master must take a pilot aboard at Gravesend, and it was put forward in the interests of the Gravesend pilots. He did not think that the hon. Member was really serious in wishing to press upon the Committee a compulsory clause of this character. He was perfectly certain that such an extension would not be sanctioned.

LORD R. CECIL

did not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the point of his hon. friend. Pilots worked under certain restrictions which were not put on the captains of ships. A pilot was not entitled to pilot a ship all the way up the Channel to the port of London, a captain was entitled to do so if he took out a pilot's certificate. The point in the mind of his hon. friend was, so to speak that what was sauce for the pilot goose should be sauce for the pilot gander. The right hon. Gentleman did not meet the case fairly by saying that it was an attempt to extend compulsory piloting. If that was his objection it might be a matter to consider whether he should not remove the restrictions now resting on pilots. That would be one way of meeting the difficulty, but it was surely very unfair for the Legislature to have one set of conditions to apply to one set of men carrying on business, and another set of conditions to apply to another set of men carrying on the same sort of business-He thought that his hon. friend was-entitled to a better answer from the Government than he had received. He was aware that there existed one of those pernicious understandings between the front Benches that the proceedings on this Bill were not to be delayed beyond five o'clock. He regretted any such undertaking, though he recognised that he was bound by it. He thought, however, this was a matter which ought to be considered more fully by the Government.

Question put, and negatived.

New clause— Where by any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament, tonnage, dock, or other rates or dues are or may be authorised to be levied at any port, dock, or harbour upon not less than a prescribed percentage of the gross tonnage of ships, the rates for the pilotage of ships (if levied upon tonnage) in the pilotage district in which such port, dock, or harbour is situate, may be levied upon not less than the same percentage of the gross tonnage of such ships.' —(Mr. Howell Davies.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. JOYCE

said he would like to add a word in support of this clause. He thought the President of the Board of Trade was under a misapprehension. This clause did not seek to alter the existing conditions as to the assessing of tonnage. They only asked that the harbour authorities should he allowed to assess pilotage charges whore they were placed on the registered tonnage on the same lines as they charged them at the ports.

MR. KEARLEY

said his right hon. friend gave an undertaking when another Amendment was before the Committee that the whole question of tonnage should in the immediate future be re-opened. They were not able to accept this Amendment at the present moment because by so doing they would prejudge the whole question. He would ask his hon. friend if he would be satisfied with this assurance.

MR. W. H. DAVIES

asked leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JENKINS

moved a new clause requiring every foreign going ship of two thousand tons and upwards net registered tonnage to carry a certificated ship's carpenter. In Grand Committee this question was discussed, but even there, as the right hon. Gentleman would remember, very little time was left for the purpose. There was every reason for saying that a ship of two thousand tons and upwards should be compelled to carry a carpenter. In 1894 the Board of Trade appointed a Committee to inquire into the manning of ships, and the Report of that Committee, published in 1896, was to the effect that all foreign going ships, from 1500 to 2,000 tons gross register should be compelled to carry a ship's carpenter. Was it too much then to ask to-day that in view of the decision arrived at on that occasion the President of the Board of Trade should accede to the reasonable request made in this clause? He had not time to show the difference between the carpenter of to-day and the carpenter of days gone by. Some people had the impression that a ship's carpenter to-day was not the man that would be qualified to go on a ship built of steel and iron. The ship's carpenter was used in the construction of the ship. He it was who laid the keel, set the frame of the ship, lined the whole ship, and was there throughout the construction. He was to all intents and purposes the ship's constructor, and while the ship's carpenter might not in private yards execute the work, still the Government must recognise the fact that in the Royal Dockyards he did all the work; and, therefore, from the time that the ironclads were commenced to be built the shipwright succeeded in that direction, and he had held it ever since. He believed in the sincerity and determination of the President of the Board of Trade to prevent loss of life as far as possible. They had been discussing the question of deck-loads, and it provided a typical illustration of what he was saying. In the modern designed ship, for which the President of the Board of Trade had promised to cater for the carrying of deck-loads, there was no man more able and more thoroughly equipped than a sea-going carpenter for putting up rails or making a temporary bulkhead. He had been a foreman in a shipyard. He had had to get a ship upright which had come in with a list. He had seen boats that would never fill because the water ran out. They often heard of a vessel foundering at sea and of the boats being swamped, but in many cases he was inclined to believe that they were not swamped by reason of the sea washing over them, but by reason of their not being able to keep the water out in consequence of the state they were in. He appealed, therefore, to the President of the Board of Trade to allow this clause to go through in the interest of life, and in the interest of a class who had no desire to penalise; shipowners in any way. It was a very reasonable request. A carpenter on board ship attended to all the sluice valves and pumps, and he had been on a ship where there had been no carpenter, and where in the fore peak of the ship the sluice had been up half-way and no man could move it up or down. What would happen in the case of a collision in the fore part of the ship? The water-tight bulk-head at the fore part was not protected by reason of this sluice being open, and the water would go through the ship.

New Clause — (1) After the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and seven, every British foreign-going ship of two thousand tons and upwards net registered tonnage, shall be provided with and carry a duly certificated ship's carpenter. (2) A ship's carpenter shall not be deemed to be duly certificated within the meaning of this section unless he is the bolder of a certificate of competency granted by the Board of Trade, or is the holder of certificates of discharge showing at least three years service as ship's carpenter previously to the said thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and seven. (3) The ship's carpenter shall be rated in the ship's articles as ship's carpenter and provided with a separate berth. (4) If the requirements of this section are not complied with in the case of any ship, the master or owner of the ship shall, where there is no sufficient reason for the failure to comply with the requirements, for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, and a prosecution under this section may be instituted with or without the consent of the Board of Trade. (5) In this Act the expression ' ship's carpenter' shall mean a person who is able to satisfy the requirements of the Board of Trade for the efficient discharge of the work to be undertaken."—(Mr. Jenkins.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said his hon. friend had made a very eloquent and powerful appeal on behalf of the carpenters, and he was sure the Committee would recognise it. He was always very loth to refuse anything to a fellow countryman, and he would be delighted to assent to his request, but he was afraid he could not. He had gone into this matter repeatedly, but he was sorry to say he could not see his way to impose this additional burden upon ships. If it were a question of safety he agreed there ought to be compulsion to take a carpenter on board, but all the records of the Board of Trade had been searched and they could not find a single case of complaint of a ship being endangered from the absence of a carpenter. The bulk of the foreign going ships took a carpenter on board, and he thought his hon. friend might depend upon it that it was as much to the interests of a shipowner himself as to that of the master to take a carpenter on board where it was really necessary. At the same time he did not think the law ought to enforce that. The matter was discussed very fully upstairs, and he was perfectly certain that the Bill would never be got through if a serious attempt were made to introduce this clause. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would see his way to withdraw it.

MR. JENKINS

Will the right hon. Gentleman hold out some hope of doing something next year?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said if he found that there were any cases where life at sea was endangered he would consider the matter.

Question put, and negatived.

New clause— Section 136, subsection 2, of the principal Act shall be read as if at the end thereof there were added the following words: "Unless at the time of signing such release the seaman shall give notice in writing to the master of a claim or demand against the owner or master, in which event the settlement shall be taken to have been made, without prejudice to such claim or demand."—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)—

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

intimated that he accepted the principle of the clause and would accept the clause.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reposed, with Amendments; as amended, on recommital, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.