PILOTAGE BILL. (Hansard, 27 July 1849)

§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH
wished to know whether there had been any communication between Her Majesty's Government and the Trinity Board as to the principles upon which they were to exercise the powers conferred upon them by the Pilotage Bill. By the Bill as it now stood, the Trinity Board could give, at their discretion, 1025 a license for any ship to any port. Under an Act of George IV. a pilot could not obtain a license unless he had been mate for three years in a vessel of 80 tons; or a master for one year with a vessel of the same size. If he had not either qualification, it was necessary that he should have been seven years a servant of the Board, in the appointment of pilot, or five years a pilot's apprentice. He wished to know what restrictions the Trinity House intended to place itself under in the exercise of its discretion. It was not safe to give arbitrary discretionary powers to bodies of men or to individuals, unless there was an absolute necessity. By the 25th section of George IV., the owners of vessels were not liable for loss if the pilot was a certified one. Now, he wished to know whether under this Act the owner would be liable if the vessel was lost by the incompetence of the master. This was very important to know; and if the Bill had been sent up in time, their Lordships could have attended to it and to other important points. He held in his hand a letter, dated the 24th of July, and written by the commander of one of Her Majesty's ships, directing that seven or ten pilots should be in readiness at Cove, to take charge of the Royal squadron on the 5th of August. He alluded to this letter in order to show the necessity that existed for having a supply of pilots. If this Act were to come into extensive operation, there would not, in the present case, be ten pilots found to take charge of Her Majesty's fleet. He had stated last night, that he saw no objection to give certificates to the captains of steam vessels plying between the ports of the united kingdom and the opposite ports of the Continent, because, from the circumstance of their coming into port so often—perhaps two or three times a week—they must know the difficulties of the harbour. In these cases he did not sec any objection to make the masters of vessels the pilots; but if they were to allow the captains of vessels which had made long voyages to be their own pilots, they would run great danger; because the shifting of the sands, the changes of buoys, lights, and the appearance of the coast, required the experience of a man who lived upon the spot, and watched the movements of the tides and currents. He believed that the masters of Her Majesty's ships were not allowed the expense of pilotage in English ports, and it might be the same in Irish 1026 ports; but the letter he had read showed the distrust of the Admiralty in the knowledge of the masters—and they were right; for he himself would not trust their knowledge, except where they had been accustomed to a particular locality for a certain time.

§ LORD BYRON
thought this Bill ought to have been called the "Steam Pilotage Bill." Had its provisions been in accordance with that title, it would have been most beneficial and quite unobjectionable.

§ EARL TALBOT
observed, that any person who had brought his ship home in heavy weather, must know the advantage of having a pilot acquainted with the coast. He hoped the Government would alter the Bill, so as to apply it only to steamers.

The EARL of GRANVILLE
wished to state, in reply to the question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough), that the result of the communications held with the Trinity Board, was a condition, on the part of the Government, that the powers conferred should be exercised with great caution and prudence. Under the new law, the owner would be responsible for the conduct of the person who acted for him as pilot, instead of being exonerated, as he was at present. He could not admit that the peculiar circumstances of Her Majesty's voyage to Ireland at all affected the commercial question at issue; and, as regarded the question of general safety, he thought sufficient credit was not given to the owners of vessels for a desire to preserve their own vessels from shipwreck, at whatever cost.

§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH
said, that nothing could be more necessary and proper than to take every possible precaution for Her Majesty, but it was likewise absolutely necessary that every possible precaution should be taken of Her Majesty's ships. The noble Earl should remember also that only one Royal person could go in one ship; and that one pilot only, therefore, would be required for Her Majesty's safety, whereas the others were required for the rest of the squadron.