Lords Sitting of 15 February 1898

NEW PEERS.
DAVID, Earl of GLASGOW, in that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland, G.C.M.G., having been created Baron FAIRLIE, of Fairlie, in the County of Ayr—was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Sir DONALD ALEXANDER SMITH, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner in London for the Dominion of Canada, having been created Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal, of Glencoe, in the County of Argyll, and of Mount Royal, in the Province of Quebec and said Dominion of Canada—was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Presented, Read first time, and Referred to the Examiners:—
Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]: Aberystwith Gas Bill [H.L.]: Agricultural Company of Mauritius Bill [H.L.]: Blackpool Sea Water Bill [H.L.]: Caledonian Railway Bill [H.L.]: Central Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]: Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]: Chipstead Valley Railway Bill [H.L.]: Clergy Mutual Assurance Society Bill [H.L.]: Colonial Bank Bill [H.L.]: Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway Bill [H.L.]: Crow-hurst, Sidley, and Bexhill Railway Bill [H.L.]: Eastern Telegraph Company Bill [H.L.]: Edinburgh Merchant Company Bill [H.L.]: Exeter, Teign Valley, and Chagford Railway Bill [H.L.]: Folkestone Gas Bill [H.L.]: Folkestone Water Bill [H.L.]: Glasgow and South-Western Rail-
614
way Bill [H.L.]: Great North of Scotland Railway Bill [H.L.]: Guy's Hospital Bill [H.L.]: Isle of Wight Railway (Brading Harbour and Railway) Bill [H.L.]: Kingstown and Kingsbridge Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]: Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Bill [H.L.]: Liskeard Corporation (Water) Bill [H.L.]: Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]: London and North-Western Railway Bill [H.L.]: London and North-Western Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]: London and North-Western Railway (Wales) Bill [H.L.]: London and South-Western Railway Bill [H.L.]: London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [H.L.]: London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill [H.L.]: Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company Bill [H.L.]: Marianao and Havana Railway Company Bill [H.L.]: Mersey Railway Bill [H.L.]: Midland Railway Bill [H.L.]: Midland Railway (West Riding Lines) Bill [H.L.]: Morley Gas Bill [H.L.]: Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [H.L.]: Newhaven and Seaford Water Bill [H.L.]: Newhaven Harbour Bill [H.L.]: North British Railway Bill [H.L.]: North-Eastern Railway Bill [H.L.]: Patriotic Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]: Redhill and Reigate Gas Bill [H.L.]: Sheringham Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]: South-Eastern Railway Bill [H.L.]: Stirling Gas Bill [H.L.]: Swansea Gas Bill [H.L.]: Tenterden Railway Bill [H.L.]: Torrington and Okehampton Railway Bill [H.L.]: Upper Assam Tea Company Bill [H.L.]: Wraterford City Gas Bill [H.L.]: Wirral Railway Bill [H.L.]: Yeovil Gas Bill [H.L.].
Presented and read first time:—
Bacup Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]: Bakewell Gas Bill [H.L.]: Belfast Corporation (Hospitals) Bill [H.L.]: Belfast Harbour Bill [H.L.]: Blackpool Improvement Bill [H.L.]: Blackpool Palatine Promenade Pier Bill [H.L.]: Brighton Underground Railway Bill [H.L.]: Buckie (Cluny) Harbour Bill [H.L.]: Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]: Carlisle Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]: Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Bill [H.L.]: Dover Harbour Bill [H.L.]: Dundee Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]: Dundee Suburban Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]: Edinburgh and District Water Bill [H.L.]: Edinburgh and Leith Corpora-

615
tions Gas Bill [H.L.]: Felixstowe and Walton Water Bill [H.L.]: Filey Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]: Folkestone Corporation Water (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]: General Power Distributing Company Bill [H.L.]: Great Ormo Tramway and Tramroad Bill [H.L.]: Halifax Corporation Bill [H.L.]: Hamilton Water Bill [H.L.]: Hey wood Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]: Inner Temple Buildings (King's Bench Walk) Bill [H.L.]: Kettering Water Bill [H.L.]: Market Harborough Gas Bill [H.L.]: Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (New Works) Bill [H.L.]: Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.]: Midlothian and Peebles District Board of Lunacy (Water) Bill [H.L.]: Morley Corporation (Gas) Bill [H.L.]: Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]: Newhaven and Seaford Water Board Bill [H.L.]: Newhaven Harbour and Ouse Lower Navigation Bill [H.L.]: Newtown Water Bill [H.L.]: Norton and Halton Roads Bill [H.L.]: Portsmouth Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]: Rochdale Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]: Saint Marylebone Churches Bill [H.L.]: Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, Bill [H.L.]: Saint Thomas, Southwark, and Saint Saviour, Southwark, Bill [H.L.]: Seaham Harbour Bill [H.L.]: Tyne Improvement Bill [H.L.]: Tyne Improvement Commissioners (Constitution) Bill [H.L.]: Tyne-mouth Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]: Wath-upon-Dearne Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]: Windsor and Ascot Railway Bill [H.L.]: Wolverhampton and Essington Mineral Railway Bill [H.L.]: Yeovil Corporation Bill [H.L.].
Midland Railway Bill [H.L.].
Petition for additional provision, of the Midland Railway Company; together with proposed clause annexed thereto, Read, and Referred to the Examiners.

OVERLOADING OF SHIPS.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lord,—The Motion I have the honour of submitting involves a very much-needed reform. Some years ago, when public attention was drawn to the dangers of overloading ships, remedial measures were taken and a load-line mark insisted upon on all British vessels. At that time, and in those days,
616
steamers were constructed with very much finer floors than they have now, and did not require so much weight to immerge them, but, with the present fine floor steamers, very much more ballast is required than it is the present system to put in them. I think you will find, my Lords, that the general opinion of the Masters of these steamships is that they would be safer with the vessel overladen than with the vessel too light. In the first case, they would always have the vessel under command; in the second case, the vessel is utterly unmanageable, and it is a source of danger to herself and to any other vessel that may be near at hand. Then there is the risk of losing the propeller, fracturing the tail shaft, and the general heavy strain that must happen to the whole frame of the vessel, and risk is bound to happen under these circumstances. Steamers are now sent to sea with the boss of the propeller awash and drawing very little water. The Master of one of these steamers told me that, with his ship in ballast on two occasions, the only way to get off the lee-shore with a strong wind was to go off stern foremost, as he could not get her to face the wind bow on. This was in the Mediterranean; if it had been in the Atlantic, with a heavy gale and sea, it would have been impossible to do that—the vessel must have gone ashore and been lost. I could give you a number of cases, but it would take up too much of your Lordships' time. I will, however, read you an extract from a letter I received from a Master who has had nearly 20 years' constant work in the North Atlantic:
"The practice of sending light draught, shallow steamers across the Atlantic with upper part of boss of propeller little more than awash, undoubtedly brings tremendous strain on all parts of machinery when engines are racing, which is practically all the passage, and is direct cause of broken tail and shafts, cracked bosses, and blades thrown off. In fact, the teriffic racing brings undue strain, on the whole structure of the ship. During my last four years' service on North Atlantic, in command of a powerful cargo steamer, we have lost two propellers and had one fractured tail shaft. In two cases undoubtedly the damage was caused by the excessive racing in a light ship, during ordinary Atlantic gales. There is also serious danger of starting tank tops and brackets in long, flat-floored ships, for, as the vessel passes across the seas, the pounding is exceedingly severe."

617
There is one other paragraph at the end of his letter that does not quite bear on this subject, but as it speaks in terms of approbation of the British seaman, your Lordships might like to hear it:
"I consider the British seaman, with all his faults, much superior to the foreigner."
That is the opinion of a man who has been a great number of years at sea. I heard from another Master of a large steamer that left Bordeaux, bound for Cardiff, in the ordinary ballast—that is, water ballast. All went well till they got to the Bristol Channel. On entering the Bristol Channel they met with a gale. To use his own words, they had no control over the ship—she was unmanageable, and had any other vessel come down on her they would have been unable to get out of her way. The distance from the entrance of the Bristol Channel to Cardiff is about 80 miles. This large and powerful steamer took over 24 hours to do that small distance. You can judge, my Lords, what a very poor chance of safety that ship would have had on a lee-shore. No steamer should be allowed to proceed to sea without at least two-thirds of the upper blade of her propeller immersed with the ship on an even keel. Shipowners might say—probably will say—that if you compel them to put extra ballast tanks, or to arrange their holds so as to carry extra water ballast, that you will still further handicap them in their competition with foreign vessels. Well, if this be so, my Lords, I venture to say it is our own faults, and that we have the remedy in our own hands. We are now giving certificates to foreign shipmasters. This is most detrimental, very unfair, very unjust to the officers of our own mercantile marine—the men to whom the country would look in case of war, both to make up for the casualties in the Navy and to ensure a proper food supply to this country. The mercantile marine, in this way is just as vital to the safety of the country as is the Royal Navy, and yet many of our ships are manned by foreigners, others are commanded by foreigners. Other nations do not treat us in the same liberal spirit—rather otherwise. Only a very short time ago—a couple of weeks or more—a German merchant was desirous of chartering a vessel from Antwerp to the Rio Plate.
618
One of our English steamers desired to tender for this freight. On examining the charter-party, a clause was found in it to the effect that vessels of any nationalities could tender for it excepting English vessels. That is only about three weeks ago. That looks to me, my Lords, very like "boycotting," as we call it in Ireland. I think, my Lords, foreign vessels entering and clearing at British ports should be compelled to comply with the Board of Trade regulations as regards free board, load line and manning, and any other things that tend to the safe navigation of our waters. For remember, my Lords, if a foreign vessel, through over-loading or unseaworthiness, is in danger of being lost, and any of our ships are near, they are compelled to go to their assistance, often at great risk of the men's lives, danger to the vessel, and a certain loss of time. We seem to give every facility to foreign vessels to compete with our own ships. During the Greek and Turkish War—I daresay your Lordships heard of these things through the papers—the Greek vessels competed successfully against us in the Black Sea, through their being able to overload their vessels and able to ask our British Consuls for provisional certificates of British rights. During the war they flew our flag, the moment the war was over they hauled it down. This was most unfair to British shipping. I think if you looked after the interests of our shipowners, and the shipping interests generally and made foreign vessels adopt the same regulations that our ships have to adopt, that then there would be no complaint on the part of British owners of any regulations which might be enforced for the safety of their vessels and their crews. My Lords, I will now move my Resolution:—
"That the present system of sending steamers from port to port insufficiently ballasted, is a source of danger both to themselves and other vessels; and it would be desirable that every steamer entering or leaving a British port should carry sufficient ballast to ensure the vessel being under command in bad weather, and have a ballast load mark placed on each steamer, indicating the immersion which the Board of Trade surveyors consider necessary for safe navigation."
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords,—In the speech which my noble Friend has just delivered, he has dealt with several

619
matters which I do not think are all of them included in the Motion of which he has given notice. He has, for instance, dealt with the competition to which our own shipowners are subjected in their trade with regard to foreign vessels, and he has also dealt with the Question of foreign manning upon our ships. These are questions, my Lords, with which I do not propose to deal tonight. They are Questions which are considerably larger than those with which the noble Lord deals in his Motion, and he will pardon me, therefore, if I do not follow him in the arguments which he has advanced with regard to them. But, with regard to that part of his speech which does refer to his Motion, I listened with great attention, and wish to associate myself at once with his desire to take every possible means of ensuring the lives of our British shipping community. Parliament has already done much in that direction during the past few years, and I do not hesitate to say that, if the noble Lord can show that there are any great grounds for believing that legislation in that respect is incomplete, he would have a considerable mass of public opinion behind him in any appeal that he might make to the Government to complete any defects or deficiencies in that legislation. But, my Lords, when the noble Lord goes on to say that there is any considerable system, or any considerable danger, of sending ships to sea at the present time with insufficient ballast, I confess that I cannot altogether agree with him. The noble Lord has this evening given to us several cases of ships which he has stated went to sea with insufficient ballast, but I notice that everyone of those cases which he cited took place in foreign seas, or at any rate in seas beyond those around our immediate shore.
LORD MUSKERRY: The letter that I read was from the captain of a vessel crossing the Atlantic directly from England.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The noble Lord will pardon me. I did not hear that instance.
LORD MUSKERRY: I do not think I read it.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Then I do not wonder that I did not hear it; but I do remember several cases which the noble Lord cited, and I remember some took place in the Mediterranean, others in the North Atlantic, and others coming out of the port of Bordeaux. I wish to point out to the noble Lord that in all those cases they would be found to be utterly beyond the control of the Board of Trade. With regard to insufficient ballast, no law that was ever passed would have any jurisdiction in those cases. But to go to our own cases: of course I have not been able, owing to the very short space of time at my disposal, to obtain a report from the Board of Trade Surveyors upon this Question; but, as far as the records at the Board of Trade are concerned, we have not been able to find more than a very few instances in which any accidents have ever occurred owing to the reasons which the noble Lord has enumerated. I do not think, therefore, that it can be said with much accuracy that any system is in vogue at the present of sending ships to sea from our ports with insufficient ballast. But however that might be, I would wish to point out that the law, as it at present stands, is perfectly sufficient to cover any cases of that kind. Under Section 459 of the Merchants' Shipping Act, it is possible to detain any vessel which seeks to leave our ports in an unseaworthy or improperly laden condition; and by Section 457 we have also a power to prosecute any owner or master who sends a vessel to sea in that condition; and, therefore, I feel sure that if the Board of Trade had any cases such as those to which the noble Lord has referred brought to their notice, the law would be quite sufficient already, as it stands, to deal with it, and if the noble Lord will kindly send us any cases in his own knowledge of instances where vessels have left our ports improperly laden or unseaworthy owing to insufficient ballast, we shall be very happy to make additional inquiry into the matter. But, my Lords, I would merely point out to the noble Lord what I am sure he will agree with, that detention is a weapon which is to be very carefully used. It is impossible for the Board of Trade Surveyors to board every ship which leaves our ports, and they

621
can only exercise a general supervision over the vessels which go to sea. But, if they were instructed to detain, without the greatest possible cause for such detention, to begin with the liability which the Board of Trade and the Government might have to bear owing to any wrongful detention of that sort, would be very heavy; and in addition to that it is obvious that if the Board of Trade Surveyors were not most careful in that respect the system of detention would be very soon discredited by any hasty or careless action on their part; and, my Lords, therefore I do not think that there is reason for the minimum loading-line which the noble Lord suggests.
LORD MUSKERRY: Ballast.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: It is much the same thing—minimum ballast mark. I do not think there is any reason for altering the present state of things in the way that the noble Lord suggests. If we had any reason to believe that there were many cases of insufficient ballasting, then that is perhaps one of the means which might be considered to put an end to it, but we at present strongly hold to the opinion that it would be absolutely unjustifiable to harass the mass of shipowners by any such regulations until we were satisfied that the cases which the noble Lord has referred to are anything more than very infrequent. Under the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion, and that he will be satisfied with the explanations I have offered.
*LORD NORTON: I cannot understand what the difficulty would be in passing an Act for the minimum load-line, any more than I found any difficulty myself in passing an Act for the maximum load-line. If it is advisable and desirable it would be very easy, nor would it, I think, increase the Surveyors' duties—they must see every ship that goes out.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The Board of Trade Surveyors do not see every ship that goes out. It would require a perfect army.
*LORD NORTON: To load with ballast below the minimum load-line would be to subject themselves, if ever seen, to a penalty—that would be enough to enforce such an Act. The only question is whether it would be desirable or not. I can quite conceive that what the noble Lord has said is true—that it is as dangerous to be too light as it is to be too heavy in the sea. The minimum load-line, and that would be similarly marked on the side of the ship, and would be a gauge which, if not attended to, would subject the owner to a penalty like that which compels him to keep below the maximum.
LORD MUSKERRY: The reply that the noble Earl has given me I understand is, that if these cases are brought before them, further measures will be taken to remedy an evil that does exist very largely. If I understand the noble Earl aright, he will carry out and see that the inevitable reforms are carried out, and under those circumstances I will withdraw my Motion.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I never said anything about further Amendments. What I did say was that the law was quite sufficient to deal with these cases of insufficient ballasting, and therefore if the noble Lord will draw our attention to any cases that he knows of of this kind we shall be very happy to put the law in motion, but we do maintain that the law does not require any strengthening.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I daresay that the noble Lord is quite right in withdrawing his Motion. Perhaps when he has as much knowledge of Governments and Government promises as I have had he will not be satisfied with the answer he has got, and he will again go into these cases and bring forward some Motion with stronger evidence than he has given us to-night.
Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes to five of the clock.