MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 17 June 1901)

*LORD MUSKERRY

My Lords, the Bill now before your Lordships is similar to the one that was brought forward in 1899, with this exception, that while the former Bill provided that after a certain time no foreigner should be master of a British ship, this Bill only provides that, after 1st January next, no further certificates of competency as master shall be granted to any except British subjects. The Bill does not disturb any of the present foreign masters. None of them will be dismissed from commanding a British ship; but the Bill will prevent any further increase in their numbers, which, I think, is a step in the right direction. When the former Bill was before the House I spoke at some length on the subject, and I reminded your Lordships that a British ship was British territory, on which British laws have to be administered, and that, therefore, it was only just and proper that those laws should be administered by British subjects. I also instanced the danger that might arise of a British ship, commanded by a foreigner, being, in time of war, taken by him into a hostile port. My noble friend the Earl of Dudley said, in answer to this, that he thought it assumed considerable powers of persuasion on the part of the captain and considerable simplicity on the part of the crew. I do not think my noble friend was aware that it is a very common thing for a master to receive his orders by telegram, without his officers or the crew being made aware of their purport, and that he is in a position to obtain news long before anyone else on board. Under those circumstances, nothing could be easier than for him to inform his officers that he had received orders to deliver the cargo at whatever port he intended to run for, and the first intimation the officers and crew would have of the true state of affairs would be their being made prisoners of war, and the ship confiscated, possibly with a large cargo of grain, which at that time would be a severe loss to England.

Now, my Lords, it is universally admitted that the present large number of foreigners in our mercantile marine is a serious evil, and a great menace to our shipping in time of war. There are vessels sailing under the British flag manned entirely from captain down to 514 cabin boy by foreigners, and the prevailing language is German. Should we unfortunately have a war with Germany, those men would at once return to rejoin their flag, and, if they were in a position to do so, would certainly take the vessel with them. Every other maritime Power, with the exception of Japan and Holland, require their ships to be commanded by their own subjects; and even these two Powers would do so if they had as efficient a supply to draw from as we have in this country. In case of war with a strong naval Power, the present lamentable state of affairs, if permitted to continue, would be a serious menace to the nation, as the safety of every British merchant ship would be of the utmost importance. Even the diversion of only half a dozen ships, laden, say, with grain, would be a loss which we could very ill afford. This Bill seeks to remove that danger, if only to a small extent, and its passing would go a great way towards assuring the country that the Government are adopting practical steps towards making the merchant service a really efficient first reserve for the Empire—a reserve upon which there would most certainly be an immediate call in the case of our going to war with one of the Great Powers. As illustrative of the supreme importance of the merchant service to the nation, I may mention that up to the end of last year 132 British Vessels, embracing a tonnage of 706,084 tons, had been chartered by the home and Indian Governments as transports for the conveyance of troops, over 200,000 in number, and numerous other vessels were engaged for the conveyance of munitions of war in the shape of guns, stores, horses, mules, etc. The magnitude of the tonnage of these 132 vessels may be estimated from the fact that only four other Powers have mercantile marines which exceed it. In contradistinction to the mismanagement of other services, the transport service has been conducted with marvellous efficiency, not a single life being lost, and the highest public tributes have been paid to the late First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Goschen, and the principal transport officer at the Cape. I might here say that when the war is happily over, I hope His Majesty's Government, in giving awards for meritorious service, 515 will not forget these mercantile masters and officers who have done such good service to the State. In the case of one merchant ship which was chartered as a transport, her captain, who was a foreigner, was required to give way to a British subject, and in another case the same thing happened in regard to a chief officer. Lord Goschen, speaking in the House of Commons when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, in March of last year, upon two transport ships which were almost entirely manned by foreigners, said— I may frankly admit that I was startled when I saw the composition of the crew of these two ships. I deeply regret such a state of things, and hope that in the future owners with whom the Admiralty have to deal will avoid the necessity of such cases being brought before the House. That, my Lords, is the opinion of the late First Lord of the Admiralty. The views of the Government are plainly shown in their requiring British subjects to be substituted for the foreign officers in the transports referred to, and surely it is not consistent for them now to oppose this Bill. I am very sorry to find that the shipowners are opposing this Bill. I think it is a short sighted policy on their part, and I know it is most unpatriotic. They have sent a circular letter to every Member of your Lordships' House except myself—I have a copy of it, however, through the courtesy of a noble Lord—giving their reasons for opposing the Bill, and I propose to deal very shortly with their objections. I cannot do better than read the replies of the merchant service Guild to the first two objections. They are as follows— (1) That it is no argument against the principle of the Bill that it involves a reversal of policy. The experience of over forty years shows that in some particulars the repeal of the Navigation Act in 1849 was ill-advised. At the time of the repeal the merchant service of this country was a very different service from what it is at the present time, and the very fact that recently leading ship-owners have bitterly complained that the present Merchant Shipping Act is obsolete, illustrates that it was not drafted on the most approved lines or on ripened experience. (2) The promoters of the Bill have borne in mind the fact that its passage would not be inimical to the interests of the shipowners, owing to there being a great over-supply of British captains and officers. They would not extend their demands to seamen and firemen until 516 there was an adequate supply of British subjects of this class, which they recognise is not the case at present. The third objection is that the proportion of foreigners holding masters' certificates in the British mercantile marine is exceedingly small. The Government have recently gone so far as to offer to owners a rebate on the light dues if they have carried boys in their ships. You are endeavouring to get boys to enter the mercantile marine whose legitimate ambition is one day to command a vessel, and when they have served all their time and passed all their examinations they may find no berths open to them, owing to their being occupied by foreigners. What I wish to impress upon your Lordships is, that every one of the 794 alien masters and officers is taking the place of one of our own fellow-subjects. I do not think that is either right or just. Their fourth objection is that a large number of British subjects are at present employed (especially as engineers) in vessels which belong to foreign nations. If, therefore (they say), this Bill were passed it might easily lead to these nations adopting a retaliatory policy in this matter, to the loss and injury of many of His Majesty's subjects. Our English engineers are employed because they are the best that can be got; the moment they have educated their own men sufficiently they will dispense with our countrymen. I will read to your Lordships a letter which will show how foreigners behave towards Britishers— Hong Kong, 31st March, 1901. "In the early part of 1900, the Scottish Oriental Steamship Company, Limited, of Edinburgh, having a fleet of fifteen steamers, trading between Hong Kong, Siam, and the Straits Settlements, sold their fleet to the Norddeutscher Lloyds. Now, as a matter of fact, they had not a single man available to put in the ships when they bought them, so you can imagine the trouble, inconvenience, and expense they would have been put to had all the Britishers resigned when the flag was changed, and that was what most of them wanted to do. But, to gain time, they (the Norddeutscher Lloyds) told the captains and officers that they had the permission of the German Government to retain the services of all Britishers who wished to remain in the company for a term of four years at least. That was all right, and plain sailing; no one complained, and it gave the men a chance to try and save a little money and look around for themselves. In the meantime, however, the Lloyds were gathering together their own 517 German officers, and sending them out and discharging the Britishers, so that in less than fourteen months all the Britishers sailing under the German flag had notice to leave the service, with no word of explanation, only, 'You must leave next trip, as we will have our own men here to take command,' etc. The manager of the Scottish Oriental was also very anxious we should remain. The managing agents out here, Messrs. Windsor and Co., went so far as to give the captains a letter stating that they would retain their services for the time mentioned, and now this is the result—dismissed, in less than fifteen months, without any explanation whatever. No remuneration, not a word of sympathy, nor a letter of thanks for past services, after being with them for fourteen years in command and without costing them a cent. To give you some idea of German sense of fair play, we, whilst under the British flag, divided our orders between an English and a German firm. Now all that is changed, and not an order of any kind is given to any English firm. Although these people, trading to an English port, having all the advantages and privileges of English ships, in a sense, boycott all and anything British. Isn't this nice for Britishers to reflect upon! What do our friends at home think of this? The fifth objection is that no valid reason has been shown why British shipowners should—alone, of all employers of labour in this country—be forbidden by Parliament to employ foreigners in their service. Well, my Lords, you cannot regard the mercantile marine service in the same light as any other business; it is a national service as well as a private service. There is no law to prevent any foreigner setting up in any trade or business in any of His Majesty's dominions, and he may employ whom he likes; but the law says it is requisite that a British ship should be owned by a British subject, and if that is the case it is equally, in fact far more, necessary that she should be commanded by a British subject. The shipowners have the full advantage of this law, but they do not wish the benefit to be extended to their fellow-subjects. They wish to keep all the plums. The shipowners, when it touches their pockets, are quite ready to regard the mercantile marine as a national service, as witness the agitation about light dues when they wished the nation to pay them. I for one would not oppose that; I would be willing to help the shipowner in every way; without them we would not have the ships, and without ships we would have no sailors, but they should not be selfish and deny relief 518 to those in their employment. The sixth objection is, that if such a measure be required it should be introduced by the President of the Board of Trade into Parliament, with the authority, and upon the responsibility, of His Majesty's Government, and not be left to the initiative of a private member of the House of Lords. I fully agree with that, but if the Board of Trade will not do their duty, then private members of your Lordships' House, or private members of the House of Commons, must bring these matters forward. It is neither just nor right that only the shipowners' wishes should be regarded, and that the interests of the 10,000 odd shipmasters, besides a much greater number of officers, should be disregarded. It is a monstrous shame that this large number of English subjects dare not give their free opinions on matters connected with their profession for fear of dismissal, should they in any way clash with the owners' wishes. In fact, this large body of men are debarred the freedom of speech which every other subject of His Majesty enjoys.

The Board of Trade are also opposing this Bill, but that does not surprise me. Nothing that the Board of Trade did in connection with marine matters would surprise me, except they showed some common-sense and initiated the many needful reforms themselves. They remind me of a stubborn donkey who requires a great deal of whacking before he will move. The Board of Trade is a really wonderful body. I believe the most reverend prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury is a member, although I do not think he is aware of it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is a member, and there are various other members; but I think I am perfectly right in saying that this Board, controlling the largest mercantile marine in the world, which, in its way, is as important to us as the Royal Navy, does not contain among its members one who has any knowledge of the sea or things pertaining to the sea. They have nautical advisers, but my noble friend will, I hope, tell us about them to-morrow. I would ask your Lordships to contrast the Board of Admiralty, on which you have naval officers of tried skill and experience, with the Board of Trade. 519 The late President of the Board of Trade stated in the House of Commons in February of last year— Take for instance the question of a war—the question of a war where the Naval Reserves were called out—that would be to deplete British ships of British seamen, and instead of being partially manned by foreigners they would, under existing circumstances, be altogether manned by foreigners. That, I think, is matter for very great regret, and if any suggestion can be made to remedy that state of things, or to endeavour to remedy that state of things, which the whole House regrets, then the House would do wrong not to consider any suggestion that might be made. The Bill before your Lordships is not only a suggestion; it is the first step to remedy this state of things. Alluding to the prosperity of the shipping interests, Mr. Gerald Balfour, the present President of the Board of Trade, in a speech to the Chamber of Shipping on the 28th of March last, said:— I candidly admit there is one dark spot which, to some extent, mars the face of this prosperity. I refer to the circumstance that undoubtedly the proportion of foreigners employed in British ships is very much higher than we should like to see it. A grave consideration in connection with this matter arises from the fact that the proportion of foreigners is not decreasing, but increasing. It was only about 14 per cent. in 1890; it has now risen to something like 20 per cent. This is not a condition of affairs which I think any of us, looking at the matter from a national point of view, can regard with complete equanimity. This is not merely a question in which the shipping interest is concerned; it is a problem in which the nation itself is concerned. That is exactly what I have had the honour of stating to your Lordships several times in the last three years. I suppose that in reality the President of the Board of Trade is the Board of Trade, for one individual, I understand, forms a quorum. I presume these right hon. Gentlemen meant what they said, and spoke for the Board of Trade. Then I would ask your Lordships, is it consistent that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade should oppose this Bill? The present shipowners owe their prosperity greatly to their predecessors, who built up the commerce, whose ships were manned entirely by British seamen, and who established England's commercial greatness in those days. The British merchant ship often engaged and beat off an enemy's ship of war; in fact, on one occasion a fleet of merchant ships showed such a bold front 520 against a powerful squadron of the enemy that the latter were afraid to engage. The old shipowners handed down a glorious heritage, but if the present shipowners continue on the lines they are going now, what will they hand down to their predecessors? A British merchant fleet, manned by foreigners, with nothing British about them except, perhaps, the fabrics of the ships and the name; and then, if a war occurs, good-bye to your fleet and to England's supremacy on the sea, and your Lordships know very well what that would mean. How long would we hold out in England if our food supply were stopped? Our statesmen are only talking, while those of other nations are acting. This is only the first step in a much-needed reform, and I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY)

My Lords, I think it would be easier to answer my noble friend if he had confined himself a little more closely to the subject-matter of his Bill, without embarking into criticisms of the mercantile department of the Board of Trade, which I shall be very pleased to deal with if he will put the subject down on the Paper, but which are not conveniently raised on a question of this kind. As regards the Bill, I have really nothing to add to what was said in your Lordships' House two sessions ago, when my noble friend made a somewhat similar proposal. It is true that this Bill, as my noble friend has explained, deals only with masters of merchant ships, whereas his previous Bill involved all certificated officers. But I fail to see what guarantee there is in this measure by which, if it is now passed, we shall be safeguarded from, next year or the year after, another and a larger Bill being introduced in this House, and defended on the ground that Parliament has already accepted the principle upon which it is based. Although my noble friend may wrap his proposal up in all kinds of irrelevant phrases, this Bill means protection and nothing else. The worst of protection 521 is that when one class of people gets it, everybody immediately clamours for similar advantages, and I have no doubt that if this Bill were passed we should be invited before very long to advance, step by step, to the state of things which existed under the old navigation laws which Parliament deliberately swept away in 1849. My noble friend has quoted the opinion of the Merchant Service Guild to prove that Parliament was wrong in sweeping away the navigation laws fifty years ago. If my noble friend thinks that the country is prepared to go back to that state of things, would it not be much better for us to have a fair and square discussion upon the whole question than to attempt to deal with it in a partial kind of way, by which the principle is first of all attempted to be introduced, and then larger measures subsequently built upon it? I do not wish to discuss to-night whether the navigation laws were wise laws or not; but I do protest against any attempt to re-establish them by successive steps of this kind. If my noble friend wishes to return to that state of things, he had much better bring a Bill involving the whole question before the House, and let us have it out once and for all.

I object, therefore, to this Bill, in the first place because, under a seemingly modest exterior, we should be assenting to a motive force which lies below it, and which may carry us hereafter rather further than we wish to go. I object to the Bill also on its own merits. Unless it can be shown that it is for some definite national advantage, I cannot understand the justice of picking out any one particular trade and imposing upon that trade restrictive inconveniences, while you allow to other trades all the advantages of a wider selection of employment. My noble friend has again mentioned the danger which he thinks would be incurred in time of war to English ships commanded by foreign masters. He told us, as I understood, that the master would receive notice at sea by telegram—how he was to do that, except, perhaps, by the Marconi system, I do not know—that war had broken out, and that he would immediately, without taking the crew into his confidence, navigate his 522 ship to some hostile port. I do not think, in reality, that that danger would be found to exist. If the master was of the nationality with whom we were likely to go to war, I think the crew, if they were British subjects, or, at any rate, if they were not of the same nationality as the master, would be all the more likely to have their own interests at heart, and to keep an eye open as to what the master was likely to do with the vessel. I do not think that any such practice as the noble Lord suggests would be likely to occur. If there is no danger of that kind we then come merely to the inconvenience that would accrue to shipowners of having a restriction of this kind imposed upon them; and, my Lords, the inconvenience would be really considerable. A great many British ships do not come to England at all; they trade between foreign ports, and carry on no trade at all in the country in which they are registered. Take, for instance, an English vessel trading between, say, Genoa and Brindisi, and calling in at the intermediate Italian ports. Is it not possible that an Englishman owning a vessel of that kind would find it much more convenient to employ an Italian, who knows the language and the customs of the country, than an English master, who would have to learn them from the beginning? Personally, I think it is quite possible, and that the English owner employing a foreign master under those conditions would be doing a perfectly justifiable act, and really meeting the requirements of his own trade. As a matter of fact, there are very few foreigners at present commanding British ships. The whole question is, after all, a very small one. In 1896 there were, I think, 180 foreign masters in command of British ships. I cannot give your Lordships later figures than that, because the quin-quennial census was taken in that year, and therefore another one will not be taken till this year. But I can tell your Lordships that since 1896 only 69 foreigners have taken out certificates as masters of British ships. In 1897, 31 foreigners passed; in 1898, nine; in 1899, 12; and in 1900, 17. Therefore, the number cannot be very great, and I think it will be found that not 523 200 foreigners command English ships, out of a total number of 11,000 or 12,000. I do not think there is any need for legislation of this character. My noble friend has referred to the question of a national reserve of seamen for the Navy in time of war, but I do not think the question of masters is on all fours with that of ordinary seamen. Whatever may be thought about the necessities of providing a Reserve out of the mercantile marine in time of war, I do not think it would ever be suggested that masters of merchant ships would ever be likely to be used in that way. The training of an officer in the Navy is absolutely different from the training of an officer in the mercantile marine, and it is difficult to understand how the master of a merchant ship could ever be utilised to perform the duties of even a subordinate officer on board a man-of-war in time of war. I do not think, therefore, that this question of enforcing the employment of British subjects as masters of merchant ships in order to act as a Reserve can be argued in the same way.

There is only one other point, and I do not wish to lay much stress upon it, because it is more or less problematical. My noble friend has referred to the question of retaliation. At present, as he says, there are a good many British subjects serving, principally as engineers, in foreign ships, and I think that, in discussing any legislation of this kind, we must remember the possibility of retaliation. Of course, it may be true, as my noble friend says, that these men are merely being used as instructors to engineers of other nationalities, and that in course of time they will be discharged in any case; but I see no reason why we should hasten the performance. This is a point, I think, which we ought to remember, because, undoubtedly, if there is anything like general retaliation we should derive much more harm than we are likely to receive good from a Bill of this kind. I think what we all desire to see is the employment of as many British subjects as possible in British ships. We wish to feel that any increase in our great shipping industry carries with it an increase in the opportunities of employment for British subjects; 524 but, personally, I think that that is much more likely to be effected by improving the conditions of employment, by raising the status and the character of British seamen—in fact, by putting an end, if possible, to the reasons which bring about the employment of foreigners in our mercantile marine, than by any restrictive legislation of this kind, which would have the effect, in my opinion, at any rate, of aggravating the weaknesses of British seamen, which have already led in so many cases to the employment of foreigners, and of hampering our greatest national industry, upon the prosperity of which depend, after all, the good wages of the seamen and the comfortable conditions of their employment.