THE MERCANTILE MARINE COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 27 February 1902)

LORD MUSKERRY
My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he adheres to the statement which he made in reply to my question on the 10th instant,† that Mr. Havelock Wilson was the recognised representative of the seamen and firemen. I have received a letter from Mr. Wilson, which he has published, in reply to what I said in your Lordships' house the other evening. He takes exception to my having said that he had had experience of the sea in the capacity of steward, and that I was not aware that he had served in any other capacity. However, this statement on my part was perfectly correct, because I made several inquiries, and no one could tell me that he had served in any other capacity but that of steward—an idea to which the occupation that I am informed he adopted on leaving the sea, namely, that of proprietor of a cook-shop, may have lent some colour. He now tells me in his letter that he served under several other ratings, including five years in the Royal Naval Reserve. I very gladly give publicity to that statement, but, some doubt having been expressed as to its accuracy, I wrote two days ago to the Registrar-General of Shipping on the subject, and this is the reply which I received half an hour ago— In reply to your letter of the 25th instant, I beg to inform you that no man named Joseph Havelock Wilson has been enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve. A John Havelock Wilson was enrolled in the First Class (old system) Royal Naval Reserve under Number 57134, on 29th September, 1877, and completed five years service. A certificate of discharge was issued to him in December 1882, and a duplicate of the discharge was given to Mr. Joseph Havelock Wilson in March 1896. Your Lordships can judge whether or not his statement was correct; but, if he has been in the Royal Naval Reserve, that fact only carries out my contention that, whatever qualifications he may have to deal with the points covered by Clauses 1 and 2 of the Reference to the Mercantile Marine Committee, he certainly is most unfitted to deal with †See preceding Volume, p.824. 1259 Clause 3, for, having served in the Royal Naval Reserve, he should be perfectly well aware that the very essence of sea-life is discipline, and yet he issued to seamen the famous "Ca-canny" circular, which can only be described as a direct incitement to insubordination. In his letter, he states that it was some days after it was sent that he heard of this circular, but he goes on to say that he in no way repudiates it. Therefore, I understand that at the present moment he is still an advocate, on occasion, of insubordination amongst the rank and file of the Mercantile Marine. He also alludes to my having stated that he had been convicted of several offences against the law, and adds that I might have offered him less injustice if I had given even a glimpse of the extenuating circumstances attending the said convictions. As I have never heard, up to the present, of any extenuating circumstances regarding those convictions, it was, of course, impossible for me to mention them.
I will quote to your Lordships some of the offences in their order. He was convicted at the Sunderland Police Court on September 6th, 1889, for attempting to persuade Thomas Carfrae to desert from the SS. "Edmondsley," and fined £5 and costs, which amounted to £3 6s. 6d. Addressing another meeting of seamen at Newport on November 6th, 1890, he called shipowners, "pettifogging, backsliding cut-throats." Addressing another meeting of seamen at Barry on November 20th, 1890, he said— They (shipowners) deliberately schemed and planned to buy up old ships, or to have ships so constructed — practically thrown together — that as soon as ever they got a cargo of iron ore in them and the machinery full speed ahead, the rivets came out of them. They not only reduced your wages, but they starved you to shadows, and if I said they starved you to death I should not be telling a falsehood. They also tried to rob you of your salvage money. Addressing a meeting of seamen at Bristol on November 21th, 1890, Mr. Wilson said— Independent of robbing you of your wages, they (shipowners) have done worse; they have deliberately, in a cold-blooded systematic way, sent thousands of our fellows to an untimely end. And when the vessels went down with all hands, and when it came to the question of paying the wages the men had earned to their widows and orphans they have gone a step further and deliberately planned robbing the 1260 widows and orphans. It is not a matter that applies to one port, but to every port in the United Kingdom. He was convicted at Cardiff in April 1891 of unlawful assembly and sentenced to six weeks imprisonment. In his letters Mr. Wilson calls this a political offence, but I have never heard an offence of this kind described in that way before. Addressing a meeting of seamen at Hull on July 17th, 1891, Mr. Wilson said— Many of these (shipowners) were guilty of deliberate and wilful murder. Many of them had for years systematically robbed their sailors. Of all kinds of murderers, he would rather meet the man who would attack him openly in the street and where he could defend himself, but what could sailors and firemen do to save their lives when there were men employed, before the ship left the harbour, to punch a hole in the bottom of the vessel, so that as soon as ever she got outside she would founder, because an extra dose of insurance had been put upon it. Mr. Wilson was convicted at South Shields on August 12th, 1892, for attempting to persuade William Williams, a seaman, to neglect to proceed to sea on April 14th of that year in the S.S. "William Harkess," and was fined £5 5s., and costs. This conviction was appealed against at Durham Quarter Sessions on October 14th, 1892, and was upheld, the appeal being dismissed with costs. Mr. Wilson was defendant, in 1893, at Liverpool, before Mr. Justice Kennedy and a special jury, in an action for libel brought by Messrs. Allan Bros., shipowners, when a verdict was found against him, and he was ordered to pay £200 damages to the plaintiffs. An appeal against the verdict was heard in the Court of Appeal on November 8th, 1893, before the Master of Rolls, and was dismissed with costs, Lord Justice Lopes and Lord Justice Kay concurring. The statements which formed the subject of the action were characterised by Lord Esher as "infamous," and the method of their publication "abominable." Mr. Wilson was defendant, on March 13th, 1900, at Glasgow, in a libel action brought against him by Mr. James Scott, an official of the Shipping Federation, in which the verdict was given for the plaintiff, and the damages assessed against the defendant at £350, together with costs, the Lord Justice Clerk, in summing up, describing the case as "one of the foulest and most abominable he had ever seen." At South Shields Police Court on April 12th, 1900, he was fined 1261 £10 and costs for breach of the Conspiracy and Property Act, 1875, in watching and besetting the S.S. "Siren" in the River Tyne. Mr. Wilson, in his letter to me, states that it is not a new experience to find honourably-minded public men tricked into false positions in consequence of the biassed and slipshod carelessness of those upon whom the Speaker had relied for his facts. The facts that I stated were published in the Press; the circular also appeared in the Press. The list of convictions and extracts that I have read to your Lordships have come to my knowledge subsequently.
My noble friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade stated that he knew of nobody else who could represent so well as Mr. Wilson the seamen and firemen. I will read to your Lordships a letter I have received on this subject from Mr. David Clement, of the National Seamen's Federated Union of Great Britain and Ireland, South Shields: Pardon me for writing to you, but I do so in the interests of British seamen. I can prove that your statement in the House of Lords with regard to the position of Mr. J. Havelock Wilson is correct, for I have six advance notes from the s. s. 'Douro,' dated October 18th, 1899, of six men who had shipped through his instructions with no intention of going in the ship. He only represents the unthinking class of seamen. By his mismanagement of the union he has degraded the seamen, and caused the shipowners to ship undesirable persons through his high-handed policy. He represents no bonâ fide Union, as he has not supplied a balance-sheet to Ids members for the last ten years. In 1890 he represented eighty branches of the National Amalgamated Sailors' and Firemen's Union, which was dissolved in 1894, and the Union which he is president of has not had an annual meeting for four years. During that time he has done all he can to build up his Union with foreign seamen, and since February, 1901, he has had two foreign officials with a view to getting green foreign seamen to join. He has also advertised in the Scandanavian paper for members, and now he has the impudence to sit on a Committee to inquire into the cause of the increase of foreigners, when he was the chief cause. He ought to be called as a witness, as well as some of his old officials. It would save time, and put the blame on the right shoulders. The enclosed will show you what manner of man he is. I again apologise for the liberty I am taking in writing to your Lordship, but, as an old seaman, I am desirous that something should be done for the class to which I belong. Mr. Clement is, I understand, well known and much respected in his district. He 1262 is the Secretary of a registered Seamen's Union. Mr. Wilson's Union, by the way, is not registered. Mr. Butcher, of the Hull Seamen's and Marine Firemen's Association, is also a very respected gentleman. Either of them would have been a worthy representative of seamen on the Committee. I understand that Mr. Butcher has already acted in that capacity on a former Committee. The noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House, in the course of his reply to me on the 10th instant, said— It seems to me that the noble Lord has entirely misconceived the functions of a Committee of this kind. He seems to imagine that what is wanted is a conglomeration of individuals who have already formed preconceived opinions with regard to the subjects referred to them. That is not my view of the functions of a Committee. The President of the Board of Trade no doubt sought for unprejudiced people, men of sense and judgment, who had not formed any preconceived notions with regard to the subjects that they were to be asked to consider. The noble Earl also said that in this sense he held that Captain Blake was a most worthy representative of the class he represented. Well, certainly, Captain Blake had preconceived notions which his brothers of the cloth did not agree with; and after having heard the convictions and the extracts from the speeches of Mr. Wilson. I would ask your Lordships to judge if any of the four qualifications mentioned by my noble friend apply to Mr. Wilson. My noble friend also stated that, with the exception of the Merchant Service Guild, and the one or two other Associations of that character, whose grievances might be of a similar kind, the composition of the Committee had been received with tolerable satisfaction in the country. I think I said, in the course of my speech, that shipowners had objected to the formation of this Committee, and I say now that the shipowners especially regard Mr. Wilson's appointment with the greatest indignation and—

§ EARL SPENCER
I rise to order. I really think the noble Lord is exceeding the license which we give so very profusely in this House. He has asked a Question, whether the noble Earl adheres 1263 to a statement which he made on the 10th instant, and now he is entering into the whole question of the constitution of the Committee. I must protest against so manifest a breach of order.

LORD MUSKERRY
I shall not detain the House for many more minutes. But the matter is of far greater importance than the qualifications or want of qualifications of any member of this Committee. On a former occasion I quoted from an article in The Times which made serious charges. The writer, in reply to a letter published in The Times, stated that he found no reason for withdrawing a single one of the facts that he had stated. Therefore, a grave imputation rests on one of His Majesty's Ministers, which I think should not be left unanswered or unnoticed.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY)
My Lords, under the plea of a very simple Question my noble friend has taken the opportunity of repeating almost verbatim every word that he uttered in his speech the other day, and he has also taken this opportunity of delivering a very strong attack against a man who, whatever the rights or wrongs of the question may be, is, at any rate, not in a position to reply to them at the present moment. I cannot help thinking that it would be far more advantageous, and certainly more convenient to the business of your Lordships' House, if my noble friend would reply to the controversy which he seems engaged in with Mr. Havelock Wilson through the public Press, and not take up the time of this House in discussions such as that which he has initiated this evening. The Question he asks is, whether I adhere to what I said the other night that Mr. Wilson represents the seamen and firemen of this country. My noble friend has misquoted me a little in the Question on the Paper. I am stated to have said that Mr. Wilson was the recognised representative of the seamen and firemen. What I did say, and what I adhere to, is that Mr. Wilson largely represents the seamen and firemen of this country. I will go further, and say that he represents them more largely than any one we know 1264 of at the Board of Trade. I decline altogether to enter into the question whether Mr. Wilson is, or is not, a fit representative of the seamen. He may, so far as I know, have been convicted five, ten, or fifteen times for the offences which my noble friend has quoted; he may, or he may not, have served as steward on board ship; he may have served as anything, so far as I know. What we have to do is to take things as we find them, and the position undoubtedly is that at the present time, rightly or wrongly, Mr. Wilson represents more largely the seamen of this country than any other man. Therefore, in composing this Committee, we felt it necessary to put upon it the man whom we thought most largely represented the seamen. We do not wish in any way to disparage the claims of Mr. Butcher or the other people referred to by my noble friend; but I would point out that these gentlemen are merely local representatives of local Unions, whereas Mr. Wilson does, at any rate, represent the one National Union which exists. My noble friend shakes his head, but if he will make inquiries he will find that that is so. With regard to my statement the other day that we sought to put upon the Committee men of unprejudiced minds, of course it cannot be said for one moment by any reasonable man that Mr. Wilson is an unprejudiced person. If in my speech I gave that impression I would most certainly withdraw it. We were at that moment discussing the appointment of Captain Blake, and it was in connection with his appointment that I said we sought to put upon the Committee men of unprejudiced minds. Of course, Mr. Wilson is not unprejudiced. It would be impossible to find any person occupying the position which he does who would not be prejudiced or who would not have expressed opinions of a more or less clearly defined character. Therefore, I do not, in the least, wish my words to apply to Mr. Wilson. We have attempted, so far as we can, to make the composition of this Committee such as would be acceptable to the many varied interests with which we have to deal; and, with all due respect to my noble friend, I am still of the opinion that, taking the country as a whole, the selection of the President of the Board of Trade has been anything but unsatisfactory.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
I do not rise to make a speech, but merely to say that, in my opinion, no man who has a record such as that which has been read by my noble friend—I do not care whom he represents—is a fit and proper person to put upon a Committee of Inquiry.