LORD MUSKERRYMy Lords, I rise to call attention to the latest circular issued by the Board of Trade to the superintendents of their Mercantile Marine Offices, relative to what is known as the loading port clause in ships' articles of agreement; and to ask whether, in view of a legal descision given in the Thames Police Court, they
† See (4) Debates, cxii, 390.1355 now propose to withdraw the circular in question, owing to its liability to give seamen a false impression and to cause shipowners great inconvenience and expense. For the information of your Lordships I would state that the loading port clause in a ship's agreement is a clause whereby her crew agree to proceed from the port of final discharge of the ship's cargo to the port where she commences to load. For instance, supposing a vessel completes the discharge of her cargo at, say, Hull, the crew have agreed to proceed in her to her loading port, say, Cardiff, where a new crew can be shipped. This loading port clause has never been really objected to by seamen, and it greatly facilitated the movements of British ships, inasmuch as, if the crew were to leave at the port of discharge that would necessitate shipowners employing men known as "runners" for the passage to the loading port at much greater expense, involving travelling expenses to and from the different ports, etc. The circular referred to is one which, to the great indignation of shipowners, appears to have been voluntarily issued by the Board of Trade, advising their superintendents of Mercantile Marine offices that, should they be asked at the port of final discharge of cargo whether the crew can be legally compelled to go to the loading port, they should advise that they cannot; in other words, incite the crew to break their legal agreement. The natural consequence was that shipowners began to experience grave difficulties, owing to their crews, encouraged by the Board of Trade in this way, refusing to carry out a perfectly fair contract on their own part and requiring to be paid off at the port of discharge. This promised to be very serious for shipowners, but the matter was fortunately brought to a head by the master of the ss. "Blenheim," whose crew, acting upon the statements in the Board of Trade circular, demanded that they should be paid off at Shadwell Basin, London, with out proceeding to the ship's loading port in the Bristol Channel. The master refused to accept the terms of the Board of Trade circular, and he was summoned by the crew in the Thames Police Court for payment of their wages. The magistrate said that—The voyage was stated with reasonable precision and the sailors had due notice of the engagement they were undertaking. There 1356 was no suggestion that it was an unfair stipulation. The voyage was to be completed at the loading port, and he found therefore that the voyage under the agreement did end there. That was to be the final port of destination; the termination of the engagement was to be there and there the wages were to be paid. For those reasons he dismissed the summonses.This decision therefore, legally, overrules the Board of Trade circular, which should have been promptly withdrawn in the interests of ship owners. If it remains in force it will lead the crews into a false idea as to the legality of their demands, and if it is decided to continue the circular there should also be attached to it, for the protection of all concerned, a copy of the magistrate's decision which I have quoted. I may mention that the effect of the loading port clause circular is directly to encourage the shipment of aliens in our Mercantile Marine. Under the terms of this circular Consuls at Continental ports are requiring captains to pay off their British crews on arrival, leaving them no option but to engage foreigners in their places on the vessel's next sailing. Having regard to the fact that the Board of Trade have recently appointed a Committee of Inquiry into the causes which have led to the increase of the number of foreigners in the Mercantile Marine their action seems most inconsistent.
LORD MUSKERRYI was simply pointing out that that would be the effect of the circular, and that that was the way in which it would affect British ships and British masters abroad. I shall be glad to learn that the Board of Trade will take sensible action and withdraw a circular which has caused, and will cause, a considerable friction with crews, and involve shipowners in serious and needless expense.
LORD WOLVERTONI think my noble friend is quite reasonable in asking this Question, and I trust I shall be able to remove any doubts he has on the subject. The circular to which he refers involves no new departure or reversal of policy on the part of the Board of Trade. The loading port clause has been in use for many years, and has been a source of 1357 continual trouble with the men, and until the recent decision of the Police Magistrate referred to, we know of no case in which owners have been able to obtain a decision in its favour. On the other hand, we have several decisions to the effect that the voyage ends at the final port of discharge. The circular was issued in order to secure uniformity of practice on the parts of the superintendents. The idea was that superintendents were not to act on their own discretion, but ought to have something in their hands from head-quarters to guide them. The legal question which has arisen with regard to it is now before the Law Officers of the Grown, and when their opinion is received the matter will be further considered. I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that I cannot give him any answer on the subject of aliens, as he did not mention that matter in his Question.
§ House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.