HL Deb 26 June 1905 vol 148 cc11-30

[SECOND READING]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD MUSKERRY

My Lords, when on the last occasion I introduced to your Lordships a Bill similar to the present one, it was characterised by my noble friend opposing on behalf of the Government as an "old friend," and therefore, after such a kindly recognition on his part, I never imagined it would receive such rude treatment. As I never forsake "old friends," and as every day this particular one grows in my affection, and, as far as I am led to believe, in that of the British public, I am once more introducing it. Though I would not expect it from the Board of Trade, I am sure your Lordships will give me an unbiassed and unprejudiced hearing, weighing the pros and. cons, and deciding on its merits the fact whether British territory shall be entrusted to and governed by an alien. I have the authority of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that a British ship is British territory. What is more, it is the one part of British territory upon which all the other parts are supremely dependent. It is the part which welds together the whole fabric of the British Empire. As Froude has written— Take away the merchant fleet, take away the Navy that guards it, and the Empire will come to an end. Her Colonies will fall off like leaves from a withered tree, and Britain will become once more an insignificant island in the North Sea, for the future students in Australia and New Zealand Universities to discuss the fate of in their debating societies. These remarks may occur to your Lordships as merely platitudes, but they ire platitudes which cannot be driven home too forcibly or too frequently. If we agree with them we have no recourse but to admit that the efficiency and prosperity of our merchant service should be our first consideration. But, for divers reasons, it is our last. We are content to be assured of its prosperity and of its paramountcy, and to shut our eyes to the unpleasant facts in connection with it which sooner or later will require drastic treatment.

At the present moment the Government are piloting through Parliament a Bill bearing, a similar short title to this one, which seeks to prevent undesirable aliens from establishing a footing in this country. But surely the place where an alien is least desirable is in command of, or as an officer in, a "British ship. Yet such is the inconsistency of the Government that in opposing my Bill—which I presume will be the case—they will take away with their left hand what they give with their right. Lest your Lordships may consider that I am trying to advance this Bill by the invention of bold assertions, I would quote from a speech in another place in February, 1900, by the then President of the Board of Trade, who delivered himself as follows— 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. One would have thought that after such a statement the country would have realised the danger, and that remedial measures would have been promptly taken. But though it was made five years ago the nation has pursued the even tenor of its way, with the natural result that the position is growing worse and worse.

It is no use proclaiming that the canker is eating more and more into our vitals; it is of no avail to launch schemes to combat the evil and then abandon them; what is wanted is a determined effort, which will allow no resistance to stand in its way, in dealing with the question in such a manner as will abandon sentiment for the more practical methods of the law. The invention of schemes for encouraging British boys to go to sea and keep them there is a very favourite hobby now-a-days. But most of them, if not all, are quite beside the point. Once make the conditions of a seaman's life worth living, and there will be no lack of men. But all these pet schemes avoid the real source of difficulty, and their only possible result is to increase the supply of officers, who are already plentiful in number. There is, however, a disposition in official quarters to eventuate some British boy-sailor scheme, and I may say that by this Bill I am giving an opportunity which is calculated more than anything to bring such a scheme to a successful issue. It is indeed a fatuous policy to talk of patriotism, and to instil all its noble ideals into British youths, only for them to find that as British boy-sailors the language which is least known, or understood, on board their ships is their own mother tongue. They find aliens as their captains, their officers, and their petty officers. Can there be any wonder that they quickly realise that they have been befooled, and throw up in disgust an avocation which appealed so strongly before they had any practical knowledge of it, to their enthusiasm and patriotism?

I do not wish to infer for one moment that this Bill solves, once and for all, a gigantic problem, but I do contend that it goes far in affording the means to that end. Were the time opportune, or were it within the bounds of practical politics, the scope of this Bill as it affects the crews of British ships would be much larger. But there is reason in all things, and I am one of the last to hamper the British shipowner unless I have full and complete justification for so doing. Our merchant service is now in that unfortunate position where the foreigner can only be displaced step by step without placing urdue and unfair disadvantage on the British shipowner. This Bill, if your Lordships choose to endorse it, provides the first step. It commences at the fountain-head, for the attainment of an ultimate officer's or captain's position in a British ship is the greatest inducement we can possibly offer to the foreigner to serve in our ships.

The Bill will establish a principle of enormous importance, and its adoption will not affect the interests of the shipowner. I am, I trust, not unreasonable in asking the Legislature to sanction such a principle, especially when I know that, since I first advocated it, the Government have themselves come to my way of thinking and have stipulated for it in their agreements with the Atlantic Combine and the Cunard Line, and also in charters granted to the Peninsular and Oriental Line and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. If they are so anxious that the vessels of these companies should be commanded and officered by British subjects, I do not see how in common sense they can oppose this Bill, which has exactly the same end in view.

During the last debate on the Bill I was accused of trying to establish a close corporation of British officers. Though I do not like to see foreigners taking the bread out of the mouths of British officers, yet such a statement is ridiculous to anyone who chooses to acquaint himself with the circumstances. Further- more a still more serious charge was levelled at me. It was that I was guilty of inaccuracies. Were this correct it would be ample justification for your Lordships' hesitancy in supporting the Bill, and might very possibly account for its rejection. In my Memorandum I stated that— All the other leading maritime Powers restrict the commanding and officering of their merchant ships to their own subjects. The representative of the Board of Trade, in opposing the Bill, said he found on inquiry that this was not the case in Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Chili, or Ecuador. I did not know before that in the eyes of the Board of Trade Chili or Ecuador, for instance, were considered to be "leading maritime Powers." Dispensing with these and feeling sure of my own facts I caused inquiries to be addressed to the Consulates. Here are their replies— Captains in command of German ships must be of German nationality as well as the officers, and all captains and officers must hold a German certificate. Norwegian masters and mates certificates obtainable after passing examination in Nor wegian Schools of Navigation; and for master, certificate of citizenship (as shipmaster) in Norway, consequently the difficulties of employment are considerable. Therefore, I have just cause for complaining that the information placed in the hands of the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade at that time was misleading to your Lordships, and that the inaccuracies were committed by the Board of Trade and not by me.

I will, with your Lordships' permission, once again give the position which other maritime Powers adopt as regards the nationality of their merchant captains and officers. I have the information from representatives of these Powers, and it cannot be refuted. I find that, in the United States, all officers of vessels having charge of a watch, including pilots, shall in all cases be citizens of the United States. In Sweden the master and mate must be Swedish subjects. In Norway the master and mate must be qualified by Norwegian examinations and legitimations in every other respect. In France, merchant vessels must be commanded and officered by French subjects. In Greece a similar law is in force. In the Argentine Republic their merchant vessels must be commanded by an Arger- tine subject, or carry an Argentine flag captain. In Austria-Hungary the captain and mate must be subjects of Austria, or Hungary. In Spain the captain, and officers must be Spanish subjects. In Germany, as I have said before, merchant ships must be commanded and officered by German subjects. Russia and Italy also have restrictions regarding the character and nationality of their merchant captains and officers; also I understand that on September 1st last a new law came into force in the Netherlands whereby their merchant captains and officers must be of Dutch nationality. We are set a very fine example, too, by New Zealand, where every applicant for examination, whether master, mate, or engineer, must be a British subject.

As showing how British captains and officers suffer under such conditions, the Merchant Service Guild have drawn my attention to the following extract from the Report of the Subsidies Committee. Referring to the substitution of foreign officers and crews for British crews, the Committee says— The report of the North German Lloyd Company for 1900 gives a striking instance: 'When we bought the steamers of the Scottish Oriental Steamship Company and Holt's East Indian Ocean Steamship Company the whole of the steamers were carrying exclusively English captains, officers, and engineers. At the time of our taking over the two lines the Englishmen on board consisted of twenty-four captains, forty-eight officers, and seventy-two engineers. Of these we have already replaced sixteen captains, forty-three officers, and fifty-eight engineers by Germans, so that at present there are still on board, of Englishmen, only eight captains, five officers, and fourteen engineers, whom, however, we also hope shortly to replace. And I may tell your Lordships that very shortly after this Report was issued, the remaining British subjects were discharged. The unfortunate Britishers were perforce compelled to start at the bottom of the ladder elsewhere.

So far as I have been able to judge, the main objection which the Government hitherto entertained against the Bill was that, somehow or other, it savoured of protection. I hope they still look upon it in the same light, for, having made a complete change of front in their policy since my former Bill was defeated, they should, sympathise with, and support this one. I cannot see how this Bill, restricting the command and officering of our merchant ships, can be different from the same restrictions in the Royal Navy. I emphasise in the strongest way that neither free trade nor protection can enter into the question of the safety and defence of our country, for the enormous proportion of aliens in our merchant service is, I trust, generally recognised as a menace to our country. As an ex-President of the Board of Trade has stated, if we were engaged in war and the Reserves were called out, our merchant ships would be altogether manned by foreigners. I would like to know whether the National Defence Committee view such a situation with complacence? In the year 1896 the Manning Committee reported— However undesirable it may be that British sailors should thus be ousted by foreigners from British ships, and however dangerous this change may prove to the State in time of war, the fact must be recognised that the existing unrestricted admission of foreigners and Lascars may eventually result in further diminishing, outside of the Royal Navy, the number of British seamen. Their prognostication has proved correct; alien seamen are increasing, and the danger to the State is greater still. What have the National Defence Committee to say to this? Not to speak of 41,000 Lascars, I find that no fewer than 40,396 aliens are enjoying the hospitality of British ships. Their percentage in British ships has swollen to 22.9. But a little analysis discloses a still mere astonishing state of affairs. We must have regard to the fact that the crews of most; of the large lines are almost wholly composed of Britishers. Therefore so many the less for "tramp" steamers—which constitute 80 per cent, of our shipping trade—and sailing vessels. The actual percentage of aliens in "tramp" steamers may be safely assumed to be over 50 per cent. whilst I have it from official Returns that over half the men employed in British sailing ships are foreigners. Consequently the evil has grown so great that it can only be removed gradually and with caution. This is why I ask Parliament to proceed mildly at first, and to pass a Bill which asserts a principle but which will not conflict with the interests of British shipowners.

In ordinary British trading vessels-the number of alien captains and officers, according to the latest Returns, is 511, and in fishing vessels forty-eight alien skippers and thirty-five mates. I shall no doubt be informed that the number of alien captains and officers is decreasing. I do not deny it; but I may say-that the number of petty officers—who most probably are aspiring to the higher grades—is increasing, for I find that they number 2,991. Furthermore, a most pernicious practice has lately come into vogue of carrying foreign boys as apprentices of British sailing ships. It is still more probable that, after four years service, they will obtain British certificates in order to get the higher pay in British ships, and thus cause a prolific supply of alien officers. But mere numbers are as nothing compared to the fact that by allowing alien captains and officers in our ships we are demoralising the whole merchant service, and, at the same time, offering the highest inducements to other than our countrymen.

I have stated that the Government themselves have acted upon the principle of this Bill in agreements with large British lines. I think that I am also right in saying that the Admiralty stipulate for British captains and officers in merchant transports. The Steamship Subsidies Committee, in Paragraph 26 of their Report, say— Importance is attached to the manning of ships by national officers and crews in'Germany, Russia, Italy, and Japan; and the British Admiralty hold that no postal or other contract should be given unless all captains and officers are British subjects and a certain proportion of the men, while British-born apprentices and boys should be carried according to the size of the ship. This is also the opinion of jour Committee. and at a later stage they say— The British Admiralty point out that it is apparent that if this question of nationality is not recognised in time, British vessels, whenever the occasion for their use by the Admiralty arises, will be extensively manned by foreigners, who would have to be largely, if not entirely, replaced! by British subjects on the outbreak of war. How are they going to get these British subjects? Only by taking them from the "tramps" and sailing ships, leaving the country to depend on vessels manned by foreigners for its food supply. The Steamship Subsidies Committee said that on subsidised vessels the captain, officers, and a portion of the crew ought to be British subjects.

Another point which merits your Lordships'most serious consideration, and particularly the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who I regret is not in his place to-day, is the official intimation to merchant captains that, in the event of relations becoming strained between this country and any naval Power, they will be furnished with a confidential Report showing the ports in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's possessions abroad which are defended "by means of mines or batteries. There is absolutely nothing at present which would prevent these confidential Reports being placed in all innocence in the hands of alien captains of our ships. I should like to know what the National Defence Committee would think of this? I know very well what the verdict of the British public would be.

It is observable from time to time that, in naval circles, cold water is poured upon the idea that the merchant service is of any avail as a Naval Reserve. I am not proposing to go to the length of arguing the point, for it is manifestly ridiculous. We found that during the Boer War the merchant service was beyond criticism. Without it we should have been hopelessly beaten. As a reserve for the Navy it is indispensable. The Naval Reserves Committee reported that— The Committee do not overlook the importance, both as regards naval and other considerations, of securing that as large a proportion as possible of the crews of merchant ships shall be of British nationality. and that— The mercantile marine is, and should continue to be, a valuable source from which to draw a portion of the Naval Reserve. Further, that— The present mode of supplying a reserve of executive officers is satisfactory, except that a weeding of the list of Royal Naval Reserve officers and an extension of numbers are required. The section of the Bill relating to aliens being granted British pilotage certificates I will only touch on briefly. My noble friend Lord Ellenborough will deal more fully with that portion of the Bill. This subject has been brought into great prominence of late years. By granting these certificates to aliens we, are committing an egregious blunder and manufacturing a whip for our own backs in days to come. These alien pilots are increasing; they enable foreign shipowners to compete with us on advantageous terms whilst, at the same time, they rob British pilots of their birthright.

I regret having trespassed on your Lordships' forbearance so long. I must plead the vast importance of the principle underlying this measure. I have received a letter from the Merchant Service Guild—to whom I am indebted for much useful information on the matter—expressing their fervent hope that your Lordships will extend your support on this occasion. Those of your Lordships who have come into contact with the crews of average cargo vessels will know how desperate is the situation. It is in the interests of the Empire that I speak, that I introduce this Bill. Pass it and you will be acclaimed by public opinion, Reject it, and you will create further blank despair in the heart of the British seaman, and still leave a blot on the fair fame of our Red Ensign—a flag which means so much to us as a nation.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, if the officers and seamen of the mercantile marine were represented in the House of Commons by bodies as powerful as the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, Bills for improvement in the housing and provisioning on board ship would have been passed long ago, and the proportion of bonâ fide British officers and seamen would have been increased in consequence. The officers and men of the mercantile marine are so much at sea, that they have, even if married men with houses of their own, very few opportunities of voting. The fact that they are practically unrepresented in another place gives them, therefore, an additional claim to have their interests carefully considered in this House. In all other industries of equal importance the actual workers have a large voting power; in many cases greater than that of their employers.

There are, and constantly have been, a number of ships that have nothing British about them except the flag. Many years ago, during the Civil War in America, complaints were made by the Americans of the North that all their commerce was forced to shelter itself under the British flag by Confederate cruisers. But what really happened? American vessels with American officers and crews, entered a British harbour, generally a colonial one, went through a few formalities, painted out the name of the port and put in an English one instead. The owners, officers, and crews remained American. Some New Yorkers, to save paint I suppose, went to New Brunswick and painted in the word "Brunswick" instead of "York." When I was off the Rio Grande in 1864, I boarded numbers of these so-called British vessels, and the first question always put to me was, "Have our armies got to Richmond yet?" Returns show that in consequence of this change . of flag British commerce flourished at the expense of that of America, though what benefit England or Englishmen ever derived from this change of flag I am at a loss to imagine. I look upon the Returns of British shipping-as very fallacious, as it is hard to know what proportion of vessels under our flag are really British.

In war time there might be grave disadvantages in having foreign officers in command of British ships. For instance, during the Ashantee affair in 1873, it fell to my lot to board some British vessels which were selling arms and ammunition to natives. I had a suspicion that they might resume this trade in my absence, so I cautioned the crews, who were nearly all British, that not only would the ship be seized and confiscated, but that all the British on. board would be held individually responsible, tried for aiding and abetting the Queen's enemies, and kept in Cape Coast Castle until their-trial could commence. Cape Coast Castle, unfortunately, has not the reputation of being a particularly healthy spot, and I have every reason to believe that no arms or ammunition were sold in my absence. But had these vessels been, officered and manned by foreigners such a caution would have been useless, as they would not have been liable to any penalty. The captain and the second in command of a British ship ought always to be British subjects.

As regards alien pilots, there is undoubted danger in allowing a number of foreigners to exercise their profession on our coasts to the exclusion of our own seamen. In 1888, before the Select Committee on Pilotage, some naval officers gave evidence minimising the danger arising from that source. But quite recently Admirals Sir Edmund Fremantle and Sir Nathaniel Bowden-Smith expressed a contrary opinion at a discussion at the Royal United Service Institution. Two years ago Admiral Lord Charles Beresford wrote that— The granting to foreigners of British pilotage certificates is a glaring injustice to British pilots, and I consider it a great danger to the country in time of war. Since 1888, moreover, naval methods of warfare have altered, and the number of foreign pilots has greatly increased. There are now no less than fifty-nine foreign pilots licensed for the Thames alone. One of the naval witnesses in 1888, in answer to Question 10,849, said— The navigation of vessels simply by the use of pilots is to facilitate it; not that the captain could not navigate by extra care and extra time without a pilot. It is simply to save time and facilitate matters. Now, why on earth should time be saved and matters facilitated for an enemy's ship at the entrance to the Thames? And in answer to Question 10,850 the same witness said— The foreigner is so much the better, certainly, for his knowledge. I freely admit that. Since 1888, moreover, men-of-war have nearly doubled their rate of speed, and have greatly increased the effective range and rate of firing of their guns. They have also increased the range of their torpedoes. In naval warfare ten minutes is now of greater importance than half-an-hour was then. We cannot afford to give away any chances in war time, however small they may be.

When a similar Bill came before this House two years ago it was said that a sharp and intelligent sailor, who frequently entered a port, would, with the help of charts and sailing directions, soon pick up such a knowledge of the pilotage as would enable him to enter any port without a pilot. So he would; but in fine weather only. In thick weather he would either have to anchor or to risk running on shore, and thick weather is the only weather in which an enemy would dare to prowl about the entrances to our harbours for the purpose of laying mines or using torpedoes. I know the Thames now a great deal better than when I retired from the service, and I am quite certain that a pilot who had actually piloted a ship would have a great advantage over one who had merely looked on. A man cannot learn to drive a coach as well as the driver by merely sitting on the box seat. If a coach came to a sharp turn on a greasy road impeded by traffic at the bottom of a steep hill, I am sure that the passengers would sooner have an experienced coachman on the box than a man who was holding the reins for the first time.

I suggest that this part of the Bill should be made even stronger. I would not allow a certificate to be granted to any pilot who had not been naturalised before attaining the age of one-and-twenty, as I think that men would become naturalised for the purpose of evading the Act, and that after one-and-twenty it is too late for a man to change the feelings and sympathies implanted in early life. The only advantage to be derived from the naturalisation of the alien pilot is that if captured he would be liable to be tried for high treason. But as he would probably be on board the enemy's man-of-war under a false name, it is not likely that he would ever be identified. It has been objected that this is trades-union legislation. There are many methods of trades unions that I strongly object to, but I have never heard of the Pilots' Association being accused of any of them, and the Pilots' Association desire to see this Bill passed.

In this case the interests of the nation, and those of the pilots are coincident. The last Select Committee on Pilotage sat in 1888, and it is therefore quite time that many of the questions connected with pilotage should be reconsidered. Besides, there is no reciprocity in this matter. Mr. Langdon, secretary of the United Kingdom Pilotage Association, has written to me saying that Marseilles is the only Continental port where a British pilot can be licensed, but that this indulgence is so surrounded by conditions that no shipmaster has hitherto attempted to obtain a certificate. Objections may be made to some details in the Bill, but I think that they could be dealt with satisfactorily when in Committee; and I hope that the Government will reconsider their intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and that some portions of it, especially that dealing with alien pilots, may become law this session.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Marquess who presides over the Board of Trade I have been requested to reply upon this Bill. I may say at once that His Majesty's Government cannot accept the Bill and intend to oppose it. The noble Lord who has introduced the Bill has by no means exaggerated the importance of the subject to which he has drawn attention. What is really intended by the Bill is the reimposition of the Navigation Laws, of which this is the first instalment. When the Navigation Laws were first imposed they certainly did what the noble Lord desires to do—namely, to restrict the choice of officers and seamen to British subjects. From time to time came remonstrances from representative chambers of commerce m those days and the Legislature gradually relaxed the stringency of those-laws. The mercantile marine were constantly petitioning against the restrictions placed in their way, and during the reign of George III. and. for some time afterwards those restrictions were gradually diminished until 1854, when they were swept away. The law was reconsidered, consolidated, and affirmed in 1894, and I cannot help observing that it is a bold endeavour by a Bill of this kind to reverse a policy which has endured for so many years, and the grounds on which that reversal Is. advocated are, I think, altogether insufficient.

I notice that in the Memorandum which the noble Lord has attached to his Bill he makes this statement— Under the present system British registered ships may be, and are, owned, commanded, and manned entirely by foreigners. If not absolutely inaccurate that statement is very misleading. The only case in which British ships may be entirely owned by foreigners is in the case of a corporation, which, however, must have its principal place of business in this country or in some dominion of His Majesty. It may be the case that some of these corporations man their ships with foreigners, but there are no means of exactly telling to what extent that is done. The statement is not absolutely accurate as it stands, and it is certainly misleading. Of course, a question of this kind, so wide and important in its bearings and altering the whole policy of a. statute which extends to 550 sections and has twenty-two schedules, can only be taken up by the Government of the day.

I do not deny that the questions that have been raised are very important ones, deserving of serious consideration. With regard to the pilotage question, that has been considered by the Admiralty, who in May, 1903, made this statement— I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to point out that the total number of alien pilots for ports in England is only eight-seven out of a total of 4,000; that a smart seaman commanding a foreign merchant vessel, which may frequently trade to any port of the United Kingdom, could not fail to learn the navigation of that port; and that the existence of good charts of the approaches to all British ports renders a navigator largely independent of pilotage. For these reasons their Lordships cannot but consider the danger referred to was overestimated by the deputation, but they do not wish to be understood as holding the opinion that an increase in the number of alien pilots is in itself at all desirable. So much for the pilotage question. With reference to the proportion of alien captains in our merchant ships, I have in my hand a Parliamentary Return which shows that in the year 1891 the total number of masters was 4,465, of whom 158 were foreigners; in 1896, the total number of masters was 4,301, of whom 145 were foreigners; and in 1901, the masters numbered 3,792, of whom eighty-seven only were foreigners. The percentage of foreign masters was, therefore, in 1891, 3.5 per cent.; in 1896, 3.4 percent; and in 1901, 2.3 per cent only. With regard to sailors, I find that in 1891 the total number was 37,103, and of that number 12,715 were foreigners. In 1896 the total number of sailors employed was 34,357, and of that number 13,594 were foreigners. I think these figures are sufficient to show that the noble Lord has very much exaggerated what he appears to regard as a great danger to the State.

I do not propose to argue the whole question of the Navigation Laws over again. The only observation I would make on the subject is this, that if you reverse what has been the deliberate policy of the Legislature for so many years you must reverse that policy in its entirety or not at all. While shipowners were under the old laws, restricted in their choice of men to man their ships, they had considerable privileges given to them that ensured for them the trade which it was important they should possess; but now the suggestion is made that without those privileges you are to restrict them in the matter of the employment of officers and men. If there is one industry in this country to which people can point as being a successful and important industry and with which it would certainly be rash to meddle it is the shipping industry; yet it is with that industry that the noble Lord appears to think he can make an experiment. Although this Bill may be a small one in itself, the noble Lord has truly said that it involves an important question of principle, and if it is once adopted the rest will follow in natural course. In these circumstances I must invite your Lordships to reject the Bill. I accordingly move that it be read a second time this day six months.

Amendment moved— To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day six months."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF MEATH

My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I do so because I feel that this is a most important subject. I was very glad to hear from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack that he considers the question one of great importance to the country. I am sure I shall be expressing the feeling even of those who are on the side of the Government when I say that we are all indebted to Lord Muskerry for the way in which he has persistently, courageously, and ably advocated the cause of the British sailor. All of us are proud of the British sailor, and of the fact that it should be left to a Member of this House to take up his cause. I was very glad to gather from the remarks of the noble and learned Earl that he considers the question of the future of the Navigation Laws as a more or less open question. I for one feel very strongly indeed that it is for the Government to consider whether the old Navigation Laws cannot in some way or another, either in their entirety or piecemeal, be brought back.

The statement was made in the House of Commons that 70,000 men would be required to invade this country, and that there was not sufficient tonnage to carry that number of men across the Channel. Although it may be the fact that comparatively few British vessels are officered by foreigners and that at this moment the number of foreign sailors is not sufficiently large for us to be seriously alarmed, still, obsta principiis, there is no reason why these officers of foreign origin should not bf increased, and the number of foreign sailors considerably augmented. I ask whether it would not be possible for some hostile Power to privately and secretly charter these vessels—vessels that are only British by the hanging of a flag from the masthead, and which are manned by foreign officers and seamen—and in that way secure the tonnage which we are informed by the Prime Minister they could not find. We have recently been very close to war with a certain Power owing to the fact that that Power had overhauled and sunk some of our steamers. In the case of the "Cheltenham," which was overhauled, there were only four British sailors on that British ship, and when the sailors of the cruiser who had overhauled the "Cheltenham" left they were cheered by the crew, who were Germans. It is a serious question whether these vessels, officered and manned to a large extent by foreigners, would not be a very serious danger to this country in time of war. I myself believe that they would, and, as a patrio- tic subject of the King, I say we should take every step to prevent such an event occurring. I have heard many naval men speak of the seriousness of the granting of pilotage certificates to alien pilots. There are a number of foreigners who know the intricacies of our rivers and the entrances to our ports, and it is important that we should only let those things be known to British subjects. I shall certainly support the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill if he goes to a division.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

My Lords, I have no intention of entering into a discussion of the provisions of this Bill, not having that technical knowledge which would justify such an intrusion, but I do wish to make one comment on the opening sentences of the speech which we heard from the noble and' earned Earl on the Woolsack. I understood him to oppose this Bill mainly on the ground that it was a serious infraction, if not an absolute reversal, of the Act passed in 1854 for the repeal of the Navigation Laws—an action which the noble and learned Earl described as being of the most deliberate character. Now, I have a very clear recollection of the circumstances attending the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and I shall never forget the scene which this House presented on the night of the Second Reading of the Bill. The debate was a long one; the greatest orators then in the House took part in it, and so far from the repeal of the Navigation Laws being a deliberate act I do not remember a Bill that was more severely and hotly contested. It was a struggle between the two great Parties in the State. There were some Members professing strong Liberal opinions who opposed that measure with the utmost vehemence, among them no less a personage than Lord Brougham. I do not think there is anything very dreadful in an attempt to alter an Act which was passed under such circumstances, and I hope your Lordships will put aside any historical reverence for the year 1854 and vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.

LORD MUSKERRY

My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in reply to the speech made by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. The ways of the Government are indeed past understanding. I quoted to your Lordships their own Committees in support of my Bill, they having all been in favour of the principle of this Bill; I quoted the statement by the ex-President of the Board of Trade, who until recently was one of their colleagues, in favour of the principle; the Government themselves have adopted the principle in four cases; and the Admiralty have adopted it in every case as regards merchant transports. The noble and learned Earl says this is a small instalment of a much greater question. Well, why not take that small instalment? It does not commit the House or the nation to follow it up in any way. As to the statement of the noble and learned Earl that I am

Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

inaccurate when I say that under the present system British registered ships may be, and are, owned, commanded, and manned entirely by foreigners, I must differ from him. It is true that there is a stalking-horse put up as a British subject, but he is only a man of straw; the owners are foreigners, and also those on board. For instance, there is a Norwegian line of steamers running up the south-east coast of Africa which is owned, commanded, and manned entirely by foreigners, but which flies the British flag. I hope your Lordships will consent to the Second Beading of this Bill, if only as an experiment

On Question, "That the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS.
Rutland, D. Sidmouth, V. Ellenborough, L. [Teller.]
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Hatherton, L.
Hertford, M. Aldenham. L. Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Barrymore, L. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Carlisle, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L. Muskerry, L. [Teller.]
Craven, E. Blytha wood, L. Newton, L.
Haddington, E. Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Mayo, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Rosmead, L.
West meath, E. Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Wilton, E. Colchester, L. Sinclair, L.
Crofton, L. Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Llandaff, V. de Ros, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Ridley, V. Dunboyne, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Mansfield, E. Fermanagh, L. (E, Erne.)
Onslow, E. Glanusk, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.) Spencer, E. Harlece, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Heneagh, L.
Kenyon, L.
Devonshire, D. Churchill, V. [Teller.] Killanin, L.
Richmond and Gordon, D. Cross, V. Lawrence, L.
Wellington, D. Falmouth, V. Leigh, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough more.) Methuen, L.
Bristol, M. Ravensworth, L.
Lansdowne, M. Knutsford, V. Reay, L.
Linlithgow, M. Portman, V. Robertson, L.
Ripon, M. Sandhurst, L.
Ashcombe, L. Shuttleworth, L.
Abingdon, E. Avebury, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Amherst, E. Brougham and Vaux, L. Welby, L.
Cromer, E. Burghclere, L. Wenlock, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Chelmsford, L. Windsor, L.
Crawshaw, L. Wolverton, L.
Feversham, E. De Mauley, L. Wrottesley, L.
Harewood, E. Farrer, L.
Forward to