MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2.) BILL.

HL Deb 11 December 1906 vol 167 cc52-108

House in Committee (according to order.)

Clause 1:—

*LORD INVERCLYDE,

in moving an Amendment extending the application of British load-line provisions to foreign ships bound to, as well as actually within, any port in the United Kingdom, said that, as this was the first time he had addressed their Lordships' House, he would ask their Lordships' indulgence in listening to the few remarks which he desired to make in asking them to adopt his Amendment. The noble Earl (Earl Granard), when he spoke upon this Bill on Second Reading, mentioned amongst other things that it was based upon the recommendations of three Committees which had sat in regard to shipping matters. Possibly, if the noble Earl could excuse his saying so, it might have been more correct had he also said that one of those Committees recommended what his (Lord Inverclyde's) Amendment was intended to carry out. If his Amendment were adopted, it would mean, above all things, that all vessels coming into this country, whether British or foreign, would sail under one load-line. When the Amendment he was now putting before them was before the Grand Committee in another place, it was carried by a majority, but so far His Majesty's Government had not seen their way to include it in the Bill. The Select Committee in 1905 reported that they did not think it unreasonable to require foreign ships to observe the same loading limit as British vessels in entering, as well as in leaving, our ports, and to prescribe that they should be marked with a load-line. The witness who gave evidence on behalf of the Board of Trade before that Committee stated— As regards inward bound foreign vessels, there is at present no power to prevent or punish overloading, and we know that it frequently occurs. As drawn at present, the clause in the Bill only brought regulations applying to this country into operation when foreign vessels were in ports in the United Kingdom. Therefore foreign vessels, when they left a foreign port, might have their bunkers full, and possibly be overloaded, but they arrived in this country in proper loading trim, because they had burned the coal in their bunkers. British vessels were not allowed to do this, and therefore he submitted that it was not fair competition. He was not seeking that British vessels should be allowed to carry any more cargo; all he desired to bring about was that British ships should compete on fair terms with foreign vessels, and that the same regulations should apply to foreigners as applied to British vessels. He thought it ought to be borne in mind also that this Bill which had been accepted by the shipping trade put many burdens upon that trade, and that, therefore, if any restrictions could be got rid of, it would be most acceptable. He did not fear what a noble Lord said on Second Reading that if we interfered too much with foreign vessels, we should bring about retaliation. In his opinion, retaliation was more or less of a bogey. Foreign countries were at this time competing with us all they possibly could, and he thought that the Government ought to assist British shipping to maintain the supremacy which it had hitherto enjoyed, instead of allowing foreigners advantages over ourselves. Of course, if there was an international load-line he would not have another word to say, but unfortunately such did not exist. The noble Lord who represented the Foreign Office in this House, when speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that the question of an international load-line was not to be lost sight of. The shipping trade, however, desired that the question of an international load-line should be settled, and should be lost sight of. He desired to say that he did not wish to oppose the Bill, and, if he might say so, he would do all he could to help to carry it through the House; but he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 11, after the word 'within' to insert the words 'and on all voyages the cargo to."—(Lord Inverclyde.)

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that the Amendment of his noble friend raised a very serious question. What it proposed to do was to apply the regulation as to load-line to foreign vessels when outside the jurisdiction of this country. It had always been laid down by international law that a country's jurisdiction over a foreign vessel ended immediately that vessel got outside that country's territorial limit, such territorial limit being in this country the three-mile limit. But what the noble Lord appeared to want to do was to penalise a vessel outside this country's jurisdiction. He did not think any of their Lordships would consent to such a proposal. If so, we should suffer very much from retaliation—he had no doubt whatever upon that point. The noble Lord also made a remark with regard to putting British ships absolutely upon an equality with the foreigner. That was a very difficult thing to do. They could not make any regulation with a foreigner with regard to the wages he paid or the food he gave, and it seemed to him quite impossible to do anything in that line. The only thing they could say was that when a ship came into one of our ports we would treat her on the same lines as we would treat a British ship. In the case the noble Lord mentioned, a vessel left a foreign port in an unsafe condition, but, according to the regulations of this country, she arrived in our port in a safe condition. Consequently, he was unable to see how we could very well punish her. The noble Lord had also raised a question with regard to an international load-line. He was sure nobody in this House wished more than himself that we could do something in that way. He was given to understand that one or two foreign countries were showing some signs in that direction—notably Germany—and if it could be arrived at, it would do a great deal to solve this question. He was very sorry he could not accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he did not wish to repeat the observations he had made upon the Second Reading, but on that occasion he was fortunate enough to draw from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a very full statement of the case, from the Foreign Office point of view, and his noble friend opposite had stated, in terms of an unmistakable character, that in the view of the Foreign Office such an Amendment as his noble friend behind him had moved would be prejudicial to international law. That was a very serious statement, and he thought their Lordships would probably be anxious to accept any such statement of that kind, coming, as it did, from the Foreign Office, as accurate. If that were so, he did not see that there was anything more to be said on the Amendment. He quite understood why his noble friend behind him had moved it. He had followed, as well as he was able, the debates in another place, and he quite understood the feeling of injustice on the part of the British shipowners in the matter. Whether it would be possible in any circumstances to remedy that injustice was a topic upon which it was not necessary to enter. The moment it was stated that from the Foreign Office point of view it would be to the prejudice of international law—the moment they were advised by their experts that such was the case—it became impossible to argue the matter, and he hoped his noble friend would not press the Amendment.

*LORD INVERCLYDE

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MUSKERRY,

in moving the insertion of a new sub-section at the end of Clause 1, providing for the application of Section 459 of the principal Act to vessels insufficiently or improperly ballasted, said that before putting this Amendment he wished to say that this was a most important Bill dealing with the most vital industry of the nation, the one to which the nation owed its very existence. But, on looking round at the almost empty benches of their Lordships' House, he could not but feel that the whole discussion was rather a farce. Was it worth while discussing the Bill with so few noble Lords present? They had discussed other matters far less important, and yet they let this matter slide, although, as he had said, it concerned the most important industry in the country. To come to his Amendment, this was a subject which he had brought before their Lordships for many years, namely, the improper ballasting of ships. There had been a dispute as to what was the meaning of "improper loading and ballasting." The Board of Trade said that they had power to detain a ship if she was improperly loaded or ballasted, but they never seemed to have exercised that power. There also appeared to be some doubts in the minds of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade as to whether they had the power. On one occasion he was met with the statement that they had the power; and on another occasion he was met with the statement that they had not the power. The Amendment he was about to move was simply to make the matter clear and beyond all doubt.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 22, after the word 'Act,' to insert the following new sub-section, 'Section four hundred and fifty-nine of the principal Act, which relates to the detention of British ships, shall apply in the case of a ship which is unsafe by reason of insufficient ballasting or improper ballasting, and, in the case of any British or foreign ship which is sailing in ballast either to or from any port in the United Kingdom or Colonies, and Regulations shall be framed by the Board of Trade which insure that all necessary and reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent the ballast from shifting."—(Lord Muskerry.)

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that he had listened to the arguments of the noble Lord with interest, but he was sorry that His Majesty's Government were unable to accept the Amendment. With regard to ballasting, the Government had asked the ex-Law Officers of the Crown, and they said that the Board of Trade had ample power to detain a ship which was improperly ballasted. In former days that could only be done with regard to British vessels; but by this Bill the power would be extended to foreign ships. That, he thought, disposed of that particular point. Then the noble Lord had also raised a question with regard to the Colonies. He considered it would be very unwise indeed to legislate in any way for the Colonies. The Colonies made their own laws with regard to merchant shipping; and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it would be very unwise for Parliament to take any steps in any way to interfere with the existing practice in that matter, in the Colonies. Under the circumstances, he could not see his way to accept the Amendment.

LORD MUSKERRY

pointed out that the object of those whom he represented, namely the seamen and officers of the merchant service, was not to ensure that a vessel should arrive in this kingdom in sea-worthy condition, but that it should start from the port of origin in a sea-worthy condition. He understood that the Board of Trade had not the power to do that excepting in regard to grain cargoes. If they had the power with regard to grain cargoes, why should they not also have the power with regard to any improper ballasting? The noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade had just told them, and he was very glad to hear it, that they had the power to do it. But they had never exercised that power, and how were they to be made to exercise that power? Unless something was done to make them exercise it they would not do so; at all events, they never had done so up to the present time.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

reminded the noble Lord that Section 462 of the original Act gave the Board of Trade authority to exercise the power to which he had referred. Further, he thought it would be perfectly evident to the whole House that it was extremely undesirable to attempt to exercise this power over foreign vessels which were in either a Colonial or a foreign port. Really the argument against it was the same as that which was contained in the argument against the Amendment of Lord Inverclyde. He did not think it possible that His Majesty's Government could accept the Amendment, nor did he think it would be in the interests of the general regulation of the merchant service, not only in this country, but in other countries, if they did accept it; for they would then have less opportunity of coming to a general conclusion with other countries, so as to arrive at a common understanding as to the regulations which should apply to the services of all countries.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2:—

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Lord MUSKERRY,

in moving the insertion of the words "or ballast" after "cargo" in sub-section (2) so as to secure a wider application of Section 462 of the principal Act, said he considered this a very necessary Amendment indeed, because he had shown their Lordships' House before now what a serious danger British sailors ran from vessels being insufficiently ballasted. This was a question of the safety of life at sea. The extraordinary interpretations that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade had given to the words of the Act had been pointed out by him on many occasions; and to-night they had had a quite contrary interpretation to that which had been given on the Load-Line Committee. That Committee were told that the Board of Trade had not power to do what the House had to-night been told they had power to do. He thought these matters should be set out very clearly in the new Act, and that it should be clearly stated that the provision applied to both ballast and cargo. If they put in 100 tons of potatoes they called that "cargo," but if they put in 100 tons of pig-iron or 100 tons of stone ballast they called that ballast. But, whether potatoes, pig-iron, or anything else, it meant another 100 tons of weight; and in either case it meant putting the vessel further down into the water. What was the object of giving these different names, and of legislating differently for different kinds of loads, whether cargo or ballast? It was all right for the man sitting on shore in his office; but, when a man got out to sea, it was a very different matter. He pressed his Amendment, viz., to insert the words "or ballast."

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 9, after the word 'cargo' to insert the words 'or ballast."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*LORD BRASSEY

said that, having been a member of the Committee over which Lord Spencer presided and which made an exhaustive inquiry into these matters, he thought it right to say that the Committee, after careful consideration, found themselves unable to recommend the adoption of the proposals embodied in his noble friend's Amendment. The Committee found that the loss of life from insufficient ballasting was happily diminishing, and that the principal cause of accident, the breakage of the propeller shaft, had been very much diminished by the improved regulations of Lloyds' Register Committee. Lord Spencer's Committee recognised the extreme difficulty of deciding upon a light load-line which must necessarily vary according to different types of ships; and any restriction necessarily hampered the shipowner in carrying on his business. For these reasons that Committee had decided, after very careful consideration, that they could not recommend the adoption of the proposals of those whom his noble friend represented.

LORD MUSKERRY

reminded the noble Lord that that very Committee passed certain strong recommendations, not one of which had ever been carried out by the Board of Trade; and the Amendment he was now moving was with the object of bringing forward one of those recommendations which the Light Load-line Committee had pressed so strongly on the Board of Trade.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that, as far as he understood the case at the present moment, according to this Bill the Board of Trade might detain any foreign ship for general unseaworthiness in ports of the United Kingdom, whether that ship took on board cargo or not. The words of the Bill included every foreign ship, because either they did take on cargo or they did not. It was therefore quite unnecessary to reply further to the noble Lord's Amendment.

THE EARL OF LOUDOUN

thought they ought not to allow foreign ships to come into British waters carrying cargo; and their Lordships ought to be very careful how they dealt with this Bill. England had got the best seamen in the world; and why we should have foreign I ships coming into our ports and going out with cargoes he did not know.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN,

in moving to omit Clause 3 and to insert a new clause dealing with the loading of grain cargoes on foreign ships, said that on the Second Reading of the Bill the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs made a very clear and precise statement as to the rights of this country in attempting to legislate with regard to foreign ships. He had laid it down that we had absolutely no right to do so until the ship came into an English port. He had always believed that that was the absolutely true interpretation of international law; and he did not think that in the end we should do any good to our own shipping interests by attempting to legislate for the ships of foreign countries in such a way as we should not for a moment tolerate if foreign countries attempted to legislate for ours. He believed that the real and only way to deal with this great subject, which certainly did require to be dealt with, was by negotiation with foreign countries. Those negotiations His Majesty's Government had already stated they were engaged in; and if they should be at all promising, he hoped there would be no unnecessary delay in calling a general conference of the nations interested in shipping to consider the subject, and attempting to arrive at some conclusion. Even if at such a conference no definite conclusions could be arrived at, it would justify some general legislation in the different countries with regard to the load-line and other matters. At any rate, he thought such a conference would advance the question; and he was quite sure that no harm could be done by it in jury case. Having heard that statement from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he turned his attention to the third clause of the Bill, which dealt with grain cargo; and it seemed to him that that clause, in the form in which it now stood, did, to some extent at any rate contravene the doctrine laid down by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He had consulted authorities, and he had had a clause carefully drafted, which he had placed on the Paper with a view to submitting it to their Lordships in place of the present Clause 3. He was advised that in that shape it was strictly within international law, and that it brought foreign ships laden with grain within the laws of this country, as, in his opinion, they ought to be brought as soon as they arrived in an English port. The clause was, he thought, more in accordance with the Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on foreign ships which sat in 1905, and which clearly in one paragraph of its Report recognised the extreme difficulty of placing foreign ships laden with grain on precisely the same footing as English ships; and only suggested that they should, as far as practicable, be subjected to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. The clause was also on the same lines as that which related to timber-laden ships, which was now law, and which he believed had worked very satisfactorily since the year 1894. He thought he need say nothing more in recommending the clause to their Lordships, and he hoped it might meet with the acceptance of the Committee.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 3, and insert the following new clause:—'(1) After the first day of October, one thousand nine hundred and seven, sections four hundred and fifty-two and four hundred and fifty-five of the principal Act shall apply to a foreign ship which loads a grain cargo in the United Kingdom so long as the ship is within a port in the United Kingdom, (2) If, after the first day of October, one thousand nine hundred and seven, a foreign ship laden with grain cargo arrives at any port in the United Kingdom having the grain cargo so loaded that the master of the ship, if the ship were a British ship, would be liable to a penalty under the provisions of Part V. of the principal Act relating to the carriage of grain, the master of that foreign ship shall be liable to a fine not exceeding three hundred pounds. (3) The provisions of section four hundred and fifty-four of the principal Act, so far as that section provides for the delivery of the notice mentioned therein to the proper officer of customs in the United Kingdom, shall apply to all foreign ships laden with grain cargo arriving at a port in the United Kingdom after the date aforesaid, and the master of the ship shall be liable accordingly."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

*LORD INVERCLYDE

thought he might say that the shipping trade accepted the Amendment of the noble Viscount. But he would like to point out that the principal Act to which he had referred only applied to foreign vessels loading in this country; and that if he would accept some such addition as the one he was about to suggest, it would make the matter more satisfactory. The addition was to the effect that after the first day of October, 1907, Section 455 of the principal Act should apply to foreign ships laden with grain, which discharged all or any part of their cargoes at any port in the United Kingdom, as long as the ships were within a port of the United Kingdom. He understood that His Majesty's Government were willing to accept that addition.

LORD MUSKERRY

supported the Amendment on behalf of the seamen and officers of merchant ships.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that, so far as His Majesty's Government was concerned, they were quite prepared to accept the new clause suggested by the noble Viscount, and also the addition to that clause which had been proposed by Lord Inverclyde.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:—

*THE EARL OF GRANARD,

in moving that the appointed day for the purposes of Part I. of the Act should be altered from 1st October, 1908, to 1st January, 1909, said that since the introduction of the Bill the date upon which it was to come generally into operation had been put on five months, but the date in the clause remained the same as when introduced. It therefore seemed right to alter that date.

Amendments moved— In page 2, line 37, to leave out the word 'October' and to insert the word 'January. In line 38, to leave out the word 'eight,' and to insert the word 'nine."—(The Earl of Granard.)

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6, 7, 8, and 9, with drafting Amendments, agreed to.

Clause 10:—

LORD MUSKERRY,

in moving an Amendment to provide that the height above the deck to which goods were carried must not exceed three feet, or, in the case of a covered space, the full height of that space, said he was very glad indeed to find that they had accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, because its acceptance, would make the carrying of his Amendment very much easier. Their Lordships had already shown their wisdom in dealing with one class of dangerous cargo, grain cargo, and, by his Amendment, he intended to ask them to deal with another very dangerous cargo, namely, deck cargo. It seemed to him a very absurd thing that a ship could load dangerous deck cargo and go from any port in the United States of America to the Continent without the Board of Trade being able to touch her, even though she might call at an English port; yet, if she called at a port in this country and unloaded a single deck log, then the Board of Trade could proceed against her. The law had declared that during a certain period from October to April it was a dangerous thing for these vessels to carry deck loads from the United States to the United Kingdom; but it could not interfere with those ships if they only just touched at the United Kingdom and then went on to the Continent. That, he thought, was absolutely illogical; and his Amendment was introduced with a view to meeting that anomaly; and he asked their Lordships in the name of common sense to accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 26, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word 'carrying' inline 29, and insert the words 'if a British ship leaves any port on the coast of North America between the last day of October and the 16th day of April, or if any foreign ship arrives between the aforesaid period at any port in the United Kingdom."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that, with regard to the first part of the Amendment of the noble Lord, as far as he could make out, his proposal was to alter the whole principle of the law relating to the carriage of timber, and to make it apply to British ships in the American timber trade only. That was what it meant virtually, and any British ships doing any trade in the Baltic or in any part of the world would not come under such provisions.

LORD MUSKERRY

said he fully admitted what the noble Lord had said about the Baltic.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that, with regard to the question of timber ships touching at English ports which were not bound for England, the principle which had always been followed was that they would not deal in any way with a foreign vessel coming to England unless she was going to discharge cargo here. They did not intend in any way to handicap their own vessels in competition with the foreigner.

*LORD MUSKERRY

said he must claim the indulgence of the Committee, as his health was not very good and really he ought not to be present at all; but he could not allow this Bill to go through without attempting to make some improvements in it. What he had always been met with by the Board of Trade was, first of all, that they had no power to deal with any British vessel sailing from any foreign port to a British port. He had been told by one Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, in the case of the "Mobile," "Oh, of course it is very sad, but, as the vessel was lost with all hands and the captain was drowned, he could not be prosecuted." What he wanted to do was to prevent these vessels sailing in a dangerous condition. They had admitted that they could do that in the case of a grain cargo. Would anyone tell him why it could not be done in reference to any other cargo? Why should a grain cargo be exceptional? He was only appealing to the Committee on the subject of the seamen's lives; and this was certainly a most dangerous thing. He asked their Lordships to consider the question seriously.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

thought the Amendment of the noble Lord would really restrict the powers which were granted under the Act. Under the old Consolidation Act, Section 451, there were given to the Board of Trade all the very powers to which the noble Lord referred; and the effect of his Amendment would be to limit those powers merely to vessels coming from America, and not to extend them to vessels from the Baltic. The proposal of the Government was far more important and far reaching than that proposed as an Amendment by the noble Lord. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.

*LORD MUSKERRY

said he would withdraw the Amendment, reserving to himself the right to bring forward the matter on a future occasion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*LORD MUSKERRY,

in moving to leave out the words "if he is privy to the offence,' said that under the Merchant Shipping Act the owner was supposed to have given a warranty in every way. In fact, if those words "privy to the offence" were put in, they were making nugatory the words of the original Act. If they looked at Section 458 of the principal Act— In every contract of service expressed or implied between the owner of a ship and the master for any seaman thereof, and in any instrument of apprenticeship whereby any person is bound to serve as an apprentice on board any ship there shall be implied, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, an obligation on the owner of the ship that the owner and the master, and every agent charged with the loading of the ship or the sending of the ship to the sea, shall use all reasonable means to insure the sea worthiness of the ship from the time the voyage commences. If they left out the words "privy to the offence," they would practically render that language of the original Act void. The words in the clause were, "the master of the ship, and also the owner, if he is privy to the offence." It was the owner who was responsible. It was absurd to say that the owner was not "privy to the offence." If a dangerous deck cargo was taken to sea, he thought that under the common law the master was responsible for the deeds of his servant.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 31, to leave out the words 'if he is privy to the offence."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that, if he might answer the noble Lord, he thought again here the owner was under the present Act absolutely liable No doubt the master was in the first instant liable, and the master it was who was liable and responsible for the way in which the ship was loaded. No doubt, if the master was bailable, and from him the money could not be recovered, then the liability would fall on the owner, and the owner was in all instances under the present law liable, failing the master being brought to book for his offence, should he commit one, and provided it could be shown that the owner was responsible for the act done by the master. That was the law as it stood at present, and he did not think the noble Lord's Amendment was necessary.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he should like his noble friend opposite to explain a little further. No doubt he was right, but upon the face of it there appeared a little difficulty. His noble friend had stated, and no doubt correctly, that under the present law the owner was always liable in the second instance.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

In default of the master's payment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

In default of the master's being able to satisfy the fine or whatever it was. The provision that the owner should be liable, even if he were not privy to the offence, might be a very proper one, but it did not quite come within the explanation of the noble Lord. As he understood, the present law was that the owner was always held to be liable if the master could not be got at, but in the present clause the owner was distinctly relieved of liability even if the master could not be got at, if he was not privy to the offence. He did not desire to criticise the clause—which might be a very proper one—but it did appear on the face of it to modify the provision of the law that the noble Lord bad explained. All he wished was that the noble Lord should consider if that was really the intention of the Government. If it was, he did not desire to criticise it at the present moment.

LORD MUSKERRY

said that he had read on two or three occasions letters with reference to shipping dangerous cargoes. It came to this. An owner would write a very guarded letter practically telling the master that he must ship those dangerous deck cargoes, and if the master did not do so, he knew very well that when he got home he would find that he had lost his berth. The ship would sail with a dangerous cargo, and might go down, and all hands be lost, the captain amongst them. In such a case, of course, nothing could be done to the captain; and was anything ever heard of an action against an owner under such circumstances? He had never heard of one, and he supposed that if he had given their Lordships one instance he had given them fifteen in the last few years, of vessels having gone down with all hands on board. He had instanced at least five within the last three years, and another one occurred only the other day, although in that instance all hands were not lost, but only two. What he wanted to do was to ensure the vessels being seaworthy when they started to sea; it was no good saying they arrived in a seaworthy condition; what they wanted was to make sure that they started so. He admitted that foreign vessels could not be dealt with in that way, but with regard to home vessels, it was quite within the power of Parliament to say that vessels leaving a foreign port to sail to our shores should be in a seaworthy condition.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that it appeared to him that the words which the noble Lord desired to leave out increased the liability on the owner. In the case which the noble Lord had given of a ship going down and no more being heard of it, under this Bill the owner, if he could have been shown to be privy to the overloading of the ship, became liable for the claim made upon him afterwards, and therefore the words "if he is privy to the offence" absolutely increased the strength of the clause.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

*LORD MUSKERRY,

in moving to substitute "100" for "150" cubic feet as the space in respect of which the master and owner were to be liable to a fine of £5 for carrying wood goods in contravention of the section, asked their Lordships for a moment to imagine what a vessel of this kind was. He observed that one of his noble friends opposite was laughing, but nevertheless it was a very serious matter. They were in smooth water in that Chamber, but if they got away in a big sea on the western ocean, it would be a different matter. The Marine Department of the Board of Trade knew nothing about the sea. These ships had bulwarks which were supposed to be a protection and a safeguard to the seaman. If wood goods were piled up to the full height of those bulwarks, and the vessel got into a bad sea, and that timber shifted—or even if the timber did not shift—he would ask their Lordships to consider how a man would be likely to get on with a sea sweeping over those decks. He would have a pretty bad time. He was aware that he was dealing with facts which did not possess much interest for their Lordships. They seemed only to think, when these matters were brought forward, of the monetary aspect of the question. But, nevertheless, he would press on them the importance of safeguarding the men's lives at sea, and every Amendment he had brought before their Lordships was framed with the sole object of the safeguarding the lives of the seamen.

Amendment moved— In page 4, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'for every 150 cubic feet' and to insert the words 'for every 100 cubic feet."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that the rule at the present time was a penalty of £5 for every 100 cubic feet of timber. In future the penalty would be reckoned on every 150 cubic feet of space instead of an actual measurement being taken of the timber, so that really the proposed Amendment made no change at all in the existing condition of things.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

*LORD MUSKERRY

moved an Amendment to provide that the height above the deck to which goods are carried must not exceed "3 feet, or in the case of a covered space the full height of that space." He said he attached great importance to this Amendment, and that he would divide the Committee upon it, even if he could only get a couple of his noble friends to go outside with him. He had told their Lordships, and he thought they were fairly well aware that it had been considered dangerous to carry a certain amount of deck cargo in the winter-time from the United States to England. A 3-feet deck-load was a pretty bad deck-load anyhow. If they had a 4 feet 6 inch bulwark loaded up to 3 feet with deck stuff there was only 18 inches between a man and his being swept overboard into the sea. The Bill proposed to give 7 feet. He had read the discussion in the House of Commons, where it was said that the improved structure of the vessels and so forth would warrant such a thing. But these highly scientific experts could not take into account the unexpected which always happened at sea, and it was the seaman who was the best judge, not the marine architect or the marine engineer. It was the seamen who knew that what happened at sea very often upset the calculations of all the marine engineers, and he would press this Amendment very strongly in the interests of the lives of the sailors.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 9, to leave out from the word 'exceed' to the end of sub-section (3), and to insert the words '3 feet, or, in the case of a covered space, the full height of that space."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said he was informed that nearly all the masters of these timber ships would take dock-loads, and what the Government intended to do was this: The present law was that on all covered spaces 3 feet was allowed and an equal amount in an uncovered space. What the Government proposed to do was to allow on covered spaces 3 feet, and on uncovered spaces 7 feet. He was informed that on ships of this kind what happened was that they were loaded up with timber to the height of 3 feet, and when the ship got into heavy weather and encountered heavy seas, some of the men were washed overboard. The consequence of what the Government now proposed would be that the vessel would be practically converted into a spar-deck ship. It was considered by all experts that such a ship would be much safer with a cargo of that sort than was the case at the present moment.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said that it appeared to him that the important question was whether the timber was properly secured. The question that always struck him when considering this matter was, how was the timber stowed, and further, was the ship so built as to carry such a cargo without its shifting? In many of these vessels it was exceedingly difficult to secure a deck-load properly, and he hoped that the Board of Trade would make it more difficult for ships to go to sea with cargo improperly secured or improperly built up, taking into consideration also the shape and build of the internal parts of the vessel. In some cases, however, when a ship carried planks of ordinary deals, this deck could be built up so as to make what were practically higher sides and a covered deck, so that the ship was actually safer when carrying a deck cargo than before.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

*LORD MUSKERRY,

in moving the omission of sub-section (4) (c), said it was really a farce his bringing in any Amendments whatever with such a small House. He might almost withdraw all his Amendments, and bring them up again at a future stage of the Bill. Perhaps the Government would tell him which of his Amendments, if any, they would accept. That might shorten the procedure. Was it open to him to ask his noble friends opposite whether or not they would accept any of his Amendments.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

suggested that the noble Lord (Lord Muskerry) should take his Amendments one by one, and ask the Government with respect to each of them whether they would accept it or not. He presumed there were some which the Government would accept.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

said that as he gathered the noble Lord did not intend to move any further Amendment upon Clause 10, he would now put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:—

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

*LORD MUSKERRY

who had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out "his opinion," and insert "the opinion of the examiner of masters and mates for the port or in the presence of such examiner of any certificated master mariner nominated by the superintendent or other officer," asked whether the Government would accept that Amendment.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

replied in the negative.

LORD MUSKERRY

said that in that case there was no use in his pressing it at this juncture. The only reason he had for putting in that Amendment was that shipping superintendents were sometimes appointed from rather curious ranks of life. It would naturally be expected that they would have some knowledge of the sea, but in Middlesbrough, for instance, a certain shipping superintendent was a laboratory chemist. He thought it would be well that a shipping superintendent should be someone who had a knowledge of the sea. But of course he was powerless, having regard to the attitude of the Government.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that the view taken by the Government was that the superintendent was a man whose duty was to sign on the crew when they went on board ship, and they thought a man of that kind was perfectly competent to judge whether a member of the crew was sufficiently acquainted with English to be able to understand the orders given on board. That was the Government's reason for objecting to the proposed Amendment.

LORD MUSKERRY

said that such a man might have no knowledge at all of the orders given on board ship, however much he might know of ordinary English. The technical orders given on board a vessel were very different, as he need hardly tell their Lordships, from the interpretation put upon them on shore. However, he was powerless.

Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17:—

LORD MUSKERRY

moved that the words "an owner" should be inserted after the word "master" in the sub-section imposing a penalty for carrying passengers on more than one deck below the water line. He said that this was a case where they were dealing with a passenger steamer. Their Lordships would know that in a case of that sort it was the owner who contracted with the passengers, and it was he who received the money, and not the master. Therefore, he thought that it was very unfair to put the penalty upon the master, who had no yea or nay in the matter at all. He did not know whether his noble friend was going to object to that or not.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 31, after the word 'master,' to insert the words 'and owner."—(Lord Muskerry.)

THE EARL OF GRANARD

regretted that he must oppose the Amendment. The Government's opinion was that the master was really the individual who must be held responsible for all those matters. It could only happen abroad, whore there were no means for the owner to know what was going on.

LORD MUSKERRY

said that in every case it was the owner who received the money, and he ought to be responsible. However, he would not pursue the matter further, but reserved his right to bring up the Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Consequential and drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:—

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON

explained that the Amendments standing in his name were already provided for in another part of the Bill. Consequently he would not move them.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

moved to add a new sub-section prohibiting a shipowner from contracting himself out of his responsibility for the provisioning of seamen. He said that it had been found that the men suffered more from bad provisions when the shipowners had contracted out of their liability, and handed it over to the captain or some steward on board. He had given some evidence on that subject on the Second Reading, and he would not repeat it at the present stage, as he did not wish to take up unnecessarily the time of the House. He had brought with him, however, a Blue-book containing all the facts upon which he relied, in case any of his noble friends should wish to verify them. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment moved— In page 12, line 25, after the word 'pounds' to insert the following new sub-section, '(4) A shipowner shall be unable to contract himself out of his responsibility for the provisioning of seamen."—(Lord Ellenborough.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said that the Amendment was very far-reaching in its character, as in the case of a great number of steamers the crews found themselves, and they would be prevented from doing that by the noble Lord's Amendment.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said that he had not thought the Amendment carried with it that the men could not feed themselves. He knew it was the custom on board yachts, and that it answered very well in certain other ships. Therefore, if the noble Lord would make some Amendment to do away with the difficulty raised by the noble Marquess, he would have no objection to accepting it. He did not in the least wish to prevent the men feeding themselves.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said he could see no object in the Amendment, because the captain must provide food in accordance with the scale, and if he did not do so he subjected himself to a penalty.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said it was very difficult to get at either the owner or the captain in those cases. He hoped that something would be done to secure that the men should get good food. It was a very difficult thing to secure that, as the Blue-book which he had with him would show, though he did not want to read any extracts from it at the moment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he understood from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that whatever contract was made by the owner he was liable to the same requirements of the Act of Parliament, and would not be able to plead his contract as relieving him from the obligations which Parliament threw upon him. If that were so, he apprehended that that gave his noble friend all the remedy that he required. What he wanted was that the owner should not contract himself out of the responsibility for provisioning the seamen, and, as he understood, the Bill did not permit him to contract himself out of that responsibility. He might enter into any contract he liked, but the responsibility remained. He, therefore, did not see the force of his noble friend's Amendment.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said he believed that hitherto the seamen's remedy lay only against the captain, who in many cases misused his authority to make a profit for himself.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I put it to His Majesty's Government.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that Clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill specially provided for the crew's having their own provisions, but in addition to that there was the schedule which provided for a compulsory scale, which the owner was obliged to comply with. That would be enforced. If the crew did not get food according to the scale in the schedule of the Act, the owner would be liable, and he could not plead any contract against that liability.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said that if that was the law he was satisfied, but he had an impression that that was not the law, and was not considered the law.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that it would be the law when the Bill was passed.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said under those circumstances he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27:—

*THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR,

in moving an Amendment to provide that foreign-going ships should carry at least one officer or seaman duly certificated in proficiency in first aid and ambulance work, pointed out that his only desire was to save unnecessary suffering on the part of seamen, and he thought that that might be accomplished to a slight extent if their Lordships passed this Amendment. He did not think that it would impose any burden or expense on the shipowner, and he thought the noble Lord, Lord Brassey, in his speech on the Second Reading, had given his opinion that something of the kind was necessary. Their Lordships were perfectly aware that there were a very large number of men certified as having a certain amount of efficiency in ambulance work. As one walked along the street one saw policemen with a little button on their arm, as well as railway men and various other people, and he believed that in all large mines and in great works ashore there were a certain number of people skilled in rendering first-aid to the injured. On shore this was not so necessary as at sea, because, after all, that help and assistance was only required on shore for a few hours, and a doctor or surgeon could easily be sent for in case of accident. But everyone knew that on board sailing ships—especially those bound, on long voyages—there was a very great liability to accident; and there necessarily no doctor or surgeon could be sent for. He thought it was a reasonable thing to ask that there should be somebody on board who had received a certain amount of practical training, sufficient to enable him to give such help as might be required, and he believed that that amount of skill and efficiency could be acquired quite as easily as cooking. He trusted, therefore, that such a provision would come into force at the same time as the provision with regard to carrying cooks. He had heard piteous stories of men who had been injured at sea with a broken limb, and had had nobody on board ship for two months who knew how to treat such an injury. Let their Lordships imagine a man with a broken leg, and no one anywhere near with the smallest idea how to put that leg into splints. He ventured respectfully to ask the noble Earl if he could not see his way to accept this very small Amendment. If it was badly worded through his ignorance of drafting he hoped the noble Earl would undertake to introduce a better clause.

Amendment moved— In page 12, line 32, after the word 'capacity,' to insert the words 'and at least one officer or seaman who is duly certificated in proficiency in first-aid and ambulance work."—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)

LORD MUSKERRY

said that seven years ago a Board of Trade Committee considered this matter and reported strongly in favour of what the right rev. Prelate had brought forward, but, as usual, nothing had been done. He did not think there could be any question as to the benefit of such a provision on board a ship, and how much preventible suffering might be avoided by the captain or one of the mates on board having some knowledge of first aid, or of surgery. He had much pleasure in strongly supporting the right rev. Prelate's Amendment.

*LORD BRASSEY

said that he had himself drafted a clause very similar to, and dealing with the same subject as, that of the right rev. Prelate. But he had been given to understand that the subject was one which would be more suitably dealt with by a regulation of the Board of Trade than by a clause in an Act of Parliament, and he, therefore, should not press the clause which he had put upon the Notice Paper. He earnestly hoped that the subject would continue to engage the attention of the Board of Trade. It was quite clear to their Lordships that where cases occurred of a broken limb or of dislocation on board ship, and there was no person on board trained in the art of rendering first-aid to the wounded, great suffering must occur and in some cases loss of life. The necessary instruction could be given at trifling expense, and he ventured earnestly to hope that the Board of Trade would deal with the subject by suitable regulation.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that the noble Lord was correct in saying that the Board of Trade had power to deal with this subject. He was afraid, however, that at the present moment the Board of Trade had put so many burdens on shipowners that they did not desire to add any more just now. He, there-fore, much regretted that at the present moment he could not hold out any hopes of being able to put in force such a regulation as that suggested.

*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH

said that the unwillingness and the absolute refusal of the Government to deal with this question, which was one of mere humanity, seemed to him singularly unfortunate, as it was quite certain that in the absence of some such regulation seamen must necessarily suffer considerable hardship, and even distinct cruelty in many cases.

*LORD BRASSEY

said that the cost would be very trivial.

LORD MUSKERRY

said it would not put one farthing cost on the shipowner. It would only be adding something more to the examination, and was nothing to do with the shipowner, good, bad, or indifferent.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he would be very loth, in view of the answer of the noble Earl, to press the matter unduly. A considerable number of obligations were being laid upon the shipping trade, and they ought to be careful not to add to them if it could be avoided. At the same time he thought the noble Earl must feel that a rather weighty appeal had been made to him on this subject from both sides of the House, and he was glad to hear the noble Earl say that the Board of Trade had power to deal with this subject by regulation. The noble Earl, however, did not—very likely for very good reasons—tell them whether the Board of Trade had ever exercised the power to make such regulations. He would not ask the noble Earl to go into the matter at present, but perhaps he would consider the propriety, when the next stage of the Bill was reached, of making any statement in his power with the view of meeting the very legitimate feeling which had been expressed on both sides of the House on this subject. If there was power to make regulations, and if the Board of Trade thought of making regulations, he thought it would be a very suitable opportunity for the Government to take Parliament into its confidence. But if after looking into the matter the noble Earl found it was quite impossible to comply with the suggestion made, he thought it would be equally well that the Government should so state to Parliament, in order that the matter, which was one of great importance, might be laid at rest, at any rate for the present.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said he was sure that the Committee would believe that the Government was entirely in sympathy with the object of this Amendment. No doubt under Section 494 of the principal Act the Board of Trade had power to make those regulations, and there would be no necessity to introduce a clause into this Bill giving them that power. He thought certainly that in the case of the larger ships the Board of Trade might very well be pressed to make such a provision. But he felt that with regard to the smaller ships, with very small crews, there would be considerable difficulty in arriving at an all-round engagement to do such a thing when it was considered that if these special accomplishments were required on the part of seamen, the particular men possessing those accomplishments would naturally require and receive a higher rate of wage from the owner. He could assure the Committee that the Government looked with favour on the proposal, and would make inquiry upon the subject before the next stage of the Bill was reached.

Lord MUSKERRY

said he might, perhaps, inform the First Lord that a very great number—a far greater number than possibly he knew—of the officers of the merchant service possessed these certificates, and it was within his knowledge that they received no extra payment in consequence.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR

said he did not quite gather whether the noble Lord had given a promise that the subject should come up again during the course of the Bill.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that the Government would make a further statement on the question at a later stage of the Bill, and he thought probably some endeavour would be made to meet the wishes of the Committee as expressed to-night—that was to say, of course, with regard to future engagements.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR

said that having regard to that promise he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28—

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH,

in moving an Amendment to the clause dealing with the wages and effects of a seaman left behind, said that, as regarded this part of the Bill, what he would like to see done was that the shipping should be relieved of the light dues, and deprived of the deserters' wages. As long as deserters' wages went to the owners of ships so long would desertion continue. There was a regular trade in this kind of thing in distant ports, like San Francisco. If the Committee declared that the captain was to keep for the owners whatever money he might have spent in trying to recover the deserters they would have accounts which it would be impossible to test. It was impossible to find out how much a captain might have given to foreign police, or to test how much he had spent in boat hire, and a man who would be capable of bullying men out of a ship would in nearly all cases be capable of making up a false account. He did not think it would be possible to keep men on board ships until it came to be the interest of owners to keep their men on board instead of driving them out of their ships. As far as he could make out there were about 27,000 deserters a year, and if they were owed about £10 apiece, that would amount to a sum of £270,000. He did not think it was quite fair to shipowners to ask them to give up what was in some cases properly earned money, as in many cases the man was not driven out of the ship, and it was not always the fault of the owners. Turkey was the only country, he believed, that at present charged light dues on ships and if they took away this desertion money and recieved the shipowners of the light dues it would be a great step towards making the ships habitable and happy.

Amendment moved— In page 13, line 27, to leave out from the word 'trade' to the word 'such' in line 36, and to insert the words 'of the effects and wages."—(Lord Ellenborough.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said he was afraid that if the Government accepted the Amendment they would have to change the whole structure of that very long clause. If a shipowner went abroad, and lost a certain part of his crew by desertion, the shipowner must be reimbursed for the loss sustained by him. It would be quite unfair if that was not done. What the noble Lord wanted to do was that in the event of the desertion of any man on boardship the shipowner should not be reimbursed in any way for expenses caused to him by this desertion. That, he thought, would be most unfair.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said he wished the matter to be treated exactly in the same way as if the man had died, but that the money should go to the Exchequer instead of going to relations.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

moved an Amendment to provide that the master should, if required, in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Trade, furnish such vouchers as might reasonably be required to verify his accounts. He said that under the clause, as originally introduced, accounts were accompanied by such vouchers as the Board of Trade might require Representations, however, had been made to the Board of Trade, and it was now intended to change that clause somewhat. After the words "Board of Trade" in the Amendment as it appeared on the Amendment Paper, they intended altering the phraseology in this way—"furnish such vouchers as may reasonably be required to verify the accounts."

Amendment moved— In page 13, line 36, to leave out from the word 'Act' to the end of the sub-section, and insert the words 'the master shall, if required by the proper officer in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Trade, furnish such vouchers as may reasonably be required to verify the accounts."—(The Earl of Granard.)

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

did not quite see how vouchers obtained from a negro or a Chinaman, who was absolutely illiterate, would afford much information as to how much was actually paid for boat hire; nor did he see how vouchers could be obtained from foreign police as to money expended in capturing a deserter. He thought it was quite a hopeless thing for the Board of Trade, or any other Department, to attempt.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought the word "reasonably" covered it.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

Perhaps so. I have not got the word "reasonably" in the Amendment before me.

Consequential and drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD MUSKERRY

moved an Amendment providing that the section should not apply where the master of the ship satisfies the proper officer that none of the effect of the seaman have "to his knowledge" been loft on board the ship. He said it was a very simple thing, because a seaman did not leave any effects behind him as a rule. If he went away his mates divided his effects up between themselves, or else he disposed of them before leaving the ship.

Amendment moved— In page 16, line 25, after the word 'have' to insert the words to 'to his knowledge."—(Lord Muskerry.)

On question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:—

Drafting Amendments, agreed to.

Clause 29, as Amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.

Clause 32:—

LORD MUSKERRY

pointed out with regard to the repatriation of seamen on termination of service at a foreign port, that supposing a man was discharged, at, say, Melbourne or the Cape of Good Hope or any other similar place, he would be very much further away from his home than if he were discharged at any foreign port. If the service of a seaman belonging to a British ship terminated at a port outside His Majesty's dominions, for instance, at, say, Bordeaux, he was entitled to get back as being discharged at a foreign port. But, if he was discharged at, say, Melbourne, Hong-Kong, or Sydney, he would not be entitled to get back. That, he thought, was rather hard on the seaman. The words of the clause were "at a port out of His Majesty's dominions," and he moved to put "the United Kingdom" in the place of "His Majesty's dominions."

Amendment moved— In page 18, line 2, to leave out 'His Majesty's dominions' and insert 'the United Kingdom."—(Lord Muskerry.)

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said he was in agreement with Lord Muskerry on this point. He thought it very hard that a seaman should be discharged in some out-of-the-way Colony. He did not think a man was so much to be pitied who was discharged at Melbourne or Hong-Kong, because there were always ships there in which he could easily get away. But there were a number of places and harbours in out-of-the-way Colonies where men were discharged and could only with great difficulty get a passage in another ship. There were all sorts of queer places, the Falkland Islands, for instance, and our various Protectorates on the Niger, and other unhealthy places, where a seaman might be put to very great hardship if discharged, simply because it happened to belong to His Majesty's dominions. Therefore, he thought there was a great deal in the argument of his noble friend, and he supported his Amendment.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said there was always a distinction made between a man discharged in a foreign port and one discharged in His Majesty's dominions. It had always been held that if a man was discharged in His Majesty's dominions he was among friends and able to get home. But the position was quite different in regard to a foreign port; and in those cases a man was always treated upon different terms. As a matter of fact, if a man was out in Melbourne or anywhere else in Australia and became distressed out there, he was invariably sent home. On the whole he could not see any particularly good reason for making any change in the present law.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

asked whether the noble Lord would say what places he considered to be "ports" on the west coast of Africa? There were a number of anchorages there where a man might be discharged which were called ports, becaused goods could be landed there under arrangement with the Customs House.

LORD MUSKERRY,

in moving an Amendment providing that, "The master of a vessel whose services have terminated at a port outside the United Kingdom shall be entitled to have his passage home provided at the expense of the owner to a proper return port," said he could not understand why the master should be specially exempted from the operation of the clause. The master's pay was not so very much larger than that of the other officers; and, after all, it was only a fair thing that he should have his passage home paid. He would remind their Lordships also that in the case of a disputed account everybody on board, except the unfortunate master, could remain quiescent while the dispute was going on and everybody had to be paid up every penny to the date of the final settlement, whereas the master, the moment there was a disagreement with the owner, was liable to be told, "You can go at a week's notice." The master might be dismissed at a week's notice, and the owners might withhold the final settlement for six months, and the master had no claim whatever for any money during the whole six months. It was really a case of starving the master.

Amendments moved— In page 18, line 35, after the word 'seaman' to insert the following new subsection: '( ) The master of a vessel whose services have terminated at a port outside the United Kingdom shall be entitled to have his passage home provided at the expense of the owner to a proper return port. In line 36, after 'foreign' insert 'master or."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said the moaning of the Bill was that the master was the employer of the hands on the ship; and, if the seamen had to be repatriated, he had to make arrangements for their repatriation. It had always been the custom for the owner and the master, whose modified servant he was, to make the arrangements should repatriation become necessary. There had been very little trouble about this in the past, and he thought it was not desirable to make a change when it was not needed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 33, 34, 35, and 36 agreed to.

Clause 37:

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH,

in moving an Amendment as to the penalty to be imposed upon a master publishing a false account, said the clause as it stood was that a master who failed to deliver an account or knowingly delivered a false account, was for each offence to be liable to a fine of £20. He did not think a fine of £20 was at all a sufficient punishment for a person who knowingly delivered a false account. If a barrister were to be guilty of such a fault he would be disbarred. An officer of the Army or Navy would be cashiered, and a solicitor would be struck off the Rolls. He did not see any reason why the standard of honour among master mariners should be considered to be lower than in the professions he had mentioned. He thought the master who knowingly delivered a false account was not fit to be placed in a position of authority over other men or to command a ship. Such a person would be just the sort of man who would be likely to wreck his ship, and to join in with those insurance harpies who made their living out of such nefarious practices. The man who knowingly delivered a false account was marked for the rest of his life, and he did not think he should be allowed to continue to exercise the honourable profession of a master mariner.

Amendment moved— In page 21, lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words 'a fine not exceeding twenty pounds' and insert the words 'deprivation of his certificate of master."—(Lord Ellenborough.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said he agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord had said. It was certainly a very reprehensible offence, but he did not think there would be much gained by putting in the words suggested, for at the present moment if a master did furnish a wrong account, he could be proceeded against, and if a conviction was obtained the Board of Trade could deal with his certificate. So that he did not think there was any particular necessity for putting in the words suggested by the noble Lord.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

asked whether the certificate would be cancelled if the man was found guilty by a county court.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

thought probably that would be so. The whole case would be gone into, and if it was a bad case there was no doubt whatever that the certificate would be cancelled.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said that if the Government wished the Board of Trade to have authority to cancel the certificate perhaps that would be the better way of doing it.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said he thought he had made himself clear to the noble Lord. He had explained that the Board of Trade had power at the present moment to cancel a certificate in such circumstances.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he understood that the Board of Trade proceeded to consider the question, of a certificate after a fine had been inflicted, quite independently of that, or rather in pursuance of that, and therefore he thought that would answer the question of his noble friend. There was no doubt that the law was that under those circumstances the Board of Trade would have full power to deprive a master of his certificate, and if that were so there would be no difficulty.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

Then I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.

Clause 40:—

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

said that Lord Muskerry had a number of Amendments under this clause, but he would point out to the noble Lord that he had also a number of Amendments under Clause 49 which defined the proper authority, and if the Committee agreed to those Amendments they would cover all his Amendments to Clause 40.

LORD MUSKERRY

said that if he might interrupt the noble Chairman he would like to point out that his first Amendment under Clause 40 was to leave out "may" and insert "shall."

Amendment moved— In page 23, line 5, to leave out 'may' and insert 'shall."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that the Government were quite prepared to meet the noble Lord about it.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

said that in that case he would ask the noble Lord to leave out all the others, which he considered were included in the definition clause until that was reached.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41:—

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said that another Amendment on the Paper was far better than his, because it dealt 'with the whole question of whether a master should be considered a seaman. That, he understood, was to be considered later on, when the Definition Clause was reached, and therefore he would not say anything about it now.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The noble Lord does not move his Amendment.

Clauses 41, 42, and 43 agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 44, 45,46, 47, and 48 agreed to.

Clause 49:—

LORD MUSKERRY

said that as this was the Definition Clause which had already been referred to he would like to explain how it dealt with the master under the Merchant Shipping Act at the present time. If there were any dispute between the owner and any of his employees who were seamen, the amount was settled up to the date of final settlement. That was to say there might have been a dispute between a seaman and his master, and the seaman might have been living on shore for a month or two months, doing nothing, but when the date of final settlement came, the owner had to account for every day of those two months. In the case of a master, the master not being a seaman under this very curious Merchant Shipping Act, that was not so, and the master in the case of very many firms—he was not going to give the names, although he could do so—was treated very summarily. This was a crying injustice, and he could, if he chose, give the names of cases which had been tried in the last few years. The master very often had to sign with the owner an agreement that his engagement should terminate at, say, a week's notice. When the master was dismissed and went to the office to get his pay the owner said, "We will take an account," and they might hang up that account for six months. That was what was ordinarily called—and he would ask their Lordships to take it from him as a fact—"starving the captain out." There were a certain number of unscrupulous ship managers—not ship owners—who represented the old time shipowners, who carried out this plan of "starving their captains out," and kept them hanging on, earning nothing, and after a captain had been on his beam ends for perhaps three months, they would say, "Here Captain So-and-so, we will give you so much"—perhaps half what was duo to him—"and give you a good reference." And the poor devil's only chance was to take it and go; it was pure robbery and a scandalous piece of work; and he had proofs that it was often done.

Amendment moved— In page 28, line 35, after the word 'service' to insert the words 'and masters."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

was afraid he must object to the noble Lord's Amendment, the object of which was, apparently, to place the master on exactly the same footing as the seamen. He was, however, prepared in one way to meet the noble Lord later on. He had been thinking of inserting a clause after Clause 66, which might help the noble Lord, with regard to a master who went on shore and was not able to get his pay. If he might read the clause over, perhaps the noble Lord would tell him whether he agreed with it. The following was the now clause which he proposed to insert after Clause 56— In any action or other legal proceedings by the master of a ship for the recovery of any sum due to him on account of wages, the Court may, if it appears to them that the payment of the sum due has been delayed otherwise than owing to the act or default of the master, or to any reasonable dispute as to liability, or to any other cause not being the wrongful act or default of the person liable to make the payment, order that person to pay, in addition to any sum due on account of wages, such sum as they think just as damages in respect of the delay, without prejudice to any claim which may be made by the master on that account. That would simply mean that if a master was owed £10, or anything like that, and went on shore and could not get paid, if he sued in a Court afterwards, the Court might make him some compensation. He could not amend the Definition Clause right through, simply to change the status of the master.

LORD MUSKERRY

said he quite understood the noble Lord's difficulty, and it was a matter which might be considered hereafter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 50 and 51, with drafting Amendments, agreed to.

Clause 52:—

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,

who had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that "the registry of any registered ship ceasing to be a British ship by reason of a transfer to persons not qualified to be owners of British ships shall not be closed without the consent in writing of all persons appearing on the register as mortgagees," said that he did not propose to trouble the Committee by moving the Amendment; but the point with which it proposed to deal was a very important one, and the present position was not altogether satisfactory. It was very intricate and difficult to understand without a long explanation; but he was glad to be able to say that he believed some of those for whom he was partly acting had had more than one interview with the representatives of the Board of Trade; and he had every reason to hope that a satisfactory solution would be arrived at. If the noble Lord concurred in that view he would not have to raise the matter at a subsequent stage.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said the Government would have had a clause drawn up if it had not been for the regrettable illness of the Lord Chancellor, but he hoped, when the subject came up again, to be able to meet the noble Lord.

Clauses 53, 54, and 55 agreed to.

Clause 56:—

LORD MUSKERRY,

in moving to omit Clause 56 and to substitute a now clause there for, said there was nothing in the Act as it stood now making it incumbent on any home-going ship, no matter of what size—she might be the size of the "Celtic"—as long as she was outside the three-mile limit, to carry a properly certificated officer, who might be assumed to be competent and responsible. He would ask his noble friend whether he was prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved: To leave out clause 56, and insert the following new clause: '(1) Every British foreign going ship of over eighty tons net register tonnage and every British home trade ship of over eighty tons net register tonnage, and every foreign ship of over eighty tons register tonnage trading between places in the United Kingdom shall when going to sea be provided with officers duly certificated under this Act, according to the following scale—"(a) In every case with a duly certificated master; (b) In every case with duly certificated officers in accord with the scale as follows: (i) Every British foreign going or home trade ship of less than eight hundred tons net register tonnage shall carry, besides the master, at least two certificated officers holding certificates of a grade not lower than that which they occupy on board the ship; (ii) Every British foreign going ship or home trade ship of over eight hundred tons net register tonnage shall carry at least three certificated officers besides the master; (iii) Every British foreign going steam ship of over three thousand tons net register tonnage shall carry at least four certificated officers besides the captain; (iv) A foreign going sailing ship of under two hundred tons net register tonnage may, besides the master, carry one certificated officer only, and the possession of a second mate's certificate for foreign going vessels shall be deemed sufficient in this case; (v) If the ship is a foreign going steamship of one hundred nominal horse-power or upwards, with at least two engineers, one of whom shall be a first-class and the other a first-class or second-class engineer, duly certificated: (vi) If the ship is a foreign going steamship of less than one hundred nominal horse-power, or a sea-going home trade passenger steamship, with at least one engineer who is a first-class or second-class engineer, duly certificated; (2) If any person (a) having been engaged as one of the above-mentioned officers goes to sea as such officer without being duly certificated; or (b) employs a person as an officer in contravention of this section, without ascertaining that the person so serving is duly certificated, that person shall be liable for each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. (3) An officer shall not be deemed duly certificated, within the meaning of this section, unless he is the holder for the time being of a valid certificate of competency under this Act, of a grade appropriate to his station in the ship, or of a higher grade. (4) Section 92 of the principal Act is hereby repealed."—(Lord Muskerry.)

THE EARL OF GRANARD

was afraid he could not accept this Amendment.

*LORD MUSKERRY

thought he would wait until he heard his noble friend's argument against the proposal.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

was bound to say that the Government had a certain amount of sympathy with the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, but they thought they covered too big a question altogether to bring into the Bill at the present stage. If it was advisable and possible to do so next year, the whole matter might be referred to an Advisory Committee; and on the Report of that Committee the Government could subsequently act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56 agreed to.

Amendment moved— To insert as a new clause—'In any action or other legal proceedings by the master of a ship for the recovery of any sum due to him on account of wages, the Court may, if it appears to them that the payment of the sum due has been delayed otherwise than owing to the act or default of the master, or to any reasonable dispute as to liability, or to any other cause not being the wrongful act or default of the person liable to make the payment, order that person to pay, in addition to any sum due on account of wages, such sum as they think just as damages in respect of the delay, without prejudice to any claim which may be made by the master on that account."—(The Earl of Granard.)

*LORD MUSKERRY

objected. He thought the Committee ought to have an opportunity of considering that clause at another stage of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

hoped his noble friend would allow the noble Earl opposite to put the Amendment in, because it would then be printed, and his noble friend would then have an opportunity of considering it.

LORD MUSKERRY

I agree.

Clause 57 agreed to.

Clause 58:—

*LORD MUSKERRY

moved an Amendment to omit the provision for furnishing a disrated seaman with a copy of the entry of his disrating. He said that under the Act, where a man was disrated or otherwise similarly dealt with, the man had to be told in the presence of witnesses that such a course was being taken, and an entry had to be made in the log. He contended that handing him over an official document to grind him all the time he was on the voyage was not a good thing. If a man had not sense enough to appreciate his position without being hauled up on the quarter-deck and told what he was disrated for, and shown the entries in the log, he saw no reason for giving him a copy of the entry. It was only a trade union business.

Amendment moved— In page 31, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'and furnish the seaman with a copy of the entry."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that the provision was entirely for the benefit of the seaman himself. If they were going to disrate a seaman, surely he ought to be told at once that he had been so disrated.

*LORD MUSKERRY

wished to remind the noble Lord that that was the case under the existing Act. The only new thing in this Bill was that a man was supposed to have a copy of the entry, and to that he (Lord Muskerry) objected. At the present time an entry had to be made in the official log, and it had to be done in the presence of witnesses. What he objected to was the copy, and he thought it would be against the principles of discipline to do what was proposed to be done. He asked whether the noble Lord accepted his Amendment.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said he did not. A man might be disrated, and then, without knowing that he was disrated, he might find that at the end of a voyage of two years he was paid a good deal less than he expected to get.

*LORD MUSKERRY

said that if the noble Lord would refer to the Merchant Shipping Act he would see that the provision was that the man must be called up, and that the disrating must be entered in the official log. He could not be disrated without his knowledge.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said that men had been known to complain of being disrated without their knowledge, and in such a case the document would be useful as furnishing a proof whether that had been done or not.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 58 agreed to.

Clause 59:—

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

moved an Amendment to leave out Clause 59 and to insert a new clause in substitution there for. He said that the clause he proposed inserting was exactly the same in its object as that which was introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. Havelock Wilson. The clause was exactly the same in principle as that accepted in the Commons.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 59 and to insert as a new clause, 'Notwithstanding anything in Section 136 of the principal Act, a seamen may except from the release, signed by him, any specified claim or demand against the master or owner of the ship, and a note of any claim or demand so excepted shall be entered upon the release. The release shall not operate as a discharge and settlement of any claim or demand so noted, nor shall sub-section (4) of that section apply to any payment, receipt, or settlement made with respect to any such claim or demand."—(The Earl of Granard.)

LORD MUSKERRY

moved to insert a new clause providing for payment of a master's wages in certain events. He had already spoken about this matter and he did not think he need add anything to his previous remarks.

Amendment moved— In the case of delay in payment of the wages of the master of a British foreign-going vessel or home trade vessel for a period of over seven days after his account has been rendered, he shall be entitled to wages up to the date of final settlement unless the delay in due to the wrongful act or default of the master or to any reasonable objection as to liability."—(Lord Muskerry.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

reminded the noble Lord that he had already intimated that the Government were inserting a new clause after Clause 56, which would deal with such a case as he had in view.

LORD MUSKERRY

I suppose I had better bring it forward again after I have seen the noble Lord's clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60 agreed to.

Clause 61:—

*THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR

proposed an Amendment to reduce the amount of a seaman's money left in the master's hands from £10 to £5. He admitted that the clause itself was an excellent one, and one which would be very good for seamen. But he knew that in certain cases it would be of practically little use. When a man was rated at £2 10s. a month, he had an advance for a month before he left harbour, and when he arrived at the end of a four months voyage, say at San Francisco, he would have very little more than £10 standing to his credit. So that really, to say that there might be remitted to him any sum over £10 was not doing very much good to him. He could not see why the whole of his money should not be remitted to him, because it was impossible for the man to desert. Money would not be sent home until the ship was starting on her homeward voyage, and it could be easily arranged so that the man was safe on board ship, and could not possibly desert. But he had not liked to ask too much, and he had accordingly limited his Amendment to reducing the sum left in the master's hands from £10 to £5. He observed that Lord Ellenborough had put down an Amendment to hand over to the seamen one month's wages. He thought perhaps that was really better than his own Amendment, and he was quite ready to give way to the noble Lord.

Amendment moved— In page 32, line 26, to leave out the word 'ten' and to insert the word 'five."—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

considered that his own Amendment was the better one, but at the same time the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate had a far greater chance of passing that House. Therefore, he would support the right rev. Prelate's Amendment, to the effect that the owners could keep £5 in hand as a minimum for each seaman. Now police magistrates constantly used the expression "40s. or a month," and from that he gathered that 10s. was looked upon among the labouring classes and among those living from hand to mouth as about the equivalent of one week's imprisonment—so that if a man was mulcted in £5 his fine was equal to 10 weeks imprisonment, which was sufficient punishment, as if caught he could be imprisoned in addition to this. £10 was too large a sum to be kept in the master's hands. It was enough to bribe some of the worst class of captains to drive a man out of a ship. He did not believe they would ever raise the status of seamen until they did away with the shame of keeping a large sum of his money out of his hands for the benefit of a shipowner who got the interest of his money which he employed in his business and never paid to the seamen. He, therefore, supported, with much pleasure, the right rev. Prelate's Amendment.

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that this clause had been arrived at after a great deal of discussion He thought the sum of money was stated at first at something like £20, and then a compromise was arrived at and both shipowners and seamen's representatives were perfectly prepared to take £10. The Government considered that the shipowner ought to have a certain amount of money in hand, and they did not consider £10 excessive. Consequently that amount of £10 was put into the Bill, and His Majesty's Government were not disposed to change the clause as it stood at present.

*LORD ELLEXBOROUGH

was sorry to hear the answer given by the noble Earl. He had hoped that the Government would have allowed this Bill to be made a complete Bill, giving the seamen all they ought to have. Instead of that, it was a sort of half-way-house Bill, and would have to be amended in a few years time. Thus the Government and the shipowners would expose themselves to the danger of legislation on the lines of the Australian Commission, which was the real peril that they had to face, whereas if they accepted the Amendments that he had laid before them they would disarm the unions, and lessen the number of alien seamen in our merchant service.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Consequential and drafting Amendments agreed to.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR,

in moving to insert a new clause, making provision for the part payment of wages while a ship was in port, said he was told that one of the great reasons why men deserted at foreign ports was because they were not allowed pocket money. If they could fancy a man who, after a four months' voyage found himself in a harbour for weeks and wanted to go ashore, and was only allowed the merest pittance of pocket money, and then a crimp came to him and offered him money and the very vilest of amusements, they would understand that a man who would really not be tempted if he had money to spend to amuse himself in his own way, would fall a prey to the crimp. Numbers of seamen, who were not naturally profligate, and had no natural taste for those particular vile pleasures which the crimps found to pander to their tastes, fell a prey to them, and one of the reasons for their doing so was want of pocket money. He might say that that was the deliberate opinion of several of His Majesty's Consuls. The late Marquess of Salisbury, when at the Foreign Office, asked for reports from the various Consuls as to the cause of the profligacy of seamen, and they gave the cause that had been already alluded to—men being run out of ships. That was one of the reasons given; but several of the Consuls said that a great cause was this want of pocket money. The Consul at San Francisco, Mr. Westley Moore, gave this reason, and said that a seaman ought to be allowed to draw ten shillings a week. The Consuls at Rio de Janeiro and at Nagasaki gave exactly the same reason, and said that a man ought to be allowed to draw 25 per cent, of his wages in port. And Sir Newson Smith, at Valparaiso, had perhaps used the strongest words, from which he would only read a brief extract— It is the usual thing here for a seaman to have been 100 days at sea on food that would not be tolerated in the Army or Navy, to remain sixty days in port in sight and smell of a big town and never be granted leave ashore. Nor are his wages paid to him, so that he may buy fruit and luxuries to which he has been so long a stranger. Is it to be wondered at that British men no longer man British sailing ships? I suggest that a seaman in port should always be able to draw a portion of his wages, not exceeding a proportion to be fixed by the Board of Trade. He might say that the seamen's missionary of San Francisco had told him that he asked one of the leading boarding-house keepers of San Francisco what would be the result if the seamen had a small proportion of their wages paid to them regularly, and he said, "I should not get half the men." The proposal he was making seemed really a very small one, and one was almost ashamed to have to ask that a man should be paid half the wages he had earned each week, while he was in port. What would be said by any of those gentlemen whose interests were so forcibly advocated in another place, and which had received so much recognition lately in their Lordships' House, were one to stand up and make such a proposal as that each man—he asked no more than this—he left the whole balance that he had earned on his voyage out—four months probably—should each week he was in port be paid just half the amount he had earned? Personally, he thought the man ought to be paid in full, but he would only venture to put that forward as a small proposal to go on with—that each man should be able to earn a certain amount of weekly-pocket money while in port. It would be, he was told, a very great safeguard, and would save many seamen from deserting.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause:—'After a ship has been in port eight days, a seaman shall be entitled to be paid by the master a sum not exceeding half the wages earned by him during that week, and to a similar sum each succeeding seventh day while the ship remains in port."—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

agreed with a great deal that had fallen from the right rev. Prelate. There was only one point of the Amendment with which he disagreed, and that was, that he thought every seven days was almost too often for a captain to be paying money, and that if the period was made a fortnight or a month, it would be better. But the right rev. Prelate had hit the root of the whole matter. Instead of receving their wages as they became due, small sums were doled out to them as if they were little boys at achool. Fully grown men would not submit to be treated like children of 12 years of age. Every man ought to be treated as a man, and as long as most of their money was kept back from them so long would there be trouble in manning our ships with British seamen.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said that this Bill was a Bill of compromise. The law, as it stood, provided that every seaman was only to be paid at the end of the voyage. This Bill laid down that every seaman was to have an allotment from time to time, whilst on board, and also that he was to have power to remit the balance of his wages to his friends at home. He was afraid that His Majesty's Government could not go further than that. The question had been the occasion of considerable consultation between the Board of Trade and the shipowners, and this compromise had been arrived at. He was afraid that the arrangements must be adhered to, and that they could not make the concession that the right rev. Prelate asked for. At the same time he felt considerable sympathy for the views which the right rev. Prelate had expressed.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

also sympathised with the right rev. Prelate, because it appeared to him that the proper direction which legislation ought to take was to improve the amenities of the life of the seaman, so as to attract men to the merchant service, and it was because tills Bill went such a long way towards improving those amenities that he was one of its strongest supporters in their Lordships' House. The question was whether they should go a step further, as the right rev. Prelate had suggested; but perhaps he would see the wisdom of not trying to go too far at one step, and of accepting the amount of improvement which the Government had put before them as sufficient, at any rate, for the time. He confessed that he looked forward to a future time when it would be possible to go further in that direction, but what the First Lord of the Admiralty had just said was certainly of weight, if that arrangement had been come to between the various interests concerned. It was better, perhaps, to be content with a Bill which, if it did not go quite far enough, went, at any rate as far as it did go, in the right direction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62:—

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD MUSKERRY

moved an Amendment to provide for better accommodation for officers in either foreign-going or home-trade vessels. He said that the Amendment he was about to move ought to appeal to his noble friend who had just spoken of the amenities of the seaman's life. In a great number of vessels the officers were cramped together. A number of their Lordships had been on some of these ships, and knew what it was; but for the benefit of those who had not, he would try and describe what the life was like. There were two men piled in a small berth, one bunk above the other, and if one man wanted to dress or wash, the other man had either to remain in his bunk or go out and take a walk about the deck while that operation was going on. The officers were supposed to be maintaining discipline, and to be responsible people, and the shipowners and the Board of Trade ought to show some regard for their position. In his Amendment he was only asking for 24 square feet. That meant only a space of six feet long and four feet broad, two feet of which would be occupied by the bunk. Was that too much to apportion to a responsible officer on board a ship, who was required by the Board of Trade to be a highly qualified man, and had a great responsibility put upon him. In many cases these unfortunate officers were even berthed with stewards and cooks. He did not know whether he had any chance of dividing the Committee on this question, but if so, he would divide on it at once, because it was a very serious matter. In the great liners it was all right—all the officers had palatial apartments, eight feet square and eight feet high—but it was in the smaller liners and tramps that they were so badly treated. He was speaking from experience. He had seen their berths, and he pressed this Amendment, and hoped that it would be supported.

Amendment moved— In page 33, line 10, after the word 'space' to insert the words 'any officer who signs articles of agreement as mate of any grade on either a foreign-going or home-trade vessel shall be entitled to proper and suitable accommodation in a room devoted solely to his own use of a space not less than one hundred and forty-four cubic feet and of not less than twenty-four superfical feet measured on the deck or floor of that space."—(Lord Muskerry.)

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said he had made some inquiries with regard to this question, and the Board of Trade had very few complaints on the subject of overcrowding. He had also asked the I question whether it was a fact that stewards, cooks, and men of that kind virtually shared the berths of what might be called the non-commissioned officers, and he was told that that did not happen, The noble Lord had said that two officers sharing a cabin was subversive of discipline.

LORD MUSKERRY

I did not say it was subversive of discipline; I said it was the way they were treated.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that was what he had understood the noble Lord to mean. Naturally in a small cabin such as had been referred to both men probably were not in it together. One would probably be on watch.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

*LORD ELLKNBOROUGH,

in moving an Amendment requiring steamships to be fitted with baths and wash-houses, said he had referred to water being laid on. But it was not necessary in such a case to lay the water on from the galley. A small stove with a boiler above it would be quite sufficient to fit into a washing-place. Then the Amendment left it to the Board of Trade to do as they liked, and perhaps improvements in heating etc., might be provided by new inventions every few years. It was therefore unnecessary to go through the cumbrous method of passing an Act of Parliament in dealing with such cases; the details might be left entirely to the Board of Trade. He would further point out that only ships of a certain size would come under the provisions of the clause. Sub-section (b) of Section 3 said that no ship of less than 300 tons burthen or fishing boat should come under this Act. Therefore, his Amendment would only apply to vessels of a certain size. It was very difficult to convey an adequate notion of the housing of seamen. The nearest illustration he could give was that of a passenger in a sleeping car from Calais to Brindisi, a journey of perhaps fifty hours. Let them imagine what life would be if they had to live perpetually in a sleeping car which was often foul and dirty, with wet clothes hanging up to dry in it in bad weather, and they might be able to form some idea as to how seamen were housed. In addition let them imagine that they would have to take their meals in their sleeping-car, as there would be no comfortable wagon-restaurant and that in addition no washing accommodation would be provided Passengers could endure the sleeping-car for a short time, but most of them had had enough of it by the time the fifty hours were over and they had reached Brndisi. But what must it be to spend one's whole life under such conditions, while doing hard work, exposed to weather of all sorts, and when sick having to remain the whole time in the sleeping-car? The housing of passengers and of seamen could not be compared as they were on a. totally different basis. Passengers had little or no work to do and could remain comparatively dry while seamen came down below weary and wet Then a passenger had only to endure his discomforts for a short time, while a seaman had to endure thorn for years, whether well or ill. With regard to cubic space the medical witnesses examined by the Australian Commission were unanimously in favour of 120 cubic feet air space. Out of thirty-one witnesses, only six were in favour of less than 120 cubic feet. The British Labour Commission recommended 140 cubic feet.

Amendment moved— In page 33, line 10, after the word 'space' to insert the following new subsection: ( ) All steamships shall be fitted with bathrooms and washing-places to which hot water shall be laid on. The dimensions and fittings of these bathrooms and washing-places shall be such as to enable the whole of one watch of engineers, firemen, and coal-trimmers to clean themselves in one half-hour when coming off' watch. The master and seamen shall have access to these bathrooms and washing-places at such specified times as will not interfere with the engineers, firemen, and coal-trimmers coming off watch. All sailing vessels shall have one bathroom or washing-place to which hot water can be laid on. The Board of Trade shall have power to draw up rules and regulations for the measurements fittings, and use of these bathrooms and washing-places on the above-mentioned basis, and to vary these rules and regulations from time to time as it may think necessary. In page 33, lines 13 and 14, to leave out 'bathrooms or washing-places.' Line 18, after 'apprentice,' to insert as a new subsection: (3) All iron in the quarters occupied by the master or by officers or seamen shall be completely insulated by asbestos, cork varnish, or some similar material in such a manner as to reduce drip, and so as to leave no interstices in which insects might be able to congregate."—(Lord Ellenborough.)

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

said that the noble Lord appeared to have dealt with two Amendments to Clause 62. He was very much afraid the Government would be unable to meet the noble Lord with regard to the question of installing bathrooms in all ships. No doubt the noble Lord had always been accustomed to travelling in big liners, and probably he did not quite realise that in many of the tramp steamers bathrooms would be perfectly impossible. Space was very limited, and every foot of space was a freight-earning item. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's remarks as to the 120 cubic feet, the Board of Trade was informed that 72 cubic feet of cubic space was quite ample for anybody. Even on some of the first-class liners, at the present moment, the noble Lord would find, if he went out as a first-class passenger anywhere on any ship, all he would be entitled to, as sleeping accommodation, would be 72 feet, and that was what the men were virtually being given under this Bill. The Government had put down 120 cubic feet, because by doing so they hoped to encourage shipowners to provide separate bathrooms and washing rooms for the crew, without unduly curtailing the amount of space allowed in the places where the men slept.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said that a passenger was not bound to spend any part of the day in his cabin. He need only go down when he was tired, and could go to sleep any time he chose; and furthermore he need not have wet clothes in his cabin to dry. In most country stables, loose boxes were provided for hunters who were frequently much fatigued and exposed to weather, and stalls for the carriage horses who were more lightly worked. A similar state of things held good as regards seamen and passengers. The two could not be compared. He was first lieutenant for over a year on an Indian troopship, where the soldiers were given much less space than the sailors. It was necessary that the sailors should have a larger space given to them, because they had to stay on board the ship for three years, than was necessary for the soldiers who were only on board for thirty days. There was no parallel whatever between a passenger and a seaman. The passenger had a large mess room and in some of the Australian boats a music room as well in which to lounge about, and he was only in his berth when he liked. He was very sorry the noble Lord could not do anything towards accepting the 100 cubic feet which he had suggested as a compromise.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

thought the noble Lord ought to recognise the very large advance made by this Bill in regard to the amount of space allowed to seamen. Under the old rule it was 72 cubic feet for each man, and to increase I that to 120 feet was a very great thing. It was only fair to allow the increase in the general accommodation provided to be used in the way most convenient and favourable to the men. The owners themselves would give many of the facilities which the noble Lord thought so desirable for the men.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said that what he objected to in this compromise was that 120 feet of space were given with one hand, and a great deal of it taken away with the other.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 63, 64, and 65 agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70 agreed to.

LORD MUSKERRY,

who had upon the Amendment Paper a new clause to be inserted after Clause 70, providing that under certain conditions no person other than a British subject should be granted a certificate of competency, said that this was practically the clause he brought before their Lordships on the 18th May last. With the present House he did not think it worth his while saying anything on the subject, and he might say the same with regard to the only other Amendment standing in his name. The Government were going to object to both, and he thought he would do well to withdraw them both and to bring them forward at a later stage.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The noble Lord does not move the Amendment.

LORD MUSKERRY

No.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

moved to insert a new clause after Clause 70, prohibiting aliens from acting in certain capacities on British ships, except under certain conditions, and imposing sundry penalties for breach thereof. He thought it was an injustice to British seamen that foreign officers should be put in a position of magisterial authority over them. In all the English Merchant Shipping Acts, though it was not specifically mentioned, there appeared to be a sort of underlying idea that the officers and masters in command were all British seamen. They were told that if these clauses were passed there would be retaliation from foreign parts. He did not find that the merchants were at all afraid of that. He had not met a single merchant captain who did not agree with him in thinking that there should not be alien captains. Supposing war broke out, the existence of these alien captains would increase the difficulty of food supply at the commencement of the war. What were an English crew to do with a captain belonging to a belligerent nation? Were they to mutiny? He thought if they were to mutiny it would be a praiseworthy act. If he was in command of a man-of-war and was in the presence of a British merchant ship commanded by an alien belonging to a country at war with us, he would certainly make a prisoner of him unless he had orders to the contrary. That was a difficulty, he thought, which could be settled by a change of law. They might vote large sums of money, but large sums of money were not the only things required to place a country in a state of readiness for war. They must put their ocean traffic in readiness to pass from a condition of peace to a condition of war. He thought that as war was still a possible thing, none but British-born men should command British ships.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause:—"(1) If an alien, who cannot bring proof that he has served as master of a British ship for a period of at least three months previous to the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and seven, leaves a port in the United Kingdom as master of a, British ship, he shall be liable on each occasion to a fine of one hundred pounds. (2) If an alien, who cannot bring proof that he has served as master, mate, or second mate of a British ship for a period of at least three months previous to the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and seven, leaves a port in the United Kingdom as mate or second mate of a British ship, he shall be liable on each occasion to a fine of fifty pounds. (3) If an alien who cannot bring proof that he has served as master of a British ship for a period of at least three months previous to the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and seven, act as master of a British ship out of the United Kingdom for more than six months in any one year, he shall be liable to a fine of one hundred pounds. (4) If an alien, who cannot bring proof that he has served as master, mate, or second mate of a British ship for a period of at least three months previous to the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and seven, act as mate or second mate of a British ship out of the United Kingdom for more than six months in any one year he shall be liable to a fine of fifty pounds."—(Lord Ellenborough.)

THE EARL OF GRANARD

thought it was unnecessary for him to say how fully he sympathised with the noble Lord in his desire that British ships should as far as possible be manned by British seamen and British captains. But when they came to face the actual condition of things at the present moment they found there were really very few alien captains in comparison son with the total number of men employed. From the year 1897 to the year 1905, out of 42,000 certificates issued during that time, only 700 were granted to foreigners, and during 1897 only 70 were granted to foreigners. A gradual decrease had taken place since 1897, and he hoped that decrease was still going on. Of course it would be very hard for a shipowner if his ships were out in a place like the Levant; it would be quite unreasonable to force him to employ only English captains, because for his trade it would necessarily be of great use to him to have men who knew the language of the place he traded to. The English were very deficient in that way, and were generally very bad linguists.

*LORD ELLENBOROUGH

said the difficulty of bad linguists could always be got over by going back to the old fashion of carrying a supercargo. There was one danger he had not mentioned, and that was, supposing war broke out between us and a foreign power, and that Power put some of their lieutenants in command of ships nominally British for the purpose of finding out our secrets. Unless, however, the Committee was inclined to support him he would withdraw the Amendment. He did not wish to force the Committee to useless divisions, but he felt very strongly upon this subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 71 agreed to.

Clause 72:

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said their Lordships would probably agree with him that, at that time of night, it would be rather inconvenient to enter into any controversial subject. He would only say that this was the one clause in the Bill for which the late Government could take no responsibility whatever, because it had been introduced entirely out of the heads of the present Government. It had neither been founded upon Select Committees for the appointment of which the late Government were responsible, nor were its provisions to be found in any Bill which the late Government submitted to Parliament. However, at that time of night it was hardly possible to go into the matter, and all he would say was that with the permission of their Lordships' House he would reserve the remarks he had to offer for some future stage of the Bill.

Clause 72, with drafting Amendments, agreed to.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74:—

LORD INVERCLYDE,

in moving to leave out Clause 74, said that His Majesty's Government agreed to that course.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said the noble Lord was correct. His Majesty's Government did not intend to go on with this clause.

Clause 74 disagreed to.

Lord Ellenborough.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 76 to 85 agreed to.

First Schedule:—

*THE EARL OF GRANARD

proposed in the column headed "Dried or compressed vegetables" to leave out "¼" wherever it occurred. This was desirable in order to make clear that the allowance of compressed vegetables was like that of condensed milk or dried fruit, a weekly one.

Amendment moved— In page 43, in the column headed 'Dried or compressed vegetable' to leave out "¼"wherever it occurs."—(Lord Granard.)

Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Friday next, and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 235.)

House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.