LORD MUSKERRYMy Lords, I rise to call attention to the fact that these Islands mainly depend for their food supply upon the ships of the mercantile marine, and to point out the serious danger involved in having any of our merchant ships commanded or officered by foreigners; and to move to resolve: "That it is the opinion of this House that, for the better defence of this country, the Government should forbid the granting of Board of Trade certificates for competency as masters or mates to any who are not British subjects."
Yesterday there was a most interesting debate in your Lordships' House on the Motion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Roberts. As far as I could gather, everybody in this House admitted the necessity of having a 70 defending Army, though there was a variance of opinion as to what the strength of that Army should be and as to how it should be formed. To-day we have had the subject of the Navy brought up, and I think that every one in this House is also in agreement that we should have a powerful and efficient Navy. Has it ever struck any of your Lordships that our Royal Navy and our Army are perfectly useless without the merchant navy? This may seem very startling, but it is the absolute truth, and in very few words I think I can show your Lordships that it is so.
England depends entirely on the three services—the Royal Navy, the Merchant Navy, and the Army; and if you take any one of these away, the other two alone will not be of much service. Of the three services, the merchant navy is the oldest, and it is the one that has laid the foundations of the British Empire. The noble and gallant Earl stated yesterday that the defending Army should be at least a million of men. Well, my Lords, even if you had that million of men, if you had ten millions of men, if every able-bodied man in the United Kingdom was a highly trained soldier, they would be useless for defence without your merchant navy. It is perfectly true that they could repel all invasion from Continental Powers, but there is one enemy that they could not repel without the ships of the merchant service, and that is starvation. Take away the ships of the merchant service and in a very short time your defending Army would be starved into submission. The ships of the Royal Navy would be no use under such conditions, for they have not the stowage room to carry sufficient food supplies, and many of the naval ships would be rendered inefficient for want of the merchant ships to carry them coal and other supplies.
My Lords, in this House and the House of Commons, and in the public Press, the claims and requirements of both our Army and Navy are constantly being put forward, and rightly; but where do we ever see the claims of the merchant service put forward? From the time when the Navigation Laws were repealed—which laws, my Lords, will have to be re-enacted sooner or later if England 71 is to maintain her position as a great Power—from that time until now, what encouragement has been given to the men of the merchant service, to the officers of the merchant service, or to the shipowners? It is true there is one instance where the Government advanced a very large sum of money at a very low rate of interest to the Cunard Company and gave them a large yearly subsidy, but this was simply for the building of the two large turbine liners.
The subject of the Motion now before your Lordships is no new one. I introduced it as a Bill in 1905, and on several previous occasions I have brought it before this House. As your Lordships know, we depend very largely for the food supplies of these Islands on the products of other countries. Grain, meat, and other food supplies come to us from practically all over the world—from Canada, from California, from Russia, from Australia, the Argentine Republic, and other places; and any stoppage of these supplies for any length of time would mean starvation, or very nearly starvation, amongst the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.
In the mercantile marine there are, approximately, 1,900 officers and 25,000 men who belong to the Royal Naval Reserve. Most of these officers and men are sailing in our liners. In the event of a war with a great naval Power, all those officers and men would be required to serve in the Royal Navy. Their places in the liners would have to be filled by British captains and officers taken from what are miscalled the tramps of our merchant service, which I would remind your Lordships are the vessels that carry our food supplies. A liner takes far more officers than a tramp of the same size. The men also, the British seamen, would be taken to supply the deficiencies amongst the crews of the liners. The result would be that we would have to depend on ships carrying our food supplies commanded, officered, and manned by foreigners, and this cannot but be regarded as a serious danger to this country. The percentage of aliens in our tramps is over 50 per cent.; there are 472 alien captains and officers, and there are, 72 according to the latest Returns, 3,297 alien petty officers, numbers of whom, I dare say, are aspiring to hold higher grades. Not only that, but there is a most pernicious practice, or was up to very lately, of carrying foreign boys as apprentices in British ships, and after four years service they will, of course, wish to obtain British certificates in order to get higher pay. It is only this very year that we discussed the subject of a new training ship started by the White Star Line for officers, and it does seem to me to be a most unfair and unjust thing to induce young English boys to enter the British merchant service and then, after they have obtained their certificates, for them to find that the posts they might reasonably expect to occupy are taken by aliens.
The Admiralty have always recognised the principle of this Motion, because whenever they charter any of our merchant ships they not only insist on their being commanded and officered by British subjects and containing a large proportion of British seamen in the crew, but they also, in many cases, require all the crew to be British subjects. Ore example of this was the case of the S.S. "Powderham." When she was lying in a Continental port she shipped a number of alien seamen and firemen. She then came over to this country, and was chartered by the Admiralty to carry Government stores to South Africa. On reaching London the captain was compelled by the Admiralty to discharge the alien crew, and he had to give them one month's pay in lieu of notice. Even supposing a ship were manned and officered by British subjects and had only an alien captain, this would be still a most serious danger. We may assume that the captain would certainly be the first, and possibly the only one, on board to hear that war had broken out, and if he were a subject of the Power with which we might be at war, what would be more easy than for him to take the ship into a port belonging to the enemy, where the first thing the British officers and crew would know of war having broken out would be finding themselves prisoners and the ship's cargo in the hands of the enemy? The captain could easily inform his officers that he 73 had received orders from his owners to deliver the cargo at this particular port. If such a state of things existed as the noble and gallant Field Marshal in his Motion yesterday desired to meet by having an efficient defending Army, then the loss of even one ship conveying food supplies would be a very serious matter to this country.
On former occasions I have been told that there was no need to do anything to prevent foreigners commanding and officering British ships, as they were not increasing in numbers. With all due respect, there is no sense in such a reply. The existence of even one alien commander is a menace; but where you have 472 alien commanders and officers this is a still more serious danger. Now, for one moment I will just deal with this argument. It is said there is no need to put a stop to foreigners obtaining certificates because they are not increasing in numbers. If that be so, why is there any objection to forbid any further certificates being granted to aliens? Or is there a desire on the part of a Government Department that more aliens should come into the merchant service? If that is the case, I could understand the unpatriotic refusal to forbid foreigners taking out certificates; but, if it is not so, there is neither rhyme nor reason in refusing to take what is a very obvious precaution, and one which most, if not all, of the leading maritime Powers have already taken to safeguard their mercantile marine.
My Lords, it is no good providing a large defensive Army for this country if you do not at the same time make sure that it will be properly fed. I venture to read once again the statement made in the House of Commons in February, 1900, by the then President of the Board of Trade—
Take, for instance, the question of a war—the question of a war where the Naval Reserve were called out—that would be to deplete British ships of British seamen, and instead of being partially manned by foreigners they would, under existing circumstances, be altogether manned by foreigners. That, I think, is matter for very great regret, and if any suggestion can be made to remedy that state of things or to endeavour to remedy that state of things, which the whole House regrets, then the House would do wrong not to consider any suggestion that might be made.74 This Motion is a suggestion to remedy the state of things alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. The other alternative is to build huge State granaries and large stores for frozen meat, and keep immense supplies of corned and tinned provisions on hand. This, I need hardly say, would cost a very large sum of money and lock up a large amount of capital. According to the last available figures—that is, for the year 1906—the over-sea imports during the year on a c.i.f. valuation were: grain, flour, and meat, £119,907,042. Other foods came to £68,823,115. Then there were certain dutiable foods and drinks, which came to £44,709,172, making a. total value of over-sea imports of £233,439,329. This, my Lords, will give some idea of how dependent this country is on over-sea food supplies.As I have already told your Lordships, there are, approximately, 25,000 British seamen in the Royal Naval Reserve. From the latest Returns I find that in the merchant service there are only 28,106 British seamen, and 5,946 British petty officers, making a total of 34,052 Britishers. If you take away the 25,000 men of the Naval Reserve, that will only leave us 9,052 British seamen to man our huge merchant fleet. There are, of course, 44,367 lascars, who are mostly British subjects, but they will only be employed in Eastern waters. This is a very, very serious state of affairs, and it shows how vitally necessary it is that we should insist on all our ships being commanded and officered by British subjects. It would be impossible, of course, as things stand at present, to ensure that all the crews, or even a large proportion of them, should be British, but it is a very easy matter to ensure that they carry British captains and officers. My Lords, it is nearly eight years since the speech from which I quoted was made in the House of Commons; but up to now not one thing has been done to remedy what was admitted to be a grave and serious evil. I trust your Lordships will accept my Motion. It is a terrible thing to think that England, who has been called "the Mistress of the Seas," should have to depend in war time on foreigners for the sailing of her mercantile ships.
§ Moved to resolve, "That it is the opinion of this House that, for the better defence of this country, the Government should forbid the granting of Board of Trade certificates for competency as masters or mates to any who are not British subjects."—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, I think that in future no certificate of competency to act as master or mate should be granted to any foreigner. But I would allow a foreigner to be shipped at some foreign ports, or at some of the smaller colonial harbours, to fill up vacancies caused by sickness or death, so as to enable a ship to be safely navigated. It would be hard on owners and still harder on the crew, if they were kept in unhealthy harbours, such as exist on the African coast, for want of a navigator. This, however, should be only a temporary mitigation of the law, and the foreign navigator should be discharged whenever the ship reached a port where there were facilities for obtaining British-born men with certificates of competency. I myself drew up clauses which, if added to the Bill brought in by the noble Lord on a former occasion, would have met this difficulty. If you warn British ships against possible capture when war is imminent, you put it in the power of an alien to betray you. You also place the crew in a most unfair position. If the alien captain is a belligerent, you make mutiny a duty that the crew owe to their country. If the alien is a neutral, you cannot hang him for high treason. Aliens should never be put in a quasi-magisterial position with a British crew. Then there is the argument that you would be driving ships to take refuge under a foreign flag if they could not be commanded by an alien. If they do hoist another flag, why, so much the better for British commerce. I think that, on inquiry, it will be found that most of the ships commanded by aliens are also really owned by aliens; that they have nothing British about them except the flag, and put no money into British pockets. They only fly our flag because we have a powerful Navy and efficient Consulates.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, the noble Lord who has placed 76 this Motion on the Paper asked where the claims of the officers and men of the merchant service were ever put forward. I think he supplies his own answer, because the able and frequent manner in which he calls attention to the interests of those men is well known to your Lordships. Of all the questions connected with the merchant service which he is in the habit of raising, this one must be his favourite, for I find, on looking through the Journals of the House, that he has introduced Bills dealing with this question on no fewer than five occasions within the last ten years. I do not find, however, that he has so far induced your Lordships to read any one of those Bills a second time. Knowing the noble Lord as we do, I do not think that any of us are surprised to find him returning again to the charge.
From the point of view of the officers of the merchant service, with whom the noble Lord is in such close touch, there must, of course, be a great deal to be said in favour of the exclusion of foreigners from their ranks. Indeed, I think that, speaking as a general proposition, we should all be very glad if it were possible to arrive at a state of affairs of that kind; but I will show, in a moment, a few reasons which prevent us from arriving at that point. But that is not the ground on which the noble Lord brings forward his Motion. He calls attention to the fact that these islands depend upon outside sources for their food supply, and to the danger of having any of our merchant ships officered by foreigners on account of that fact. I found it a little difficult to understand exactly the nature of the danger which the noble Lord anticipated, but he has made that clear in the course of his speech. What I understand he is afraid of is that in time of war a ship bringing food supplies to this country may be commanded by a foreigner, and that instead of doing his best to bring the ship safely to port in this country, he will hand her over to the enemy. If there was any fear of that being done on at all a large scale, the prospect would be a very alarming one.
But, after all, what are the facts? The proportion of foreigners holding Board of Trade certificates of competency 77 as masters and mates does not amount to quite 2 per cent. of the whole number, and the danger which arises from that small proportion would be further reduced by the fact that those men may belong to any one of many foreign nations. Therefore, the number who might be presumed to owe allegiance to the country with which we were at war, would be very much smaller than that. We must also remember that we have the owners on our side as far as British ships are concerned, and that, apart from motives of patriotism, there are also motives of self-interest. It is inconceivable to me that any owner of a ship would be so foolish as to put in command of it a man who would be in the least likely to hand it over to the enemy as a prize of war. For these reasons I confess I am not very much alarmed by the prospect which seems to concern the noble lord so much.
Before sitting down, I ought, I think, to give two or three of the reasons which make it desirable that the present state of affairs should be continued, much as we must all deplore the presence of foreign officers on British ships. In the first place, in a trade like the timber trade, which is carried on with Norway and Sweden, there are many Norwegian and Swedish sailors employed, and it would be very hard on those men and would tend to drive that particular trade from our flag if we were to deny to them the opportunity of promotion in our own service. Then there is the trade carried on with Levantine ports, where it is extremely important, in the interests of the owners, that one officer at least of the ship should be able to speak the different dialects. We are, as a nation, very proud of ourselves as sailors, but I do not think we can claim that pride for our capacity as linguists; and that supplies a powerful reason for there being a small percentage of foreigners on vessels of that kind. On the other hand, a large number of British subjects are employed as officers on foreign ships, and one cannot but suppose that the first effect of an ordinance such as the noble Lord desires would be retaliation on the part of those countries, which might at once drive those men out of 78 employment. For these reasons I hope the House will not agree to the Motion.
THE EARL OF MEATHMy Lords, I regret exceedingly that the Government are not able to give a more satisfactory reply to the noble Lord who has moved this Motion. I cannot help, saying that I think his proposition an eminently reasonable one. I have listened with great interest to the objection raised by is Majesty's Government, but I cannot see that there is any force in it. Now, what is it that the noble Lord desires? He desires that British ships should not be commanded by foreigners. And why does he wish that? Not, as he has shown, from any selfish or from any trade-union principle. He desires it because he believes—and I agree with him—that there is a certain element of danger in time of war in permitting British ships to be officered by foreigners. That is conceded by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government; but he said that, as the danger was not great, it might be ignored. But why should we ignore it? If there is the slightest danger in the command of British ships by foreigners why should we ignore it? It will be difficult enough in time of war to convoy the supplies of food. It was found in the great Napoleonic wars a very difficult thing to do with the enormous preponderance possessed in those days. Much more so will it be the case now. Why, therefore, deliberately add an extra difficulty which it is not necessary should exist? We have never had any experience since the Napoleonic wars of naval warfare on a large scale, and we must remember that in those days, although there were large numbers of men enlisted in foreign armies and navies, there was no universal compulsory military service such as now exists on the Continent. The result is that at the present moment almost every foreigner has passed terms of service in the Army or Navy, and until a very advanced time of middle age he is under the power and influence of his Government. Therefore the position is different from what it was in former days. Each of the 472 alien captains and officers in the British mercantile marine has passed through the ranks of his navy or army. These men could be influenced, and would be 79 influenced, by their respective Governments. As the noble Lord has pointed out, we are dependent upon the merchant service for our food supply, without which we should starve and be compelled to give in. I hope His Majesty's Government will take this matter into consideration. The objections raised by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government appear to me to be futile. First, we were told that there was the timber trade and that there were Norwegians who would be turned out of employment. I should be very sorry for them, but it is not our business to consider Norwegians. We have to consider the interests of our fellow-subjects and of this country. The next point was the Levantine trade. I have never heard a more futile objection than that our seamen cannot speak languages. Supposing we could not find a British seaman who could speak the particular language, would there be no Levantines who could act as interpreters? The third reason given by the noble Lord was that there were British subjects in foreign merchant services, and that those countries would retaliate and drive the Britishers back to these shores. I should be only too thankful if they did, because they would then have to enlist in the British Navy or in the British merchant service. We want them there, not in foreign services. I hope His Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision in this matter.
LORD MUSKERRYMy Lords, I am afraid there are not sufficient noble Lords remaining in the House to enable a division to be taken, even if I wished to press my Motion. I shall, therefore, by leave of the House, withdraw it. But I should like to say, with regard to the noble Lord's fear of retaliation on the part of foreign countries, that your Lordships may rest perfectly assured that the services of British officers in foreign ships will be dispensed with as soon as they can be replaced. I have seen that done over and over again; and if there are any Englishmen serving in foreign ships it is only because there are no subjects of that country qualified to take their place. The noble Lord said I had introduced five Bills in ten years to give effect to 80 my views. I am afraid I shall have to bring in a sixth. I do not, however, press my Motion on the present occasion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Four o'clock.