Lords Sitting of 25 May 1909

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Indian Councils.

Kirkwall Provisional Order.

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2)

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 3)

Hastings Harbour.

London, Chatham, and Dover Railway.

Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company.

Wirral Railway (Extension of Time).

Heckmondwike and Liversedge Gas.

Leyland and Farington Gas.

Littlehampton Gas.

Wandsworth Borough Council (Superannuation).

United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution.

Conway Gas.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.

Liskeard and Looe and Liskeard and Caradon Railways (Vesting, &c.).

Wells Gas.

South Lincolnshire Water.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Whitworth Urban District Council Order.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (CHESHUNT COLLEGE) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed forthwith.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Chesham (Extension) Order.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed forthwith.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY (RHYMNEY RAILWAY, VESTING, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY (CARDIFF RAILWAY, VESTING, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (CHESHUNT COLLEGE) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1) BILL. [H.L.] EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 2) BILL. [H.L.] EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BUCKS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.] GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.] LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.] LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (WESTON, CLEVEDON, AND PORTISHEAD LIGHT RAILWAYS) BILL. ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
CORK, BANDON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. STOURBRIDGE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.] PRESTON, CHORLEY, AND HORWICH TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
YORK TOWN AND BLACKWATER GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING, &c.) BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
LISBURN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.] SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARDS RAILWAYS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LLANELLY WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a: and referred to the Examiners.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. (No. 64.) LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 65.)
Read 1a: to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments: Costs awarded to the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Company, one of the Petitioners against the Bill.
ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate and amend and extend to other companies carrying on assurance or insurance business, the law relating to life assurance companies, and for other purposes connected therewith—Was presented by the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 66.)
THE PRESENTATION OF TERRITORIAL COLOURS.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)My Lords, I desire to state, for the information of your Lordships, that the King will present Colours to certain Territorial units at Windsor on Saturday, June 19, and I have it in command from His Majesty to state that the King will be glad if any members of the House will attend who desire to do so. I understand that a notice will be placed on the Minutes of the House giving information as to how those noble Lords who desire to attend will be able to make arrangements to do so.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CREWEI think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I state that a formal sitting of the House will be held to-morrow at noon. There is no public business on the Paper for tomorrow or for Thursday, and therefore at to-morrow's meeting it is proposed, with the concurrence of your Lordships, that the adjournment should be moved until Wednesday, June 23.
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).

DECK CARGOES.
LORD MUSKERRYMy Lords, I rise to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the decision of the Court which investigated the circumstances of the loss, with all hands, of the Great Eastern Railway Company's steamship "Yarmouth," and, in view of a statement made by the principal officer to the Board of Trade at Cardiff, that there is nothing like the number of surveyors to deal with one-tenth of the vessels that leave port, what special precautions the Board of Trade have taken, or propose to take with the object of, if possible, avoiding repetition in the future of serious sacrifice of life through merchant ships proceeding to sea with dangerous deck-loads; also, whether it is now proposed to increase the number of surveyors, and whether anything is being done in regard to dealing with recognised "systems" of carrying these deck-loads such as that alluded to in the course of the inquiry into the loss of the "Yarmouth."
I am always anxious to avoid trespassing on your Lordships' time unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary, and if I bring forward a question which I have previously brought to your notice it is only when I am convinced that there are ample grounds for doing so. Long experience tells me that the Board of Trade will not move until they are practically forced to do so. I am again asking them to mitigate what is at present a grave peril of the sea. Towards the conclusion of last session I pointed out to your Lordships the enormous risks which British merchant ships are permitted to undertake in carrying dangerous deck-loads at all times of the year and under all conditions of weather. It is a common sight to see large passenger steamers and others, down to the small coasting traders, going to sea with heavy weights on deck, such as boilers, cylinders, railway wagons, and other unwieldy cargo of a similar character, which are supposed to be secured on leaving, but which, as all seamen will tell us, it is impossible to keep secured in heavy weather. These vessels are, therefore, saddled with an incubus which exposes them to enormous risk.
1148
When I last raised this question I was informed by my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade that this practice was common, and that, provided proper precautions were taken, the Board of Trade saw no objections to it. I was informed that the Board had adopted no special precautions in regard to such cargoes, but that their surveyors had general power to detain any ship which was improperly loaded. I am once again calling attention to this subject owing to the fact that since last session a terrible calamity has occurred to a coasting steamer which completely substantiates my contentions in this matter, and one which we cannot allow to pass without notice. I refer to the loss of the steamer "Yarmouth" with all hands.
It is true that the Board of Trade ordered an investigation into the loss of this steamer. It is also true that the Court made some very strong comments regarding the deck cargo which was carried, and which they held responsible for the disaster. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is the clear duty of the Board of Trade to go further than this, and take some action whereby we may profit by the grim lesson which this terrible affair teaches us. I know that the "Yarmouth" at the time was bound from the Continent to Harwich, and that the Board of Trade have not any surveyors who could have prevented her leaving a Continental port in such a condition. Yet ways and means can be found to deal with such a case, if only in the direction of inflicting heavy penalties on the owners of ships not only sailing with but arriving with such dangerous cargoes, just as a ship is fined should she bring a large timber deck-load into a United Kingdom port in the wintertime.
It does not matter very much as to the actual voyage the ship was taking, for the point I want to emphasise is the actual danger of these cargoes. From the report of the Board of Trade Inquiry I find that this steamer frequently carried heavy deck-loads, including furniture vans, thrashing machines, and engines, and this in all weathers. It seems that, according to the superintendent of the company, there was no compulsion upon the captain to take a deck cargo, and it lay entirely in his discretion to reject any cargo which he considered he could not safely carry. We

1149
all know what this means. It is tie common practice of attempting to shift the responsibility on to the unfortunate captain, who has lost his life and cannot defend himself. Would he dare use his discretion? When such a practice is of common and usual occurrence, the tenure of the position of any captain who declined such cargo would be very brief.
Of the deck cargo being carried by the "Yarmouth," there were three lift-vans of furniture which measured fourteen feet by seven feet by six feet six inches, and each weighing about three tons. It is not necessary to be a practical seaman to enable one to realise the immense danger of cargo of this character in case heavy weather is experienced. According to those on board the Outer Gabbard Lightship, from whence the "Yarmouth" was last sighted, she had a heavy list to starboard. When she got into shorter seas inside the Lightship she took very heavy rolls which put her over on her broadside with her starboard main-rail in the water. Before long those on the lightship lost sight of her, and the sequel was told by a Norwegian steamer falling in with bales or buoys floating on both sides of the ship, and cries as of drowning men. Nobody, however, was found, though every possible search was made.
It is a very significant feature that immediately on the loss of the "Yarmouth" and long before the investigation into the casualty was held, the marine superintendent issued orders to the effect that these deck cargoes must be carried no longer. He, in effect, anticipated the report of the Board of Trade Inquiry. At the inquiry itself two experts—naval architects—said that they considered the stability of the "Yarmouth" when she started on her passage as satisfactory. But noble and learned Lords who have had experience in dealing with expert evidence will know that evidence of this kind is somewhat elastic in its character. In the present case, the Court said it must be borne in mind that the opinions expressed by the experts were based mainly on the testimony of the stevedores—that is, those who loaded the ship—and the Court had found serious discrepancies between the statements of these stevedores. The Court pointed out that the stowage plan placed before them was filled in with information supplied after the loss of the ship with all
1150
hands was known, and when it was likely that the question would be raised as to whether the cargo was properly stowed.
In the opinion of the Court, which was assisted by two assessors of long experience in the merchant service and one vice-Admiral of the Royal Navy, it was improper to stow any cargo on the poop and forecastle, and there was no adequate provision for the satisfactory securing of the cargo that was carried upon these structures on the voyage which has been the subject of the investigation. The Court was distinctly of opinion that the ship was not properly loaded, having too much top weight, and we are informed that the vessel was lost through carrying too heavy a deck-cargo, which led to her listing heavily to starboard, and finally turning over with a suddenness which gave those on board no opportunity of making effective efforts to save themselves. The blame, it was said, did not attach to the Great Eastern Railway Company, the owners of the steamer, but, in the opinion of the Court, the system in existence was bad. The Court strongly condemned the practice of carrying deck-cargoes upon structures such as the poop and forecastle of the "Yarmouth," and was glad to learn that instructions had been given for the discontinuance of this practice on board the Great Eastern Railway Company's ships.
This is a plain statement of a grave shipping calamity entirely attributable to avoidable causes. It is natural that the Great Eastern Railway Company are taking no further risks of that kind. But I ask what is going to be done in regard to the many other vessels outside this company which can, with impunity from any regulations, continue to carry deck-cargoes with the same frequency as before. When I last submitted this question to the House I was informed that the Board of Trade surveyors have a general power to detain any ship which is improperly loaded. This might, quite naturally, be considered by your Lordships as sufficient to meet the case but when I point out to you that hundreds, I may say thousands, of ships sail out of our seaports in the United Kingdom without any inspection whatever by nautical surveyors to the Board of Trade, you will then understand that this talk of their being able to cope with the situation is sheer nonsense. I believe that in some of our shipping ports there are no nautical

1151
surveyors whatever, and in others they are in a very small minority, and their time is generally taken up in connection with duties as emigrant officers.
In an important case which arose at Swansea, where the captain of a steamer was fined for neglecting to keep two lifeboats fit and ready for use, as required by the Merchant Shipping Act, some striking evidence was given by the principal officer to the Board of Trade at Cardiff. Asked his opinion as to the duties of Board of Trade surveyors with regard to life-saving appliances and other matters, he said that the Board had nothing like the number of surveyors to deal with one tenth of the vessels that left port. He further added that the surveyors performed a number of statutory duties that were paid for; and it is worthy of notice that these duties take precedence over every other duty. The mere matter of the safety of life is, apparently, of little moment to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade so long as they do not miss collecting the official fees chargeable by their surveyors for performing statutory duties under the Merchant Shipping Act. For some years past I have urged the necessity for a great increase in the number of nautical surveyors at our different seaports so that it would become nearly an impossibility for a merchant ship to proceed to sea in an unseaworthy condition through one cause or another.
We have always been led to believe that a merchant ship was, in practically every case, officially inspected before she set out on her voyage. This, as I have explained, is a popular fallacy which cannot be too freely exposed. The Board of Trade, to whom we look as the primary protector of life at sea, shelve on to the unfortunate shipmasters the responsibility of seaworthiness or of the efficiency of life-saving apparatus, and other matters in the same category. On the other hand, shipmasters must look to their means of livelihood and they are only too alive to the fact that, if they wish to retain their positions, they must save their owners every possible farthing. With economy ever their first regard, is it not natural that they should take chances, from which the Board of Trade should, in justice, protect them by inspection of ships in the first place rather than by prosecuting them afterwards. The Board of Trade expect our merchant
1152
shipmasters and officers to conform to all sorts of requirements, under penalties of varying severity, but when, on the other hand, captains and officers look to the Board of Trade for assistance in the performance of their duties and protection from vexatious and unfair prosecutions, their claims are totally ignored by the Board.
I hope that my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade in this House will be able to furnish us with a satisfactory reply to this Question on the Notice Paper; otherwise, I must bring it forward again. The fact of these deck-loads being responsible for loss of life cannot be denied. The decision of the Board of Trade inquiry. into the loss of the "Yarmouth" cannot be ignored, and the necessity of supplementing the ranks of nautical surveyors and inspectors to the Board of Trade at different seaports—that is, gentlemen who have had practical experience in command of merchant ships—is obvious. I hope for the sympathy and support of your Lordships so that these different matters may, at an early date, be properly adjusted, when the supervision of the Board of Trade in matters concerning the safety of life at sea will command much greater confidence than it does at present. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, the noble Lord alluded to what I said last year in answer to a Question put by himself with regard to the carrying of deck cargoes. I then said that, provided the cargoes were properly stowed, the Board of Trade saw no objection to the practice being continued; and I further stated that the Board of Trade surveyors had power to detain ships which they considered to be improperly loaded. Those were the facts then, and that is the position now. The case of the "Yarmouth," to which the noble Lord has specially called attention, is one of those very sad cases where the ship leaves port and practically nothing more is heard of her except that she does not arrive at her destination. The "Yarmouth" was lost with all hands. An investigation, of course, took place, and it is on the report of the Court of Inquiry that the noble Lord bases his Question. In this case the deck cargoes were loaded at foreign ports, and therefore, as the noble Lord has justly pointed out, it was impossible for any Board of Trade official to interfere with her before she left. But if on arrival

1153
a ship is found to be improperly loaded I believe that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act are quite wide enough to enable a prosecution to be instituted against whoever is responsible for it, if that is considered desirable.
The noble Lord's Question is, I think, divided into four parts, and I will answer each in order. In the first place, the noble Lord draws attention to the decision of the Court. The decision of the Court was that the "Yarmouth" carried too heavy a deck-load, which led to her taking a heavy list and eventually capsizing, causing the loss of all on board. The report goes on to say—
"The Court strongly condemn the practice of carrying deck cargoes upon structures such as the poop and the forecastle."
The noble Lord has alluded to certain furniture vans forming part of the cargo. Those vans, I understand, are not quite what I should imagine a furniture van to be—a large box on wheels. They are large boxes such as your Lordships are acquainted with in crossing from Dover to Calais, in which luggage is put and which are swung from the truck into the hold of the ship. In this case the vans seem to have been stowed in the well of the ship, and I rather understand from the report that it was certain packages of meat stowed on the poop and forecastle to which the Court alluded in condemning the carrying of loads on those places. Then the noble Lord alludes to the statement made by the principal officer of the Board of Trade at Cardiff. I have a letter from that gentleman in which he states what the nature of his evidence was. He says he stated that it was quite impossible for the Board of Trade surveyors to inspect every vessel, and that, in his opinion, it would be very impolitic to remove responsibility for the efficiency of life-saving appliances from the owner and master. That is, and always has been, the policy of the Board of Trade in this matter. The responsibility of seeing that the ship leaves in a seaworthy condition rests absolutely on the master and the owner, and under Section 457 of the Merchant Shipping Act any person who sends a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition is liable to prosecution, and, on conviction, to imprisonment with or without hard labour up to two years. The functions of the Board of Trade surveyors are very similar to those of the police.
1154
Their duty is to pay surprise visits to certain ships, and in that way to detect instances where the law is contravened. It would be absolutely unreasonable to expect that policemen should watch outside every house on every night in the year in order to see that burglary did not take place. A certain number of policemen patrol the streets, and very similar duties are carried out by these Board of Trade surveyors. Then the noble Lord asks whether it is intended to increase the number of surveyors. There is no present intention of doing so. According to the view held by the Board of Trade, there are sufficient surveyors to carry out the duties which I have indicated; but, of course, if there was any idea that there was not a sufficient number steps would be at once taken to increase the staff. Finally, the noble Lord asks what has been done in regard to dealing with recognised "systems" of carrying deck-loads. As the noble Lord said, in the case of the Great Eastern Railway Company an undertaking was given to the Court that this would not be done again; and, as I have already stated, the general law seems to be capable of dealing with these cases.
LORD INVERCLYDEMy Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, but the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, made several sweeping statements which I think ought not to pass unchallenged. I think it was rather unfair to refer to the Board of Trade as being only concerned about collecting their fees, and not about safety of life at sea. It may seem rather strange for a shipowner to be defending the Board of Trade, but I believe they do their duty and that the aspersion of the noble Lord was unjustifiable. The noble Lord stated that hundreds, he might say thousands, of ships sailed out of our ports in the United Kingdom without any inspection whatever by the Board of Trade, and anyone might infer from that statement that these ships never arrive at their destination, whereas ships in the coasting trade almost invariably arrive safely. The noble Lord also spoke of masters and officers of vessels not daring to interfere with the stowage of cargo. I would point out that it is an everyday occurrence for either the master or chief officer to interfere in such matters. The stevedore is bound to follow their orders, and I know for a fact that shipowners welcome any remarks or advice which the masters and officers of their

1155
ships give in this direction. It is quite a common practice in the coasting trade to carry deck-loads in summer and winter, and it is done with perfect safety. It depends very much upon the design of the vessel. Certain vessels are designed to carry deck-loads, and it is a perfectly legitimate way of carrying cargo. Of course, in some cases, as in the case of the "Yarmouth," accidents have occurred through the stowage not being as it ought to be. But that is the fault of the stowage and not of the system. I merely rose to say these few words because I thought the remarks of the noble Lord ought not to go unchallenged.
THE EARL OF MAYOMay I ask the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade whether the Board are quite satisfied with the action of the owners in this case? It is true that the owners have undertaken not to carry any more deck cargoes, but this ship has been lost with all hands.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, there is one way in which the risk of deck cargoes might be considerably diminished without doing away with them altogether. I suggest as a remedy that the Board of Trade surveyor should survey a ship and then draw up a scheme showing the amount of cargo and also the amount of deck cargo she should be allowed to carry. This might be done once every year or two, instead of surveying the vessel every time she left harbour, and it might be done without greatly increasing the number of Board of Trade surveyors. In the case of this steamer it appears that deck cargo was stowed on the forecastle and poop. How far the forecastle and poop were fitted for carrying cargo we cannot gather, but it is quite impossible to secure deck-loads unless there are solid bolts fixed in the ship's frame. In this case it is worthy of note that the ship was not insured, and so the loss falls on the Great Eastern Railway Company. Their marine superintendent committed a grave error of judgment in permitting the deck-load to be carried as it was carried. I think there ought to be some means whereby the Court could deprive such a superintendent of the power of superintending the embarkation of cargo any more. They ought to compel such a man to change his profession. There is a power in bad cases to deprive a captain of his certificate, and I think a Court of Inquiry should, subject to the right of
1156

appeal, have power to deal in the way I suggest with men who live on shore and direct the loading of ships.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLI will answer the question put to me a moment ago by the noble Earl opposite. Lord Mayo asks, as I understand, whether the Board of Trade intend to institute any prosecution—
THE EARL OF MAYOWhether they are satisfied.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLThe Board of Trade are, of course, guided by the report of the Court, in which it is stated that—
"blame does not attach to the Great Eastern Railway Co.; but, in the opinion of the Court, the system in existence was bad."
It is definitely stated that blame does not attach to the railway company, and I do not think there is any intention to go beyond that. The noble Lord who has just sat down alluded to the fact that this ship was not insured, and if anything were required to show that a great corporation like the Great Eastern Railway Company would not have neglected any reasonable precautions I think it is afforded by that fact.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHIPOWNERS.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, I rise to call the attention of the House to the loss of the "Idlewild" of Sunderland, off Portland, on June 30, 1908, to the proceedings at the Court of Inquiry held by the Board of Trade, and to the judgment of the President of the Admiralty Division on an appeal from the findings of the Court of Inquiry; and also to ask His Majesty's Government whether, considering that these Courts of Inquiry already have the power to prevent masters of ships whose incompetence or negligence has been the cause of the loss of a vessel from continuing to exercise their profession, they should not have their powers still further extended so as to be able to deal in a similar manner with the owners of unseaworthy and over-insured ships, and thus be able to prevent such persons from continuing to exercise the profession of shipowner.
The "Idlewild" was thirty-seven years

1157
old. I shall not trouble the House by reading the details of the pecuniary arrangements connected with the ownership of this vessel. It is sufficient for me to say that the Court considered them—
"to be very complicated, and the more so because no books were produced to enable the Court to verify the figures referred to."
The "Idlewild" was last surveyed for classification in November, 1905. During the remaining years of her life there were no fewer than thirteen entries in her log referring to collisions, groundings, and minor mishaps. The engineers' log contained innumerable entries of trouble in the engine room department. Her plates were so wasted and so thin that in March, 1908, a cork fender burst through the ship's side when she was entering a dock at Methill. In June of the same year the second mate, Guthrie, touched a crack with a closed pocket knife and it went through and let the water in as if it had been a small tap. Guthrie and another man left the ship on June 27 owing, as they said, to her condition. Three days later Guthrie lodged a complaint with the Board of Trade surveyor at Blyth, stating that the vessel was unfit to proceed without serious danger to human life. That very night she went to the bottom in fine weather off the Bill of Portland. The ship's papers were not saved. The Court found that there was no excuse for this, as no difficulty was experienced in getting the boat's sails out of the cabin. The papers might have been got out also. It appears to me that the natural conclusion is that they were purposely left behind.
The Court described the "Idlewild" as an old vessel perpetually in debt, and said that nothing but the wasted condition of her plates could satisfactorily account for the damage found at Methill and Pelaw Main. The Court said they felt it their duty to censure the master and chief engineer, and, in the exercise of their discretion as to costs, to order Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wilkinson to make substantial contributions towards the expenses of the inquiry, as they were not altogether satisfied with the manner in which they gave their evidence, particularly as regarded the history of the vessel and the disclosure and production of necessary documents. The Court also intended by their order to impress upon Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wilkinson, as the acting owners and re-
1158
sponsible managers, that it was their paramount duty to maintain the vessel in a state of efficiency, and to see that the lives of the crew were not unnecessarily imperilled. They also said that—
"Blame attaches to Mr. Thomas Norne Alexander and Mr. Cuthbert Wilkinson for not taking adequate means to maintain the vessel in good and seaworthy condition, and the Court orders Mr. Alexander to pay the sum of £50, and Mr. Wilkinson the sum of £25, to the solicitor of the Board of Trade on account of the expenses of this investigation."
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wilkinson appealed against the decision of the Court of Inquiry, and have, by so doing, enabled me to refer to the opinions of Sir John Bigham and Mr. Justice Bargreave Deane. Sir John Bigham said that the survey made by Lloyd's in June, 1908, was a most unsatisfactory survey of a ship with this record. He went on to say that—
"He was of opinion that the 'Idlewild' started in a grossly unseaworthy condition, and that was why she went to the bottom. It was said that Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wilkinson should not have to contribute towards the cost of the inquiry; but the tribunal gave their reasons for their order—they were not satisfied with the way these gentlemen gave their evidence. He had no doubt that the tribunal would not have put that finding on record unless they had grounds; and if they were not satisfied with the manner in which the evidence was given, he considered it a good reason why these gentlemen should be ordered to pay part of the costs. Mr. Pollock contended that the order amounted to a finding that the appellants had not discharged their duty, and he argued that they were justified in relying on the survey and classification in 1905 and the report in June, 1908, and that these being satisfactory, all further liability on their part was gone. He (the learned President) thought that the facts which were staring these men in the face ought to have made them question the seaworthiness of the vessel. The cracking and bursting of the plates was quite sufficient to have aroused their attention. The tribunal had dealt tenderly with these two. They had acquitted them of criminal neglect, but had found that they were guilty of carelessness. The appeal would be dismissed with costs."
Mr. Justice Bargreave Deane agreed with the President of the Court.
As regards insurance, the Court of Inquiry said—
"There was no evidence to show the original cost of the vessel, nor her actual value at the time of the casualty. She was in the hands of Mr. T. N. Alexander (Managing Director of the Tyne Dock Engineering Company, Limited) as the first mortgagee in possession, and Mr. Cuthbert, Wilkinson as second mortgagee, by whom she was valued at about £7,000. The vessel was insured for £7,250. In addition, Mr. Alexander

1159
had a P.P.I. policy for £350, and Mr. Wilkinson a P.P.I. policy for £300,"
making a total of £7,900. I have been informed, on what I believe to be good authority, that these sums have been paid. A Bill making P.P.I. policies illegal is now before the other House. By it, both parties to a P.P.I. policy are to be liable to six months imprisonment with or without hard labour. In the interests of the lives of seamen I hope that the Bill may become law this year. The only punishments inflicted on the owners of this vessel were fines amounting to £75. Yet if we accept the valuation of one of them—the only valuation apparently available—that of Mr. Wilkinson, the owners must have made a profit of £900 by the loss of their ship. The President of the Admiralty Court said that the Court of Inquiry had dealt tenderly with these two men—far too tenderly in my opinion. I wish that it had been possible to pass a sentence rendering them incapable of acting as owners, managers, surveyors, or in any capacity connected with shipping, and ordering them immediately to dispose of any property or shares they might possess in ships or shipping companies, and declaring that all such property owned by them three months after the date of the sentence should be forfeited to the Crown. The arguments brought forward in favour of the owners made their case much worse. They actually had the audacity to claim that as their ship had passed the surveyors all responsibility on their part was at an end. This theory found no favour from the learned Judges who heard the appeal. If once it is admitted, it means that if a shipowner can succeed in hoodwinking a Board of Trade surveyor his responsibility for the safety of the vessel and the lives of her crew is at an end.
The only way to bring home responsibility to such men as managed the "Idle-wild" is to subject them to considerable annoyance and pecuniary loss whenever they neglect their obvious duties to ship and crew. I consider that the infliction of severe punishment on incapable shipowners is far more likely to conduce to the safety of ships and their crews than the employment of an army of surveyors, whose continual interference with shipping would act as a check to trade and inconvenience owners of high character and standing. I believe that the vast majority of the ship-
1160
owning community would prefer such a method of getting rid of their black sheep to increased restrictions on the management of shipping. The Courts of Inquiry have the power of preventing a master of a ship from continuing to exercise his profession. I cannot see any reason why men who live on shore should be treated differently whenever a disaster occurs which has been caused by their carelessness or misconduct, especially when dealing with fully-insured or over-insured vessels. Barristers, solicitors, physicians, and men belonging to many other professions can be deprived of the right to exercise their profession by means in accordance with the law, and I think that shipowners should be placed on a similar footing.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, I am very glad to hear that we are to have the noble Lord's good wishes for the P.P.I. Bill when it arrives in your Lordships' House. I can assure him that my right hon. friend is using every endeavour to push it on as fast as possible. The loss of the "Idlewild" is another case which has been investigated by a Court of Inquiry. Fortunately in this case no lives were lost. The noble Lord will have seen that the Court stated that, in all the circumstances, they did not feel justified in finding that the owners knowingly allowed the vessel to go to sea in an unseaworthy condition, but they blamed the mortgagees and acting owners for not taking active measures to maintain the ship in a good seaworthy condition. That was the finding of the Court, and by that finding the owners received what I might be allowed to describe as a coating of rather diluted whitewash. The circumstances of the case do justify the noble Lord in bringing the matter forward, and I have only to say about it that the Board of Trade are still making investigations, and should any further evidence of an important nature come to light there is no reason why the matter should not be recommitted to the Court to be reheard. If evidence of that sort does come to light I am quite certain that that will be done. Then the noble Lord made the suggestion that the same law should be served out to the owner of a ship as to the master. At first sight it does seem as if there is a good deal to be said for that. I stated the law on the subject just now. Any owner who knowingly sends a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition may be sent to prison,

1161
with or without hard labour, for two years, and in the opinion of the Board of Trade that is a sufficient deterrent. If the law as it stands should not prove a sufficient deterrent, the Board of Trade would be ready to introduce legislation making the penalty more severe; but I do not think that that penalty would take the form suggested by the noble Lord, because there are practical difficulties in the way of carrying it out. In the case of a master or any other officer of a ship who has a certificate you can, of course, withdraw that certificate. The matter is a simple one; but, in the case of an owner, I do not know how it would be possible to carry out the noble Lord's suggestion. But I can assure him that if anything of the sort is found necessary the Board of Trade will act very quickly in asking Parliament to pass further legislation.

STANDING COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That a Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of such Public Bills as may be committed to it by the House:
STANDING COMMITTEE.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee—

  E. Jersey.

  E. Waldegrave.

  V. Churchill.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Denman.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  L. Lawrence.

  L. Colebrooke.

  ST. HELENA.
  THE EARL OF MAYOMy Lords, I rise to ask whether, as St. Helena has been given up as a coaling station, and as His Majesty's troops have been removed from that island, His Majesty's Government will facilitate the sale and exportation of cattle, which the inhabitants of the island were encouraged to breed and keep, in order that the land now occupied by these cattle may be made available for the growing of phormium tenax, or New Zealand flax, which at present is grown on the island, and is a source of revenue to the inhabitants.
  1162
  I have been asked to put this Question by the captain of the ship I came home in the other day, and who is an inhabitant of the island. When the Boer prisoners left and the troops were withdrawn the inhabitants naturally suffered, because they had been making money supplying provisions and catching fish for the large number of people who were there. It has been said that the island has been given up entirely to rats and disappointed islanders, but that is a very pessimistic view to take of St. Helena. I am told it is not so bad as that. The Government encouraged the inhabitants of the island to breed and keep cattle for the convenience of the troops and the Boer prisoners, and therefore it is thought only fair that the Government should assist the islanders in disposing of their cattle so that the land now occupied by the cattle may be used to grow New Zealand flax. They grow phormium already, and it is a very valuable export. I therefore hope His Majesty's Government will look with some kindness on these people, who have, so to speak, been left in the lurch. I do not myself know whether these islanders are industrious. I have heard it said that they are not; but I think they would become industrious if the sale and exportation of the cattle were facilitated so that they could develop the industry to which I have referred, and which has already been established on a small scale on the island.
  THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, I have to thank the noble Earl for postponing his Question from yesterday, and I will endeavour to answer briefly the points which he has raised. St. Helena has been for some time past a source of anxiety. As the noble Earl has pointed out, the removal of the garrison and the fact that the Boer prisoners did not remain there seriously affected the material interests of the islanders. So far as the removal of the garrison is concerned, that, of course, is an unfortunate fate which happens to various Colonial possessions. St. Helena is not the only victim of a change of military policy. There are others, such as St. Lucia in the West Indies, upon whom a change of that kind has fallen with still greater severity. But the fact undoubtedly remains that the position, of St. Helena is such as to arouse sympathy, and such as to make the Government wish to do everything they can to alleviate it. St. Helena consists of 28,800 acres, and of that area some 20,000

  1163
  are described as being altogether unfit for agricultural operations. But there is some land which can be profitably used. As regards what the noble Earl said of the invitation to invest in cattle on behalf of the Government, what happened was this. In 1898 it was pointed out that there was a probability of the garrison being increased, and the farmers who had at that time a considerable stock of cattle went to some little expense in buying breeding stock of an improved kind in order to better their herds. As a consequence of that, during the time that the prisoners were there and while the garrison was maintained they must have made considerable profits. I do not think it is quite fair to argue from that that a permanent obligation can be said to rest on His Majesty's Government, now that the policy of keeping the garrison there has been changed, to dispose of this stock in the interests of the farmers. At the same time, the Government have been anxious to help the farmers, if possible, to get rid of the cattle; and in March of this year the suggestion was made that the Admiralty would buy 200 of them at contract prices for use at the Cape, and the Cape Government agreed to dispense with the duty which would, in the ordinary course, be charged upon them. That, unfortunately, fell through, as I understand, on the question of price; but I shall be quite willing to represent to the Board of Admiralty that a renewal of that offer might be made, and I understand they would be willing to make it provided it was possible to do it on reasonable terms. Beyond that, I am afraid, at
  1164
  this moment I cannot go. It is true that the flax industry is one to which we look for some improvement in the condition of St. Helena. There are rather over 450 acres under flax at this moment, but I do not think there is any evidence that there is land occupied by cattle which would be immediately devoted to flax growing if the cattle were removed. It is not the case that the whole of this stock of 1,200 cattle is in the hands of very poor people. Some part of it is in the hands of business firms, who are, I should hope, well off, and therefore not exactly in a condition to make an appeal ad misericordium. But I can assure the noble Earl that the state of affairs of St. Helena is continually before my mind, and if I can help in this matter I shall be glad to do so.

  CROFTING PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Acts relating to crofters holdings in Scotland—Was presented by the Lord Lovat; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 67.)

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with respect to small holdings and allotments in Scotland—Was presented by the Earl of Camper-down; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 68.)
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till to-morrow, Twelve o'clock.