question, and the Bill might be viewed interests, and even recast the measure if as the work, not of one, but of two or necessary. He had ventured to suggest even of more successive Governments. on a former occasion that the Bill, which When it was objected that the measure really contained 13 Acts of Parliament, was not in the charge of a Member might be divided and passed piecemeal, of the Cabinet, he congratulated him- some questions being, if advisable, reself on not being in the same posi-ferred to Committees for further inquiry. tion as the Secretary to the Board of The question, however, before the House Trade; because if the late Government was, whether they would give the Bill a had remained in Office a little longer, second reading, and, deeming legislation it might probably have been his own to be necessary, without saying this was duty, though not what was called a re- perfect in any sense, he thought that it sponsible Minister of the Crown, to in- ought to be read the second time. troduce legislation on that subject. Those who had charge of those matters were rather unhappily placed. There was a constant outcry for legislation on the part of the shipowners, and while he was in Office scarcely a fortnight passed without his being asked whether he had not a Bill ready. Yet when measures were proposed relating to that question it was most difficult to carry them, because on the one side they were held not to be stringent enough, and on the other side to be too stringent. It had been objected to the present Bill that it was a compromise; but he did not think any legislation on that subject could be carried which was not a compromise. He should vote for the Bill, though in many of the observations made as to the faults, both of omission and commission, he entirely agreed; but he thought that the debate had shown that the House was quite capable of amending it, and that with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire -than whom no man was more capable of picking holes in any Bill-and with the aid of other Gentlemen who took an interest in the question, a Committee of the Whole House might be able to deal with the measure or with a considerable portion of it. As to what the hon. Member for Liverpool had said about bottomry, barratry, and various other legal questions, such as were contained in the pages of Abbott on Shipping, he thought that these subjects might well be included in a separate Bill, instead of being embraced in a Bill like the present, which sought to regulate the practice of merchant shipowners and seamen rather than the law relating to shipping. To refer the Bill to a Committee upstairs, taking evidence on all those various subjects, would be simply to shelve the whole measure. He felt sure the Secretary of the Board of Trade would consult all VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE said, he desired first to express his thanks to hon. Members for the manner in which the Bill had been received. and also for the way in which they had spoken of his work in connection with it. He must plead guilty of the want of one qualification-not being a Cabinet Minister; but he had always felt in all the work he did that he was responsible both to the House and the country. As had already been pointed out, his present position in that matter was not very different from that occupied by many former Vice Presidents of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had suggested that it would be better to postpone that Bill until they could have a much larger measure dealing with all the numerous questions affecting shipping, freight, insurance, and other subjects. No doubt, it would be a most desirable thing to have a Code treating of every branch of Shipping Law; and, certainly, if he should hold his present Office for any lengthened period, he would endeavour to bring that about. Still, he thought it would be better, with that view, to codify so much of the Law of Shipping as was in the statute book, leaving to a future occasion those parts of the subject comprised in the unwritten law. If there was a difficulty in passing a Bill of 800 clauses, how much more difficult would it be to pass one containing 1,600, which would probably be the number required to carry out his hon. Friend's very wide scheme? In reference to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), he would say that, though the Bill dealt with 13 different branches of subjects, they were treated in a manner calculated to enable the House to discuss their merits in the most convenient and satisfactory form. The hon. Member for Liverpool recommended that the Bill 3 T should be referred to a Select Committee, points of difference were really confined and with reference to a particular branch to a very few clauses. It was that cirof the subject proceeded to give the cumstance which made him think that House a very gloomy view of the state the Bill might pass this Session if hon. of things. There was, no doubt, a great Members would only exercise a little deal of force in what the hon. Member forbearance and not raise discussions said; but he had looked only at one on points not contained in the Bill. He side of the question, and there was ano- admitted there were subjects open to dether of which a much more favourable bate, such as the light dues, the constituview could be taken. The hon. Member tion of the Trinity Board, and others not referred, he believed, only to seamen dealt with in the Amendments; but if belonging to long-voyage sailing ves- hon. Gentlemen would insist on discussels. Now, he (Mr. Shaw - Lefevre) sing these subjects either in Committee had made much inquiry on the sub- of the Whole House or in a Select Comject, and he found that the seamen mittee neither this nor any other Conemployed on board steamers were in a solidation Bill could pass this Session, or vastly improved condition. Voyages in in any normal Session. The only chance steamers were made at stated times, the of consolidation at present was that the service was regular, the men employed House would mainly confine itself to the in them were able to spend a certain Amendments which had been printed, or period with their families, and the con- to such others as were pari materia. He sequence was that most of the best men would now say a few words on the subwere drafted into the steam trade, and ject which had been brought before the perhaps, as a consequence, the average House on a former occasion in so forcible of seamen in sailing vessels had some- a manner by the right hon. Member for what deteriorated. But he looked for- Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). The ward with hope to an improvement in right hon. Baronet admitted that if the the condition of our seamen, which was course he recommended were adopted it certain to result from the increase of would postpone legislation for the presteam. Then, again, during the last sent year. He understood the right 14 years the wages of seamen in sail- hon. Baronet to desire that the Bill ing vessels had not improved. He had should be postponed until next year, and learnt from inquiry that there were that it should then be referred to a Select a large number of efficient seamen if Committee. His answer would be very only shipowners would give higher wages, much the same as it was in the debate and then they would have no difficulty three weeks ago. He admitted to some in getting the seamen they wanted. In extent the evil of which his right hon. the Bill now before the House, there Friend complained, but he did not bewas a considerable number of Amend-lieve that the number of losses of vessels ments having in view the improvement or lives had increased for some years past. of the condition of seamen generally; He admitted that there was a certain these Amendments had been laid before the House, and had met with approval not only from hon. Members most interested in the subject, but from the country at large. The House must not take the Bill to be of a more extensive or ambitious character than it really was. It was, in the main, a Consolidation Bill. It was admitted to be essential to bring together all the existing Acts, which were in a state of chaos, and the opportunity was taken of making various Amendments, which had been pointed out in the Memorandum to which he had called attention, and had been explained in great detail. He had reason to believe that nine-tenths of those Amendments had been accepted by persons most interested in the question, and that the number of cases in which vessels were lost from overlading, which had given rise to great anxiety, and in view of these they had inserted in the Bill several Amendments. It seemed, therefore, not unreasonable to ask his right hon. Friend, if not satisfied with these Amendments, to propose others himself, and he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would be happy to give them the best consideration. The Bill on this subject introduced by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll)) was no doubt deserving of consideration; but, although desirous of affording every fair opportunity for discussing its provisions, he did not think that it dealt with this important subject in the most effectual manner. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had objected to the clause which made it a misdemeanor to send a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition. Though there were some exceptions in the clause which would diminish its effect, he did not think if they examined it carefully it would be found to diminish the penalties where it was desirable that penalties should be enforced. He accepted the version of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) as to the Sea Queen, though he was bound to say he could not quite concur in it. He thought that there was evidence on the other side which went to show that there was a different cause for the loss of that vessel. But supposing the version of the right hon. Baronet to be correct, the case seemed to be precisely one to which the clause would apply. The law as it stood at present relieved the seaman from going to sea in an unseaworthy vessel. But what happened was this-The seaman was arrested as a deserter if he left the vessel; and, practically, he had no opportunity of calling witnesses as to its condition. What the Bill before the House proposed was that, in the first place, the seaman who left a vessel because she was unseaworthy would not be considered as a criminal; he might give evidence himself, and call in a Board of Trade surveyor to speak to the condition of the vessel. In the case of the Sea Queen the seamen knew her exact state, and complained that they were going to sea in an unseaworthy vessel; but they were afraid to leave her lest they might be treated as deserters. In three cases their wives came before the Court and said that their husbands would not leave the vessel because they were afraid of being treated as deserters. But that was precisely such a case as the Amendments in the Bill would meet. It might be said that in no case would sailors be induced to leave a vessel because she was unseaworthy; but the experience of the Board of Trade was very different. There were a great number of cases in which seamen left their vessels on the ground of their being unseaworthy. In some cases there was no ground for such assertions; but it must be admitted that in other cases these objections were well founded and reasonable. Many other subjects had been referred to, but those were points of detail, which would more properly be considered in Committee. He promised that, between this time and the Committee, no effort should be wanting on his part in order to ascertain the views of hon. Gentlemen, particularly of those who represented shipping communities. Meanwhile, he had reason to believe that the Amendments would be accepted without much difficulty, and there would be few cases which would give rise to prolonged discussion. No doubt there were other points affecting the condition of our seamen which might be dealt with. But there never was a time when our Mercantile Marine was in a more pre-eminent position relative to that of other countries, and he hoped this measure would consolidate and maintain that pre-eminence, and would long preserve our Mercantile Marine in its present proud position. Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next." MR. GRAVES, who had given Notice of a Motion, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, so far as regards Part 2, relating to Masters and Seamen, said, he did not think he had taken too gloomy a view of the condition of our seamen. Some months ago a representative Committee was formed in Liverpool, which sent out queries on this subject; and 89 per cent of the answers stated that the seamen had deteriorated as seamen, 65 per cent stated that they had deteriorated in physical condition, and 71 per cent that they had deteriorated in respect of subordination. This Committee recommended that, before being rated as A.B.'s, seamen should obtain a certificate of competency; and the seamen themselves desired this, with a view to their protection from men who did not know their duty. They also recommended that advance notes should be rendered illegal; that sailors' lodginghouses should be licensed; that communications should be opened with foreign Governments with a view to put down the crimping system; that the Government should provide training ships at all our large seaports, encourage as much as possible the apprentice system, and establish a compulsory benefit fund for seamen. These questions not only affected the welfare of our seamen, but the national prestige, and ought to command attention in legislating upon this subject. Seeing, however, the desire of the Government and of the House that no impediment should be thrown in the way of the present Bill, he should withdraw his Amendment, strongly convinced though he was that a preliminary inquiry ought to be made. MR. GLADSTONE said, that after the debate that had been held upon the SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he second reading it would be very desirwas somewhat surprised at this with- able to allow the Government a short drawal. His own proposal would be to time to consider what was the best refer Parts 3 and 6 to a Select Com- course to pursue. At the present momittee; Part 3 having reference to over-ment, certainly, the Government were loading, and Part 6 to collisions. It was not prepared to consent to a reference of impossible to pass a Bill of 700 clauses the Bill to a Select Committee, if to that this year without a precipitancy which reference the condition were attached the Government would regret unless they that the Committee should take evidence. referred these parts of the measure to a At the same time, it would be advanSelect Committee. He was not a ship-tageous that a little time should be alowner; he did not represent a seaport; lowed for considering the matter, and but he was anxious to save the lives of his hon. Friend and the right hon. his fellow-countrymen, which were now Baronet opposite would not be predestroyed at the rate of hundreds every judiced if it were now agreed to adjourn year. This was no light matter, to be disposed of out of courtesy to a Government or to anybody. Although he did not profess to have any practical knowledge of the subject, letters had poured MR. GRAVES said, he hoped that if in upon him from all parts of the king- the Government took any other course dom, and it was clear that the overload- that that of merely allowing the Bill to ing of vessels and collisions were fertile be committed in the ordinary way, the sources of danger. Moreover, both were fact that he had expressed a willingness subjects of great practical difficulty, to yield to their appeal would not prewhich could only be satisfactorily settled judice him in raising the question as to by bringing together competent authori- Part 2. ties before a Commission or a Committee appointed to carry on an impartial inquiry. He believed a Royal Commission would really be the most effectual mode of conducting the inquiry; but he was quite prepared to intrust it to a Committee upstairs. The matter, however, was a grave one. The important facts which he had detailed the other day had none of them been gainsaid; and he would, therefore, urge the Government to consent to his Motion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee so far as regards Parts 3 and 6 of the Bill, with power to take evidence with respect to the best mode of preventing overlading of ships and collisions at sea. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "be committed" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "to a Select Committee, so far as regards Parts 3 and 6, with power to take evidence with Mr. Graves the debate. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he was ready to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. BOARD OF TRADE BILL-[BILL 58.] (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Stansfeld.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE said, that it was not intended by the Bill to make any change in the constitution of the Board of Trade. As to the rating clauses he was not quite certain, but believed they were intended to replace those which were repealed by the previous Bill. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next. RATING (IRELAND.) MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE period of the Session at which they were Motion made, and Question proposed, - COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN said, he LORD CLAUD HAMILTON said, he MR. M MAHON said, he hoped the MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE MR. GREGORY said, he sincerely Committee this Session. nected with the consideration of Irish affairs, and it would be well to remem- MR. COLLINS said, he would beg to Debate adjourned till To-morrow. SALMON ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. the Acts relating to the Export of unseasonable COLM, Mr. HAMBRO, and Mr. CAMERON. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 163.] House adjourned at One o'clock. VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.] 3 U [INDEX. |