them, and seamen would probably go to sponsibility, and, speaking as a represea relying with full confidence upon the sentative of the Treasury, he felt that principle thus acknowledged, accepted, it was rather a serious possible financial and even recommended by the Govern- question. If ships were stopped which ment. It might be asked-"If your ought not to be stopped, and if a case argument is worth anything, how came for redress could be shown, the Treayou to put such a clause as this into your sury must have the burden, and they own Bill?" The question was a natural must, therefore, take good care what one, and the answer was, that in the they were about. The Government offered Government Bill there were two other to run this risk for a short time, in order clauses to which as yet no reference had to show their desire to introduce safebeen made in that discussion, which had guards for human life; but they must, rather a material bearing on the ques- on this account, be additionally cautious tion. They were the 41st and 42nd as to the effect of other complications. clauses, which went by the name of the The Government Inspectors would know liability clauses, and under the second that if they stopped a ship they would of those clauses the shipowner was held run a serious risk of involving the Goby his agreement with the seaman to vernment in financial responsibility. contract with the seaman that the ship Then, if there was to be a load line the was and would continue seaworthy. Inspectors would know that a prima facie Now, if they allowed the shipowner to argument would be ready against them mark his own load line, were they going in a Court of Law-that the load line to restore these liability clauses? If had been accepted by the Government. they did, the Bill would be on the foot-["No!"] Well, recorded by the Going of the original Bill introduced by the Government; but it would be a very different measure from that which the hon. Gentleman now suggested. If they were going to authorize that kind of mark, where would be the security? Though it afforded a convenient point of departure, it was impossible at that time of day to adopt altogether the rule mentioned by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), for in a large number of cases, shipowners would be very unfairly restrained from making voyages of a certain character. Again, if the restriction were applied, it would be applied to British ships which would be in competition with foreign ships. Foreigners, being under no such restriction, would not only carry off our trade, but our sailors and our ships too; for British ships would be so hampered that they would be transferred to a foreign flag. Where would they be in that case? Was the clause intended as a substitute for the proposal of the Government; and, instead of giving these powers to the Inspectors of the Board of Trade, were they to trust to this load line? ["No!"] Then the load line was to be in addition to the powers of the Inspectors, and it was necessary to consider what would thus happen. In proposing to give these extraordinary powers to the Board of Trade officials, the Government were taking upon themselves, for good reason, a serious re

vernment. Were the Government to record a manifestly absurd load line? If not, what would be the result? Ships would sail, and sailors would be told, as the poor members of Friendly Societies were told-"It's all right. The load line has been recorded by the Government." The ship would be ready for sailing, not sunk below the load line, and the Inspector would think-"If I stop that ship the onus of proving something wrong in a Court of Law may be difficult and serious." Supposing the load line had been drawn somewhat too high, and the case came to be tried, would not a Court of Law attach considerable weight to the arguments adduced by the shipowner-"I was never cautioned, never told there was anything wrong about the load line. How can you find me guilty if I have kept within the load line?" Thus the load line clause would weaken the hands of the Inspectors, and might also add to the risk of the Treasury being called upon to pay for the detention of a ship. The other day he heard a curious case in which a ship was laden with grain, with water ballast at bottom. When the vessel had taken in as much grain as, together with the water ballast, sunk her down to the point at which she appeared to be safe, more grain was taken in, and the water was pumped out, the effect of which was -as he was told-to make her top-heavy. He gave that as

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE thought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly done justice either to the Amendment or the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), who had expressly stated that he had no wish whatever to obstruct the Bill, and that he did not intend his Instruction to be taken as an alternative to the Government proposal. His hon. Friend's idea was that, considering the feeling that existed, the House at that stage could better express an opinion upon the load line than it could do in Committee. The hon. Member for Pembroke and his Friends, especially the hon. Member for Derby, had shown a very wise discretion in not pressing forward their proposal in reference to the survey of vessels, for it would not be wise to enter upon any discussion of that subject at that period of the Session, and in the present excited state of the country. With regard to the immediate question before the House, his hon. Friend had acted in a most conciliatory manner, as he had made great conces sions, and now only asked for what was termed the "shipowners' load line," and he thought the Government would show a wise discretion in adopting the suggestion. He was surprised that the Government had not met his hon. Friend more than half-way, as the proposal was almost indentical with a clause of the amended Government Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, had opposed the suggestion, and in doing so, when he said his hon. Friend's proposal would end in luring seamen to their destruction, was in reality giving that as a description of a clause contained in the Government measure.

an illustration of the difficulty of fixing | could then be considered, and the hon. a load line. The whole question was Member for Pembroke might bring forone which should be fully discussed and ward any proposal he pleased. considered. How could that be done, when they remembered it was the 2nd of August? There was another point for consideration. This exceptional legislation was being introduced for a present emergency with reference to what might occur during the coming autumn and winter; yet nobody proposed that the load line should be marked immediately -not till January 1. Would it not be wiser to leave this difficult question over, until the House was able to deal with the whole subject next year, and to discuss the liability clauses along with it? Again, in speaking of the second reading, he was under the impression that the title of the Bill narrowed the power of the House to discuss other questions in Committee, except the powers of the officers of the Board of Trade, without an Instruction. Seeing on the Paper Instructions upon several subjects, he had said that the Government could not accept those involving a load line and survey, not because they objected to these proposals in themselves, but because the discussion would occupy a great deal of time. With regard, however, to instructions relating to grain loading and deck cargoes, he agreed to discuss them; but he now found that all these matters might be discussed, without any Notice whatever, in Committee. That being so, he was at a loss to know why, if the hon. Member did not wish to obstruct the Bill, he had moved this Instruction in the form of an Amendment upon going into Committee. The effect of carrying the Amendment would be to stop for the time the progress of the Bill, for it would be practically laid aside, and then would arise the question of again taking it up. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman would lose nothing by deferring any question till the House was in Committee and knew what practical proposal the hon. Gentleman had to make. At present the House was asked to vote upon an ambiguous Amendment, rendered doubly ambiguous by the rumours which the House had heard as to what would afterwards be proposed. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the House should now go into Committee on the Bill. The proposals of the Government which would lead to discussion

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER explained that the clause must be taken in connection with the two liability clauses which followed it.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, he was unable to see any connection between those two liability clauses and that which had reference to a load line; and, with regard to the former, if the Government would add them to the Bill, even at this period of the Session, he would give them his hearty support. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to his hon. Friend's proposal was, that recording

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY said, the last speaker was mistaken in supposing that either of the alternatives in the present proposal was identical with that of the Government regarding the load line. The Government had not proposed either that the load line should be sanctioned by Government or submitted to the Board of Trade for record. They proposed that a voluntary load line should on every voyage be fixed by the owner of the ship, and that this load line should be described in the form of entry outwards, and in the articles of agreement with the crew and in the official log-book; but care was studiously taken that the Government should have nothing to do with fixing or accepting the load line. It was intended to be a sort of contract between the owner and the crew, that the owner did not intend to load beyond it, and that if he did, it would amount to absolute fraud.

the load line would involve the responsi- | corded, was the expression of a delibebility of the Board of Trade; but his rate intention on his part how deep the hon. Friend had agreed to withdraw ship should be loaded. If the ship left from the Amendment the words involv- port with a different and deeper load line ing that suggestion, and now it was only than that recorded by the Board of proposed that the shipowner should Trade officers, the owner would have demake his own load line and submit it to parted from the conditions he entered the Government for record. For his into with the passengers and crew, and own part, he thought it was more con- he would be liable for it if, in his greed venient to discuss the question now than for gain, the ship was lost or wrecked. to defer it until the Bill was in Com- The marking of a load line, however, mittee. would not save a single life, and he would vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Pembroke. Nothing could be more absurd than the idea that those who voted against that proposition voted in favour of consigning people to death. The Government had promised to take into their consideration the expediency of dealing with the question of insurance in such a way as to compel shipowners who insured their ships to be themselves interested to the extent of one-third or one-fourth in the policy. If that was done they would themselves act as a sort of police to guard and protect their own property. That, he believed, was the only means of preventing the loss of life at sea, and would do more to preserve life than could be effected by any army of surveyors, or any regulations with reference to overloading or deck cargoes. He had long lived in the hope that such a plan would be adopted by the Legislature. He thought the House would do well to pass the Bill of the Government with the Amendments of hon. Gentlemen as to grain cargoes and deck cargoes. The question about marking a load line would require a great deal of consideration, for if the Legislature simply passed a law requiring the marking of a load line, or were even induced to adopt the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk, many shipowners would immediately endeavour to evade the law by altering the construction of their ships. He could see no necessity for pressing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pembroke, and hoped the House would go into Committee on the Bill as soon as possible.

MR. SAMUDA appealed to the hon. Member for Pembroke to withdraw the Resolution, and in Committee to propose the second part of it. It must be apparent that the remarks contained in the first part of the Resolution became entirely useless when they were apart from the words which the hon. Member had agreed to expunge. The two proposals which they had come down to the House to discuss were antagonistic to each other. One might be termed, for the sake of argument, the load line of the hon. Member for Derby, which it was impossible to adopt, and the other was the load line of the shipowners, which might be adopted with advantage. He agreed, however, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the second part of the proposal of the hon. Member for Pembroke could not be accepted pure and simple, but it was valuable if taken into consideration with other matters. The owner's line, when re

MR. MAC IVER hoped the_hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) would not press his Motion to a division, because he (Mr. Mac Iver) could not help feeling that the House would be asked to decide the question of load

line upon what was really a false issue. I make and issue regulations for the purpose of regulating the carriage of deck cargoes and ing of British ships for the purpose of showing cargoes of grain, and with respect to the markthe draught of water."