that such a measure should be dealt on board; they had prescribed a scale of with in the calmest and most judicial food so that the seamen should be well spirit. The Act of 1873 did undoubt- fed; and they had given notes of allotedly give great powers to the Board ment by which seamen might provide of Trade, and, though brought for- for their wives and families. These alward like this Bill late in the Session, it lotment notes, by the way, were mishad worked very well for the country. taken by some persons for advance notes. No doubt, it gave the means of stopping With regard to the latter, he urged their unseaworthy ships, and the officers of abolition, because of the evil use made the Board of Trade told the Royal Com- of them by crimps. Merchants, shipmission that they had no difficulty in owners, and others who had looked into stopping such vessels, telegraphing to the subject had said that until you got the Board that they did so. That looked rid of these advance notes, you would like an arbitrary power, for it seemed as never get rid of the slavery to which the if gentlemen sent round the coast had sailor was subjected. He hoped when an absolute power of stopping ships, the Government brought in the Bill of only reporting the fact to the Board of next year it would be seen that they had Trade. That was a great power, and paid special attention to this subject. when they considered what the tonnage People talked about free contract beof our Mercantile Marine was-that it tween the seaman and the shipowner. was larger than the tonnage of all other But how could there be free contract mercantile nations-it was of the greatest when one of the parties was unfortuimportance that such powers should be nately often in such a state that he had used with caution. The interests of the to be carried on board? Then there shipowner must be carefully considered was another point, as to the ships themon the one. hand, and the interests of selves. It was a mistaken opinion that the seamen on the other. It must not all the ships which were lost were old, be supposed that the shipowner was the rotten, wooden vessels. The great danonly party that was blameworthy and ger now was from new iron-built ships. that the seaman was never in any way Those who had looked into the subject to be blamed. The fact, in many cases, were well aware of that. The new iron was very different. However anxious ships were often of very great length. parties might be to increase the sea- They had all sorts of contrivances, which worthiness of vessels, a seaman could very worked very comfortably while the weaseldom be induced to walk 100 yards to ther was fine, but which were very look at the ship he was going in-he dangerous in rough weather and squalls. did not care a pin about it. When they Those large vessels should have machijoined a ship they were often drunk, nery in proportion; but in that point being literally carried on board by their they were often very weak. Lloyd's lodging-house keepers the vessels in surveyed ships, it was true; but they the Mersey and the Thames serving as did not survey their machinery. Vessels hospitals in which they might recover of this kind were liable to be overfrom their crapulous imbecility. When whelmed when they got into the trough collisions occurred whose fault was it? of the sea when a squall was on. With In great measure the fault of the sea- regard to insurance, he hoped that quesmen, who would not keep a look-out; tion would not be taken up in the same and they could not be punished for not Bill which dealt with unseaworthy ships, keeping a look-out. What he wanted or the discipline of the men. The subwas, while they proposed to punish the ject of insurance was one which would shipowner for the unseaworthiness of require to be treated with great care and his ship, that means should be given for consideration, and if all these questions enforcing discipline on board our Mer- were to be dealt with in one Bill he cantile Marine as in the Navy. Why feared the same fate would await it as were the ships in our Navy safe? Be- had overtaken the Bill of this yearcause they were better built, better they would never get it through the manned, better disciplined, and because House of Commons. Merchants and a better look-out was kept. They had persons conversant with the subject must introduced the examination of masters and would discuss it, and therefore if and mates to make them able to manage they had one great Bill the Government their ships; they had made regulations would not be able to carry it through as to the crew to make them comfortable the House. He also hoped they would The Duke of Somerset be able to repeal a great many of the strong opinion against interfering with freedom of contract. The noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) had examined the Bill in a manner which was extremely candid and fair, and had avoided reference to many subjects upon which he might easily have dwelt. Nothing could have been more useful than his examination of the measure and the history he had given of the Act on which it was founded. The noble Lord had said that this measure proceeded upon the lines of the Act passed under his own auspices when he was at the head of the Board of Trade. It was of some importance to refer to the exact difference. As the law now existed, the Board of Trade must act at the outports through an officer who would make his examination and report the result by telegraph or letter. The difficulty of the case was that delay occurred first in the officer sending his report, then in the Board of Trade's considering it and conveying its decision to the officer. As their Lordships would see, the opinion of the officer must mainly_guide the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade detained a ship improperly, it was liable for damages. But under this Bill the officer must act on his own discretion in the first instance, and the Board of Trade would be responsible for his action. As to insurance, he could say that the subject would be most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. The more it was looked into, the more the question would be asked why, if in the case of life and fire insurance the insurer would not be allowed to receive more than would compensate him for the loss sustained, the insurer of a vessel might contract beforehand that there should be no examination into the amount of damage, but that a gross, absolute sum should be paid over, no matter how much that gross sum might exceed the loss. This was a grave subject for consideration, and the more it was considered the more closely it would be found connected with the subject now before their Lordships. However, this was a matter which required ample time for its discussion. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the noble Duke had stated that something should be done to make seamen more careful. He was bound to say, according to his experience, derived from cases in which he had been engaged, that the want of look-out was seldom attributable to the sailors, but much more frequently to the master or the mate, or, in other words, to the skilled navigators of the ship. The noble Duke had said that sailors were a very careless race-that they would not take the trouble to walk 100 yards to see whether the ship was unseaworthy or not, and that they were often carried on board drunk. There could hardly be a better proof of the necessity of legislation. If sailors were careful and vigilant, legislation would not be required. It was because sailors were negligent and often taken on board drunk that it was necessary to enforce against the shipowner what, after all, was only the shipowner's duty. With regard to the advance note system, it was fraught with evils of every kind. Sailors for a debauch on shore would anticipate their earnings, and not only would they not receive the full amount they were entitled to, but the notes were LORD DENMAN quoted the opinion discounted at an exorbitant rate, and a of an experienced officer of the Navy very small portion of the money was who had also sailed in merchant vessels, enjoyed by the sailor. But the noble and who said that the load line ought Duke ought to remember that this to be fixed by the owner, with the apmatter had been canvassed very fully proval of the Board of Trade officials; "elsewhere," and that there was a but the great difficulty would be to find competent men at the low rate offered by the Board of Trade, to see these regulations strictly carried out. This officer added that, having brought home several cargoes of grain in bulk from Odessa, he regarded such cargoes as most dangerous, owing to their tendency to shift, notwithstanding the use of boards; and, as many claims were usually made for damage done to the grain in transitu, he suggested that if the money thus paid were laid out in bags, it would be better for both parties. He hoped time would be given for the proposal of Amendments in Committee, and believed that limiting the weight of grain, instead of permitting the carrying of any quantity, with a proportion only of it loose, would be an improvement in the Bill. EARL GRANVILLE said, he did not propose to prolong this discussion, particularly after the speeches of his noble Friends (Lord Carlingford and the Duke of Somerset)-speeches which, he could not help thinking the Government would find of great use when they were engaged in preparing the permanent and more extensive measure which they proposed to submit next year. Without entering into the story of the Bill-a story which might be told in different ways-he expressed his satisfaction that the Government had been able to introduce even this provisional measure which was likely soon to pass into law. Motion agreed to: Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow. CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS. Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order). THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, he did not propose to ask their Lordships to disagree with any of the Amendments made in the other House, except three or four which were purely of a verbal character, and he would move such an Amendment at the end of Clause 19. EARL GRANVILLE could not allow the occasion to pass without some observations, though he promised to be merciful in the length of them. The Government were now in the unfortunate position in which he found himself during the five years when he Lord Denman had the honour of conducting the Business of the late Government in this House. Long before this period of the Session he used then to hear strong complaints, many of which came from the leading Opposition Bench, and elaborate speeches against the introduction of Business so late in the Session. He could not help fancying that if he had made the present Motion during these five years, he should have heard the complaints renewed. The thin state of the House would have lent point to those complaints, and he would remind their Lordships that when they divided last week only 19 Peers were present, and by the aid of only two of these 19, the Government were able to sanction an irregularity strongly condemned by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. If during his five official years he had said on such an occasion as this that the Bill was not a new Bill, and had been once considered in this House, the answer would have been that nine pages of Amendments had been made in the Bill in "another place," containing changes not only in important details, but in what had been described as the central principle of the Bill, so that their Lordships had really to consider a new Bill. He believed, also, that if he had stated that the Bill was of an urgent and important character, he should have been told that, while some persons disliked the Bill, and while others liked it, because they thought it might lead to further legislation of which the great majority of their Lordships would not approve, the great mass of persons were very indifferent and, excepting his noble nobody thought the Bill of great imporFriend opposite and the Prime Minister, tance or great urgency. Now, he adhered to the principle which he laid down when in office. He thought the House ought not to refuse to consider Bills, merely because it might be personally inconvenient to them to remain in town so late in the Session; and, as to himself, he did not propose to obstruct the consideration of these Amendments. He thought it was right, however, that their Lordships should look at them a little more closely than seemed to be contemplated by the noble Duke. During the discussions in this House he was bound to say that the noble Duke-not only in his opinion, but in the opinion of others who could speak with much greater authority-conducted the mea some cases very great difficulties would arise on this particular point, and this would greatly multiply the number of persons who, he believed, had already determined not to come under the provisions of the Bill. He trusted that this part of the Bill as it now stood would be altered. He made these remarks in no hostile spirit, although he should not be surprised to find the noble Duke opposite equipping himself in adamantine armour in order to meet his attack. In conclusion, he would hazard no prophecy, but could not help feeling a little alarm at the benediction bestowed on the Bill by a Conservative Member of Parliament, an eminent solicitor in this great town, who said that, whatever other merits it might possess, it was certainly a measure that would be of infinite advantage to the profession to which he belonged. sure through Committee with great of law, in what manner could he be ability, great firmness, and great tact; satisfied whether the landlord was the and according to the view of the noble absolute owner or whether he was only Duke the Bill left this House in a con- a limited owner? He foresaw that in sistent and comprehensive shape. One clause, enabling landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Bill, was thought an awkward and invidious way of securing freedom of contract, and the Government in this House were so impressed with the force of the argument that they omitted the clause. It appeared, however, that the Government had, for the second time, re-considered this subject, for he found that a clause to the same effect had been re-introduced. He now came to a point of much greater importance. Objections were made in the course of the discussions here to the principle of the letting value, but it was 'described as being the essential principle of the Bill. In the other House, however, the Prime Minister-who seemed inclined to differ from his Colleagues, however able and devoted they might be -said the principle had been adopted mainly in the interest of the remainderman, and ended by describing this principle, which their Lordships were told was the essential principle of the Bill, as one which was capricious and fallacious. It was, consequently, omitted from the Bill. He (Earl Granville) rejoiced that that had been done, for he thought that principle would have led to great uncertainty, risk, and fraud. He had now to call attention to the first class of improvements, and with regard to them he found that the tenants of limited owners were put in a perfectly different and an inferior position from the tenants of absolute owners. Both classes were to be compensated in the same way as regarded the original cost; but the former had a limitation imposed upon them that the sum should not exceed the addition made to the letting value of the land. A vicious principle was thus introduced into the measure, because by far the larger number of the tenant farmers of this country held their lands, he believed, under limited owners. He could not conceive anything more unjust than this clause, for why should a limited owner be in a worse position by law than an absolute owner of an estate? It was extremely unfair to the limited owner LORD CARLINGFORD observed, that that he should be overweighted in this the Bill in the shape in which it left competition. Suppose a compensation their Lordships' House was much more case were tried before a land surveyor, favourable to the tenant than it was who would be almost necessarily ignorant now. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, the noble Earl would himself endeavour to equip himself in adamantine armour whenever he expected to come in contact with what he called a hostile spirit. On the present occasion, however, it was unnecessary for him to seek the protection of any very strong adamantine armour; but he would simply reply to the comments of his noble Friend. There was no question that that part of the Bill which related to letting value had been altered in the other House; but it was retained for the purpose for which alone it was absolutely necessarynamely, the protection of the limited owner. It seemed to him to be in the nature of things that the absolute owner must be in a better position than a limited owner. As to the difficulty anticipated by his noble Friend with regard to the land surveyor's decision, he did not think it was at all likely to arise. On so large a subject as the present it was not unlikely nor unreasonable that in the House of Commons there should be various opinions. He believed some of the Amendments to be improvements on the original Bill, and he should therefore propose that they be agreed to. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the observation of the noble Lord who had just spoken was an entirely just one. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the change which had been made in the Bill was made in a House in which there was a considerable number of Representatives, not merely of the owners of land, but also the occupiers of land; and he believed he should be correct in saying that no division was taken against the change in the other House. With regard to the observations of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), he (the Lord Chancellor) desired to say that this was the first measure of the kind with which he was acquainted which allowed the owner of land-that was to say, those who were interested in the possession of land-to enter into contracts with their tenants without either obtaining the consent of, or serving notice upon, the remainderman, and the experience of all of them had been that former legislation on this subject had failed, because tenants for life were required before they could take any steps to improve land, either to obtain the consent of the remainderman or to serve a notice upon him with reference to that subject. With regard to improvements of the second and third class, an owner, who was not an absolute owner, would be just as powerful as the most absolute owner. He might make any agreement with his tenant that he liked within the four corners of this Bill. With regard to improvements of the first class, as to which the noble Earl had spoken, the tenant could not make them without the consent of the landlord. LORD SELBORNE thought that the clause, as amended by the Commons, would be a fruitful source of litigation. The effect would be that whenever a tenant proposed to make an improvement, he would have to inquire into the title of his landlord; and whether he was a limited owner or not, he ventured to say that in 99 out of 100 cases he would simply go and ask whether he might make such and such improvements. There was no reason why a tenant for life should not give compensation on the same principle as an absolute owner. He did not think that the criticism, which had been made upon the Amendments were by any means satisfactorily answered. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, that, speaking as a layman, and looking at the matter in a practical point of view, he wished to make one remark. He did not believe that the portion of the Bill which referred to first-class improvements would receive any extensive application, except in the case of those who were official limited owners. The vast majority of landlords made all these improvements themselves; but an official limited owner, like a Bishop or a clergyman, had not sufficient permanent interest in the estate to make such improvements. As far as other owners were concerned, he believed that in almost any market town the tenant farmers would be able to say which estatestaking in the whole country-were the property of limited owners and which were entailed. As to the objection that the Bill was permissive, the Government thought it absolutely essential to maintain freedom of contract, and the manner in which this object was to be attained they regarded as a mere matter of detail. The advantage of the provision on that subject was, that it would prevent a general issue of notices to quit. Most of their Lordships were now aware that the vast majority of tenants were satisfied with the existing state of things, and would see the adoption of the Bill with considerable reluctance-not because it would not be profitable to them, but because they did not like changes. The Bill had therefore to be framed to meet those cases. It was of great importance, indeed, that the provision in question should not be distasteful to either landlords or tenants, and it was difficult at first to ascertain in what direction their tastes would run. As the discussion went on, however, the Government were enlightened on that point, and he did not see that they had done wrong in accepting an alteration. LORD DENMAN, referring to the opinion of the Duke of Rutland and himself, as to the time of entry in Derbyshire, recommended six months as the term of notice, in order that tenants might be prevented from exhausting the land. Amendment agreed to. Remaining Amendments agreed to, with Amendments. |