MR. PLIMSOLL rose to Order. The hon. Member was discussing a subject that was not under the consideration of the House. MR. BENTINCK, in reference to the | the three Bills he had referred to, it had statement which had been made by the been assumed that the loss of life at sea was hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), mainly occasioned by the unseaworthiin apologizing to the House yesterday ness of the ship; whereas that was, in for the expressions he had used the pre- reality, one of the minor causes of that vious week, said, he must express his loss. The main causes of the loss of life surprise and regret that the hon. Mem- at sea were collisions, strandings, fires, ber should not, either upon that occasion shipping heavy seas, forcing quick or when he rose to speak upon this Bill, passages, bad seamanship, icebergs, and have taken the opportunity of distinctly floating wreck, none of which causes withdrawing the grave charges he had could be made subject to an Act of Parpreferred against hon. Members of that liament. There was another point which House. He understood that the hon. had to be considered in connection with Member, having preferred those charges, the enormous loss of life. He meant the had not withdrawn them. form of ships. A long ship propelled by steam would carry a large amount of cargo with comparatively a small amount of propelling power, and, therefore, she was a peculiarly profitable ship to send to sea for mercantile purposes. But that long ship when she fell in with bad weather ran an unusual risk of being lost. Scores and hundreds of vessels had gone down in stress of weather simply because they had been built out of all reasonable proportion. But was the House to be asked to deal with the form of ships? Then came the question of overloading. This was a question involving great difficulties. It was, perhaps, impossible for anyone who was not a scientific builder to say what was the proper load line for a ship. Were they going to leave this point to be decided by a Board of Trade surveyor, who probably had no knowledge of the subject whatever? And, if so, when was he to decide it-when the ship was built, or when she was going to sea? Then, if they dealt with the question of load line in one sense they must deal with it in the other. Hundreds of ships went to sea without sufficient ballast and were lost in consequence. Therefore, Parliament would have to consider the case of vessels which were not loaded enough. How were they going to deal with them? Were they going to say that a ship must be loaded up to a certain mark? It was obvious that they must take the question both ways. He believed that, if statistics could be procured as to the number of ships lost from being overloaded and the number lost from not being sufficiently loaded, the latter would be found to form the majority. He would not impede the progress of the Bill, because they were bound to carry something; but he hoped the House would bear in mind the warning MR. SPEAKER ruled that the hon. Member for West Norfolk was in Order. MR. BENTINCK, continuing, said, he also regretted the fact that the hon. Member for Derby had not told them it was his intention to prosecute these charges. He (Mr. Bentinck) therefore hoped that the hon.Member for Plymouth would persevere in the course of which he had given Notice, and would move for a Committee, whose Report he hoped would entirely exonerate the latter from the charges made against him by the hon. Member for Derby, if they had not been already altogether refuted by the conclusive statements which had been made by the hon. Member for Plymouth to-day. He ventured to ask leave to say a few words with regard to this Bill, because it appeared to him that the further the House got into the subject the greater were the difficulties that had to be encountered, and the more hopeless did a settlement of the matter seem. With respect to grain loading, for instance, he was informed that loading corn in sacks would very much enhance its market price. The object of the House of Commons, stimulated as it was into action by the agitation now going on out-of-doors, was to prevent loss of life at sea; but it appeared to him that neither the original nor the present Bill of the Government, nor the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, really touched the main causes of that loss of life. It had been said by the highest authority that upon a careful examination of the Wreck Register it was a question whether any legislation could have an appreciable effect in diminishing the loss of life at sea. In all of the noble Lord near him (Lord Esling- | discussions. There might sometimes be ton) that if the powers given were a tendency on their part-and it was a carried out in a spirit not conciliatory, natural tendency-to overrate the diffithe effect might be to destroy altogether culties, but surely it would be in the our coasting trade. He had no wish to highest degree unwise to ignore the sugdiscourage those who might be appointed gestions which came from those shipsurveyors, but he could not help thinking owners, who had practical experience in of the immense powers they would wield, the various matters which it was the and of the enormous amount of capital duty of the House to consider, and who over which they would exercise un- knew the subject best. With regard to limited control, if they were allowed on the Bill before the House, he was one of their own responsibility and judgment to those who felt that in adopting some of stop a ship from going to sea. Then as the measures which were recommended to this survey of which they had heard there was considerable danger, and did so much. A ship was to be stopped and not think that those who were desirous was to be surveyed. Some hon. Mem- of legislating on this matter would gain bers might not be aware, however, that anything by shutting their eyes to those in order to be properly surveyed a ship dangers. The question of a load line must discharge her cargo, must be taken was one of the utmost importance, but into a dry dock, and must be stripped of was surrounded with grave difficulties. her copper, and that might mean ruin to His hon. Friend the Member for Pemthe shipowner. He hoped those to broke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had said that whom the work of inspection was en- every time a ship left port, the officials trusted would bear in mind the grave of the Board of Trade could fix a load responsibility which devolved upon them line; but an enormous fallacy underlay and that in trying to do good they would that theory. The officials might, of not really do harm in carrying out the course, tell when a ship was overloaded, duties they had to perform. These were but they could not, and did not, fix an points for the consideration of the House, exact line. The proposal that every shipand whatever was done respecting them, owner should fix his own load line was he hoped that nothing would be carried not surrounded by so many disadvanout which would damage the great mer- tages, although he did not believe that cantile interests of this country. its employment could be so regulated as to secure that saving of human life which they all desired. There was con MR. HERSCHELL, referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) on the pre-siderable danger connected with legisceding evening, as to the number of Amendments placed on the Paper with reference to the Bill which had been withdrawn, denied that in doing so he had had any desire to obstruct the progress of the Bill. It had been said that they must give satisfaction to the country. What they ought to do, rather, was to give satisfation to their own consciences. Nothing could be more dangerous than a competition of philanthropy on this subject. It seemed to him that justice had hardly been done to the shipowners in the discussions which had taken place upon this subject. As far as he had seen, they had had no desire whatever to impede the progress of legislation, but, on the contrary, had been animated by an honest wish to make the Government measure as good as possible. He had seen none of that esprit de corps, blinding them to the vices of the present system, which had been suggested as the characteristic of these VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] lating on the load line, and, therefore, the subject ought to be approached in a calm and dispassionate spirit. But, at the end of the Session, there would be a disposition to accept without discussion that which, at another time, would not be accepted. Then, with regard to the compulsory survey of unclassed ships, the danger was that, while diminishing the responsibility of the shipowner, they would only lull themselves into a false security, and would not get what they wanted. At the present moment there were 6,000 unclassed ships, and he asked where were they going to get the army of Inspectors to survey them? Shipowners who were wicked enough knowingly to send out unseaworthy ships would not stop short at an attempt to bribe the surveyors who might be appointed, and he thought it would be a matter almost of impossibility to obtain so large a number of surveyors as would be required for this purpose, and to be K sure that they were all men of the necessary knowledge, and the necessary honour and probity. Besides, a survey perpetually carried on by the Government would be a dangerous thing. He had been engaged in a great many cases where the ship was undoubtedly unseaworthy, but where she had been surveyed and had excellent reports from persons who would be said to be competent. Therefore, let it not be supposed if we were to have a Government. survey that we should have security. But if we had the machinery, it might be well to have occasional surveys. Just as general domiciliary visits would be objectionable, while a raid into a given district or street to put down crime would be allowable, so single surveys for the purpose of weeding out unseaworthy ships might be useful. But then as to another matter, the loading of grain in bulk, that was an evil which could be ascertained without that special skill and knowledge which would be required in the matters to which he had just alluded. Here it would be seen at once that the shipowner had not done his duty, and upon that point legislation was essential, seeing that the winter was coming on, that there was likely to be an enormous influx of grain, and that, if things were left as they were, numbers of our sailors might go to the bottom. Again, in the matter of deck cargoes, there was a source of danger to which we could not shut our eyes, and shipowners themselves admitted it. There was no insuperable difficulty in dealing with that evil, and he would urge the Government to deal with it. He earnestly hoped that the House might, before the close of the Session, pass a satisfactory measure-a measure which they might be able to look upon with satisfaction as likely to result in the saving of the lives of their fellow-subjects-the saving of the lives of a body of men to whose manly courage they were so much indebted, and who united with that courage an almost childish simplicity and helplessness which urgently called for sympathy and aid. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, he only rose to offer one suggestion to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade, that the Inspectors to be appointed, while they looked after the seaworthiness of vessels, would also take care that a sufficient number of boats should be provided both for passengers and crew, in case of any disaster occurring at sea. MR. GOSCHEN said, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer must feel that the indulgence he bespoke for the Government measure had been accorded to it, and that considering the gravity of its provisions and its somewhat unusual character, the House had treated the measure with impartiality and fairness. The right hon. Gentleman, as some excuse for its imperfections, spoke of its being proposed in an emergency. doubt, the emergency existed, and he (Mr. Goschen) would not inquire into the causes which had produced it; but the indulgence he bespoke for the Bill was, what might be asked for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act after Government had shown themselves unable properly to organize the police. This was practically a proposal to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act as regarded shipowners, and he thought the House generally would feel that the proposals of the Government Bill, stringent as they were, had been received with fairness by the shipowners. As what he stated on a former occasion had been referred to by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), he begged to explain that what he did say was that the Bill was not so stringent as might have been expected from the first announcement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He did not give any opinion as to whether the Bill went too far or did not go far enough. Of course, it was a stringent Bill, and was only justified by the emergency in which the Government and the country found itself. The Bill must be treated from two points of view-from that which it included and from that which it excluded. The debate that day had rather been with regard to the topics which it excluded than upon the provisions which it contained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly invited attention to the points which were omitted from the Bill-the regulation of grain cargoes, the regulation of deck cargoes, compulsory survey, and the question of the load line. The right hon. Gentleman assented to the discussion in Committee of deck loads and grain cargoes, but rather demurred to any discussion in Committee of the. questions of compulsory survey and load line. The House, however, \ would remember that the hon. Member | drawn, dealing with deck cargoes and for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) refrained from cargoes of grain. The hon. Member for pressing his own Bill, because he ex- Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) understood pected, and was led by the Government it would be open to him to raise in Comto expect, that he would be able to raise mittee the questions to the discussion of many principles embodied in his own which the Government assented, and Bill in Committee on the Government which he hoped they would consent to Bill, and it was because of that that he deal with; and he retained his perfect yielded discussion, and therefore he (Mr. freedom on the questions of compulsory Goschen) trusted the Government would survey and a load line, as to which it not think it necessary to prevent the dis- would be well that the public should not cussion of those points, whatever might derive the impression that the discussion be their own views upon them. Some of those subjects had been shirked in parts of the question had been most ably any way. He (Mr. Goschen) trusted the discussed that day, and he congratulated Bill would pass that Session, and that the hon. and learned Member for Dur- the several matters to which he had ham (Mr. Herschell) upon the able drawn attention would be considered in speech he had just made on the subject Committee, with the view of making the of load line and compulsory survey, in measure as complete as possible under which he had stated his opinions on what the circumstances. might be called the less popular side of the question with so much courage, frankness, and ability. It was most important that opinions should be expressed on both sides of these questions with freedom and frankness. The Government might be perfectly certain that even if those subjects were discussed, they would be discussed not with the view of obstructing, but facilitating the progress of the measure. A practical and businesslike discussion on those subjects in the House of Commons would tend to quiet the public mind. It would also facilitate business if the Government had a distinct policy upon the question of deck loading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not disposed to admit that it could be dealt with; at the same time he had left it open to the Government to adopt regulations should it be the opinion of the House that such regulations should be passed. As it was evident they would make some regulations under pressure, it would be much more business-like and practical if they would at once set to work to prepare a clause to be introduced into their Bill. The same remark applied to the question of grain cargoes. The Bill would only deal with outward-bound ships; there was no provision in it which touched ships coming to this country. On that head, he did not think the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at all conclusive. It might be possible to deal with deck cargoes coming from foreign countries. Even at that time of the Session, he thought shipowners would be ready to accept of clauses, if carefully MR. MAC IVER said, that the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), in his admirable and eloquent speech, had misstated the case of those who advocated survey and a load line. Referring to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington), he (Mr. MacIver) said, there was no difficulty in knowing what was done in Montreal. The same thing was done voluntarily at every port in the United States at which grain was shipped; there was no difficulty in saying what ought to be done, but there was difficulty in expressing it in the clauses of an Act of Parliament, and he guarded himself against accepting the proposals of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) as they stood. He hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill without a division; and he wished to congratulate the Government upon the excellent spirit and intention in which their measure was conceived. He thought it afforded a better opportunity for fairly debating the only questions of immediate importance than was possible with regard to the voluminous measure which had been abandoned. There were other questions of importance in regard to which he had ventured to give Notice yesterday, in the hope that, after matters had been sufficiently discussed amongst the parties interested, the Government would themselves bring in by-and-by a complete measure for consolidation and amendment of the laws relating to Merchant Shipping, and would also bear in mind that the in creased duties which railways and shipping had brought upon the Board of Trade rendered every day more necessary some considerable change in regard to the economy of the Department. If the withdrawal of his proposed Amendments would facilitate in any way the passing of the measure, he would cheerfully place them on one side. He had just received a letter from a London solicitor of very considerable experience in regard to shipping, which was so entirely apropos that he would read an extract from it to the House. The writer said— "The saddle is being put on the wrong horse. The Government is not to blame; the late Government did exactly as they have done, or, indeed, they did worse. Sir Charles Adderley has done his best, and Mr. Disraeli very likely spoke the simple truth, when he said he withdrew the Bill with regret. The real blame rests with the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. They made the Royal Commission a delusion, and got the present Government first to propose a monstrous measure, and then to shrink from a discussion of it." of survey was a bad one? In regard to Those views were very widely held, and MR. RATHBONE said, there were MR. MAC IVER interrupted, and said that his hon. Friend (Mr. Rathbone) had stopped in the middle of a sentence; and that the next few words,. which it did not suit his hon. Friend to MR. DISRAELI: I wish, Sir, to impress upon the House the necessity of remembering that it is of the greatest importance, especially on a subject upon which we are mainly agreed-to read this Bill a second time, and I trust that |