SIR JOHN HAY really hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, or re-introduce the clause from their own Bill upon this subject. It would be most advantageous that a load line should be tried experimentally before the general question was discussed next Session. The danger of overloading arose chiefly in regard to ships homeward bound, and a load line would restrain the agent from overloading in a foreign port.

MR. GOSCHEN thought that, as the | Government would either agree to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member proposal under discussion, or would infor Hull approximated closely to that of sert a clause authorizing the Board of the Government in the Bill which had Trade to frame regulations with respect been withdrawn, the right hon. Gentle- to a load line. If the record were enman the President of the Board of Trade tered at the Custom House, it would ought to meet the proposal half-way, so give information to the public as well as as to arrive at a satisfactory compromise. the Board of Trade. It, however, seemed that the right hon. Gentleman had been so impressed with the criticisms made upon his own proposal that though the House appeared to be nearly unanimous in wishing to deal with the question of the load line, he himself seemed indisposed to accept the passing of his own clause unless after careful discussion. Hon. Members opposite would admit that every disposition had been shown by the supporters of the views of the hon. Member for Derby to arrive at a compromise on all burning questions, in order to pass a satisfactory Bill that Session, and he ventured to appeal to the Government whether, if they saw the Committee were willing to deal with the question of the load line without a prolonged discussion, they could not relieve them in regard to it? If the Government objected to the clause of the hon. Member for Hull, would they again propose their own clause and stand by it? If the Govern-harm, and would certainly do some good. ment should determine to oppose the fixing of a certain load line, he believed that they would be opposing themselves to the general feeling of the Committee on the subject.

LORD ESLINGTON said, he was convinced that of all the modes of fixing a load line, the one here proposed was the best, coinciding, as it did, with the recommendation of the Royal Commission that responsibility should be thrown on the shipowners, and he thought it would be wise on the part of the Government to accept it either wholly or in substance. As the load line was acknowledged to be an experiment, he thought it was particularly appropriate that it should be embodied in a temporary measure.

MR. HERSCHELL said, that the advantages of the Amendment more than counterbalanced the objections which had been urged against it. He was strongly opposed to a compulsory load line, and to anything which would relieve the shipowner of full responsibility; but as the general feeling of the Committee evidently appeared to be in favour of such a proposition, he hoped the VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

MR. SAMUDA said, there appeared to be such a general agreement of opinion with reference to the principle of this Amendment, that he ventured to make another appeal to the Government in favour of an owner's load line. There was a clause in the Bill which would require very little change in order to remedy the existing defect of the Bill. A load line marked by the voluntary action of the shipowners could do no

He would accept it in the broadest form, and leave it the Government to draw up the clause themselves. By throwing the responsibility of load lines on the shipowners themselves, they would be adopting the best mode of proceeding, and let them be accountable in purse and person to those who suffered by their negligence.

MR. BATES suggested that the words "to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade" should be omitted. Those words would take away all responsibility from the shipowner, a course which he decidedly favoured.

MR. T. BRASSEY said, he should not have signed the Report of the Commission against a fixed load line had they not been assured by the permanent officials of the Board of Trade that they might rest assured that the powers conferred upon the Department by the Act of 1873 for the purpose of preventing overladen vessels from proceeding to sea would be exercised with such vigour that overloading would, in future, be entirely prohibited. The event had proved that the Act had been less

Р

successful in checking overloading than | authenticity to the process, and that it in dealing with vessels having defective would lead to public deception, which hulls, and he therefore supported the would be of a dangerous and in some Amendment. He was of opinion that circumstances of a ruinous character. the shipowner's load line would be very The third proposition was now before valuable, as indicating to the officers of the House-that Parliament should call the Board of Trade what were the inten- upon the shipowner to define his load tions of the shipowner, and enabling the line, and to take the consequences, if it surveyor to issue his prohibition when could be shown that his definition was he saw that there was a risk of a ship not founded upon trustworthy circumbeing overloaded. He would also sug- stances and conditions. Speaking genegest the desirability of inserting a Pro- rally, that was the policy which Her viso to prevent the evil of overloading Majesty's Government adopted in the ships in foreign ports. If the load line conception of their original Bill, and he of the ship at a foreign port were duly must confess, feeling still as he did how notified to the Consul before sailing, much might be said in favour of a load there would be available information line, that he was very anxious to see it which might be brought before a Court satisfactorily arranged. He thought of Inquiry, in the event of the ship being that calling upon the shipowner to delost. As a proof that some such precau- fine his own load line and to accompany tion was necessary, the owners of a great that duty with certain conditions and number of ships which took cargoes regulations was a course which they from the Black Sea, and were lost in might adopt at the present moment. He the Bay of Biscay, were allowed to must say, however, that as far as he escape the ordeal of an inquiry, because could form an opinion he could not no information was obtainable as to the sanction the adoption of the Amendment condition of the hull or the extent of proposed by the hon. Member for Hull loading. (Mr. Norwood). There appeared to be in it many points which were objectionable, and it was a proposition which, under any circumstances, would require great consideration and criticism. In the first place, he objected very much, if this course was adopted, to the Board of Trade being at all called into action in the matter. His hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates) had called attention to one sentence in the Proviso-namely, "The Board of Trade may exempt any class of ship from the requirements of these sections or any of them." That was a responsibility which ought not to be forced upon the Government at this moment. It was a greater degree of responsibility than ought to be imposed on any Government, and what he was prepared to suggest for the adoption of the Committee was a course which he believed, on the whole, would meet the exigencies of the case. It was that the Government should be permitted on the Report to bring up a clause conceived in the spirit of their own proposition in their own original Bill, and accompanied with such other clauses as might be thought expedient. If his proposal were accepted by the Committee, he should be prepared to carry it into execution, and if not-which he should much regret-le should feel it to be his duty

MR. DISRAELI said, there were three modes of dealing with the question. First of all the load line might be defined by the Government; secondly, it might be defined by the shipowner without the sanction of the Government, but with a record kept by the Government; and thirdly, it might be defined by the shipowner, without any record at all on the part of the Government. On the first point it was unnecessary now to express an opinion, and it was not one which need be argued at this moment, for all those who had given attention to the subject—and he flattered himself that they were now the large majority of the House-must feel that it was not the least difficult of the questions connected with the administration of the Mercantile Marine. It was a question which would require long discussion and very patient debate; and he did not think the country would be satisfied if they arrived at any conclusion upon it in haste or excitement. With regard to the second propositionnamely, that the shipowner should define a load line, and then that the Government should be required to record without sanctioning it, that appeared to him to be extremely dangerous. He thought it would have a tendency to give a false

to vote against the Amendment of the | from the Bill he (Mr. Norwood) had hon. Member for Hull. introduced.

MR. T. BRASSEY said, that if the Committee had not come to a decision the Royal Commission had. They had reported against deck cargoes of timber, and as to other deck cargoes in the Canadian Mutual Insurance Clubs there were certain rules regulating the carrying of deck loads, and he could not see why such rules should not be accepted by the House of Commons, as tending to promote the safety of life at sea.

SIR JOHN HAY said, that the ques- | the functions of the officers of the Board tion was full of intricate perplexities. of Trade, and of course the Department He had been a Member of a Committee would give proper instructions on that to inquire into this and kindred subjects subject to its officers, and the latter for three or four months, and they were would act in concert with the Departunable to come to a conclusion upon it or ment, and would prevent anything even to agree as to what the upper deck dangerous occurring with regard to deck was. He, therefore, hoped-knowing loads in outward-bound ships. As far, with what difficulties the question was therefore, as outward cargoes were consurrounded-that a Committee of the cerned, there was no object in introWhole House would not attempt to de- ducing into the Bill such a Proviso as cide upon it hastily. was suggested by the hon. Member. The hon. Member's clause, however, had a further bearing, because he proposed that it should apply, not only to outwardbound, but to homeward-bound ships also. It was, however, a matter of considerable difficulty, as well as of delicacy, to deal with homeward-bound vessels, and the Committee would do well to pause before it proceeded to determine the question. It was only when a ship arrived in safety on her homeward voyage that it could be ascertained that the regulations as to loading had been violated, and it would be rather a hard thing to punish a man for having made a successful voyage. Therefore the object desired must be attained by one of two ways, either by enforcing by agreement with foreign nations the regulations under this Bill, or by making it the interest of the shipowner to carry out those regulations. But in order to do that, they would have to enter into the vexed question of tonnage and measurement, and to define what was, and what was not, a deck. Under those circumstances, therefore, in his opinion the Committee would be acting unwisely in hastily adopting this proposal, otherwise they would run the risk of endangering the national interests. Complaints with regard to deck cargoes of timber ships coming from America and Canada had ever since the Royal Commission sat been dealt with to a great extent by the legislation of Canada, and by the regulations which America had adopted. It should be remembered that homeward-bound cargoes could not be dealt with in a moment like outward cargoes. He, therefore, thought it would be very unwise to plunge into the question raised by the Amendment, and to settle it in the summary manner proposed. On the whole, therefore, he could not accept the hon. Member's clause.

MR. SAMUDA said, that timber cargoes had been condemned by the Commissioners, but they were very different from other cargoes which were carried on deck, and to which the clause would apply. He suggested that it would be better if it could be made the interest of the shipowner himself to prevent the carrying of deck cargo by requiring him to state, when registering his tonnage, whether his ship was intended to carry deck cargo, in which case he should be compelled to pay tonnage dues to the amount of cargo that was to be so carried. Especial care should be taken that the vessel was fitted to encounter the extra risk, so that the owner might be indisposed to carry such

cargoes.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he wished to point out to the Committee that the discussion upon the clause was running rather wide of the real question before them. The Bill of the Government was founded upon the principle of giving powers to certain officers of the Board of Trade to deal with ships outward bound, and that such officers were to exercise their important and responsible functions under the immediate eye of the Government. The Board of Trade would report what its officers did, and that Department would have immediate and ample powers for keeping its officers under its own control. The regulation of the deck cargoes outwards would come within the scope of

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor