Chapter XVII (2)

“It is said that if there were no advance note, the crimp in a foreign or colonial port would not have the same inducement to entice the sailor to desert.

“After careful consideration of the numerous evils attending this mode of prepayment, we recommend that advance notes should be declared illegal, that no payment or order for payment made in advance for wages shall be a discharge for the payment of any portion of a seaman’s wages when due, and that no money paid by a Shipowner to or for a seaman shall be debited to the seaman, except wages already earned, the allotment notes, and the cost of such supplies as the seamen may receive after joining the ship.

“There will be some inconvenience felt at first from the abolition of the existing system of advance notes, and there will be perhaps considerable opposition to the change in the ports, and amongst the lodging-house keepers, who profit by these notes. We feel, however, convinced that unless this mischievous mode of payment be discontinued, the seamen will never be raised from their servile dependence on crimps, and taught to rely on their own industry and intelligence.”[306]

[Sidenote: Over-insurance.]

But there is a question of quite as great importance to which I shall again have occasion to refer when I review the history of our steam companies, and show the remarkably small amount of loss that some of them have sustained through the system and order prevailing on board their vessels. _There we shall see how losses are prevented._ In the meantime, we should do well to inquire how losses are encouraged by allowing policies of insurance to be effected for a greater amount than the value of the ship or the cargo she contains.

[Sidenote: Views of Mr. T. H. Farrer.]

A contract of marine insurance is in its essence a contract of indemnity, and the spirit of the contract is violated if the assured can make the occurrence of a loss the means of gain. But the law has allowed a very considerable deviation from this fundamental principle. Mr. T. H. Farrer, in his evidence, happily illustrates this in the case of a ship with a chartered freight, bound from London to Calcutta and back.[307] He supposes her to be lost on her outward passage in the Bay of Biscay. Presuming that the owner only insured her prudently and not exorbitantly, he would recover in this case not merely the value of the ship at the commencement of the voyage, but also the freight of the outward and homeward voyages, while he would be exempted from paying the seamen’s wages from the date of the disaster, the expenses necessary to carry his ship to Calcutta, to remain there, and to return on her homeward passage, so that he would be, actually, a very considerable gainer by the loss.[308] Nor is the matter less flagrant in the case of valued policies, when the value of the property is fixed by agreement beforehand between the assured and the underwriter. The effect of this, as the Commissioners justly remark,[309] is, “that unless the policy is altogether void, on account of fraud, or the concealment of a material fact, the assured can, in the case of a total loss, receive the value which has been stated in the policy, however much it may exceed the actual worth of his property.” In confirmation of their opinion, they add “that, in certain decided cases, the Shipowner has been allowed to recover 50 and even 100 per cent. more than the actual value of his vessel.”

[Sidenote: Evidence of other witnesses.]

Various witnesses recommended that, in case of a total loss, the underwriter should be allowed to question a valued policy, when he considered that the value had been overstated; but many Shipowners and underwriters objected to this proposal, contending that, where a value had been agreed on between the Shipowners and underwriter, subsequent interference would be mischievous or futile, as it might induce Shipowners to insure abroad. It was contended that the value of a ship might depend on a variety of circumstances; for instance, the loss of a steamer to a Shipowner, about to start a new line of steam communication, would be inadequately replaced by the cost of the vessel, though estimated values of this sort are very problematical.

As regards insurance of freight, it was further suggested that the Shipowner should not, in case of total loss, be entitled to recover his freight, without deducting the expense saved to him by reason of the loss of the vessel. On the other hand, it was alleged that the necessity of estimating these uninsured expenses would give rise to doubt, difficulty, and litigation, and that, if the suggestion were adopted, the Shipowner would be to a great extent deprived of the legitimate advantage he now enjoys of being able to obtain with facility an advance on his freight.

[Sidenote: Opinion of the Commissioners.]

After carefully considering all these matters, the Commissioners arrived at the conclusion that they ought not to recommend any alteration of the law with regard to valued policies in cases of total loss, as there were weighty reasons against any interference on the part of the Legislature with contracts made by persons capable of taking care of their own interests, without carefully ascertaining the effect this interference was likely to produce on the entire system of law relating to such contracts. But they were of opinion that the “whole system of insurance law requires complete revision, for not only does it allow the assured, in some cases, to recover more than the amount of the loss actually sustained by him, but it also, on the other hand, deprives him of an indemnity in cases in which he ought to be protected by his insurance.”

The Commissioners, however, with great force, remark, that “a complete and thorough revision of our laws relating to marine insurance is a task of equal importance, difficulty, and delicacy, requiring evidence of an extensive character, and necessitating a very lengthy and careful investigation, and it touches directly on so many subjects unconnected with the security of life at sea, on which it has only an indirect and somewhat remote bearing, that we do not think it properly falls within the scope of our commission. We should also have been reluctant to undertake the complete revision of our system of marine insurance law, because, for many reasons, it appears to us to be important that, before such a task is undertaken, an attempt should be made to induce foreign nations to concur with us in framing and adopting a general code of insurance law. To alter the English law of marine insurance to any considerable extent, might have the effect of throwing the business of insurance into the hands of foreigners, and there is so much insurance of foreign property in England, as well as of English property abroad, that it is most desirable that the law of insurance should, as far as possible, be the same among all commercial nations. An examination of the foreign codes leads us to hope that there would be found no insuperable difficulty in the way of attaining this important object.”

Although the Commissioners do not at present recommend any alteration to be made in the law relating to valued policies, they think that the Shipowner should not be able to recover his insurance, whether under a time or voyage policy, in cases where it is shown that he or his agent had not done everything reasonably within their power to make and maintain the ship in a seaworthy condition, where that unseaworthiness occasioned the loss. They further consider that the Shipowner’s liability for damage to property or person should be unlimited in cases involving the death of the seaman or the damage to person or property. They are also of opinion that the present system by which insurance cases are tried before a judge and jury is altogether unsatisfactory, as a single judge and two assessors would constitute a far better tribunal. In conclusion, they recommend that the Marine Department of the Board should be revised and strengthened by having a legal adviser exclusively attached to it (a recommendation which has been since carried out). “It will,” they remark, “be the duty of the Board of Trade to check the negligent and to punish the culpable shipowner, but it is desirable that these functions should be performed without harassing the great body of Shipowners, who, by their ability and indefatigable energy, have contributed to the prosperity of the empire.”

I have now endeavoured to give as succinct an account of the whole course of the maritime legislation of the British Empire and its effects upon ships, seamen, and commerce as my space will permit, from the earliest period up to the close of the year 1875. Although it is not the province of an historian to enter upon controversial questions, much less to dive into the future, yet history is of little value unless we can gain knowledge from the past which can be made useful hereafter. I may therefore be permitted to close this volume with a few remarks on the subject of further maritime legislation, especially as the subject is one to which an unusual amount of public attention has been devoted during the last two or three years, and as it has been, officially, announced that it will be again dealt with by Government in the ensuing Session of Parliament.

[Sidenote: Too much legislation already.]

Shipowners say that there is far too much legislation already, and I certainly agree with them; but when they charge the Government as they do, and especially the Board of Trade, or rather Mr. T. H. Farrer, as its permanent Secretary, with forcing all this over-legislation upon them, I must remind them of the facts. What Government did, and did wisely and well, as I have endeavoured to show, was to frame such mercantile marine laws as had become essential after the repeal of the Navigation Laws. The laws then passed have, unquestionably, been of great service, not merely to the nation, but to Shipowners themselves. Having completed all that was considered necessary, Government directed its attention to the amendment, as cases for its necessity arose, and to the consolidation of existing laws; and I can, of my own knowledge, state that Mr. Farrer has, since then, opposed all further legislation which had for its object the interference with the details of a Shipowner’s duty. But the House of Commons would not allow Government to rest with its good work. “Independent members” of that House, actuated by various motives, some of them not very clearly defined, commenced to “amend” (?) in their own way, these laws (see Hansard’s ‘Reports of Parliamentary Proceedings’), by proposing numerous fresh clauses and fresh Bills which, if Government had not resisted, would most likely have doubled the existing number of the mercantile marine statutes. They next commenced to introduce Bills of their own, to teach Shipowners how to construct and equip their vessels. Among the first of these measures was the Act to test chains and anchors, introduced by Sir J. D. H. Elphinstone and the late Mr. John Laird. So far from that Bill receiving the approval of Government, when I moved its rejection,[310] was strongly supported by Mr. Milner Gibson, the then President of the Board of Trade. We were, however, defeated, and the Bill passed and became law.

Encouraged by this success, other independent members followed, and, since then, most of the measures connected with the mercantile marine of this country have been forced upon Government either by Bills introduced by individual members, or by questions asked, or by deputations from interested constituencies, or “philanthropists,” who, however good in their intentions, are, too frequently, mischievously ignorant of the subjects they force upon the attention of Parliament. No one of my readers conversant with these matters can say that the Bills of the last three or four years, except so far as necessary amendments, were Government measures. They were nearly all forced upon the executive, while the only real and valuable measure of Government, the consolidation and codification of existing laws, has been, Session after Session, rejected, or, at least, “shunted” aside by the House of Commons.

For more than two centuries we attempted to regulate our maritime commerce by means of the Navigation Laws and their innumerable additions and amendments, the fallacy of which I have endeavoured in these volumes to expose; yet we are now following the same course our forefathers adopted by attempting, by means of a library of Mercantile Marine Laws, to regulate the details of the business of our Shipowners. Commerce, in all its branches, flourishes most when left alone. Leave our Shipowners alone, except when they do wrong. Leave them to manage their own affairs in such a manner as they consider most conducive to their own interests, and we may rest assured that, if they have a fair and free field and no special favours, they will maintain, against all nations, the maritime supremacy of England.

[Sidenote: Necessity of a Mercantile Marine Code,]

My advice, therefore, to the House of Commons, if an old member may venture to give it, would be to do nothing next Session in the way of fresh legislation, but to confine itself to necessary amendments, and to the codification of existing laws, so that Shipowners may have one law for their guidance; at present they are bewildered by the numerous fragmentary laws now in force. But, in addition to whatever reorganisation and changes may be found necessary, increased facilities would still seem requisite for the immediate payment of seamen’s wages on their discharge; and, though the mode of inquiry into the causes of the loss of life and property at sea has already been altered, greater rigour is still demanded for such inquiries, and more prompt means of detecting and punishing persons who ignorantly or negligently lose the vessels in which they serve. In cases of wilful loss, which I hope and believe are of rare occurrence, the law cannot be too prompt, too stringent, nor too severe. A man who _wilfully_ loses his ship, I rank without hesitation with the “villain and the murderer.”

[Sidenote: and of more prompt punishment in criminal cases.]

Nor should I have much more mercy on the Shipowner who recklessly loses his ship, or who is accessory to her loss; and I should subject to punishment, though in a different and more modified form, any Shipowner who, either ignorantly or negligently, sends his ship to sea in an unseaworthy state. In these matters, the law is still open to improvement, both as regards greater facilities for the discovery of crime and its prompt punishment, arising, as this does, in no small degree, from its too complex character.

Although the Shipowner is now made liable for criminal neglect, and cannot, by contract, relieve himself from this liability, such neglect is difficult of proof, and a jury deciding against a Shipowner on a question of damages, may, often, hesitate to make him criminally responsible. If it were possible to enforce this liability in all cases where guilty; if every Shipowner were made to feel that the proper construction, equipment, loading, manning, and navigation of his ship were matters to which it was his duty to attend, and if these duties were enforced, it would produce much more salutary effects in the way of saving life and property at sea than any Government surveys with a legion of inspectors at their back: each one of these relieves the Shipowner from a duty which belongs to him alone, and relieves, or, at the least, might relieve, him from a part of his responsibility; for if, as in the case of compulsory pilotage, a Shipowner is relieved from responsibility in case of accident, he cannot, in common justice, be held criminally liable when he has acted in conformity with such laws as have been passed for his guidance and control.

Whether it would be possible, as has been recommended, to establish by positive enactment an absolute and indefeasible obligation on the part of every Shipowner to his shippers, passengers, and underwriters, that he and the agents to whom he trusts his ships, shall do all in their power to make and _keep_ his ship seaworthy, is a problem I am not, at present, prepared to solve; moreover, it raises numerous questions of great difficulty and delicacy.

Some amendments may be, also, required in the tonnage and measurement law, which, though, as I have already explained, now a vast improvement on any previous law, still presents features of hardship alike on Shipowners and seamen, as, in the case of the latter, frequent instances occur where the law is evaded by the stowage of cargo or stores in spaces appointed by the present Act for the accommodation of the crew.

Such are the leading measures which may still require the attention of the Legislature; but, before closing my remarks, I desire my readers to recollect the existence of a Merchant Shipping Code, which has not yet become law. It embraces all the laws relating to Merchant Shipping, and if the First Minister would take up this Bill and amend it in detail, he would not merely confer a boon on the largest shipping community the world has ever seen, but one by which his name would be long remembered.

If the Legislature did nothing else during the ensuing Session, it would be a Session well spent: ten clear sittings[311] would, however, suffice, if there was a determination on both sides of the House to allow no party spirit to interfere. Nor should any such feeling be displayed, for the questions now to be considered are almost wholly of an executive and not of a political character; while all the materials are now ready, the lengthened inquiries and discussions to which almost every point except insurance (and on this there must be further inquiry before there is any legislation) has been already subjected, render further discussion, in a great measure, unnecessary.

[Sidenote: Concluding remarks on the extraordinary progress of British shipping.]

I have endeavoured to show how much progress has been made during the last quarter of a century—a progress eminently due to the repeal of our Navigation Laws and to many of the earlier measures of the Board of Trade, in confirmation of which I may point to the magnificent ships now produced, to the enormous extent of our mercantile fleets,[312] as compared with those of all other nations, and to the superiority of our officers to what they were before the repeal of the Navigation Laws.

There is, nevertheless, a wide and noble field in which the statesman might employ his power and genius to great advantage, and earn for himself an imperishable name. The means are now in a great measure at his disposal. But he must decide between two principles. He must not, on the one hand, give way to the question of sentiment or to the popular cry that merchant ships and their cargoes shall be under Government survey, and, at the same time, hold Shipowners responsible for acts which legislation has placed beyond their control. If he adopts the former course, he must double or treble the existing staff of officials; but I venture to warn him that, in so doing, he will place a canker-worm at the root of our maritime greatness, which will as surely destroy the mighty fabric we have raised by individual genius, energy, and skill, as ever did the “dry rot” in our wooden ships of war and commerce.

Seeing what our Shipowners have already accomplished, he might to advantage afford them facilities for _self-government_. The means, as I have shown, are already at his disposal. We have Lloyd’s Register, with its large staff of competent surveyors ready to aid, at our disposal, as also a similar association in Liverpool. We have mercantile marine boards, elected by popular constituencies, at all the leading seaports in the kingdom, under whose supervision the shipping officers are now placed, as well as the examination of all masters and mates. Leave them as they are; but, as I understand that these boards are not overburdened by the duties now devolving on them, could not their duties in relation to the crews be extended and some arrangement be made whereby these different institutions, formed into one, two, or more central and district boards, might perform all the work of detail now required by Parliament? By some such amalgamation everything the country requires could be done more economically and efficiently than at present.

Lloyd’s Registry now tests all anchors and chains as required by Parliament, without any disturbance of their functions or the work for which they were originally constituted, the voluntary classification of ships. Why should we not place in their hands such duties connected with the ship herself as the regulation of load-lines, certification of seaworthiness, if found expedient, and the supervision of all matters of detail which Parliament may consider necessary, in the construction, equipment, loading, and navigation of our ships? All these matters would be much better done by a popularly elected board chosen from merchant Shipowners and underwriters than by any Department of the Government. In their hands might be safely placed the appointment of surveyors: one Department of this new Board attending to the hull of the ship, the other to her navigation, as at present; all these matters being subject, of course, to such regulations as Parliament might consider it expedient to impose, and represented in Parliament by the President of the Board of Trade, or, in lieu thereof, by a Secretary of State for Commerce, should that be desirable.

I merely throw out these remarks for consideration, being aware that many obstacles, though few real difficulties, would require to be overcome in carrying out some such re-organisation as I venture to suggest. But whatever changes Ministers may consider most expedient to adopt, they must not lightly tamper with the merchant fleets which the skill and genius of our people have created, or with the position they have achieved since relieved from those legislative enactments, by which they were bound for more than two centuries. These fleets are now the largest, and unquestionably the finest, in the world, and instead of foreigners overstocking our own ports as was prophesied, we now conduct the greater portion of the maritime commerce of foreign nations.[313] It is, therefore, no idle boast to say, that while the sun never sets on the dominions of our Queen, there is no ocean, no sea, and, I might add, were it not for the exclusive policy of the United States and of France, with a few other insignificant exceptions, no lake, no river, where the British flag is not unfurled, and where it does not shed its civilising and beneficial influence, over many peoples of varied tongues, who might otherwise still be living in darkness, if not in barbarism.

It behoves, therefore, our Statesmen to take care how they deal with this great interest—made great by the freedom of our laws and by the energy of our people; and, whatever further legislation may be necessary, it is seriously to be hoped that Government will confine its measures to their legitimate object; viz. the clear definition of the legal duties and responsibilities of Shipowners, the maintenance of lighthouses, buoys and beacons on our coasts, the general regulations necessary for the proper conduct of maritime commerce, the investigation into the true cause of all accidents at sea, and the prompt punishment of all persons who wrongfully and wilfully violate the law.

FOOTNOTES:

[267] This term had its origin in the early part of the present century, when so many of H.M.’s 10-gun brigs, employed in carrying the mails, or on other short services, were lost, especially on their Atlantic voyages, that they got the name of “_coffins_.”

[268] See Appendix, No. 13, p. 634, where a list will be found of the different Acts of Parliament which have been passed relating to merchant shipping since 1849.

[269] See ‘History of Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping,’ Appendix, No. 12, p. 624.

[270] See _ante_, vol. iii. pp. 48 and 50.

[271] See Parl. Paper C. 630, 1872.

[272]

+---------------------------------------------------+
| WRECKS, &C., OTHER THAN COLLISIONS IN THE |
| UNITED KINGDOM. |
+-------------+-----------+----------------+--------+
| Year. |Total Loss.| Partial Damage.| Total |
+-------------+-----------+----------------+--------+
| 1856 | 368 | 469 | 837 |
| 1857 | 384 | 482 | 866 |
| 1858 | 354 | 515 | 869 |
| 1859 | 527 | 540 | 1,067 |
| 1860 | 476 | 605 | 1,081 |
| 1861 | 513 | 658 | 1,171 |
| 1862 | 455 | 695 | 1,150 |
| 1863 | 503 | 830 | 1,333 |
| 1864 | 386 | 653 | 1,039 |
| 1865 | 470 | 832 | 1,302 |
| 1866 | 562 | 876 | 1,438 |
| 1867 | 656 | 1,020 | 1,676 |
| 1868 | 527 | 841 | 1,368 |
| 1869 | 606 | 1,047 | 1,653 |
| 1870 | 411 | 730 | 1,141 |
| 1871 | 398 | 826 | 1,224 |
| 1872 | 439 | 1,110 | 1,549 |
| 1873 }| | | |
|Jan. to June}| 212 | 522 | 734 |
| +-----------+----------------+--------+
| Total | 8,247 | 13,251 | 21,498 |
+-------------+-----------+----------------+--------+

Annual average of 17 years, 472-11/17 total wrecks, and 748-13/17 casualties resulting in partial damage.

_Note._—In the above statistical statement no earlier date than 1856 is taken, as the machinery had not in 1855 being sufficiently organised to ensure that nearly all the wrecks, &c., in that year were reported; and there is reason to believe that some may not have been reported in the years 1856, 7, and 8.

[273]

[Sidenote: Return of lives lost and saved between 1855 and 1873.]

The following table shows the number of lives saved, and the number of lives lost on and near the coasts of the United Kingdom, 1855-1873.

-------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--------
| LIVES SAVED. |
+------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+----------+----------+--------+
Year. | By |By Rocket,|By Luggers,|By Ships| By | By | By | Total |
| Life |and Mortar| and | and | Ships’ |Individual| other | Lives |
|Boats.|Apparatus,|Coastguard | Steam | own |Exertion. | means. | Saved. | Lives
| |Lines, &c.| and other | Boats. | Boats. | | | | Lost.[274]
| | | Boats. | | | | | |
-------+------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+----------+----------+--------+--------
1855-6 | 336 | 499 | 1351 | 489 | | 22 | | 2,697 | 485
1856-7 | 634 | 383 | 606 | 587 | | 21 | | 2,231 | 521
1857-8 | 120 | 149 | 683 | 244 | | 17 | | 1,213 | 539
1858-9 | 220 | 154 | 878 | 622 | | 16 | | 1,890 | 353
1859-60| 367 | 407 | 681 | 769 | 951[275]| 9 | | 3,184 | 1,647
1860-1 | 771 | 415 | 467 | 858 | 1,499 | 14 | 362[275]| 4,386 | 537
1861-2 | 322 | 415 | 371 | 919 | 1,425 | 27 | 396 | 3,875 | 884
1862-3 | 291 | 252 | 414 | 1,319 | 1,289 | 9 | 531 | 4,105 | 690
1863-4 | 472 | 256 | 424 | 1,533 | 1,465 | 10 | 439 | 4,599 | 620
1864-5 | 293 | 347 | 338 | 1,003 | 1,459 | 22 | 232 | 3,694 | 516
1865-6 | 480 | 490 | 462 | 1,000 | 2,195 | 7 | 374 | 5,008 | 698
1866-7 | 378 | 527 | 385 | 986 | 2,728 | 13 | 765 | 5,782 | 896
1867-8 | 377 | 310 | 843 | 1,060 | 1,902 | 6 | 660 | 5,158 | 1,333
1868-9 | 504 | 333 | 317 | 719 | 2,062 | | 561 | 4,496 | 824
1869-70| 532 | 354 | 383 | 714 | 2,067 | 8 | 443 | 4,501 | 933
1870-1 | 473 | 203 | 500 | 1,062 | 2,795 | 2 | 459 | 5,495 | 774
1871-2 | 403 | 293 | 265 | 990 | 1,737 | | 245 | 3,933 | 626
1872-3 | 548 | 715 | 582 | 647 | 1,888 | 6 | 388 | 4,774 | 590
-------+------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+----------+----------+--------+--------
Total | 7521 | 6502 | 9950 | 15,522 | 25,462 | 209 | 5855 | 71,021 | 13,466
-------+------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+----------+----------+--------+--------

[274] The figures in this column show the number of lives lost between the 1st January and 31st of December in each year. The number of lives lost during the first six months of 1873 is 728.

[275] No record kept for former years.

[276] We expended between 1555 and 1873 143,660_l._ (see ‘Wreck Returns, 1874,’ p. 11) in providing apparatus for saving life, and in rewards to individuals as well as awards of the National Lifeboat Institution (apart altogether from the efforts of that noble Society, about which see _ante_, note, p. 315), and Her Majesty was graciously pleased (12th April, 1867) to issue her warrant instituting two decorations, the “Albert Medal of the first class,” and the “Albert Medal of the second class,” to reward brave men, who have been conspicuous for saving life at sea or on the coast.

[277] The total number of vessels and their tonnage, including their repeated voyages, that entered and cleared at the ports in the United Kingdom with cargoes and in ballast from and to foreign countries and British possessions for the year 1873 was 130,075, of 44,439,986 tons; the entrances and clearance coastwise with cargoes only, 332,148 vessels, of 40,632,014 tons. If I add to these the coasters in ballast and those with the description of cargo of which no note is taken at the Customs, as also the vessels frequenting the Channel, and bound for Hamburg, Bremen, and the Northern ports of Europe, which do not enter any of the ports of the United Kingdom, of which no return is kept, it will be found that I have not over-estimated the number which now annually pass along or frequent our coasts.—‘Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the Year 1873.’ Presented to Parliament, 1874.

[278] This point involves many grave questions. Happily, men do not altogether live for the purpose of making money—they have other and far nobler objects in view. Some, indeed, but they are rare and grand characters, live altogether for the benefit of mankind and the progress of the human race. There are others who follow a business or profession, not altogether because it yields them profit, but because it affords them pleasure. Such is the case to a large extent in this country. We are a seafaring people, and we pursue occupations in connexion with it frequently as much for pleasure as for profit. We enjoy the business of Shipowners, because it is natural to us, and we take a delight in improving the forms of our ships. I have seen a captain whose heart was in his ship, caress her!—yes, caress her, by clapping the taffrail where he stood when she was performing her work to his satisfaction, as if she had been a living thing, and heard him exclaiming, “Go a-head, my beauty!” just as many persons may have been heard extolling the performance of a favourite horse. Care must, therefore, be taken not to interfere by _unnecessary legislative enactments_ with what is not merely our business but our pride and pleasure, or we may be driven, to the serious loss of the nation, to seek other investments for our capital. We have now arrived at that point where competition has become so close that if we tax our Shipowners to any greater extent than they are now taxed, directly or indirectly (interference with their affairs is the heaviest as well as the most obnoxious of all taxes), we shall most assuredly drive their ships from the trades in which they are now engaged, or compel them to submit to the humiliation of seeking a Foreign register, and hoisting a Foreign flag.

[279] See _ante_, p. 465.

[280] The year previous to 1873-4 was a much more disastrous one than the year before it, as there were 728 lives lost in the six months ending 30th June, 1873, which is in some measure accounted for by the wreck of the ship _Northfleet_, when 293 lives were lost.

[281] See Parl. Paper, 214, 1875, pp. 4 and 11.

[282] As it has often been broadly stated that employment in British ships is much more dangerous now than it was in 1836, when the first Committee sat to inquire into the cause of shipwrecks, I may reply that the most careful analysis shows that, while the losses were then on the average of the three previous years 3·72 percentage of the number of vessels (or rather of their tonnage) employed, they were for the three years previous to 1873 only 2·95 per cent., although these years were exceptionally fatal to ships laden with timber, grain, and coal (see Appendix to ‘Commission on Unseaworthy Ships,’ pp. 780 and 791), arising from the enormous increase in the oversea trade of these articles. For instance, while in 1861, 57,745,993 cwts. of corn were imported, the imports in 1872 amounted to 97,765,298 cwts. The imports of timber rose between the same periods from 3,358,589 to 4,949,786 loads; and the oversea exports of coals from 7,934,832 in 1861 to 13,198,494 tons in 1872.

[283] Lighthouses, 6 & 7 Wm. IV. cap. 79.

[284] Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 16 & 17 Vict. cap. 131.

[285] Merchant Shipping Act, 36 & 37 Vict. cap. 85.

[286] Parl. Paper, C. 1152, 1875.

[287] However beneficial in its results, it may well be questioned if any body of surveyors ought to be empowered at their pleasure, without complaint, to thus retard trade and stop the ordinary course of commerce; and I am disposed to question alike the policy and the wisdom, as well as the necessity, of this regulation. There appear to be now employed in these questionable operations, no less than 117 Government surveyors, “shipwrights,” and “engineers,” stationed at different ports in the United Kingdom, twelve of whom are retired officers of the Royal Navy, besides a good many so-called “shipwrights,” who can have very little knowledge of the construction of merchant ships or of their requirements.[288] In making these appointments, the fact seems to have been overlooked that, at all our ports, there are the surveyors of Lloyd’s Register, or of other similar associations, whose services might have been utilised with a great saving of public expenditure, and with, perhaps, greater efficiency. Yet I read, to my astonishment, in the public journals not long since a letter (6th August, 1875) from Mr. Plimsoll, addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, in which, among much irrelevant matter, he urgently recommends eighteen more surveyors to be appointed by Government, at a salary of not less than 1000_l._ per annum. I sincerely trust no such appointments will be made; but that Government will direct its attention to other more economical and more efficient modes of removing the evils of which Mr. Plimsoll complains, if indeed they exist at all to the extent alleged. There is no use hiding the fact that all such appointments must be filled, in a great measure, through patronage, and that it would be impossible to find men, even at the tempting salary named, competent for the numerous technical and responsible duties that would be required of them. But if such men could be found, are we to hand over the whole of the vast maritime interests of this country, from the time the keel is laid to the despatch of the ship to sea, to the supervision and control of a certain number of Government officials, however competent? As it is, the duties of the surveyors, already appointed, are too frequently as ludicrous as they are questionable. I daresay Mr. Plimsoll must have felt this when he recommended in his letter to Sir Charles Adderley, that “we ought not to have less than four detaining officers in Ireland, four in Scotland, and ten in England, and that the _minimum average(?)_ salary should be 1000_l._ per annum.” Of course he meant them to look after the officers already appointed as well as after the ships; and that they should be “apart altogether from the Permanent Secretary, and the Secretary of the Marine Department,” whom he charges, in the same letter, without, by the way, one tittle or shadow of evidence, with the grossest dereliction of duty.

[288] The staff of the Board of Trade, and its cost for salaries, in 1875 were as follows:—

---------------------------------------------------+-------+---------
| |Aggregate
Employment. |Number.| Salary.
---------------------------------------------------+-------+---------
| | £
In the Board of Trade and registry of seamen | 237 | 48,760
Examinations | 13 | 3,355
Mercantile marine offices | 237 | 24,416
Surveyors, emigration officers, tonnage measurers,}| |
recorders of draught of water }| 154 | 30,078
Nautical assessors | | 3,000
+-------+--------
Total | 641 | 109,609
---------------------------------------------------+-------+---------

[289] I feel no hesitation in giving, from the public journals, an account of this most extraordinary and unusual scene, not merely as an episode in the history of Merchant Shipping, but to explain the circumstances under which the temporary Act now in force was passed at the close of the Session of 1875:—

“Mr. CHARLEY asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could hold out any hopes of being able to afford facilities for the third reading of the Infanticide Bill in time to enable the House of Lords to consider it this Session.

“Mr. DISRAELI said he thought he could hold out some hopes to the hon. member. He felt some difficulty on Monday in stating the intentions of the Government, but this arose from their desire to pass the Merchant Shipping Bill this Session; but, finding it impossible to get through the committee on the Agricultural Holdings Bill this week, they had come to the conclusion to abandon the Merchant Shipping Bill. It had been submitted to the Government that they might pass the Bill in a modified form, but he declined to deal with the subject in that fragmentary manner. All he could say was that they would take the earliest opportunity of bringing forward the measure next Session.

“Mr. GOSCHEN, speaking on behalf of the shipping interest, expressed his extreme regret that the Merchant Shipping Bill had been sacrificed for the Agricultural Holdings Bill.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL earnestly entreated the Government not to consign thousands of their fellow-creatures to an undeserved grave. There were, he said, shipowners of murderous tendencies—(‘Order, order!’)—who had frustrated the passing of the Bill by protracted debates. The secretary of Lloyd’s had assured a friend of his that he did not know of a single ship which had been broken up during the past thirty years because it was worn out. The result was that hundreds of brave fellows were sent to unhallowed graves by these speculative scoundrels—(cries of ‘Order!’ and uproar).

“The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that his remarks were out of order. When the Merchant Shipping Bill, which was on the orders of the day, came up for consideration he would have an opportunity of addressing the House.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL said he would give notice that on Tuesday next he would put a question to the President of the Board of Trade with reference to certain vessels which had been lost, entailing a great sacrifice of human life, and would ask whether those vessels were not owned by Mr. Edward Bates, the member for Plymouth, or a person bearing the same name. He should also have some questions to put, with respect to members on the Liberal side of the House, for he was determined to unmask the villains who sent these people to their death—(cries of ‘Order!’ and tremendous uproar).

“The SPEAKER said: The hon. member has used the term ‘villains.’ I trust that he did not apply it to any members of this House.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL: I did, sir, and I shall not withdraw it.

“The SPEAKER: The conduct of the hon. member is altogether unparliamentary, and I call on him to withdraw the language—(cheers).

“Mr. PLIMSOLL (excitedly): And I must again decline to withdraw it.

“In reply to a third interrogation by the Speaker, the hon. member again declined to withdraw. The SPEAKER: The hon. member declines to withdraw, and I must submit his conduct to the judgment of the House.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL, standing in the centre of the House, said he would submit to the judgment of the House. Once more approaching the table, holding a paper in his hand, said, ‘This, sir, is my protest,’ and was proceeding to address the House, but in obedience to loud cries of ‘Order!’ he took his seat on the front bench below the gallery.

“Mr. DISRAELI rose and said that the conduct of the hon. member was almost unparalleled.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL, jumping up and interrupting: ‘And so is that of the Government’—(tremendous uproar).

“Mr. DISRAELI, continuing, said: I feel that it is my duty, as far as I can, to uphold the dignity and honour of the House; for the conduct of the hon. member has been not only violent, but so offensive, that it is impossible for the House to pass it over. As the hon. member has declined to withdraw the word used, it is my duty to move that he be reprimanded by the Speaker for his disorderly and violent conduct—(loud cheers).

“The SPEAKER said that according to the practice of the House the hon. member for Derby would answer in his place, and then withdraw.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL retired to the bar, and as he reached it, turned round apparently with the intention of saying something, but the members there prevailed on him to pass out, and as he did so, he exclaimed: ‘You do not know the men as well as I do. This will cost the lives of thousands.’ The hon. member then left the House.

“The Marquis of HARTINGTON rose and was about to address the House, but was informed by the Speaker that the motion before the House was, that the hon. member for Derby be reprimanded.

“The Marquis of HARTINGTON said he need hardly state that he should support the motion—(cheers). It was evident that the hon. member was labouring under great excitement, but he was not justified in using the language he had employed. No doubt, when he had a little time for reflection, he would see his conduct in a different light—(cheers).

“Mr. SULLIVAN said the scene they had witnessed was without precedent in the House, but he appealed to the House to be indulgent to the hon. member. He was aware that the hon. member was extremely ill, and his state of mental excitement arose from his overstrained feelings. Without seeking to justify the transgression of the hon. member, he wished the House would allow him to have a week’s rest, by which time he would be in a position to apologise for his misconduct. He (Mr. Sullivan) held in his hands the documents which had wrought the hon. member up to his present state of excitement, and for some time past his friends had been caused the most serious uneasiness by the deplorable state of his mind. If the House would afford him a few days’ rest, he would no doubt be able to set himself right—(cheers).

“Mr. DISRAELI then moved that the hon. member for Derby be requested to attend in his place on this day week—(loud cheers).

“Mr. FAWCETT said that Mr. Plimsoll was at present in an extremely painful state of excitement. He had gone out to him in the lobby, and found him in the most lamentable condition. By great effort he had persuaded him to take a walk in the open air—(great laughter). At the end of a week there was little doubt that he would withdraw the violent expressions he had used—(cheers).

“Mr. BASS, as the colleague of Mr. Plimsoll, offered his grateful acknowledgments to the House for the course they had taken—(cheers).

“The matter then dropped.

“On the motion for discharging the Merchant Shipping Bill,

“Mr. BATES said that he wished, with the indulgence of the House, to make a statement with respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Derby earlier in the sitting. All who had witnessed the extraordinary exhibition would agree with him that the hon. member for Derby was not responsible for his actions. With respect to himself it was unfortunately true that he had lost during the last two years five ships; but ships better found in every respect were never sent to sea. They were all of them iron ships, and classed A 1. To himself, personally, pecuniarily the loss was very severe, as he never insured his ships for more than one-half or two-thirds of their market value. That was not so much the matter; but he did deplore the loss of his men, and his only consolation was that, as far as human foresight could go, the ships were as good and as safe as man could make them. He felt assured that the statement of the hon. member for Derby would be looked upon by all, as he looked upon it, with pity—(cheers).

“The House shortly afterwards adjourned.”

Mr. Plimsoll subsequently apologised for his conduct to the House. But it is much to be regretted, _on his own account_, that he neither attempted to substantiate the charges he had brought against Mr. Bates, nor asked leave to withdraw them.

[290] When the Bill was withdrawn there stood upon the orders of the day of the House of Commons no less than 178 amendments to it, many of them on subjects of great importance and difficulty, as well as of great intricacy. See _Times’_ report of Mr. Disraeli’s speech at the Mansion House, 4th August, 1875.

[291] ‘Unseaworthy Ships,’ 38 & 39 Vict. cap. 88.

[292] Already there seems to be a misapprehension. Mr. Plimsoll, as would appear by the newspapers, has been spending his vacation on the shores of the Black Sea and Danube, visiting the grain ports, and instructing the masters of all vessels loading grain how to stow it in accordance with the conditions of the new Act. That he is clearly of opinion that inspectors should be appointed is evident from the fact that he appointed forty of them! and that the Foreign Office approves of what he has done! What next and next? But the Board of Trade, by the correspondence which has been published, is of an entirely different opinion, and maintains that the Act of Parliament gives no such power. Nor does it! Nor should it! It is not the duty of Government to appoint inspectors to see that its laws are carried into effect. I say nothing as to the expense and impracticability of having surveyors at every port in the world where a ship is to load grain; but, if such is the meaning of the Act as applicable to grain ships, where is this sort of legislation to end? Are we to have Government inspectors to see to the loading of all our ships at home and abroad? And if so, why should this new system not be applied to every branch of commerce? Nay, why should it not extend into our houses? Surely heavy penalties would, in the case of grain ships, be a much more effectual mode of enforcing the conditions of the Act. Is there to be no end to the folly of unauthorised individuals appointing surveyors to inspect the loading of our ships abroad, or interfering with duties alone within the power of the Executive Government? It is high time we put a stop to these well-meaning, but Quixotic, proceedings.

[293] I cannot understand what is meant by the word “keep.” A ship sails in a seaworthy condition, but an accident happens on the voyage which _may_ render her “unseaworthy”: is the master, under such circumstances, to put back to the nearest port for repairs? and if he does not do so, and his ship is lost, it may be from causes wholly different, is his policy of insurance to be invalid, and is he to be responsible for any loss of life that may thus occur?

[294] In Mr. Plimsoll’s protest, which, as the rules of the House of Commons would not allow him to present, he either threw upon the table, or had dropped into the House from one of the galleries,[295] he says, “I charge the Government that they are wittingly and unwittingly, for they are both, playing into the hands of the maritime murderers inside the House and outside the House to secure a further continuance of the present murderous system.”... “I desire to unmask the villains who sit in the House, fit representatives of the more numerous, but not greater, villains who are outside the House.” I offer no comment on this language. It tells its own tale of the state of mind of its author.

[295] The disgraceful scenes in the House of Commons could not have arisen from Mr. Plimsoll’s momentary excitement, when the Government announced the withdrawal of its Bill, but must have been premeditated, as this carefully prepared protest too clearly shows.

[296] Mr. John W. A. Harper, Secretary to the Salvage Association. See Question 8769, p. 311.

[297] See also evidence, W. J. Lamport, Question 5556, p. 192. With regard to the question of overloading, Mr. Lamport made a remarkable statement, which I do not hesitate to give at length, because it differs entirely from an opinion prevailing at present in the public mind.

The CHAIRMAN asked (Question 556): “From your knowledge of the shipping in Liverpool during forty years, Do you think that there has been a great deal of overloading?”—“Since it was intimated to me that I was to be asked to give evidence in this room, I have been trying to task my memory for cases in which when vessels had foundered or had not been heard of, I myself had felt a reasonable suspicion that the cause was overloading. I have not been able to bring to my recollection a single instance of the kind. Now this result, I must confess, was a little startling to myself, and in order to check it I spoke to the overlooker of my firm, who is a man older than myself, who has had longer experience than I have had, and who, from his outdoor business, would probably hear of such things more frequently than I should. The overlooker told me that he himself did not remember a single instance, in which he had suspected that any vessel which had left the port of Liverpool had been lost because of being overloaded.”

I may add, from my intimate knowledge of Mr. Lamport, which extended over a period of thirty years up to his untimely death, that these were no mere words of course. Indeed, the statement agrees with my own experience; and, from the inquiries I have made elsewhere, there are comparatively very few ships lost from overloading, except in the coasting and short-voyage trades. In confirmation of this opinion, the Commissioners, in their final report, state that “It is chiefly among the small coasting vessels that any habitual overloading prevails,” and “that there are a large number of ships in ballast annually lost, while the losses from collisions show that the management and negligence of sailors are not less disastrous than the carelessness of shipowners.”

[298] It appears to me to be a grave mistake to require the insertion in the ship’s articles of the draught of water. These articles are an agreement between owner, master, and crew, and are binding on all. How can a drowned sailor’s family claim compensation for a vessel being loaded to a draught the sailor himself agreed to?

[299] Mr. Gray, the Assistant-Secretary to the Board of Trade, stated (Question 10,088) that the Board had received a letter from Mr. Plimsoll, suggesting that the Department should employ the staff of ‘Lloyd’s Register’ to assist in the survey of certain merchant ships.

[300]

[Sidenote: Opinion of Mr. Charles McIver.]