Mr. Speaker, I have two reasons for my attitude in respect of the Second Reading of this Bill to-day. The first is that I hold, and have held for some time past, that one of the greatest and most difficult problems with which we have to deal in London is the enormous growth of the traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular, and, as has been pointed out by Sir Walter Besant, and other gentlemen, it is a question with which the London County Council will have to deal, so that we may have our streets more able to take the traffic with which they are now overburdened. My second reason is this; that the Strand Improvement came before this House some nine years ago. I had the honour of presiding over a strong Committee for the consideration of this question, and after sitting for many days, I venture to say that we passed a satisfactory Bill. This Bill, however, was abandoned, and that improvement stood still until the-year 1897. In the year 1889, when; this question first came under the management of the London County Council, two schemes were brought before the Council; one was a scheme for the construction of a new street from Holborn to the Strand, the other a scheme for the widening of the Strand by the destruction of Holywell Street island; but the County Council then determined, I have no doubt for very good reasons—at all events, I presume they were satisfactory to themselves—that they would postpone the construction of the new street from Holborn to the Strand until after the Strand Improvement was made. They did not submit to Parliament that year any Bill for the construction of the new street, but they did submit to Parliament a Bill for removing the Holywell Street island, and for widening the Strand. It was to the Committee of which I have spoken that the question of this improvement, which I have already mentioned, was referred. Just to show the character of that Committee, I should like to mention that, amongst other gentlemen, it comprised Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Lawson, Lord Carmarthen, and Sir Selwyn Ibbotson. That Committee had brought before it the enormous traffic which then passed along the Strand. What the traffic was then is but an indication of what it is now, and, of course, everybody knows that it has enormously increased between 1889 and 1899. At that time we had evidence before us saying that there were between 11,000 and 12,000 vehicles passing the point where that improvement was to be made in the business part of the day, that is from eight in the morning until 12 at night. We had then clear evidence as to the necessity for the improvement of this very narrow portion of the Strand. As I rely upon that evidence, I venture to trouble the House with some of the actual measurements, which I consider to be of some importance in connection with this matter. The width of the Strand at Somerset House is from 76ft. to 104ft., including footpaths. I am quoting from the evidence of Mr. Alexander Binney, as to which, I think the House will agree with me, there can be no question. The Strand, at its widest portion—opposite the Law Courts—is 113ft. 9in. Now, Sir, the portion of the Strand which I wish to impress upon the House the necessity of being dealt with at once is between Surrey Street, Arundel Street, and Norfolk Street. At Surrey Street the width is 46ft. 10in., at Arundel Street it is 44ft., and at Norfolk Street it is 40ft., and that is the narrowest point between Charing Cross and St. Paul's, and as a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, so the carrying capacity of a street is the capacity of its narrowest part. We have, therefore, then a sort of Khyber Pass in the Strand, reducing it to a width of 40ft. In connection with this point the question was raised of betterment. That question was very fully considered by the Committee. There was a large scheme of betterment, because the property involved extended from the Thames Embankment to Lincoln's Inn Fields, and from the Law Courts to Somerset House. The Committee were of opinion that the betterment which was then proposed would not apply to the improvement, and they thought that the only district to which it would apply was Holywell Street, on its north side. That Bill was abandoned, as I said before. In the year 1897, the winter before last, the County Council came back again to Parliament to obtain powers to widen the Strand, and the practical scheme, which was then brought forward in 1897, was the scheme which the Committee approved of in 1889. The House will note the sad delay of eight years in bringing forward that scheme. Under the present system of betterment or improvement, which has met with the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, it requires the improvement area to be defined; the improved area in this case is the north side of Holywell Street. Having obtained these powers, the Committee set to work—I do not know when —at all events, I have the report before me of the Committee, stating that progress has been made. There are 98 owners of property in this district, freeholders and leaseholders—I am now speaking of the improvement which Parliament sanctioned in 1897. On the 1st February, 1899, three purchases, and three purchases only, have been completed. That was the whole number of purchases completed between '97 and '99. In 14 cases terms have been agreed, and I suppose we may regard those cases as ones in which agreement has practically been arrived at. There were 34 cases in which negotiations were being carried on, and there appear to be 47 cases with reference to which practically no steps appear to have been taken, or, perhaps I should say, none of an effective character, and it is for these reasons that I am dealing with the Bill at the present moment. I do not want my Friends to think I am opposing the construction of this new street from the Strand to Holborn. That ought to have been made, in my opinion, many years ago, and I believe that the County Council has selected the best plan possible, and that this scheme is of paramount importance, and ought to be carried out as quickly as possible. All I seek to establish is that while one improvement is being made, the other improvement should not be left undone, and that the Strand Improvement should not be delayed until this new street is made. That, in plain English, appears to me to be the present intention of the Improvements Committee of the London County Council. In their report they give reasons why they are delaying, because they say in that report that the property on the north side of Holywell Street will become enhanced in value, and it will therefore be better not to arrange for the demolition of the Holywell Street block, and that, therefore, it would be impossible to press forward the improvement plan—that is, as to the widening of the Strand. [Cheers.] My honourable Friend behind me cheers that statement, but it appears to me to be one of the most extraordinary reasons to be given for the improvement which is now proposed to take place. The law requires that immediately after an Act is passed the Council or the Local Government Board shall, on the application of the owners, appoint an independent Valuer, and he has to make at once a valuation of what the property, in his opinion, is worth, totally irrespective of any enhanced value that may arise in consequence of the improvement, and that is called the initial valuation; that is to say, the value of the land and the value of the buildings, exclusive of any increased value that may arise from the improvement. Then the improvement goes on, and when it is completed and finally wound up, then, not before the expiration of one year, and before the expiration of three years, the Council must assess the charge for improvement; that is to say, it must fix the assessment which it is proposed to place upon the property in consequence of the improvement. Well, I want the House to see that that is confined exclusively to the improvement area. In this instance the improved area is simply the north side of Holywell Street. An argument of the County Council is this: do not pull down the south side of Holywell Street, because if you do you will increase the value of the north side of Holywell Street I ask honourable Members to appreciate the strength of that reasoning. That might have been an argument against bringing in the Strand improvement at all—it might have been an argument for postponing it, and for saying we won't take away that island until we have made it quite clear where our new street is to be. But the Act is passed, and you are bound to take it away, and you cannot escape from that—you cannot avoid it. Do you think any arbitrator would not have his attention called to the fact that the improvement must take place, that it would take place, and that the County Council themselves have already made an initial valuation, which recognises that they were going to claim a charge in respect of that improvement? It seems to me almost like a nursery tale to pretend that there would be no improvement. The property would have to be bought, and the Council, I think, will be entitled to charge the improvement value in respect of the new improvement; and it will be a very simple matter to adjust between the owners of property and the Council as to what is to be the real charge on the additional value. These are small matters of detail, which have very little practical bearing upon a question of a great improvement of this sort, which is to cost somewhere between four and five millions. The enhanced value, even if it arises, will be small in reference to the tumble-down property on the north side of Holywell Street, and in the meantime this improvement, which is wanted so much, is at a standstill until all these preliminary proceedings have been gone through. I would ask the House, what has the Commissioner of Works done with reference to the Parliament Street Improvement? It is not two years since this House sanctioned the great Whitehall improvement, and now the property is pulled down, and the ground is being rapidly cleared.

That is Government property.

I beg pardon, only a portion. Very large sums of money have been paid in respect of that property, and the property is pulled down. The Commissioner of Works has paid large sums in settlement of claims, but the real point is this: Are you to delay this great Strand improvement for reasons which, I think, are of no practical advantage whatever? A statement has been circulated with the Votes this morning. I do hot know whether there is any responsibility attached to that statement, but I will call the attention of the House to it, and I think that will show some good reason for my being anxious that this improvement should be carried out. A paragraph of the statement says—

"It is hoped by the Council that before the end of the present year, possibly next autumn, it may be practicable to proceed with the demolition of the houses between Holywell Street and the Strand, and that the widening authorised by the Act of 1897 may be completed within three years from the passing of the Act—that is, in the autumn of 1900, instead of 1902, as allowed by the Act."

That is not a very encouraging reason for the House to suspend its action, and not to enforce the completion of this great metropolitan improvement. I am sorry to have detained the House so long. I have no hostility to the London County Council improvement, nor to this Bill. I do not want to take any steps to interfere with the prospect of that Bill, or in any way to hamper my Friends who represent the London County Council, and if the responsible members of the London County Council in this House will give to the House an undertaking that they will proceed with all practical speed to carry out this improvement, then my object will be attained. I have no wish nor desire to assume any hostility to the London County Council; I do not wish to interfere with the carrying out of their improvements. This is a great metropolitan improvement, the need of which is obvious to every man and to every person who goes along the Strand, whether as a pedestrian or otherwise. But this improvement was sanctioned by Parliament in 1897, and I say there has been too much delay. Thirty years elapsed since it was first proposed before Parliamentary sanction was obtained; and I think that, having obtained that sanction two years ago, we are not asking too much in wishing that improvement to be proceeded with with as little delay as possible.

formally seconded the Motion.

I find some difficulty in ascertaining exactly the point of the right honourable Gentleman's objection to the Second Reading of this very important Bill. He is not opposed to the Bill, and yet he has moved its formal rejection. That may be a proceeding which is intelligible in the House, but it is hardly intelligible to the public generally. What is the point that we are considering? The right honourable Gentleman says that we are not proceeding fast enough with the Strand Improvement, and that is what his objection comes to. Now, that should have really, surely, been brought forward by Counsel before the Committee, in order to obtain the Strand Improvement, in order to shorten the period of three years which has been given to us to acquire the property and of five years which has been given to complete the improvement. To make it quite plain, three years is the period which has been given by Parliament for the purchase and five years is the period which has been given for completing the improvement. We have lost no time in any way in proceeding with all the necessary steps in connection with betterment and otherwise in order that the work may be completed as soon as possible, and I have every reason to expect, as was stated in this document sent round on behalf of the Bill—

"it may be practicable to proceed with the demolition of the houses between Holywell Street and the Strand in the next autumn."

Then the right honourable Gentleman desired us to say when we shall do it. How can we say that when houses have not yet been acquired between the Strand and Holywell Street? We have many negotiations to go through; we have large and important arrangements to make, and we are proceeding with all possible speed, and we really hope that the improvement may be absolutely completed by the three years, or very soon after the three years are up, or two years shorter than Parliament allowed us. What more can we do? It seems to me to be a very curious thing to alter, or endeavour to alter, the Act of Parliament upon which the Strand Improvement is based in another Act of Parliament which might deal with an improvement which abuts on the Strand Improvement, which is an improvement which extends in many directions. The improvement we now undertake is in itself one of the greatest, if not the greatest, improvements that has ever been undertaken in London. We have split it from the Strand Improvement, and we have acted very wisely, because by carrying out the two arrangements by separate Bills we have been able to save something like from half a million to three-quarters of a million of money—that is the amount extra which we should have expended if we had gone forward by one Bill. That was one of the reasons which impelled the London County Council to undertake this specific improvement which we are doing just now. It is well known that the London County Council has been very averse to undertaking large improvements while the incidence of the rates remained as it is now. It will also be well known to the House that the improvement which we have before us now has the practically unanimous, or nearly the unanimous, support of all the parties in the London County Council, because it embodies that character of improvement which sweeps away insanitary property, and which has so many contingent advantages, that those who feel strongly that there should be a better adjustment of charge upon occupier and owner feel that in the present circumstances they might reasonably waive their opposition. Now, Sir, let us look at the point that the right honourable Gentleman makes a great deal of. He read an extract from the Report of the Committee, which was placed before the County Council on 17th February this year, but I want to go back to the 5th July, when this matter was first of all brought before the London County Council, and was one of the reasons that induced the County Council not to delay this second important improvement, and to go on with it in the present year. We had received from our valuer a report which pointed out that a most important feature of The case was that the widening of the Strand by the removal of the Holywell Street island would add considerably to the value of the circumjacent properties required for the new, street, unless powers were sought in the present Session, so that they might be obtained before the removal of the Holywell Street island. There is no obligation for us to remove that until three years have elapsed for the passing of the first Act, but, notwithstanding that we have no obligation, we are not delaying the matter. I really submit to the House that the only effect of the right honourable Gentleman's suggestion that we should go on with the Strand Improvement immediately would be that we should be obliged immediately to remove property which we have not yet acquired—which we are in the process of acquiring as quickly as possible. It would also oblige us of necessity, and by the pledge of this House, to remove the buildings between the Strand and Holywell Street at once, and by that means to give an increased value to certain properties which we think we had better, in the interests of the town, acquire in our own way, and subject to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. I cannot, under these circumstances, give any pledge whatever to the right honourable Gentleman further than what I have said. I am sure that I have the House with mo when I say that we stand upon the Bill we have already got in reference to the Strand Improvement, and which we think will be for the best interests of the great improvement of London which will be brought about thereby, and for the best interests of the ratepayers whom we have to protect.

I quite concur with the remarks of the honourable Member who has just sat down, the Member for the Hoxton Division, that all people throughout the length and breadth of the country will agree with the honourable Member that it is advisable to leave the London County Council to have the full administration of this matter, and to have full power to carry it out in the best wav they can for the benefit of the authorities and for the benefit of London. This, as has been stated by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, is not a question that has come recently before London or this House. This question of the improvement of the Strand—the widening of the Strand and the inter-communication between these great thoroughfares—has been mooted for nearly 30 years, and it is our duty to endeavour to do all we can to endeavour to bring that improvement about as speedily as possible. The London County Council have very carefully considered this matter, and they have made what I conceive to be a very excellent and admirable improvement, and I sincerely hope that this House will carry out in its integrity the proposal of the London County Council, and reject the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton.

It is only right that the House of Commons should know the elementary facts, as regards the action of the London County Council, of the widening of the Strand and of the Holborn scheme. The Motion of the right honourable Gentleman is, in my opinion, more or less of an obstructive character, and is one which might lead to great delay and unnecessary ex- travagance. It is not necessary in a Debate of this description to go into the question of betterment and the question of taxation, which have been referred to. In 1897 the London County Council, with practical unanimity, came to the House of Commons and asked it to pass a Bill which is known as the Strand Improvement Bill. On that occasion this House, gave a maximum period of five years to carry out the improvement, and a maximum period of three years within which to acquire the property. The point that I want to deal with here is this—is there any argument which has been adduced this afternoon to show that the Council has been dilatory in carrying out the mandate of the House of Commons? I say no argument has been adduced, and no evidence can be produced in that direction. On the contrary, if there has been an improvement in London over which the London County Council has shown a most commendable dispatch it has been in connection with this Strand Improvement. Whilst we have been proceeding with economical dispatch in that direction, we have brought on a much larger improvement, namely, the improvement known as the intercommunication between Holborn and the Strand; that is to say, we have found it possible to kill two birds with one stone, to carry out the Strand Improvement with the making of a new thoroughfare between these two great main arteries without enhancing the price which is to be paid, and we come here to say that by a Motion of the kind which the right honourable Gentleman has made this afternoon there is a possibility of that price being considerably enhanced. We say that the Motion will not facilitate the Strand Improvement a single day or a single minute, but we do say this—that the real charge of the right honourable Gentleman is that we have been unduly anxious for the ratepayers' interests. As a rule, that is not a charge which is brought against the London County Council, and, as this is the first time that we have been guilty of that virtue, it ought rather to count for righteousness than against us. The second allegation is that the London County Council is not doing this class of work quite so quickly as the Government has done it. That in no sense is true. Well, Sir, I happen to have had the honour of being selected by both Governments on the Sites Committee, and as a member of the Sites Committee, I have had the pleasure of working with the First Commissioner of Works in the excellent improvement that he has carried out—excellent in every sense of the word, and admittedly excellent by all of us. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is rather wrong in his facts, for this reason—that twelve months only have expired out of the three and five years respectively granted to us for the Strand Improvement and purchase. On the other hand, of the Parliament Street block 60 per cent, was Government property, and yet, notwithstanding that, it has taken nearly four years to bring about that very useful and beautiful improvement. Everyone in London knows how difficult it is to acquire property for public improvements. It takes an extraordinary length of time. It has been so with the Government in connection with Parliament Street, and it has been so with the London County Council in connection with the Strand Improvement. The right honourable Gentleman is fearful lest we should delay the improvement of London traffic. We all know, to our sorrow perhaps, that the question of London traffic is a question which must, be dealt with at once, but it is rather curious to think that the very best Bill which has been introduced by the London County Council to effectively remove congestion in London's most crowded streets should meet with a more or less obstructive Motion of this description. I trust that the House will allow us to go on with the Strand Improvement as quickly as we can, and I trust that the House will allow us to make it as part of a vast improvement scheme, and I can assure the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, as he has expressed a desire not to press his Motion to a Division, if a guarantee is required that we mean business, I can assure him that the valuer has doubled his staff, and that the London County Council is unanimous on this point, that the Strand block must come down as quickly as it possibly can be secured. The guarantee that the right honourable Gentleman seeks can be given, because we are in earnest in this matter, but the worst thing that can happen with the future improvement of London streets would be for the right honourable Gentleman to establish a dangerous precedent, and induce the House to adopt his Motion. If that Motion is adopted, then every property owner who wants the price of an improvement unduly enhanced will only suggest to his local Member that he is to put a Motion down of this character, and up goes the price of property. Then the improvement will be delayed, and the ratepayers will have to pay more than they reasonably ought to pay. I can assure the House of Commons that both Moderates and Progressives are unanimous in believing in the advisability of carrying out this scheme at once. We want a big street from Euston Station, through Holborn to the Strand, the removal of the Strand Island, and probably another new bridge, a few years hence, east of Somerset House.

I can assure the House of Commons that the London County Council, which is almost as divided in opinion as perhaps the House of Commons itself, has practically an almost absolute unanimity of opinion upon this subject. Nobody can doubt the right honourable Gentleman when he says that he has no prejudice against this Bill. The right honourable Gentleman says there are two reasons for the Motion (which I hope is only a formal Motion) which he has moved. He is concerned about the great congestion of vehicular traffic throughout one of the great arteries of London, and although he is impressed with the necessity of dealing with that, he submits a Motion which would have the effect of delaying an improvement designed to repair the great and crying evil from which London suffers. The methods; which the London County Council have adopted of bringing in these two improvements by means of separate Bills will enable them to go more economically to work. That is our sole reason for acting as we have done. I should say that of all the gentlemen in the world the right honourable Gentleman opposite is the last man that I should have expected to censure the London County Council, because we are not desirous ourselves of permanently enhancing the value of the, property we want to acquire. I see that the right honourable Gentleman smiles at what I say.

I was not smiling at you.

I hope not. The attitude of the right honourable Gentleman towards this question is illogical. The London County Council does not want to delay these improvements, but it does not want, and it will not create, the enhancement of the property which it must and will acquire on reasonable terms. I will not conceal that I think the London County Council is greatly responsible for the delay from 1889 to 1897 in the carrying out of this improvement. I am not going to argue that now; that can be done in Spring Gardens; but, at any rate, for once we have an unanimity which is calculated to contribute to the removal of one of the greatest grievances which it is universally acknowledged London suffers from, and I hope that by an overwhelming majority the House will approve of the action of the London County Council.

May I suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that he has gained his object so far as he could expect to do so. I am sure that he does not wish to defeat or delay this Bill, and if he was not convinced of it before, he will probably be convinced by now that the House is unanimous in approving of the proposals which the London County Council has placed before the House. The only fault which the right honourable Gentleman finds with the London County Council is that they are not going fast enough with the scheme for which they already have powers. But I think he can hardly persuade the House to alter the Act of 1897, which gave the London County Council power to widen the streets. It may have been right or it may have been wrong to give the County Council the latitude which that Act did; but Parliament evidently thought that it was only fair to the London County Council that they should have till next year for the purchase of the property, and another two years for the accomplishment of the work, and I think the right honourable Gentleman will find it very difficult indeed to persuade Parliament at this time to alter an Act which so short time ago was passed. Therefore, under these circumstances, I think it is only reasonable that the County Council should have a latitude up to the dates given by Parliament for dealing with the properties which they are bound to acquire for carrying this work out; and as we are all agreed upon the desirableness of passing the Bill now before us, I venture to suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that we might now close the discussion, and that he might withdraw his opposition.

The right honourable Gentleman has very accurately expressed my views upon this question. But with reference to the remark of the honourable Member for Battersea, to charge me with attempting to obstructively oppose the Bill, or delay it, is an absolutely unfounded charge, and I think I repudiated any such suggestions more than once in my speech. This is not only the proper way of raising this question, but it is the only opportunity that I should have, owing to the forms of the House. I am quite satisfied with the statement of my honourable Friend the Member for Battersea, and I rely upon that statement. I feel that all I desired to have done has been done. Public attention has been called to the matter, and I have no desire to press it any further, and I therefore, Sir, beg leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.

Sir, this matter has occupied the attention of this House for many years past. Forty years ago—or rather more—in 1858, a Committee of the House was appointed, which was further supplemented by a Royal Commission, which reported in 1859. I may say that the immediate cause of the appointment of this Commission was that just then there was a war scare in this country, because the country felt that she was defenceless; and that the Royal Commission reported in the strongest way that defensive harbours were absolutely necessary. Well, Sir, the answer of the country at that period was the immediate raising of the great Volunteer Force, which placed England at that time in a position of safety. Twenty-five years more passed, and again there was a war scare in 1883. At that period it was the fashion to be weak-kneed, and the attitude of this country seemed to court insult and to invite attack. The merchants of this country were alarmed, and the result was that a Committee of this House was appointed in 1883, and issued a very voluminous Report in 1884. Again they insisted upon the absolute necessity of harbours of defence and of harbours of refuge—and what especially affects my case, they said that it was absolutely necessary that the Government should take steps to make sure that the then existing piers and harbours, for the safety of the fishermen, should be improved. Well, Sir, many things happened after 1884. In 1888 the Government of the day recognised that the country was not in a position of defence, and brought in that Measure, which redounds very greatly to their credit, by which they insured that the Fleet of England should possess a greater power than any possible combination of any two countries. Sir, the result of that policy, which was faithfully caried out by honourable Gentlemen on the opposite side when they were in office, is that to-day, not 100, nor 200, nor 300 warships, but upwards of 375 warships have been built, or are building, or have been ordered to be built. That for the time renders unnecessary harbours of defence. And at this moment I do not think the attitude of the country either courts insult or invites attack. But, Sir, the very fact of our possessing these warships makes my resolution the more important. We can build as many ships as we like, but one great difficulty—a very great difficulty—is finding men to man them; and it is on behalf of the men who man our ships, on behalf of the fishermen, that I appeal to the Government to-day. Sir, I represent a Division of Cornwall. The men of Cornwall have always, since the time of Drake, supplied some of the bravest sailors that have fought the battles of this country. The men of Cornwall live on a stormy coast, and they have no proper harbours in which to find safety for their ships. We have seen lately a very great storm. We rejoice to find that the great liners of this country have escaped, and this country rejoices also that the German liner escaped, and we join with Germany in her rejoicing. But how about the smaller boats on our rookbound coasts? Some honourable Members who will follow me will, I trust, give to the House some details of the catastrophes which have befallen some of our smaller craft. What did the Commissioners say in 1884? Their words are so true and so accurate that I hope I may be permitted to read them—

"Your Committee believe that grants of public money may to a limited extent be made in aid of works which provide refuge for fishermen on certain portions of the coast, to which a large number of boats belong, or where great fisheries are prosecuted. While the existing harbours are only accessible to boats during a certain limited portion of time, your Committee have been much struck, in the course of the evidence they received, by the extraordinary number of small fishing harbours, dry at low water, that exist on certain portions of the coast, which really, in the case of boats belonging to them being caught in a storm, become rather a source of danger than of safety."

That is my case. At the present time the piers and harbours on our coast are a source of danger to the fishermen rather than of safety. Therefore I appeal to the Government for the sake of the country, to do what they can for the men who man our Navy. Let us look around. How about our men? It is time that the country was awakened to the fact that while the number of French fishermen is considerably increasing, the number of our fishermen is considerably decreasing. Then our merchant vessels are being less and less manned with Englishmen, while more Frenchmen every day are going to sea. That is a very important matter for this country. Therefore it is necessary that our Government should take some means by which they can assist in the increase in number and safety of these harbours for fishermen. Sir, what I really ask from the Government is, that they will do for us what they have done by means of light railways for Ireland. I think they should, by their action, enable these harbours to be made without going to the great expense of an Act of Parliament, and that by a simple Order, which costs a very small amount, they should enable these works to be carried out. Well, Sir, just to give the House an instance of how things are done to-day: There were two townships which, for some reason or other, desired to join hands together. The total cost of an Order of that nature, I think, by the County Council was about£50. Now, Sir, there was a pier and harbour connected with one of these townships. They wanted to make a bond in some way to join them. Did that cost£50, or twice£50, or 10 times£50? Sir, it cost 50 times£50. The result of that was that the whole of this township has been heavily mulcted in an enormous fine, which they are little able to pay. That is the kind of thing I want the Government to undertake to see shall not exist. It is true the Government express very great sympathy. A well-known phrase occurs in Sheridan, I think, in which, in language not Parliamentary, he says—

"'Bother' your sympathy; I want your aid!"

I say to the Government—"Bother your sympathy; I want your aid!" I want the Government themselves to take this matter in hand, and not merely to courteously reply that they sympathise with us in our efforts, but to take the matter in hand, and to take care that there shall be provided for these poor fishermen, by the action of the Government, a means of doing the work cheaply, without coming to Parliament, and, as the Committee recommended in 1884, to afford where necessary some small grants of money to enable these works to be carried out. I feel that only in this way can the lives of these men be preserved; I feel that by the lives of these men being preserved you create more fishermen, more men for your Navy—your very best men. You get a man on board one of these ironclads; you make him a mechanic. You have no chance to make him really a sailor. You get a man from the fishing coast, used to the storm and stress of the weather; that man is a sailor to begin with. You can make him a good able seaman on board an ironclad afterwards. Sir, while we are standing still, what are other countries doing? Is the House aware that a neighbouring nation—France— has spent more than£10,000,000 sterling—I might almost double it—in providing harbours for the people? And what are we doing? We have made ourselves safe for the moment with our warships, but our good neighbours abroad say, "We are going to wait our time, and then you shall see what we will do." I am not afraid of their building ships; the real forces of the country are not the ships, but the men who man them. It has never been true of England that a vessel of 3,000 tons or 4,000 tons, manned with Englishmen, has succumbed to a vessel of one and a half times, or even of twice her size belonging to any other nation. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that, by the action of our Government, the Navy should be able to find men, experienced sailors, to man these vessels. So, Sir, I desire to ask the Government that, by their action, they will take care to introduce some 'Measure which will enable these harbours to be made without great expense being incurred. I desire that they shall inquire where some of these harbours may be formed, and where existing harbours may be improved. Why, Sir, on the East coast hundreds of thousands of tons of slag are being thrown into the sea as waste, where the smallest superintendence, the smallest expenditure would cause these same hundreds of thousands of tons of slag to be formed into a mole, which would create a harbour of refuge on that coast. That is the kind of thing I want the Government to do. It is of enormous importance to this country that in certain parts of the coast not only piers and harbours for fishermen, but harbours of refuge, should be created, where in times of stress our fishing boats could take refuge. I appeal to the Government to take some means, which a private Member cannot do, to inquire where harbours of refuge can be formed, and by their action to enable this to be done without expensive legislation, and also to advance sums of money to make these works. Well, Sir, this cause will not be won by mere words. It will be won by actions. It is to be won by the Government, and not by any words that I can say. Sir, many Members of this House know intimatedy positions in their own neighbourhoods fit for harbours, which they can urge upon the attention of the Government, emphasising what I have just said about the importance of piers and harbours in these different places. The Commissioners reported that of all places in England the Bristol Channel between Lundy and the Lizard was the most important for a, harbour of refuge. There are vessels sailing round our coast which get past the Land's End, and they could take refuge in the Bristol Channel if a harbour of refuge was provided. The Commissioners almost unanimously said that a harbour of refuge should be provided at the public expense, and they strongly recommended that a harbour should be created on the north coast of Cornwall, a portion of which I represent. The country must find harbours of refuge; the country cannot allow its vessels to be wrecked as they have been wrecked, because no provision has been made for their safety. At the present moment I only ask the Government to give us the means, without undue expense, to get an Order without an Act of Parliament to do the work ourselves, and that they shall support our efforts by giving us some small amount of money for those works which are absolutely necessary. Sir, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.

Sir, I rise to second the Motion made by the honourable Baronet the Member for Cornwall, and in so doing I do not propose to trouble the House at any length with details which might more properly be dealt with at a later stage. But, Sir, I do think the time has now arrived when it is incumbent upon the Government to take some action in this matter. I will endeavour to illustrate my meaning by referring to what has happened in the constituency I have the honour to represent within recent years; and if I refer more particularly to my own constituency and the County of Devon, it is not because I think there is anything unusual about that county and district, but simply because I am better acquainted with that county and district, and therefore am better able to judge of its needs. Now, Sir, in the year 1896 the Brixham authorities promoted a Bill in this House for the purpose of altering a consitution of their Harbours Authority, and also making certain alterations in its borrowing powers and administration. The scheme was opposed by a section of the ratepayers and the inhabitants of the district. They came to Parliament, counsel had to be employed, and the result was the cost of obtaining that Act amounted to£3,000, or one and a-half year's total income that could be derived from the harbour dues, and very nearly one-eighth of the total amount of the sum provided for by that Bill. Well, then, I take a parallel case. The two parishes of Higher and Lower Brixham desired that they should be amalgamated for sanitary and Local Government purposes. That, Sir, could be done by means of an order by the county council. Amalgamation was strongly opposed, and the county council sent down their inspector to investigate matters and to go into everything, and as a result amalgamation was effected at the total cost of£50. Well, Sir, I cannot see why the same powers should not have been exercised in both cases, why the law should not be so altered that the same power could be exercised in the case of a harbour, so as to enable a harbour to be improved or constructed without going to the enormous cost of applying to Parliament for a special Act. We do not come here, Sir, to ask for dole, or for any special treatment. We only ask for help for those who are quite willing to help themselves; and I think that in the few figures that I have given in relation to the Brixham Harbour Bill I have made out a case for urgent need for an alteration in the law. There is also the question to which my honourable Friend has alluded, that of harbours of refuge. This comes under quite a different heading. You can hardly expect the localities to find the money for harbours of refuge. They are matters of national, or I might almost say international, moment; and there, again, if I allude to my constituency it is because I see there the urgent necessity that exists for further provision in that direction. On the 13th of this month there was a strong south-westerly gale blowing, accompanied by terrific squalls. At the time that the gale was at its height I counted 19 large steamers besides small craft seeking refuge in Tor Bay. Well, Sir, they laid there securely enough while the wind remained in that direction, but had the wind shifted three points further south some of those vessels would have been in a position of very considerable danger. Now, they could be made absolutely secure from any winds or any possible weather that could be encountered at a very small cost; and here I would say that though undoubtedly the wreck charts published in connection with the coasts of the United Kingdom show that casualties along our coasts are of frequent occurrence, I quite admit that many of these casualties are not preventable by any provision of harbours. Still, something might be done in that direction, some casualties might be prevented, and many lives might be saved, if we had better harbour accommodation on our coasts. But it is not only the question of the saving of life. There comes in a question of the saving of property, a question of economy. Anyone at all acquainted with, such matters knows that the waste of coal is something enormous when vessels are kept at sea steaming against a head wind, when it is impossible to make any way, and any captain under such circumstances will endeavour to seek some harbour of refuge where he can lay at anchor and bank his fires until the weather moderates. That has been usual in Tor Bay. Whenever a south-westerly gale or a westerly gale has been blowing for any time, you find the roadstead filled with ships waiting for the weather to moderate; and if there is need when westerly gales are blowing there is even more need during the prevalence of easterly gales. In the whole of the Channel there is no single harbour where vessels can take refuge between Plymouth and the Isle of Wight, with the exception of Portland, which is very considerably out of the way. Now, Sir, this is a matter that I think the Government might take into their very serious consideration; but, first and foremost, I wish to repeat what has fallen from my honourable Friend the Member for the Truro Division, and ask the Government to give their attention to the state of the law as affecting the powers necessary to construct, enlarge, or improve a local harbour, or to create a fresh harbour, so that the procedure may be made cheaper. Sir, seafaring men, from the very nature of their calling, are unable to combine, are unable to help themselves in the way that those who do not follow that calling can do. It is almost impossible for men who spend five-sixths of their lives at sea to combine during the brief visits they can pay to their homes in pressing on the Government the need for the provision of these harbours. Sir, this is a matter that I think should be looked upon not from a political, not from an electioneering, point of view; it should be looked upon, as my honourable Friend has already said, from a patriotic point of view, and I do think that there is urgent need that this question should be dealt with without any further loss of time. With these few remarks, Sir, I beg to second the Resolution which has been moved by my honourable Friend.

Mr. Speaker, last Session I had the honour to bring forward a somewhat similar Motion in the interests of the fisheries, and I think we have reason to complain of the apathetic spirit in which that Motion was received. In dealing with the case not one word of sympathy was expressed with the danger and suffering of the brave and deserving class on behalf of whom we spoke, and we thought it a harsh proceeding that the Government's case was placed in the hands of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We all know how amiable that Gentleman is in private life, but by virtue of his office in financial matters he is not able to have any amiability at all. The consequence was that he not only was not sympathetic, not only made no concessions to the evident feeling of the House, but he overstated the case historically against the Motion that we were bringing forward. The Government treated us like beggars, and set the Treasure watch-dog at us, who not only barked, but actually bit us. And I think the feeling of the House was shown in the matter both by the speeches that were made and also by the fact that the majority of the Government, which was reduced to 20, had never fallen so low before. I am extremely glad now to see the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, and also the President of the Board of Trade, and the Lord Advocate, and I think that we may hope that now we shall receive more sympathetic treatment on this very important question. I have said that the Financial Secretary had overstated the case against us. He said that the existing policy of the Government in this matter of fishery harbours was to deal with this question by loan, and in no other way; and he stated that he had carefully examined the Reports of the various Commissions, and he could not find that there were any proper recommendations to give real grounds to this class of harbours to harbours of this character—that is to say, fishery harbours. Well, that really is an error of fact, because the Commission to which he referred—the first Commission under Admiral Washington—expressly dealt with this great loss of life among the fishermen, and their recommendation was to this effect: They referred to the existing grant in Scotland of£3,000 a year, and stated that this mere pittance was quite insufficient for the purpose, and recommended that £10,000 a year should be granted for some years in order to complete the system of fishery harbours. There was no word whatever of loans in this matter. Then, again, the Commission in 1857 was exactly en the same footing. The instruction to that Commission was to inquire into the policy of making further grants of public money for the improvement and extension of harbours of refuge, and that Commission confirmed Admiral Washington's recommendation, and suggested that£9,300 a year should be set aside for that purpose. Therefore, historically, the Financial Secretary must be in error in this matter, and, of course, it is a matter which does not come specially under his notice. But the recommendation upon which we mainly rest our case is a recommendation of the Select Committee of this House in 1888—Lord Tweedmouth's Commission. What we say is this: that there are two ways of dealing with this harbour question. There is the method by loan, where good security can be given. That is one way. But where good security cannot be given, it has always been the practice of the Government to give free grants, and there is no other way of getting the work done. Now, what the Select Committee pointed out was that there were some of the most urgent cases existing where there was no possibility of getting either the money or giving the necessary security to take advantage of the Loans Act, 1861. This is what the Committee said, and the entirely affirm the responsibility of the Government in this matter:—

"That it falls entirely within the province of the Government to provide the much-needed refuge in these districts, it being not difficult, it being absolutely impossible that the fishermen themselves can raise the funds for such works, or find the security upon which to borrow money to carry them out."

Therefore, what I say is this: the method under the Act of 1861 of borrowing moneys is an excellent one, where security can be found, and a very great deal of useful work has been done under the provisions of that Act. The right honourable Gentleman referred, as regards the work done under that Act, to the return obtained by the honourable Baronet the Member for Barnstaple. I think that, perhaps, the reason of the form of that return, the totals given by the return were a little misleading so far as fishery harbours were concerned, because the reference to that return, which is a most valuable one, shows that out of£1,600,000 spent under that Act in England, very nearly one million was spent by the Admiralty upon Dover, Portland, Plymouth, and other great national works. Therefore, to use this return for the purposes which were under discussion was a little misleading. Something similar occurs with regard to Scotland, and I notice in the return that in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands actually two-thirds of the whole was spent in great Admiralty works. Therefore, although we quite admit that the Act of 1861 has been most useful, at the same time it does not do the whole of the work. There are a great class of small works very much needed where the population is poor, and where it is absolutely impossible, as the Select Committee stated, to find security. When, therefore, we appeal to the right honourable Gentleman, and he tells us, "You can have any amount of money upon good security," while the Select Committee says it is impossible to furnish that security, I think it is rather a case that we are asking for bread and the Government are only giving us a stone. It is not, as the honourable Gentleman who seconded this Motion says, that we are mere beggars. We are not asking for doles. We ask that the Government should perform their duty in this matter in protecting the life and property of a deserving class; but that class is also willing, and always has been willing, to contribute to the very utmost of its powers In Scotland, where these grants have been given with very great success, the Fishery Board has been in the habit of requiring that about one-third of the amount should be contributed by the fishermen. We all know Low difficult it is to poor fishermen to collect hundreds of pounds. I mention to the House as an example of what they can do, that in the small fishery village of Whitehall, in my own constituency, the fishermen collected no less a sum than £3,000, which they put down. The Fishery Board then added£6,000, and a most excellent harbour is now being completed, to the great advantage of the people upon that coast. In the same way, in other parts, large sums are collected. I see in the report of the Select Committee of 1883 that they make a somewhat painful comparison between the amounts spent by the Governments of France, Germany, and other countries in harbours of this kind. Well, the figures that they give are not very satisfactory, because there is the same difficulty as in our own return, to which I have alluded, that we do not know what portion of these millions that are alluded to refer to naval harbours, and what refer to commercial or fishery harbours. And I might suggest, perhaps, to the right honourable Gentleman on the Front Bench that a return might be obtained which would distinguish between these different objects, and let us know what other countries are doing in the direction regarding which we are now asking the Government to sympathise with us. It is quite evident that if this very strong competition goes on in the North Sea, and other seas which are frequented by the fishermen—if this very strong competition goes on, and if our competitors are supplied with good harbours and all commercial facilities, our fishermen are put to a great disadvantage; they are handicapped in this competition. Well, with the permission of the House, I will just mention my own personal knowledge of what the German Government is doing with regard to one single harbour. This last summer I paid a visit to a large fishery harbour used for the fishing of the North Sea, at Geesle-münde, near Bremerhaven, at the mouth of the Weser. At this single fishery harbour the German Government has spent within the last five years no less than 7,000,000 marks; that is to say, speaking roughly, about £350,000; and this harbour was begun in 1891, and was completed in 1896. And honourable Gentlemen will understand what a splendid harbour this is when I mention that it contains a wharf about three-quarters of a mile long, accessible at all times of the tide. At no time of the tide is there less than 14 or 16 feet of water, and it has a nice clear course, and the fishermen can come in at any time of the night and day in perfect safety. On our dangerous coasts, when a North Sea gale is blowing and the boats are being driven down to what is always spoken of as our iron-bound coast, there is no one single harbour south of the Moray Firth in which they can lie with safety during all times of the tide. And here we have the German Government providing these magnificent harbours. Not only is there complete safety for life and property, but there are immense commercial facilities. There are great sheds arranged for the auction of the fish, and for discharging into trains, which carry the fish at once to every part of Germany and Central Europe. Therefore, I say that this is an object lesson to the Government. Let them consider these fishery harbours "made in Germany," and let them make some for us upon the same liberal scale. I say the action of our Government contrasts most unfavourably. Here are £350,000 given absolutely as a free grant by the Government, without a single penny contribution from the people. There is a certain sum of money—I believe £34,000—which the Government have got to this day. They performed no service for it. It was raised in the fishery industry, and belongs to the fishery industry, and that sum of £34,000 would make a very good nucleus for the Fishery Board to meet the daily applications that are being made to it to augment the contribution locally collected. We know that very large sums of money have been spent. We were told the other day that £8,000,000 have been spent in Egypt and in Uganda; and I hope I shall not be charged with being very parochial if I ask for a few thousands for our own fishermen, the men who, as my honourable Friend said, are the defenders of the country—who are the men who man our Navy, who maintain our supremacy in all parts of the world. I may say that I also entirely confirm what has been said about cheapening Provisional Orders, and the arrangements for getting private Acts to make harbours. A case was mentioned where, I think, £3,000 were spent in a contested case. There have been several Provisional Orders in my own neighbourhood where there was no contest, no opposition, and out of the funds collected with so much difficulty by the fishermen they had to spend in each case about £300 before they were able to get the Provisional Order that they required. The work was thoroughly formal; there was no difficulty in the case; and, with a little help from the Government and Parliament, I believe these Provisional Orders might be obtained without any cost whatever. I only say that I hope this Motion will become a sort of hardy annual until we have persuaded the Government to do its duty. I have great hopes from those who are now on the Treasury Bench that we shall have some kindly and sympathetic expression, and therefore I cordially support the Motion of my honourable Friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Resolution moved by my honourable Friend the Member for the Truro Division. I do not think it is at all necessary that I should go over the ground again, and repeat what has been said so many times before, as to the necessity for proper steps being taken to improve the present condition of our smaller harbours. As the House well knows, this question has been agitated since 1859. We have had a Royal Commission, and we have had a Select Committee: and I think the mere fact that this is the third time during the life of this present Parliament on which this question has been raised is sufficient to show the Government that there is a very strong feeling in the country on this matter. There is one point in the history of the subject that I think is somewhat peculiar. The Royal Commission reported in favour of the policy which we are now advocating, and, indeed, a good deal wider policy; but the Government of the day ignored that policy, and the Report upon which it was founded. The Royal Commission of 1859 recommended a grant of £2,365,000 with loans at low rates of interest for the improvement of certain harbours, on condition that certain local sums should be raised; and in 1860, the year following, a Member of this House, Mr. Lindsay, carried by a majority of 17 a Resolution to the effect that it was the duty of the Government to adopt at the earliest possible period the necessary measures to carry into effect the recommendation of the Commissioners. What was the answer of the Government? The Government did exactly what the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, speaking last year on this subject, said: "They pushed on one side all the recommendations made with regard to provision for harbours of refuge out of the Imperial purse, and started the policy of loans." Well, Sir, that policy was tried for twenty years, and that policy failed. I admit that a good deal has been done under it, but still, as regards the poorer districts, where it is so difficult to get any proper accommodation, we are as badly off as ever. In 1884 the Government was again driven to grant another inquiry. Again the Committee reported in favour of grants being made under certain conditions. The honourable Gentleman who moved this Resolution quoted the terms which the Committee recommended. Again, in 1887, a year or two afterwards, the subject was brought before the House, and the Government of the day only escaped defeat by the narrow majority of five. Again the answer of the Government was a step very like the passing of the Harbours and Tolls Act, 1861. There was a Treasury Minute which the right honourable Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade said bound the Government, and they refused to take any steps to improve the present position of affairs. Well, again we are pressing the Government to take up this question. In 1896 the honourable Member for Flint moved for the appointment of a Departmental Committee, and the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade stated that it was not a matter which could be referred to a Departmental Committee. It was a matter with which the House ought to deal, and the Government ought to deal, without the assistance of a Departmental Committee. Sir, to-day the honourable Member who proposes this Resolution asks the House and the Government to deal with this question, and to deal with it without a Departmental Committee. What is it that is asked? We are not asking now for a vast expenditure of public money for our national harbours, such as we used to discuss some 30 or 40 years ago. We are asking for something that, I think, is perfectly feasible from the Government, something that will not cause any very great expense. As the honourable Gentlemen who have preceded me have said, the first thing that we ask for is some means of cheapening the methods of getting Provisional Orders and powers to improve and construct harbours. Well, Sir, I cannot see what objection the Government can have to introducing some legislation that would have this effect. Honourable Members have given instances, and they can be largely multiplied, of the costs, which strike one as very large indeed, involved in getting powers to improve and construct harbours. The present Government have before them the operation of the Light Railways Act in a very similar matter, which, from all accounts, is working very smoothly and saving an enormous amount of money. We do not ask that, so far as the creation of large commercial harbours in large centres is concerned, there should be any special alteration of the law. Every Session Bills are brought in for the purpose of building large docks and harbours. But what I do think we have a right to ask for is this, that in the poorer districts, where there is very little money, there should be some means devised by which those who want to' improve the smaller harbours and piers should be able to get the necessary powers at the minimum cost. Then, Sir, we also ask in necessary cases—not in all cases—that there should be at the disposal of the Government some money which could assist in the creation of these harbours. The policy of loans has been tried now ever since 1861, and still the grievance of the poorer districts remains practically as it was. It is useless to ask men who have no security to offer, to give security which the Government will accept, and to pay interest at 3Û per cent. The Government have really recognised this principle in various parts of the United Kingdom. They have recognised it in Ireland, and to a certain extent in Scotland. No doubt we shall be told that in the case of Ireland a sum of £250,000 was granted out of the Irish Church Fund, but the House will remember that long before that, under Acts passed by this House, one of them the 9th Victoria, and the others 10th and 11th Victoria, a sum of £90,000 was granted under certain conditions for the purpose of improving the harbours in Ireland, and the extent—the very considerable extent—to which the Government have already adopted the policy of grants in poor districts is shown by the return—not, I agree with the honourable Baronet, as clearly as one would like—granted in 1896. However, those who will take the trouble to look through the return will see that a considerable sum—not large enough some of us think, but still a considerable sum—has been granted to the Fishery Board in Ireland for the purpose of these smaller harbours and piers, and though I confess on the face of the return it looks as if a far larger sum had been granted to England, I think I am right in saying that, with one solitary exception, the whole of the money granted to England and Wales has been granted for the purposes of national harbours of defence. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when pressed upon this subject in 1896, defended the grants to Scotland and to Ireland on the ground that they were given on the recommendation of a Royal Commission, which pointed out that there were certain parts of the country in so impoverished a condition as to be totally unable to help themselves. But the Royal Commission and the Select Committee of this House have recommended that precisely the same policy should be adopted as regards the whole of the United Kingdom. The Select Committee, as the honourable Baronet pointed out, distinctly recommended that; they held that in the poor districts it was perfectly reasonable that the Government should make grants for the purpose of improving these harbours. No doubt the right honourable Gentleman did go on to say, in answer to a laugh that was raised, that if we had any corresponding districts in our minds with regard to which it was desired to make recommendations to the Government, those representations when made would be considered by the Government. Yes, but it is of no use making representations to the Government if the responsible Minister says that by reason of the Treasury Minute or any other authority it is useless to consider the recommendations. In a previous passage of his speech the right honourable Gentleman said that the Government was, in fact, debarred from the application of public money by the Treasury Minute, which laid it down that money should be only granted for the purpose of harbours by way of loan. Well, Sir, when the Government are prepared to say that they will not be hindered by the Treasury Minute, I am perfectly certain that honourable Members from England and Wales can show them cases which are practically on all fours with those we have had reference made to in various parts of the United Kingdom. Now, Sir, we have been told that the great drawback, the great thing that we have to face, is this Treasury Minute. I cannot quite agree that the Government as a whole is bound by any Treasury Minute, and certainly I believe it is unquestionable that the House of Commons is not bound by a Treasury Minute, and if we can show good grounds for over-riding the Treasury Minute there will be no difficulty. Well, now, what are the grounds that this Treasury Minute gives for refusing this money for harbours? The first objection was that the proposal was a complete departure from practice and precedent. Sir, the return I have quoted from, issued in 1896, shows that the Government need not be in the least afraid of any departure from practice, because they have departed from it most clearly by adopting a system of grants both as regards Scotland and as regards Ireland. Well, the second observation is that the plan will stifle local enterprise. Local enterprise in these districts has had more than 40 years in which to try and develop and improve these harbours, and in these districts for which we are pleading local enterprise has been a failure. Well, then, the third observation is that it would be unjust and unfair to places which have already provided themselves with sufficient shelter and accommodation. That argument, carried to its logical extent, would enable every one of us who did not require poor relief and free education to refuse to pay our poor rates and education rates. It is perfectly reasonable that the richer places should help and assist those that are poorer, and I think that is a policy which has been adopted in many instances in legislation in this House. The right honourable Gentleman said that what we were asking was a matter of £8,000,000 or £10,000,000. I really do not know where he gets those figures, but the Select Committee certainly recommended no such sum as that. If the Government is afraid of the expense, they have absolute control of the money, and they can limit the amount to whatever extent they like. They can take in this matter the example of the Light Railways Act; and I believe that if, as an instalment, they would offer to bring in a Bill to simplify the expense, and then would put aside a sum of £1,000,000 for the purpose of these smaller harbours and piers, it would go a very long way indeed to satisfy the demands which are constantly being made in this House. No doubt the House would agree, if the contention of the right honourable Gentleman is right, with the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth in support of a similar recommendation in 1896, but I think this Resolution 'is very limited. It asks for no grant of any large sum of money; it merely asks for an expenditure of a comparatively small sum to deal with poor districts which are unable to help themselves. Well, Sir, there only remains one further objection put forward in this Treasury Minute, and that is that there is no evidence that there is any great loss of life. Those honourable Gentlemen who will take the trouble to study the returns will observe that the loss of life for seven years within 15 miles "of the coast is 1,500, and the loss of property over 50,000 tons. Well, in order to get the percentage to look more favourable, the gentleman who drew up this report gets rid of a large number of lives lost by classifying them under the heading of a particular gale. He also very conveniently gets rid of the missing vessels, and then, as a result of that very ingenious method, tries to show that the loss of life is not so great as it actually was. He ought, however, to know that men in distress at sea, when there is no harbour to run to, do not run to the coast; the first thing they do is to try and ride out the storm as far as they can away from the coast. It is absurd to suggest that harbours would be no good because you cannot tell exactly where the vessels were lost. Surely, Sir, the fact that we have during those seven years lost over 1,500 lives and over 50,000 tons of property within 15 miles of the coast should go a great way to induce the Government to take steps in the matter. Well, Sir, I have given the objections, and I venture to say they are not such as the Government ought to stand by. At any rate, so far as they are concerned, practically every one of them has been overruled in exceptional cases when they introduced their Light Railways Act. They have recognised the fact that there were districts which could only be properly developed by exceptional means, and they have, done it as regards agriculture. I think, on behalf of the sailors, I have made out a similar case. We are not asking for money for any particular interest; we are asking the Government to take steps to protect life and property. Sir, I hope the Government will give this matter their earnest and careful consideration. It is a matter of very urgent importance. They have shown themselves alive to the dangers of the miners, they have shown themselves alive to the special dangers in our workshops; and only yesterday the President of the Board of Trade introduced a Bill which I hope will soon pass into law, and which will do a great deal to lessen the loss of life on our railways. I hope to-night we shall not plead in vain for a favourable and sympathetic answer from the Government, or be met, as we have been over and over again, with a non possumus, or that is a matter for commercial enterprise. I think the speeches have shown that it is a question for the Government to take up, and I hope the Government will not oppose this Resolution, but accept it as one really necessary to meet the existing state of affairs.

The honourable Baronet who has just sat down has given so admirable a history of this question, meeting all the arguments raised, that it will only be necessary for me to say a very few words upon this subject. I hope that the mind of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has now been thoroughly disabused of the idea that the demand which we put forward is the enormous and extravagant demand which he thought we put forward last year. As a matter of fact, the request that we are making is one that is made on a very moderate scale; one which received when it same before the House in 1896 the support of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one which I think will commend itself to the Government upon the present occasion. I cannot believe that the Treasury Minute which, as the right honourable Gentleman alleged, stood in the way in 1896, can be regarded as a sort of law of the Medes and Persians. The right honourable Gentleman has at this moment the First Lord of the Treasury on his right, and I am sure that a word from him would settle this question in a sense which would be favourable to the claim we are now making. But, however that may be, I am quite certain that the Treasury does not intend its Minutes to apply to all times and to all occasions, and that it will not always stand in the way of the reform of the kind we are now advocating. I should like to draw the attention of the right honourable Gentleman to the words in which he introduced the Light Railways Bill into this House. The construction of these harbours will not only improve the efficiency of the industry and have a tendency to protect life and property, but it will improve the means of communication as well on our coasts to a very great extent. When the right honourable Gentleman introduced the Light Railways Bill he said—

"If we can do anything to bring the producer and consumer more closely together—if we can make more easy the distribution of produce—we shall have done much to help both the producer and the consumer."

That, to some extent, is a part of the case which underlies this Motion. And then the right honourable Gentleman referred to the high charges which were made by the railway companies, and said—

"He was not prepared to deny that there were some grounds for complaints, but, assuming that agriculturists who now possess railway facilities might fairly complain of railway charges, what of those producers who had no railway communication whatever to avail themselves of? If the position of the one class is bad, the House will admit that the position of agriculturists who have no means of railway communication is infinitely worse."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just the case on a large part of our coasts. There are places, for instance, on the coast of Wales where a Measure of this kind is infinitely more needed than a Light Railways Bill. From Milford to Holyhead, embracing the whole of the coast, there is not a single harbour in which a boat drawing eight feet of water can run at low tide. Well, now, that is a state of things that ought not to be allowed to continue to exist. It is a very long and a very dangerous stretch of coast. It is perfectly impossible, under circumstances of that kind, for the fishing industry to be developed on a coast of that sort. As the right honourable Gentleman very well knows, the conditions of the fishing industry are such now that, as the fishermen go farther and farther out to sea, it has become necessary to employ a larger class of boat and of higher tonnage than used to be the case. It is therefore absolutely necessary, if the fishing industry is to be preserved at all on some parts of our coasts, that something of this kind should be done. And then, as has already been said, we need a further supply of men for our Navy. The Navy needs men more than it needs ships and money at the present time, and the fishing-grounds on our coasts are the very best training grounds for the Navy. If the right honourable Gentleman can respond favourably to our appeal and take means to very largely increase the supply of harbours in this country, it surely is a matter of great importance not only to small seaside places, but to those great inland towns to which are sent a, very large part of the staple food of the poorest of our population. For these reasons I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will look favourably upon the appeal that has been made to him, and that he will not be deterred by a Treasury Minute, or by any other reason of that kind, but that he will do his very utmost to improve the facilities of communication on the coast; that he will do something for the protection of those fisheries which are so necessary to our national prosperity and to our food in time of peace, and still more in time of war; and that he will take the power which is now in his hands of spending a little of the money of this country which has been so largely spent in foreign parts. I will not say that it has been uselessly spent, by any means, but million after million has been spent in distant parts of the world in providing railways which only run one train a week. I do hope that the small appeal we make for consideration will not be lost upon the Government, or upon the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

I am sure no one can complain of my honourable Friend the Member for Truro bringing forward again this hardy annual. The matter is one of great importance, and my honourable Friend and all those who have supported him have dealt with it in a spirit of great consideration. I wish to recognise that fact, although I am unable, on behalf of the Government, to agree with the suggestions which have been made. I am sorry to hear one honourable Gentleman, however, express the opinion that the Government have no sympathy with the loss of life among the fishing population.

I accused the Government of not having expressed sympathy.

I should have thought that, without expressing it, the Government might have been credited with the sympathy which everyone must feel for the men engaged in so dangerous an occupation. I am perfectly satisfied that there is no Government which would not be inclined to do everything it possibly could to reduce the unfortunate loss of life which occurs, and which, I am afraid, must, to some extent, always occur in such an industry. Apart from that, the Government agree with my honourable Friend who brought forward this Motion that the encouragement of the fishing industry would have a twofold result. It would, in the first place, increase the supply of a food which the people much appreciate; and, in the second place, it would increase the number of seamen available for the Navy; so that from that point of view I can assure the honourable Member that the object he has in view is one which has the most complete sympathy of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, what are the proposals which my honourable Friend has made? One of the proposals upon which he laid great stress, and which has been referred to by more than one honourable Member, is that we should give greater facilities in the way of cheapening the procedure for those who desire to bring forward proposals in Parliament with regard to the maintenance of small harbours. It has been suggested that the procedure under the Light Railways Act might form some precedent. Well, Sir, I have looked into the matter from that point of view, and I do not believe it is possible for us to make any proposals to Parliament which would render the applications for harbours cheaper than they are under the present state of the law. As the House knows, applications for piers and harbours are dealt with by Provisional Orders, which are cheap when unopposed, though no doubt the expense is formidable when they are opposed. But I cannot for the life of me understand how, as has been stated by the honourable Member for Banffshire, £300 has been spent in getting an unopposed Order. I find that between the years 1896 and 1898, of 20 applications for piers and harbours only one was opposed. In 1896 nine Provisional Orders were applied for, and only one was opposed. In 1897 seven Provisional Orders were granted, and there was no opposition. In 1898 there were four applications, and there was no opposition. Therefore, out of the whole of the numbers applied for, there was only once opposition, and in that the expense must have been of a very trifling character. The honourable Gentleman has spoken in rather a contemptuous way of the proposals with regard to grants and loans. Well, the House, I am sure, will understand that the policy of making loans is one which is very difficult and sometimes dangerous to pursue. If we are to adopt such a policy we might very well have schemes for the erection of piers and harbours from many parts of the country upon which money might probably be wasted. If a policy of that kind were pursued I am afraid that there would be an end to private and municipal enterprise. As between grants and loans, the House of Commons has, no matter what Party has been in power, negatived the former and affirmed the latter. In 1863 a Motion was brought forward in favour of grants; it was rejected by the House of Commons without a division. Again, in 1864, a Motion of a similar kind was brought forward, and was rejected by 142 to 84. In 1865 there was a Resolution of a similar kind, and this was negatived. In 1869 a question was asked on the subject, and Mr. Bright, who was then at the Board of Trade, replied that the Government had strictly adhered to the policy hitherto pursued, namely that of making loans. Sir, there was another Resolution negatived by the House of Commons in 1875, and in 1876, and so on. I say, therefore, without hesitation, that whenever the question of grants has been brought forward it has been negatived by the House of Commons. In the policy of making loans instead of grants, therefore, the Government are only following the policy laid down by the House of Commons. It has been said that it is useless to suggest loans at the rate of 3¼ per cent. No doubt that was the rate of interest fixed in the Treasury Minute, but two years ago an alteration was made to 2¾ No one can say that that is excessive, but it is contingent on the security given being greater than that supplied by the tolls. It surely ought not to be difficult in these days of county councils, if harbours are required, to give the security of the rates behind the security of the harbour itself, in order to obtain loans at a low rate of interest. Well, Sir, I say, with regard to the general question, we adhere to the policy assented to by previous Governments. At the same time, without committing myself to the general principle of giving grants in aid of harbours—a policy which I think would be attended with great danger of waste of money—I have no hesitation, in saying that, if cases such as have been referred to are brought before me at the Board of Trade I will make a representation to the Treasury, and endeavour to obtain some such assistance as has teen rendered in similar circumstances to other industries in different parts of the country. Of course, it will be understood that we are not going to start a sort of roving commission round the coasts of England, Ireland, and Scotland to ascertain where there is need of harbours. Representations of the need must come from the locality, and it must foe established, first of all, that a harbour is really required at a particular place; it must also be established that it is practically impossible for the locality to make a harbour off their own bat. As in the Light Railways Act, the Treasury is empowered to make grants in aid of contributions from other sources where the poverty of the district renders it impossible to obtain effective local assistance. Sir, there is this other requirement, which I think the House will admit is necessary—that the county council or some local organisation must take the responsibility of keeping the harbour going. Without an undertaking of that kind I think it would be unwise and imprudent on the part of the Government to render the assistance to which I have referred, and I trust my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think that I have gone too far.

At the outset, I would like to say that the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade opens a certain vista of hope in the future for those who have an interest in harbours and piers. I only trust that the right honourable Gentleman will not be absolutely swamped by the number of applications that must come in to him within the next few months. The right honourable Gentleman declared at first against the policy of grants, and he said that was the policy of the House. But I would remind the right honourable Gentleman that while that may have been so in 1876—the last case which he quoted—I am afraid that since then Par liament has abandoned its former purity, and has committed itself to grants for many other interests besides harbours. The right honourable Gentleman, how ever, has given us some promise that under certain circumstances grants in aid may be given in urgent cases, and for that I am extremely grateful. I will not detain the House long, but I want to point out that there is a difficulty at present in regard to loans. It is said that one grain of fact is equal to a bushel of theory, and I may take as an illustration a special case in which I am interested. There is the harbour of Stonehaven. It is one which is generally fitted by nature to be made a harbour of refuge; so much so, that it was specially mentioned in the Report of the Royal Commission on Harbours of Refuge, and it might, but for certain events, have been selected for the great harbour of refuge for the North-East coast instead of Peterhead. It is agreed by all the fisher men both up and down the coast that if that harbour were only improved it would effect a great saving of life and property, not only to the people of Stonehaven, but to the people of the neighbouring districts. That, surely, is a clear case for aid. Well, we applied to the Fishery Board, but with no result. We were told that we could not get a grant or loan because we were not a peculiarly fishing harbour. Local industries involve the import of various commercial commodities, and, therefore, we need not apply to the Fishery Board. Then we went to the Local Loans Com mission with a Provisional Order and asked for a loan; but we were told we could not get a loan because there was a debt of £6,000 on the harbour. The people of Stonehaven set to work to re duce that debt. They raised subscriptions in the locality, and by means of a bazaar and the generosity of the summer visitors they reduced the debt to £2,000. But even now we find we cannot get a loan without wiping out the debt altogether. Such cases are very hard. I hope that while considering the question of grants the right honourable Gentleman will do what he can to facilitate loans under the present system. I can say that we heartily thank him for the sympathetic way in which he has treated this most important question.

I wish to make an appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in the spirit of the reply which he has made to those honourable Members who have spoken. No one, I am sure, holds that Parliament should be otherwise than very chary in committing itself to any policy of increasing loans or grants towards any industry. But what I would ask the right honourable Gentleman is to give us a little more of the wisdom and attention of Parliament in this matter. What we ask for is not wholly money. The conditions of the fishing industry have been entirely changed within the last few years. All the methods which have been hitherto adopted to meet the difficulties of the industry are methods which have been rendered more or less out of date. These changes have taken place since the last inquiry into the sea fisheries was instituted. And now these small isolated communities on the seaboard of Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are precluded from taking the part which they have hitherto taken in the fishing industry of the country. It is perfectly impossible for them in the changed conditions to compete with the larger boats—even when they go further out from the coast—which are now employed by not only our own countrymen, but by the fishermen of other nations. Then we have got to meet a very deliberately organised and far-seeing policy on the part of other countries who fish with us in the waters of the North Sea. All these facts point to the conclusion that we are asking our fishermen in these small isolated communities to do the impossible. I dislike extremely on the part of any branch of industry in the country to come forward repeatedly to ask for grants or doles in order that it may get through the difficulties of their occupation. It is a most demoralising process, pauperising in the highest degree, and leads them to rely on the Government in a way which we know is hopeless for them, for Parliament seldom or never listens to these appeals. But I would remind the right honourable Gentleman that not so many years ago there was an attempt to meet these difficulties in connection with the Sea Fisheries. The right honourable the President of the Board of Trade, in making the very grateful offer that he did to increase materially the grants, laid down a certain number of conditions under which the grants were to be made. The local authority was to be responsible, and it must guarantee the expense of the maintenance of the harbours, and there were a number of other perfectly reasonable and very wise precautions. What I want to point out to him is that there was a Sea Fisheries Bill before this House which laid on the public authorities in Scotland precisely these obligations which he wishes to impose on the local authorities in carrying out harbour works. Rating powers were also included in that Measure, so that counties not wholly interested in the fishing industry should be able to delegate to that portion of the county which was interested in the fisheries power to carry out any necessary works. But, as the House is aware, the very essence of that Bill, that is to say, the rating powers, which were assented to in this House, were, if my memory serves me right, excised from the Bill when it went to be considered in another place. A proposal was made before this House last Session of a very limited character, which was intended to meet the difficulty. If I am not troubling the House with matter of detail, I will remind the right honourable Gentleman that, as a matter of fact, at the present time, if a county council or other local authority makes a proposal for a fishery harbour in Scotland—including a number of other local authorities in neighbouring counties which have all a common interest in this matter—if all these make a proposal, and only one local authority chooses to object to the course contemplated, the Secretary for Scotland, by the terms of the Act, is forbidden to take the application which comes from the communities interested even into his consideration. Well, honourable Members on this side of the House laid before Parliament last year and the year before a Measure intended to remove that grievance. It is to this point that I want very respectfully to ask the attention of the right honourable Gentleman. It is not good for Parliament or for any of us to be perpetually coming to Parliament for doles and grants for any particular industry. But it is of vast importance that the interests of an integral part of the nation should be preserved, in the face of an organised attempt by foreign countries to set on a better footing their interests in the fishing industry in the North Sea. I think our Government will be very far from fulfilling their duty in the altered circumstances of the case if they do not take some action. As the right honourable Gentleman is aware, a Hydro-graphical Conference is to meet this year in order to endeavour to place on some sound basis researches and scientific experiments in regard to sea, fisheries, especially in the North Sea. These are necessary as a first step to the closure and protection of areas on the coasts of the various countries bordering on the North Sea. I do venture most respectfully to ask the right honourable Gentleman in every way to extend and encourage the operations of that Conference. Some of us have been for several years endeavouring to get the attention of the Government drawn to the importance of this matter. And, now that we have these foreign countries consenting to send delegates to that Conference on this subject, I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to lend his' aid and influence with the Government to encourage the step which has been taken. Again, I repeat the sentiment with which I began—what we want is more of the wisdom and attention of Parliament. Money has been repeatedly wasted, and will be wasted; it is very apt to be wasted by sums being given to one interest or another in different parts of the country. It is only with the greatest difficulty that can be prevented. But it must materially help to guide these fishing communities and the men who get a hard livelihood as fishermen if we have some Debate on the, difficulties of their calling and situation. We have been spoiled by our favourable conditions as compared with the foreign countries to which the right honourable Gentleman has alluded. These have a very great difficulty in organising a good supply of food for their people. As the right honourable Gentleman knows, the centre of Europe and countries far from the seaboard have the greatest, difficulty in organising the fish-food supply, while we are in a very enviable position in this matter. We have taken things, however, too easily, while other countries are coming up to us stride by stride. I would urge the right honourable Gentleman to consider whether he could not either let us have some inquiry on the subject, or make some attempt to form localised public opinion, so as to direct the attention of all those who are interested, to help in the matter.

As the representative of a constituency which has a coast line admitted to be of an absolutely dangerous character, I cannot help rising to say that I am very glad to receive some assurance from the right honourable the President of the Board of Trade that, in oases where local harbours are urgently needed, he, as President of the Board of Trade, would be willing to consider whether grants could not be made. Speaking for myself, I submit that a grant in aid for harbours on the Welsh coast is a grant in aid of the safety of the lives of seamen. On the part of the coast of Wales to which I refer there is scarcely a great gale without some ship being driven on the coast, sometimes with the loss of life, and frequently with great loss of property. I am sorry the right honourable Gentleman does not see his way to agree to the proposal made by honourable Members who have taken part in the Debate, in regard to the cheapening of the procedure for obtaining the passage of Provisional Orders dealing with harbours through the House. He has informed the House that the cost is not great, but my experience is that the cost incurred in cases of that kind is very much higher than the comparatively small expenditure to which he has referred. Would it not be possible to have Provisional Orders dealing with local needs of that kind dealt with by the county councils of the country? If I am not mistaken, the right honourable Gentleman himself, in his first draft of the Local Government Bill of 1888, granted certain large powers in regard to Provisional Orders with reference to gas water, and other things to the county councils. I hope, at all events, that this Debate will be the means of drawing the attention of the Government to the matter, although I do not in any way desire to diminish the importance of the assurance which the right honourable Gentleman has given in regard to grants in aid of necessitous cases. We are well satisfied with that assurance so far as it goes. I wish to associate myself entirely with the remarks of my honourable Friend the Member for Kincardineshire, that this question will not be satisfactorily settled until a definite and settled policy in regard to it is adopted by the Government, and continued by successive Governments in the years to come. I hope that this Debate will be the means of drawing public attention to the real need there is for improvement in our harbours, and the condition of our seamen and fishermen. If it does that, and nothing more, and with the assurance of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the Debate will certainly not have been in vain.

I was glad to hear the promise made by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that in poorer districts he will consider the desirability of making grants for harbours. In many instances it is quite impossible for the people to make the harbours so much needed themselves. I am sure that many honourable Members will be glad to have, in addition to the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade, the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he will agree to the grants being made. When the Light Railways Bill was before the House I called special attention to the case of the poorer districts in the Highlands and Islands, but no more consideration has been given to these poorer districts of the Highlands than to the rich districts of England and the Lowlands of Scotland. We have the Congested Districts Board, which has power to make small doles for boat slips and piers, but we want harbours of refuge. Surely this is a matter which should engage the attention of the Government. There is frequently terrible loss of life for want of these harbours of refuge. In my own constituency, a short time since, 19 lives were lost owing to the want of a harbour at Portnaguran, Island of Lewis. The Walpole Commission on Harbours of Refuge stated that Portnaguran was a suitable place for a harbour of refuge, and strongly recommended the construction of such a harbour there. But nothing has been done. It is very hard that the Island of Lewis should remain in the same condition as to harbours as it was forty or fifty years ago. There is not a harbour in the Island of Lewis suitable for large fishing boats, except Stornoway. Now, with a harbour at Portnaguran fish could be speedily sent to market, and the enormous risks run by our fishermen on a wild and stormy coast would be diminished. There is the harbour at Port Ness, also in the Island of Lewis, which is in a worse condition than it was twenty years ago. On the east side of the county there is the harbour of Portmahomack, a harbour which, year after year, is silting up, and the result is that Portmahomack, instead of being the prosperous place it should be, is declining. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General knows the place, but I sincerely hope he will put in a word for harbours on the north coast of Scotland. I would beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take this matter up, for, after all, it is money that is wanted. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer buttons up his pockets and says, "I won't give the money," the President of the Board of Trade cannot do what his generous heart would prompt him to do. Millions of money are squandered in foreign parts, while these important matters at home are left unheeded. The right honourable Gentleman has spoken of the importance of looking after the welfare of our seamen, but why have we foreign seamen manning our ships? We ought to take greater care of our fishing population Look at the great and growing expenditure on our Navy. I do not grudge that expenditure, but what about men to man the Navy? Many of our young men in the Highlands have to go to other lands in order to earn a living, or worse still to large cities to swell the overcrowded population—all this in consequence of the need of suitable harbour accommodation around our coasts and the destruction of the fishing banks by trawlers. But I will not touch on trawling. These matters do not receive the attention of the Government which they deserve, and I shall be very glad, before the Debate is ended, to hear some statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he will show willingness to help this work, not only in the North of Scotland but all round our coasts. Take the coast of Norfolk, for instance. It is in a very bad way. Many parts of the English coast are in a similar condition. I say that harbours of refuge ought to be provided by the State, and the burden not laid on the shoulders of the local authority.

Is the honourable Member for Ross-shire aware that there are two good harbours of refuge in the Hebrides, near the places he has mentioned, namely, Loch Seaforth, a large sea loch, a part of which divides Lewis from Harris, the rest being in Lewis, about 30 or 35 miles south of Stornoway; and East Loch Tarbert, in Harris, 40 miles from Stornoway? And is the honourable Member also not aware that harbour works are being caried out at the Island of Scalpay, 30 miles from Stornoway, at West Loch Tarbert?

That is the constituency of the honourable Member for Inverness-shire, whom I look around for in vain. But I hold here in my hand a list of the piers partially constructed under the Highlands and Islands Board, which has now ceased to exist, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew the funds for these small works.

The honourable Gentleman has already addressed the House.

I only want to say a very few words in announcing that I shall, with the consent of the House, withdraw the Motion. In doing so, I desire to thank the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the sympathetic words that he has spoken, and I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear them in mind. I also wish to associate myself with the honourable Member for Forfarshire and other honourable Gentlemen who think it is the duty of the Government to take some steps to see that harbours are provided all along our coasts. I repeat that it seems to me a cruel thing that, on the coast of Essex, tens of thousands of tons of slag are thrown away into the sea when the smallest expenditure of money and a little time and care would ensure that these thousands of tons of slag should be so deposited as to largely assist in forming an effective mole for a harbour. I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.

In moving the Resolution standing in my name, I hope to be able to show the imperative necessity of the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts. I am aware, in introducing this subject, of the enormous difficulty of the task, which would have been better in the hands of one more conversant with the practice of the County Courts than I can profess to be. The position, however, is not one of my own choosing. In 1897 the Executive Council of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, of which I am a member, and was for some years president, requested me to introduce a Bill, which had been very carefully prepared and drafted at the instance of the Association, for the extension of the County Courts' Jurisdiction. I brought in that Bill in 1897, but I had no opportunity of carrying it to a Second Reading. In the following year I was likewise unsuccessful in the ballot, but I reintroduced the County Courts Bill, and I approached my honourable and learned Friend the Attorney-General with a request that the Bill should be read pro formâ a second time, in order that it might be sent to the Grand Committee on Law. My honourable and learned Friend informed me that the Lord Chancellor took exception to some portions of the Bill, and I at once felt that the Bill must be fully discussed on the Second Reading under those circumstances. Our next course was to endeavour to obtain an interview with the Lord Chancellor, and we approached him with that object in 1897. The Lord Chancellor informed us that he thought it unnecessary to fix a day for receiving a deputation, as there was no chance of the Bill passing that Session. Last year we again applied to the Lord Chancellor to receive a deputation, and received a reply from his Secretary to the following effect—

"His Lordship does not at present see any advantage in receiving a deputation on the subject of the County Courts' Bill. It appears to his Lordship wrong in principle and unworkable in plan; but should there arise any practical occasion for discussing the subject of County Court Jurisdiction with a view to legislation by the Government, his Lordship will consider the question of receiving a deputation."

My honourable and learned Friend the Attorney-General received my honourable Friend the Member for Exeter and my- self with a small deputation on one occasion with regard to this Bill. He gave us a sympathetic reception, and assured us that any well-considered scheme extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts would be favourably considered by the Government. But he added that the Bill introduced last Session contained provisions of so highly contentious a character, that it would not be possible for the Government to support the Bill if it were reintroduced. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining a good place in the ballot this year, I came to the conclusion that it would be worse than idle to reintroduce a Bill which would be stillborn from its birth. A more cogent, and, to my mind, conclusive argument in favour of the course I am taking was that it seemed to me, and to those honourable Friends who are acting with me in this matter, that it is the duty of the Government to bring in any Bill for the extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts, and that any such measure should be in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown. How, then, I would ask, does this matter stand at present? In the Debate on the Judicature Acts, in 1897 the honourable Member for North-West Durham, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, when commenting on the congested state of business in the Law Courts, said, "What was there to prevent County Courts from being given an equally extensive jurisdiction with the High Court?" Such system existed in Scotland, where it had been found to work very well. Soma such devolution of power to the County Courts has been earnestly and constantly desired by Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, by trade protection societies, and by the Incoporated Law Society. I should like to read one sentence from the report of the Law Society of 1898 approving—

"The suggestions emanating from Chambers of Commerce and others, that proceedings on the Common Law and Equity side might be initiated in the County Court where the amount involved did not exceed £1,000, provided that the provisions of Order 14 in the High Court were adopted."

Excellent as I believe our County Court system to be, I submit that it still is susceptible of improvement and further development, while some of the present anomalies might be very easily removed by legislation. Now, on the Debate on the Judicature Acts in 1897, to which I have referred already, my honourable and learned Friend the Attorney-General made some remarks which disclosed to a certain extent the objections he had to the Bill I then introduced. He said that the real object of our County Court system was that there should be a speedy and cheap method of dispensing justice for the recovery of debts, and the trial of cases involving no difficult questions of law. If there were power on the part of the County Courts to take the class of action which was now confined to the superior court it might be found, in certain large centres, that the business of the court might be blocked for a week or 10 days while the judge was hearing one of these cases. If that evil were really to be dreaded, I should cordially agree with the Attorney-General. But I would remind my honourable and learned Friend and the House that in the Bill which I brought in last year provision was made for the appointment of a Chief Registrar in certain special circuits, who was to have power to attend the principal towns in the circuit, and hear all cases up to the amount of £20, while there was to be an Assistant Registrar who, with the consent of the parties, and with leave of the judge, was to hear cases up to £5, so that the judge would have time to try cases which were now confined to the superior courts. I agree with my honourable and learned Friend that the County Court should be, as it is, the poor man's court, but I ask the House whether it is probable that the Chambers of Commerce and Trade Protection Societies (which during the last 10 years have come almost unanimously to the desire for a considerable extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts) would have recommended it if they were not satisfied that there would continue to be a cheap and speedy decision in summary cases. I should like to read some remarks which were made in one of the leading journals of the day after the Debate on the Judicature Acts in 1897—

"It is a little too much the fashion to speak of the County Courts as if they were still what they were in 1847, and what they were, indeed, then designated—Small Debts Courts."

And again—

"Parliament has again and again enlarged their jurisdiction, and, contrary to many predictions, they are no less satisfactory to suitors for small sums than when their jurisdiction was limited to £320. They have been entrusted with duties which Lord Cotenham, and other framers of the first County Court Act, never thought would devolve upon them; and the policy of Parliament is to entrust them with new functions."

I do not desire to go back to ancient history. But I would remind the House that the first County Court Act was passed in the year 1847, and that the jurisdiction was limited to £20, provided the action was founded on contract, and to £5 if the action was founded on tort. From time to time the jurisdiction has been been expended; in 1850 it was enlarged so as to bring in actions for debts or damages not exceeding £50; in 1856 it was extended to all actions except those for crim con. with the consent of both parties; in 1865 limited jurisdiction was conferred in equity, while in 1867 limited jurisdiction was given in actions of ejectment, together with jurisdiction in Admiralty cases up to £300, and unlimited jurisdiction in bankruptcy. Each extension has given great satisfaction throughout the country. I will ask the House to bear in mind what were the recommendations of the Judicature Commission in 1872. Lord Hatherley was chairman of the Commission, which also included the late Lord Selborne, Lord Justice Bramwell, and the eminent city solicitor, Mr. Hollams. The Commission said—

"We think that these Courts, as constituent parts or branches of the High Court of Justice, should, subject to the power hereinafter mentioned, have jurisdiction ultimated by the amount claimed, whatever be the nature of the case; and that thus, if the parties to the dispute are content that it should be decided in the County Court, it may be dealt with accordingly. We think that the Judges presiding over the more important of these Courts should receive salaries proportioned to the more important duties they have to perform."

In 1879 Lord Cairns passed a Bill through the House of Lords which, unfortunately, was crowded out when it came down to this House, extending the jurisdiction to £200, and increasing the Judges' salaries to £2,000, with travelling expenses and a pension after 20 years' service. The question may fairly be asked, In what manner is it proposed that these recommendations can best be carried out? I think my honourable and learned Friend has a copy of the Bill in which I have, to the best of my ability, endeavoured to give effect to them. By that Bill provision was made to extend the jurisdiction in all cases up to £1,000. Nineteen special County Court Circuits were created in various parts of the country, each to be presided over by a Judge with a salary of £2,500, who was to have to assist him a Chief Registrar at a salary of £1,500, and an Assistant Registrar with a salary of £800, their entire time to be given to the Court, and the Assistant Registrar being prohibited from practising either as a solicitor or as a, notary. It was proposed that the Chief Registrar should hold courts throughout the special circuit, and hear all cases up to the amount of £20, while the Assistant Registrar, with the leave of the Judge and the consent of the parties, was to hear minor cases up to £5. By that moans, I think, the fear expressed by my honourable and learned Friend that the business of the Court might be congested was removed, so that under that system the Judge would have time to hear cases of importance which are now brought up to London. I may also venture to express the hope that by the appointment of barristers of eminence as Judges for the special circuits greater weight would attach to the decisions of the County Court, while in towns like Birmingham, Bristol, and Manchester there would be continuous courts, and they would have what may be called local assizes, with an efficient jurisdiction brought to their own doors, instead of incurring the expense and loss of time in seeking it in London. It is needless to say that by this proposal the relief to the Judges of the High Court would be enormous, and I should have thought that on that ground the proposal would have carried weight with the Lord Chancellor himself. My honourable and learned Friend sympathises, I am certain, with the reasonable demands of the commercial community, and I would appeal to the Government to meet these wishes by promising to introduce a Bill to give effect to them at the earliest moment in their power. As to the expense, I am assured that it would not exceed £40,000 or £45,000, and that sum would quickly be recouped by the large extension of County Court business in the principal centres, and by saving the expense of holding unnecessary assizes in parts of the country where there is little to occupy the time of the Judges. Let me then summarise the recommendations which I venture to submit to the House. I propose to give the County Courts jurisdiction in all cases up to £1,000, to create Special Circuits, and to confer power to hear certain cases upon the Chief Registrar and Assistant Registrar. That scheme has the unanimous assent of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. Petitions have been presented by the Trade Protection Societies in favour of it, and I hope it will receive at all events some measure of support from the Attorney-General. I will conclude by urging him to take the wishes of the merchant community seriously into consideration by accepting my Motion to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts in a manner which is so much desired throughout the country.

I desire to second this Motion. It is one which simply affirms the expediency of increasing the jurisdiction of our County Courts, and I think my honourable Friend has shown a wise discretion in couching his resolution in these general terms with a view to eliciting the opinion of the House, and in not presenting a cut and dried scheme of judicial reform for the judgment of this Assembly. I will not now raise the question whether, if this House is going to say that the jurisdiction of the County Courts ought to be increased, it should or should not be done by raising the pecuniary limit to some defined sum. I propose to urge a few considerations in favour of the general idea which lies at the root of the motion of my honourable Friend. I, both as counsel and in other capacities, have had some experience of the working of our County Courts, and my own opinion, which I frankly admit has been very reluctantly arrived at, is that existing circumstances necessitate an extension of jurisdiction if the administration of justice in this country is to be carried on in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the people and the requirements of modern, social, and economic conditions. On the other hand, I have to frankly admit that the question which is raised by my honour- able Friend is one of some gravity. If you are going to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts it will in all probability become unnecessary to hold civil assizes in the majority of places in which such assizes are now held habitually, and you may be putting an end to the circuit system, which has worked well for centuries, and which, I think, in the general opinion of the civilised world, has been most conducive to the good administration of justice in this country. After all, we must look at existing circumstances. If one goes back and reads the Debates in this House at the time that County Courts were started, it will be seen that they were intended to provide for the collection of small debts, and for the decision of small disputes. But somehow or other, in a fortuitous and haphazard manner, jurisdiction after jurisdiction has been piled upon these courts, and the general result of the legislation of the last 40 years is that the jurisdiction is so anomalous and so chaotic that it requires to be made a special study to know what can or cannot be done by a County Court Judge. The thing has not been carried out properly and the real explanation of the present position is that the dissatisfaction of the country with the methods of the Superior Courts since 1873 has been expressed in the addition by Parliament, from time to time, of an added jurisdiction to local and particular courts. My honourable Friend has referred to the wishes of Chambers of Commerce. I will not travel over the same ground, but I should like to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to some actual facts about the jurisdiction of the County Courts. The range of the jurisdiction is very large. County Court Judges have jurisdiction in common law matters, and they also have jurisdiction in equity, in bankruptcy, and in regard to the winding-up of companies under the Companies Act. They also have a miscellaneous jurisdiction in regard to friendly societies and workmen's claims, which it would tax the patience of the House to detail. The range of the jurisdiction of the County Courts is, therefore, very large, but it is limited in three ways—firstly, by the pecuniary claim of the plaintiff or the amount of the subject-matter in dispute; secondly, by the character of the action; and, thirdly, by territorial area. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, it is the pecuniary limit imposed upon the jurisdiction of the County Court Judges that is the most important question for our consideration to-night, and that is the question to which my honourable Friend directed himself but the second and third questions are by no means without importance, and I would respectfully ask the attention of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to these two limitations of jurisdiction. Under the original County Courts Act, County Court Judges could not try actions for breach of promise, seduction, malicious prosecution, or for libel, or slander. That is how the matter originally stood, and it is practically in the same position now. I am bound to say "practically," because, by one of the results of our fortuitous legislation, a County Court Judge often finds himself trying cases of breach of promise, seduction, and other actions, because the High Court have sent them down to him to be tried. I am not going to enlarge upon the point, but I would call the attention of the Attorney-General to this matter. Quite apart from the question of pecuniary limit, why on earth should the time of the High Court be taken up in trying trivial actions for libel and slander when there are County Court Judges, in whom you have entire confidence, ready and willing to try them on reasonable terms in the counties, boroughs, or districts in which they arise? With regard to the third limit—the limit of territorial area—that is a matter really of detail on which I do not propose to trouble the House more than to ask the Attorney-General to consider the burden which is imposed by this complicated jurisdiction on a County Court Judge. A County Court Judge may wish to try a case in a big centre, but he is unable to do so. Though he is called the Judge of a circuit, he is really only the individual or separate Judge of these units of jurisdiction, and when he goes to a remote district, and is met by a request to transfer a case to his court at, say, Bristol, Birmingham, or Liverpool, he has to reply that he is very sorry, but the case cannot be transferred. Indeed, if he were to consent, the registrar is not bound to go, even if the Judge orders him to. With regard to the pecuniary limit, I think it would be difficult to imagine a more anomalous state of affairs than that which has resulted from the Acts of Parliament which have been passed during the last 50 years. The limit in Common Law actions is £50. Why £50? If a plaintiff sues for £50, the defendant may counterclaim for £5,000. If, however, within a certain number of days notice is given, the action goes to the High Court. In nine cases out of ten, when there is a counterclaim, the defendant gives no notice at all, and the County Court Judge has to decide first of all on the claim for £50, and then on the counter-claim for the higher sum. In equity cases, the limit of jurisdiction of the county courts is £500; and here, again, we ask, why £500? In practice the value of the estate is not entirely known. The plaintiff begins the action in the County Court, but the judge finds, on a valuation of some kind, that the amount is over £500. He thereupon says, "I have no jurisdiction. Go to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice." The High Court, under these circumstances, invariably sends the case back, whether the sum involved is £1,000 or £1,500, to the very County Court Judge from whom the motion originally came. In Admiralty matters the jurisdiction of the county court judge is limited to £300, and in bankruptcy the jurisdiction is absolutely unlimited. I have myself known a case of a judge deciding an action involving a few shillings at 11.30, and at 11.45 a case involving £1,340 has been called on under the Bankruptcy Act. With regard to remitted actions, the High Court can remit actions of contract up to £100, and in certain other cases they may remit actions upon any amount, even including those matters to which I have alluded as being subjects which are not within the control of the County Courts. By the consent of the parties the Judge of a County Court may try any action, whatever the amount in dispute may be. When we go on to the other, and what I call the miscellaneous jurisdiction, the illogicality becomes, it seems to me, more apparent. I only wish to urge these considerations on the House as showing that the new legislation in regard to this jurisdiction has not been properly and logically thought out. I have never looked upon these limits as any reflection upon the capacity of the County Court Judges. This is only a question of the arrangement of the business of the country between one set of courts and another. Let us see how the thing works out. I must apologise for mentioning any personal matters, but really the position cannot be understood without concrete experiences. On Monday in last week, I went to the Court of Appeal of the Royal Courts of Justice. Both Courts of Appeal were sitting, and had very important business before them. All the Chancery Courts were sitting, as also were the Probate and Admiralty Courts. I then went into the Queen's Bench Division, and there were only two judges trying cases, one with a jury, and the other without. The remainder of the judges were all scattered about the country on circuit. I take up my paper and find that Mr. Justice Darling is complaining at Dolgelly that he is prevented from returning to important business in London by the fact that he is detained trying a case of larceny of a penny. Mr. Justice Channell was per contra trying, at the little town of Lampeter, a right-of-way case that lasted so long that he had to ask Mr. Bowen Rowlands to open the Commission at Carmarthen. Similar instances might be multiplied to show the unbusinesslike character of the present High Court organisation. Does it really transcend the ingenuity of lawyers to devise a better system of administering justice? Let me tell you what I saw in the Swansea County Court on Tuesday last. There were no fewer than seven counsel in the court—more than are seen in the small assizes. The judge first began by trying an action in which the plaintiff claimed £80. The second case was one in which two counsel came from London to appear. The plaintiff claimed £300, and the other cases were for equally large amounts raising points of interest, and a large number of solicitors was engaged in them. On Thursday, at Neath—quite a small place—the same thing occurred. There was a throng of suitors in the county court. The first was an action, under the Workmen's Compensation Act which was passed two years ago by this House, for £140. The conclusion I draw is that the real practical work of administering justice for the great majority of our fellow citizens is now being transacted in the county courts. They are the real Courts of First Instance. That is what it comes to. It is for these broad reasons that I assent to the Motion of my honourable Friend that there ought to be an increase in their jurisdiction. It seems to me impossible to defend the anomalous and capricious jurisdiction of the county courts at the present time. There are, no doubt, points on the other side. I can quite see that a hasty, not well-thought-out alteration, might lead to difficulties in regard to the performance of their original functions by the county court judges. It is thought that the county court judges have an easy appointment. That, I think, is not true. I have worked out, in regard to more than one circuit, a table showing the number of hours that county court judges are employed; and if you take into account the travelling, which is, if not the most difficult, at any rate a very irksome and disagreeable part of the County Court Judge's work, I find in one circuit that for 16 days in the month the judge was at work eleven hours a day, and in another circuit eleven and a quarter. So that when you come to compare the actual number of hours these judges spend in doing their work with those of the judges of the High Court, it seems to me there is really nothing to choose between the amount of work done by the one set of judges and the other set. Therefore, I can quite understand the argument that you must not hastily increase the work of the county court judges, but that does not in the least degree amount to an argument against this Motion, because it is quite easy to make alterations of detail in regard to the system which would permit the county court judges to do the additional work we propose to throw on them without in any way diminishing the efficiency of the County Courts. I have addressed the House longer than I intended to, but I think I have made the general line of my argument fairly clear. I should like to say that a very great historian, in writing of the courts of an empire not so great as our own, but which has the same system of jurisprudence as we have, gave a very unfavourable judgment upon the system. I refer to Mr. Edward Gibbon, a former Member of this House, and he said, with reference to the Imperial Courts, that the expense of the suit exceeded the value of the prize. That is the case with regard to this country, and their rights are often abandoned by litigants owing to the great cost involved in obtaining them. I do not wish to suggest what the Bill should be which the Government should bring in on this matter, but I am perfectly certain, Mr. Speaker, that I am voicing the views of the great bulk of my profession, and voicing the opinion of the great mass of the busines people of this country, when I say the time has come when some change ought to be made in regard to the jurisdiction of our courts, whether by increasing the jurisdiction of the County Courts, or by absorbing the County Courts in the High Courts of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, it will be well, I think, if I state at once the reasons why it will be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept this Motion. The subject to which it refers has been several times before the House in recent years, and on the present occasion neither the honourable Member for Gloucester nor the honourable Member for Swansea has given us any new argument in support of the Motion. No doubt there is a considerable body of opinion in the country in favour of the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts, and I am not going to say that there are not matters in the existing Acts of Parliament relating to the County Courts which require consideration. But I am bound to say that I think those who hold the opinion that there is great necessity for an extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts are, to a large extent, drawn from the class of people who desire to recover debts themselves, and are not drawn from the class of people who have experienced the difficulties that surround the question of extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts. Let me illustrate that by one argument used by the honourable Member for Gloucester. He says that what he desires to see established is the Bill, or the system embodied in the Bill, which he introduced in 1897, and he tells us that that scheme is supported by a large number of Chambers of Commerce in this country. What is the leading feature of that scheme to which he says the Chambers of Commerce have given their support? It is that in every action in which the claim does not exceed £1,000 the County Courts should have jurisdiction. I wonder if my honourable Friend knows the proportion of actions in the High Court in which the amount claimed is less than £1,000? I have gone into the figures, and have had statistics furnished to me, and I remember that something between 80 and 90 per cent, of the actions on the Common Law side of the High Court were actions to recover less than £1,000. Therefore, if this system were adopted, it would practically mean, the abolition of the High Court. No arguments have been adduced to justify such a change. Passing from what I may call the preamble of the honourable Member's Motion, he desires to say that the time has arrived when it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to initiate or facilitate legislation having for its object a considerable extension of the ordinary jurisdiction of County Courts in Common Law cases. Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the honourable Member for Gloucester that if any such scheme is to be undertaken it must be undertaken by the Government of the day. County Courts are under the special jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and there is a vast machinery connected with them, information as to which is in the hands of Public Departments, and it would be quite impossible for any private Member to have the information necessary to elaborate a proper scheme. But, before we say the matter is ripe for the Government of the day to initiate or facilitate legislation, let us see what the existing state of things is. The primary object of the County Courts is, and should be, the speedy recovery of small debts, and the trial of actions in which there are not likely to be difficult questions of law. But the burden of work already cast on the County Courts by recent legislation is such that, to a very large extent, they are not able to fulfil that primary duty for which they were introduced. The honourable and learned Member for Swansea speaks with special qualification and experience on this matter, having been himself a County Court Judge, and having practised at the Bar. He has enumerated to the House the range of jurisdiction already given to County Courts, but there are many County Courts which are not able to discharge the duties which have been imposed upon them under the various Acts of Parliament. It is a fact at the present time that under the Workmen's Compensation Act the County Court Judges have had to avail themselves, to a large extent, of the services of arbitrators to sit and hear cases. The congested state of business in the County Courts is such that it is impossible, without sacrificing the efficiency of the County Courts, to extend their jurisdiction to any large extent. How does the honourable Member for Gloucester propose to deal with that? It is all very well for the House to adopt an abstract Resolution of this kind, but it would be absurd to pass any legislation unless the House has in its-mind some definite scheme. The honourable and learned Member for Gloucester proposes, first of all, to establish 19 special County Court circuits in various parts of the country, to be presided over by a Judge, who is to have a salary of £2,500; with a Chief Registrar, who is to have a salary of £1,500; and an Assistant Registrar, who is to have a salary of £800. This proposal, in my opinion, would create an invidious distinction between one County Court and another. If there is to be an extension of jurisdiction, it should apply to all County Courts. I would like to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say to this scheme, by which it is proposed to increase the cost of the County Court Judges by £17,000 a year, the Registrars by £15,000 or £20,000 a year, and then to add a new class of Assistant-Registrars at a further cost of £10,000 a year. I myself agree in the opinion that the Common Law Division of the High Court requires further revision, but I cannot see the logic of the argument of the honourable and learned Member for Swansea, who says that the fact that there were very few Queen's Bench Judges sitting on the day of his visit is an argument in favour of the work of the County Court Judges being increased. There must be some sub-division of jurisdiction. You can always point to anomalous cases. It is always easy to say that, if a man can bring an action in a County Court for £49 19s. 11d., why should he not be able to bring an action for £51? These anomalies always do exist where you have any dividing line. I decline to pledge Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill to extend County Court jurisdiction when no one suggests a practical scheme by which it could be carried out. I have never yet heard of any scheme by which all anomalies will be avoided, or which would prevent honourable Members from, saying "How ridiculous it is there should be an arbitrary money limit!" But, looking at the object for which County Courts were established, and the questions which accompany claims for largo amounts, I do not think our ancestors were at all foolish or misguided when they suggested that the one test should be the amount to be recovered. While I thoroughly agree with the suggestion that the number of County Courts ought to be reduced, and that there ought to lie economy of time and of travelling, so as to make County Courts fully efficient, I do not see how you can appreciably increase the burden of actual work which has to be performed by County Courts if they are to do that which has been placed upon them by the Statute Law. I am at one with the honourable Member for Gloucester in his wish that the traders of this country should have a speedy means of recovering their debts, and that this should be done at as little cost and inconvenience as possible; but, in my opinion, neither of these very desirable objects would be attained by the suggestions which have been made by the honourable Member. I do trust that the House will not be led away to vote for the Motion, expressing the opinion that the time has come when Her Majesty's Government should reasonably be expected to initiate or facilitate Legislation having for its object a considerable extension of the ordinary jurisdiction of County Courts when it has no scheme before it by which such a proposal could be carried out. For these reasons I am not able to support the Motion of the honourable Member for Gloucester and I think the House would be wise in rejecting the Resolution, in order that we may have time to consider and develop a proper system which will be satisfactory to the country. SIB R. REID (Dumfries Burghs): Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that the Attorney-General has not seen his way to say something a little more definite with regard to this Motion. He has not disputed the fact that there is at the present moment a considerable grievance in this matter, and he has not permitted himself to say that that grievance cannot be removed. Ho tells the House that this Motion, which is couched in general terms, is really the same thing as the Bill which the honourable Member for Gloucester introduced in 1897, although the Motion says nothing about that Bill. The anomalies and inconvenience of the present County Court system are very considerable, and no one attempts to defend them. No one disputes that County Court judges are quite capable of deciding larger issues than are now entrusted to them. The absurdities of the system are not the result of any design, but simply of accidental haphazard legislation. We are all ready and willing to assist the Attorney-General so far as we can in this matter. It wants a little time for consideration; it wants a little thinking out; but I do not believe that the difficulties in the way of bringing about a reform are insuperable. I do not think it would be even necessary to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for any additional money. I cannot see, from what I have heard of the Bill of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Gloucester, that it contains very many elements of good beyond the proposed extension of jurisdiction. I do not see the coed of multiplying offices, and in creating a number of largely paid officials. I believe, that is the kind of proposal which, when it accompanies a reform, does more than anything else to postpone the reform for an indefinite time. At the present County Court judges have not very much work to do.

That statement has been made before. I can assure my right honourable Friend that if he inquired into the matter he would be surprised to find how busy County Court judges are, and how much their time is occupied.

I accept the statement of the Attorney-General, but the fact remains that County Court judges might very easily be relieved of a good deal of their work by a better distribution of that work, and by removing some of the extremely simple cases which now come before them. This is not a reform which will require enormous human qualities to discover a remedy for. Though, perhaps, not strictly germane to the Resolution, I should like to say that the expense of the County Court, by reason of the fees, is now, and has been, greatly beyond what it ought to be. The attention of the Attorney-General has been drawn to this matter before, and I understood that he promised last year that we should have some amendment. Well, nothing has been done. I know that it takes more than a year to redeem a promise, but I hope something will be done.

I did not promise anything. What I said was that I would consider the matter in the hope of being able to do something.

Yes, that was so; but nothing has been done. I hope the Attorney-General will not be discouraged, but that he will continue his efforts to effect a reform in this matter. I have no more to say, as the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out, but I do think we ought to have something more specific—much more specific—from the Government than we have had from the Attorney-General. I certainly think the time has come when some amendment should be made.

Sir, I regret that in a matter of this kind, which is far removed from Party politics or fundamental political principles, the Government should take so decided a line in opposing my honourable Friend's Motion, because it seems to me that this is just one of those matters in which the Government should rather try to ascertain what the wishes of the various constituencies are, as represented by their Members in Parliament, than set themselves up sternly against a Motion of this kind. They should have left Members who have no desire to oppose the Government to vote as they thought lit, or as their constituencies might wish them to vote. As I occupy the position of a solicitor in London, I should not, personally, desire an extension in the manner proposed of the jurisdiction of the County Courts, but I am the representative of a large commercial borough, whose chamber of commerce, an important body, comprising a large number of the employers and manufacturers and commercial men in the town, have unanimously resolved that this Motion ought to be supported by their Member. I shall, therefore, vote for it unless the Government ask for it to be withdrawn, on a strong promise that they will take the matter into consideration, with a view of dealing with it. It seems to me that, whilst the proposal contained in the Motion is a wide one, the arguments of the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney-General do not at all prove that a mistake will be committed if the Motion is passed. We shall be by no means tied up with a Bill which is in embryo. All we ask is that the Government shall take the matter into their consideration, and initiate, or facilitate, legislation on the subject. The Attorney-General asks us to negative the Resolution, in order that the Government may have time to consider the matter. Nobody supposes that, if this Resolution is passed, the Government are bound to bring in a Bill to-morrow. I am sure we shall all be satisfied if a Bill is brought in next year. Surely between now and next Session there will be plenty of time for the Government to bring in this not very difficult Bill! It is true that some county court judges are not sufficently employed, but one reason why more business is not taken into the county courts is that the fees are too high. It is cheaper, in some cases, to issue a writ in the High Court. Great injustice is done to the poorer parties to an action in consequence. In many cases people prefer to endure wrong rather than incur the great expense which is necessary to obtain justice. I certainly think the Attorney-General should consider the question of fees. With regard to the extension of jurisdiction, there is one great good which would come from that. In the first place, with enlarged jurisdiction the salaries of the judges must be increased, and the result will be that we shall get a higher class of barristers to seek these appointments. I do not mean to say that many of the present County Court judges are not good men, but more than one Lord Chancellor has acted as if a County Court judgeship were a very nice position for a man who has failed at the Bar. I look upon this proposal as a Statute for the distribution of County Court judgeships and the distribution ought to be per capita and not per stirpes—that is, according to brains rather than family considerations. It is of even greater importance to appoint good men to the County Courts than to the higher courts, because in County Courts there is seldom jury possibility of appeal. Though the reform that is proposed may cost the country a little money, it will certainly add to the popularity of the County Courts by giving cheap, speedy, effective, and well-administered law, and the increase of fees will soon recoup the extra cost. I venture again to ask the Government to allow us to ascertain what is the opinion of Members of this House in regard to this Motion, and I am sure, if they will do that, they will see at once that there is quite sufficient reason for this matter being taken in hand in order that a Bill may be brought in next year to put an end to what is now a crying evil.

Mr. Speaker, as a layman, I should not have entered into this discussion except for two reasons. The first is, that for several years I was a Vice-President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, of which the honourable Gentleman who seconded the Motion was he respected President. I can testify, from my attendance at the deliberations of that association, that there was no subject on which the members representing the mercantile community throughout the country were more unanimous than that the jurisdiction of the county courts should be extended. My second reason is this: What is proposed and considered as an innovation for England is a matter of experience in Scotland, and I am glad to see that there are two right honourable Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who are particularly well acquainted with the work of our Sheriff Court system in Scotland. It is only proposed to extend to England the same jurisdiction that the sheriff's have in Scotland. All who are acquainted with the working of the system in Scotland have the highest respect for the sheriffs of that country, and it is quite a common thing for not only very important cases, but cases involving large sums of money, to be initiated in the Sheriff's Court. It does not follow, because you have an unlimited jurisdiction in the Court of First Instance, that, therefore, people will not resort to the Supreme Court. The litigants have their option. Many of them initiate their cases in the Supreme Courts, but, on the other hand, hundreds and thousands of cases are initiated in the Court of First Instance—the local court—and in a very large number of cases the litigants are satisfied with the decisions that they receive there. Now, all that is proposed by the honourable Gentleman the Member for Gloucester with regard to the extension of jurisdiction practically exists in Scotland, and any attempt to deprive the people of that country of it would be resented and resisted. Why should you not, in the South, avail yourselves of the experience of Scotland, and adopt the system which has been found to work so satisfactorily there? I very much regret that the right honourable Gentleman has not seen his way to benefit by our experience in this matter. The right honourable Gentleman has said that no scheme has been suggested for carrying out this reform. In my opinion, it is the duty of the Government to devise means for giving effect to the wishes and the intentions of their constituents. The attitude taken up by the Government to-night is a non possumus attitude. To raise up, magnify, and multiply difficulties is not the right attitude for any officer of the Government to take up. Year after year, for many years past, the Chambers of Commerce in England have urged that this reform should be brought about, and I contend that it is the duty of the Government to take this matter into their consideration.

In rising to move the Motion which stands in my name, I venture to tell the House that I had no reason to believe that this matter, which is of great importance to the country, would come forward at this particular moment.

I am very glad to find that on the question of the Mercantile Marine of this country the Opposition have supported me in keeping a House, although honourable Members on this side do not appear to take much interest in this important question. I am not going to touch on many questions that I might allude to. I might point out to the House that we are really dependent to a great extent for our food supply, and for our independence as a nation, on the Mercantile Marine. I might run through, if I wished to do so, a variety of figures showing what a great proportion of our trade is carried on by the Mercantile Marine. I might mention many ports—London, Liverpool, Bristol, Hull, and Glasgow are a few—which are entirely dependent, or almost entirely dependent, on goods brought to this country by the Mercantile Marine. I look upon this question from a great Imperial point of view, but there are many honourable Members who will speak upon it purely from a mercantile point of view, and they will be able to point out, better than I am able to, the great seriousness of this question. It would appear, from evidence I have before me, that 21.16 of all the seamen in British ships are foreigners. That is a very serious thing, and in war it will be even more serious. At the present time there are a very large proportion of foreigners in our ships. Foreigners will probably serve for a less rate than English sailors. We are told—whether it is false or true I do not say—that they are steadier and leave port in better condition, but, at the same time, it seems to me a very serious condition of affairs. Of course, I do not ask the House to revert to the old Navigation Laws, though if I could move such a resolution I think I should not be unwilling to do it. The country at that time had practically entirely a British Marine manned by British sailors. We all know that we have some difficulty about keeping up a naval reserve for our first line of defence. Well, Sir, without British sailors aboard the Mercantile Marine, how can we have a naval reserve? I think that it is incumbent on us to attend to the matter. I should like to point out that in the event of war there would be very great danger, because we should not have a sufficient Mercantile Marine to support our Navy. Having said so much about the Mercantile Marine, and having pointed out, as other honourable Members will no doubt point out, that all we have to do is to give certain inducements to our shipowners and sailors—that would be a very wise insurance fund for the defence of our country—I hope that the few words I have said on the matter will be gone into at greater length by honourable Members with more technical knowledge of the question. The second point of my Resolution is with regard to pilots. That is also a very serious thing. Why should we be the only country in the world which permits pilot licences to be taken out by foreigners just as we allow our own subjects. We allow very large numbers of foreigners to become pilots on our ships. I am told there is no possibility of obtaining information as to the exact number, but it is certain that, by the same examination and the same qualification, a foreigner can obtain a pilot's certificate in this country as if he were a British subject. What does that mean? Scores of vessels come up the Thames and our other rivers, and they do not require to have a pilot. As a matter of fact, our pilots are being under-worked by foreigners, who understand all our rivers, and who would be able to pilot a foreign hostile vessel up any of them. That is a very serious danger. We have not got a similar permission in any other country. We cannot pilot vessels up the various rivers of a foreign country. Probably 10 or 12 foreign vessels come up the Thames daily. They send up a flag that they have a pilot on board, but that pilot is not a British subject. He knows all our waters, and he has a Board of Trade certificate. Free Trade may be a very good thing, I suppose it is, but I cannot help thinking that the security of the country is a more serious question than even Free Trade. If a foreign country will not allow British pilots to have their certificate, why cannot we do the same. I think, therefore, that a small Amending Act ought to be passed, that no pilot should be permitted to pilot a foreign vessel into British waters, unless he is a British subject. Those are the two questions I wish to bring before the House. I was not prepared to make a speech, as I did not have the slightest idea that this Motion would come on. If I had, I would certainly have imposed on the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade an oration of much greater length. This question is a British question, and, as a British Member of Parliament, I venture to say we ought to feel very strongly on it. We know that British sailors are decreasing in the Mercantile Marine, and that foreign pilots know as much about our waters as British pilots. Therefore, I venture to submit this Resolution to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the Motion, more particularly as regards the diminution of the number of our seamen. I attach very great importance to that fact, and I take the liberty of seconding the Motion because I represent a constituency which has a large interest in this matter. My honourable Friend has referred to the alarming character of the decrease of our seamen. It is more alarming when we consider it in connection with the great increase in tonnage of merchant ships in recent years. During the last fifty years we find that the tonnage has nearly trebled, whereas during that period the number of seamen has not only not kept pace with the increase of tonnage, but has actually fallen off to a large extent, the number being 46,521 men, or 25 per cent, of the whole. One very unsatisfactory feature of that decrease is that it occurs more particularly in connection with young sailors and boys, amounting to something like 84 per cent. That is a very alarming fact, because it shows that the sources from which we get our British seamen are dying out, and if the decrease continues, as it will unless something is done, in a comparatively few years our ships will be mainly manned by foreigners. I think the House will admit that this is a very unsatisfactory state of things. It is not unsatisfactory to the shipowners as such. Of course, a British shipowner would pre- fer that his ship should be manned by men of his own nationality, but, as a shipowner, all he is concerned about is that there should be a plentiful supply of cheap and efficient labour in the market, and provided his ships are manned by efficient men it really does not matter to the shipowner whether they are British subjects or foreigners. But this is not a shipowner's question; it is a national question. It is a question which involves large loss of employment and even something more important than that, the loss of the control on the part of this country of one of our most important and characteristic national industries. We are a maritime nation. We derive our wealth and our high position from the sea. Our insular position is not only the source of our security, but the source of our wealth, and any Englishman cannot see without alarm our supremacy passing from our hands into the hands of foreigners. It is also unsatisfactory for another reason. We know we have a very efficient Navy, consisting of large and powerful vessels fitted with the best armaments, but, unfortunately, not as well manned as it might be, and with only a very slender Naval Reserve behind it. In case we are concerned in a great maritime war that Naval Reserve would have to be called out, and then the Mercantile Marine, practically depleted of British subjects, would be left in the hands of foreigners, and if we had to fall back upon the Mercantile Marine we would find ships manned with foreigners. It is a national question, and one of great importance to the State. What are the remedies which we have suggested to the Government? I think the first remedy is to obtain an increased supply of properly trained British seamen. The Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to consider this question reported in 1896 in favour of establishing training ships round the coast. That Committee pointed out as a remarkable fact that while we did so much for technical education as regards young people for employment on shore, nothing was done by the State to provide technical education to those choosing the sea as a profession. The Committee accordingly recommended that training ships should be established. They pointed out that they would be recruitiug grounds not only for the Mercantile Marine, but also for the Royal Navy and the Naval Reserve. I think a more excellent way than this would be to encourage shipowners to employ boys on their vessels. I wish, briefly, to refer to the proposal of the Marine Fund Bill of last year. There is a general feeling among shipowners that this very critical problem should be solved. The proposal was that when a shipowner carried a certain number of boys in accordance with the Hoard of Trade regulations, he should receive, as compensation, one-fifth of the light dues paid by him. Now, I regret to say that that proposal has not found favour with shipowners. They strongly object to light dues on principle, and if the dues were connected with the employment of boys it might be a reason for perpetuating a charge they desire to see swept away. Another objection to the proposal is that the amount would be variable and not consistent, whereas the expense connected with the carrying of boys would be consistent. The light dues depend altogether upon the number of voyages made by a ship. It might very well happen that at the commencement of the year a ship might make a voyage that would not entitle her to a refund of any portion of the light dues. In fact, it might happen that she would not have to pay light dues at all, in which case there would be no refund whatever. It therefore appeared to the shipping community that the proposal was not practicable. I earnestly express the hope, however, that the proposal will not be abandoned. I trust the President of the Board of Trade will not allow this matter to stand where it is, and that he will endeavour to solve it, if possible, by the very simple means of granting a direct payment to shipowners in respect to the employment of boys. It is quite clear that the Government is willing to make certain payments, and if the matter is put on a business-like footing it will be found that the shipowners are not unreasonable. They do not want to make money out of it, but to get compensation against loss for the cost of maintaining the boys. You cannot expect boys to enter the ships unless you do something to make the life attractive to them, and to do that you must give them wages in proportion to their ages. One Liverpool firm of shipowners have offered to take 200 or 300 boys for their vessels, provided the Board of Trade could see its way to find them outfits. I suppose that the Board of Trade has no power to do that. That firm has 80 or or 90 steamers, and its offer is an act of patriotism, but it does not follow that other shipowners would be able to do the same thing. It is also necessary that nothing should be done to interfere with the prospects of seamen already in the Service. I think the matter ought to be approached from that point of view. The British sailor might fairly complain if you opened the door and introduced a large number of additional seamen. It would do him an injury unless you endeavoured to improve his status and position. I am not prepared in any my to advocate the Navigation Laws, but I do think there should be some preference given to trained over untrained men. The present system gives no means of obtaining that preference. We all know that when a captain is in a hurry to obtain his crew he has to pick up men who present themselves, whether they be efficient or untrained, whether they be tramps or loafers. That is an unsatisfactory state of things. I am very glad to learn from a remark made in another place that the Board of Trade is considering the subject of continuous discharges. I do think it is working on right lines. A properly trained British seaman ought to have some distinctive mark to differentiate him from an untrained man, and which would be a guarantee to the shipowners of the efficiency of the men they employed. I trust, therefore, this Motion will receive the consideration of the Government. I believe that the state of the Mercantile Marine is critical, and that if something is not done it will go from bad to worse until it becomes incurable. I trust the Government will take the matter into their earnest and serious consideration, with a view to finding a remedy for the evil which exists in the most deserving industry we have—an evil which is likely to be a national danger.

Sir, I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the honourable Member for St. Pancras, and I venture to say that a more important Motion could not be brought before the House of Commons than the question of supplying seamen for the merchant service. I regret very much to see that there are not a larger number of Members present. I know pretty well the state of affairs which prevails in almost every port throughout the United Kingdom. It has been my duty as the President of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union daring the Recess to devote the whole of my time to the service of sailors and firemen in the different ports of the United Kingdom, and I can positively state that there are, at the present time, almost a sufficient number of British sailors and firemen in our ports to man the whole of our Mercantile Marine. But, unfortunately, those men are not employed. It is all a question with the shipowners of pounds, shillings, and pence. I know that the shipowner generally states, in reply to this statement, and statements of that kind—

"That we pay exactly the same rate of wages to the foreigner as is paid to the British seaman."

They say that, when a crew is engaged, it does not matter whether they are foreigners or Britishers if they are paid the same rate of wages. Well, that is perfectly true; but I desire to point out that it is in consequence of the large number of foreigners who are employed in different ports throughout the country that creates a tendency to lower the standard of wages. Now, Sir, with many of the statements made by the two honourable Members who moved and seconded this Motion I quite agree, but with some of their statements I entirely disagree. It has been suggested as a remedy for the scarcity of men in the British merchant service that we should pay shipowners to carry apprentices or boys on board British ships. Well, Sir, I do not know any industry in this country where we should have such a proposition as that to say that an employer, in order to create a larger number of men to carry on his work, should come to the House of Commons and ask this House to vote sums of money in order to encourage them to employ boys. I think that is a very preposterous proposition, and one which I hope the House of Commons will never entertain. Surely it must be to the interest of the shipowner himself to carry a sufficient number of boys on board his vessel in order to train those lads and to ensure a regular and constant supply of men. If he does not do that it is entirely his own neglect, and the day will come when the shipowner will find that he has made a great mistake in that direction. If at the present time it was possible to thoroughly organise the whole of the seamen employed on board merchant ships they could soon regulate the wages, and their demand would probably be not a moderate one, but an excessive one, and the shipowner would then find that he had been studying false economy in neglecting to train up men for the Mercantile Marine. Now, Sir, what inducements are there held out, at the present time, for boys to become sailors? What inducements are there at all? In the first place, it is with the greatest difficulty that a lad can get on board ship at all now, but it was not so 25 years ago. If a boy wants to go on a sailing ship the manager, or the man who manages the sailing ship, will ask a premium of sometimes £100 for a boy to serve a four years' apprenticeship, and he asks the parents of this boy to give him £100 for the privilege of allowing him to serve his apprenticeship. I do not think anyone who knows anything about sea service will be foolish enough to give that. Then, again, if you want a boy to go on board a steamer as an apprentice, many of them are asking a premium of £36 or £40 simply to serve on board a steamer practically as a common labourer. It is not at all likely that, considering the circumstances and surroundings on board a ship, that shipowners will be able to get people to do that. After those lads have served their apprenticeship, what have they to look forward to? They cannot all be mates, and they cannot all be captains, and they cannot all be engineers. Therefore, the majority of these lads, after they have served their apprenticeship, have only to look forward to the time when they will have to serve on board a ship before the mast as ordinary sailors; and what is his pay? Why, on the very best line it does not amount to more than 3½d. per hour. Now, I venture to say to the honourable Gentleman who moved this Resolution that the scavengers working for the St. Pancras Vestry would refuse to work for less than 6d. per hour, and yet sailors are asked to work on the best paid line for 3½d. per hour. I do not think parents will be at all inclined to send their sons to sea to serve their apprenticeship to a trade where, after serving their apprenticeship, they are going to get worse wages than what they would receive if they were working as scavengers or ordinary labourers working in the streets. But that is not the only evil in connection with this business. After a youth has served his apprenticeship, and arrives at the ago of manhood, the important question becomes one as to whether the employment is likely to be permanent. I venture to say that the Mercantile Marine industry has never been better and more prosperous than it is at the present time. We have a large increase in the amount of tonnage of the Mercantile Marine every year, and yet, at the present moment, in the port of North and South Shields, there are 500 sailors and firemen unemployed who cannot get employment at any price. In Liverpool it is the same, and in Cardiff there are always a large number of men who want work and cannot get it. I should say that for every one man who is taken on for employment there are at least 10 or 12 men looking for that one man's situation, and that is the position of affairs in nearly all the ports throughout the United Kingdom at the present moment. Therefore, in addition to the difficulties I have previously mentioned, there is the difficulty of finding employment. Then, again, on the ordinary steamer, after a man has secured a berth, he will make a voyage of about seven weeks, say from Cardiff or some other South Wales port to the Black Sea, and back again to the Continent, and when he arrives at the Continental port he is discharged from the ship the moment the vessel arrives in dock. Of course, if ho has sense enough, he will demand from the captain money to pay his passage back to England, but I am very much afraid that, in the majority of cases, the man has to pay his own passage, and then when he arrives back at his own port he has another three or four weeks to walk about looking for em- ployment. The majority of seafaring men do not make, in the course of twelve months, more than seven or eight months' constant employment. If you take that into consideration, it brings the income of these men down to less, I venture to say, than 12s. per week on an average all the year round. Well, it is not at all likely that you are going to induce men to go to sea for 12s. a week when they can get employment on shore, in shipping yards and other places, for 25s. and 30s. a week as labourers. But, Sir, independent of that, there is the question of competition that comes in from incompetent men, and I am very pleased that the President of the Board of Trade is now beginning to take notice of this very serious question. The number of men employed on British ships as members of the crew during recent years has been cut down to the very lowest point. In many cases, I venture to say that ships are very seriously undermanned. The honourable Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool quoted figures to show that, whilst the tonnage of the Mercantile Marine had been increasing enormously every year, yet the number of sailors employed had been rapidly decreasing.

I said the number of British sailors had been decreasing.

Well, if the honourable Gentleman is not prepared to stand by his figures, I am prepared to give them up.

But I do stand>by my figures. I said that the number of sailors had decreased, while the tonnage had increased.

I am not going to dispute with the honourable Gentleman about his figures, but I will quote some of my own. I remember that in 1890 we had over 240,000 men employed in the Mercantile Marine. Since then we have increased our tonnage by more than 1,000,000 tons. I put a question to the right honourable Gentleman last year as to the total number of men employed in the Mercantile Marine, and his reply was 186,000. So that, taking off 30,000 lascars who are engaged on passenger lines and other vessels, it shows a decrease of over 20,000 men in the Mer- cantile Marine service since the year 1890 up to the present, although our tonnage has increased over 1,000,000 tons. When I speak of the number of men carried on board ships, I am speaking of "tramp" steamers of 3,000 or 4,000 tons, and I am not taking into consideration such well-known lines as the Cunard, the White Star, and the Union line of Southampton. I am not taking those into consideration, because those lines, being passenger vessels, are bound to be manned under the Board of Trade Regulations with regard to the carrying of passengers, therefore their manning is entirely on a different basis from the ordinary "tramp" steamers sailing out of ports like Cardiff and on the Tyne, whose total number of men on deck does not exceed four able seamen and two boys. When you divide this number into two watches you have two men and a boy in each watch. I put a question with regard to this subject the other day, where a railway servant was signed on by a deputy-superintendent of the Board of Trade as an able seaman on board a certain ship, although the only sea experience that this railway servant had ever had was a trip to the Isle of Man on a pleasure boat. Well, Sir, this man had one of those discharges given to him, for they always get one at the end of the voyage. It does not matter if it is only a week or three days, they get an able seaman's certificate marked that he was signed on as an able seaman. Now, this railway servant who had had this trip to the Isle of Man, and was no doubt seasick during the trip, signs on as an able seaman, and what is more, he was signed on by a Board of Trade officer, representing a Department that costs the country nearly £40,000 every year, and which is specially appointed by Parliament to see that the law is carried out, and to see that everything is done correctly. Well, this man, this railway servant, was signed on as an able seaman on board this ship. Well, Sir, if you have got two men and a boy in a watch, and you get two railway servants as able seamen, I do not know what is to become of the ship when difficulties arise.

Where was this railway servant signed on?

At Penarth.

And what Board of Trade officer was there?

The Deputy-Superintendent, the gentleman whose business it is to read out the regulations and the agreements, and to enter the names of the men; and whose duty it is under the 186th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, to see that every man who signs on as an able seaman shall produce a certificate that he has had at least four years' service. Now, if that Board of Trade officer had done his duty in demanding four years' sea service, it would not have been possible for this railway servant to have been signed on at all. But, Sir, I find another case at Liverpool, where a Polish Jew was signed on a ship as an able seaman. When he was being engaged he was asked what work he could do, and he said, "I can peel onions." The boarding-house keeper replied, "Oh, as long as you can peel onions you are all right," and he was signed on. I remember not one case only, but scores of cases, in Cardiff, where they have shipped among the crew carters, tinkers, and tailors, and when the vessel got outside the port one of these men was at the wheel, and he was steering the ship all over the ocean. The captain shouted out to him, "Where are you going?" He replied, "I do not know." The captain said, looking at the compass, "Don't you see you are off the course?" The man replied, "Well, I am only three inches off with the compass." Of course, to this man three inches was a matter of very small importance. Another of these "able seamen" had large nails in the soles of his boots, evidently a country labourer, with the result that he went slipping all over the deck, and it took one of the officers two days to file down those nails in his boots. These are not uncommon occurrences, and, of course, we are told that you do not require able seamen now. You do not want sailors now, for anybody will do for a sailor; as long as he can wash decks down and peel onions he is good enough for an able seaman. That is what some people think, but I disagree with it, and I venture to say that if the "Pavonia" and "Bulgaria" had been manned with such men, those ships would never have reached port. It is as necessary to-day to have competent able seamen as ever it was, and I venture to say, as a practical man, that it is more necessary to-day than ever it was. I remember a case of a ship on which the steering gear gave way in a very heavy sea, and one of the sailors went over the stern of the vessel to remedy the defect in the rudder, and every time the vessel heaved, this man was taken right under the water for a time. Will any man say that you will get a landsman to do work of that kind? As a result of that man's nerve and skill, which you can only get by being a practical sailor, he saved the whole of the lives on that ship. Inexperienced men may be all right in fine weather, but if you could get a guarantee of fine weather during the whole of the trip, then you might get maiden ladies for sailors; but we do not go to sea as if we were going to church, we have to be prepared for all kinds of weather; and, therefore, it is necessary to have competent men for the work. It may be asked what remedy we have to suggest. Now, Sir, I do not suggest that we ought to adopt the old navigation law, which says that no man shall be carried on board British ships but Britishers, or a certain proportion of Britishers. I know that it would be most difficult at the present time to carry a law like that into operation; and, furthermore, any proposal to entirely dispense with the services of foreign seamen in British ships at the present moment would not be practicable. But, Sir, I can tell you what could be done. We want, if possible, to encourage as many boys as we can to go to sea to learn the trade of seamen, and to get boys to learn the profession of a sailor we must show them that, after a certain apprenticeship, they will at least expect to get a wage which will keep them in decency and comfort, and that there will be some chance of them getting constant employment. And more than that, Sir, we expect that a man who has served a legitimate apprenticeship to the sea service will get a preference of employment before a man who has never been at sea before, and who may be shipped on board a vessel as an apprentice. Now, the shipowners, I have no doubt, would give a preference to English seamen, provided they would sail at the shipowner's price. Of course I cannot say what price would please the shipowner, because I remember the time when the shipowner would say that no man ought to go to sea for less than £4 per month. But gradually, step by step, that £4 has disappeared, and I have seen men recently signed on in Cardiff for £2 15s. per month for able seamen, and £3 per month for firemen, and this has happened on voyages that only last about 14 or 15 days. Of course, that means that those men are always in debt. I do not think this state of things is any encouragement for men to go to sea. What. I want—and what I hope the President of the Board of Trade will do this Session, for he has a great opportunity—is that something should be done for the Mercantile Marine. I find that quite a number of shipowners are very anxious to have the best men, regardless of price, and I am not going to say that all shipowners object to pay fair and reasonable wages. I know many shipowners who are fair-minded men, and who are anxious to pay the best wages possible. Of course, they have to take into consideration their competitors—the other shipowners. Now, what we want to do is to knock out of the Mercantile Marine the loafer element, for I am sorry to say that, during the last eight years, a very undesirable class of men have been drawn into the merchant service, and the lowest kind of men have found their way on board British ships, with the result that a great blow has been struck at the seafaring community, and discipline has disappeared on board ship to a large extent. One of the great causes of this is that the men engaged to go on ships, when the vessel was ready to sail, have not turned up to time. The result is that the officers have been compelled to pick up any kind of men on the dockhead to fill the places of those who have failed to join the ship at the proper time. Well, Sir, that has brought a large number of undesirable men into the merchant service. But there is another evil in connection with this.

The honourable Member seems to be addressing himself to the manning of the Mercantile Marine generally, but I wish to remind him that the only question before the House is as to the undue proportion of foreigners.

Then I will endeavour to come to that point, and I will try to show that the foreign element is brought into our service in consequence of men signing on board ships, and failing to turn up at the proper time. But I believe that a remedy can be found for that. I think that if sailors and firemen were compelled to have certificates—the same kind of certificate that is provided for the officers of the ships—and when they are engaged on board vessels they should be obliged to hand that certificate over to the captain, that would remedy this evil, for if the man failed to join the ship his certificate would be given over to the Board of Trade official, and then it would be a question for the local Marine Board to punish that man by suspending his certificate for a certain length of time. Now, Sir, I would give those certificates to foreigners as well as to the Britishers, but I would compel the foreigner to comply with the regulations in the same manner as the Britisher. That is to say, that the foreigner would have to prove that he had had three or four years' service on board of his own country's ships, and he would have to prove that by his papers; and foreigners should also prove that they are able to speak English sufficiently well to understand the ordinary orders given on board ship. That would, I think, put a stop to the desertion of foreigners in British ports. I read a report of a case yesterday, where one of the crimps went on board a Norwegian ship and persuaded the firemen, who were getting about 30s. a month, to desert their vessel, because they were promised berths on board an English vessel at £4 10s. a month. They deserted their ship, and were hanging around the outskirts of the town nearly starving for some time, because they did not get what had been promised them by this crimp, who, he was pleased to say, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. If the Board of Trade would pass a Bill compelling every man to produce a certificate showing a certain amount of sea service before he could get an able seaman's certificate, I venture to say that it would be useless for these crimps to attempt to persuade foreigners to desert their ships, because they would not be able to get their certificates, and consequently would not be able to come into British vessels. That system would gradually work the foreign element out of the ships; but all foreigners who sailed in British ships, and were able to speak English, I would give them certificates, but I would say to the new comers—

"You must prove your service, and also that you can speak English, and if you can do that you will get a certificate."

This stealing of foreigners out of foreign ships is going on continually all round the country. On the 10th of September a Russian was on board a Russian steamer, when one of the crimps employed by the Shipping Federation, Limited, went on board this Russian vessel, and persuaded this young man, who was only receiving 30s. a month, to desert his ship. The crimp said to him—

"If you will come along with me I will get you £5 a month."

The young fellow deserted the ship, went to the Federation offices, was taken on, and sent by train to Glasgow, and he was put on board a steamer in Glasgow, where he was shipped not as a sailor but as a fireman, although he had never been in the stoke-hole, and knew nothing whatever about the work. I brought this under the notice of the Board of Trade, but they have done nothing in the matter. I don't know why they have been unable to put the law in force, because this man got an advance of £2 2s. 6d., which the agent of the Shipping Federation had put into his pocket. That money was supposed to be to buy the man clothes, but he had no clothes when he got to Glasgow, and he was sent away across the Western ocean without any sea clothes whatever. That is unfortunate, and I venture to say that if the Board of Trade were to bring forward those certificates, or to insist upon some guarantee that the men could do the work and understand our language, it would not be possible for a thing like that to occur. This man could not speak one word of our language, and I brought the matter under the notice of the Board of Trade, for I thought that they would have done their duty. But somehow or other, as soon as the Shipping Federation is mentioned that is enough to terrify them, and prevent them from doing anything. It has been suggested that there should be continuous discharges given to seamen, and it is said that this would prevent a large number of foreigners coming into our ships. Well, Sir, I do not object to continuous discharges as long as there is no entry in it as to conduct or ability, because I do know that in many cases men have disagreements with captains over small matters. The captain may be bad tempered, and so may the sailor; but if an entry is made on a man's discharge on this account by the captain it means that that man may be punished for many years, because another captain will refuse to employ him as long as he can get a man with a clear record. If the continuous discharge book was simply a record that a man had been employed on board a certain ship for a certain period, and to say that a man was discharged without any reference to character, I would be perfectly satisfied to have a continuous discharge book in preference to the certificate. I think this is simple, and it has acted very well in regard to officers on board ship. There is one other point which I wish to mention with regard to the large number of foreigners brought into our ships, and here again the President of the Board of Trade could do a great deal for the seafaring community if he would put his foot down to alter this state of affairs. A large number of vessels when they arrive at Hamburg, Rotterdam, or Antwerp, although their crews have only been at sea- a few weeks during their passage from the United Kingdom, discharge those crews at the ports mentioned, and ship on board foreign crews of sailors and firemen because they are cheaper, although they are coming to an English port to unload. What necessity is there to discharge those crews when those ships, as soon as they have discharged their cargoes, are coming to an English port to load again? The reason is that these English crews are paid £4 15s. a month, but the captain is able to ship a crew at Hamburg or Rotterdam at £3 10s. a month; therefore he discharges his men. Sometimes, of course, they pay their own passage to England, and sometimes the owner pays it, and they come back to England, and these foreign crews, composed of Belgians, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, or anything they can pick up, are taken on in their place. That is the reason why we get such a large number of useless men, because the shipping master on the Continent compels every man to pay from 6s. to 10s. for the privilege of being employed. These crimps go on board and make bargains to supply these men. The men apply to the captains, and they are told to go to the shipping master. They are taken to the boarding houses, where they are not particular what kind of men they get if they will only pay these shipping fees, and, of course, the foreigner, who cannot speak English, is preferred, because it is more easy to impose on him, because he cannot speak English, than upon one who has been a number of years in our ships. Consequently a large number of these foreigners are drawn into our vessels, to the detriment of the British seaman. It is just the same in New York. I have been also endeavouring to get this state of things remedied in New York. But, Sir, there is no change in New York, because the crimps there are making 60,000 dollars every year out of the transaction of supplying seamen for British ships. I was an eye-witness to this, for I saw foreigners stolen out of foreign ships. There they steal those men and practically carry them out. The crimps take them into their houses, and keep them there a few days, and then, when an English sailing ship is signing on a crew, these men are brought out, and the crimp would take from 40 to 50 dollars in advance of the sailor's pay and this is generally divided between the crimp and the shipping master. Now this matter is under the control of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, and if either the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office wanted to stop this state of affairs they could easily do it. I know if I were the President of the Board of Trade I would stop it within 24 hours. If I were sitting on the Front Bench there, I venture to say that I would soon put an end to it. The President of the Board of Trade has simply got to say, "Do not allow anyone to come in our office in New York unless they are on business, such as the captain and sailors," and the whole thing would be stopped. There are plenty of British sailors in New York, and there were plenty during the time I was there last year. I should say there might be some 30 or 40 men required, and that there were at least some 400 or 500 men out of work who wanted employment. It will be seen, therefore, that there was no scarcity of British seamen, but the fact is that they could not get a look in. The British seaman says to the crimp, "What am I going to pay you 40 dollars for?" Why, he would not live in the crimp's house, and he would not stop in his den of infamy. He would rather go and pay his own lodgings. But the crimp has an undertaking with the captain, and so he says to the British seaman, "If you will not lodge in my house and pay my shipping fees you are not going." In consequence of this state of things I started a number of shipping agencies myself, where the men can get employment without any fee whatever. I have found out that, in many cases, the captain is only too ready to assist the crimp. I found out one or two cases where the crimp had enlisted the sympathy of the captain, and in the majority of cases the captain was sharing the spoil. There was one case where a crimp had a contract with a shipowner in England, and was getting half of the fees which the crimp was charging. [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES dissented.] The honourable Gentleman shakes his head, but if he will go over on a trip to New York with me and pay all the expenses I shall be able to enlighten him.

Have you seen the contract?

Yes, I have seen the contract.

The honourable Member has made a very serious charge against someone unnamed. He ought either to give the name or withdraw the charge.

I shall certainly not withdraw the charge, and I am quite willing to give the name, for it is a matter of common knowledge in New York. I feel perfectly sure that all the Members of this House will not disbelieve that statement, for it is a matter of common knowledge to everyone in New York who has endeavoured to put this state of things down, and it would be put down in no time only for the fact that some of the shipowners on this side of the water have made contracts with the crimps to supply all their men. I remember that one of those particular crimps has been over for 12 months in the United Kingdom visiting the shipowners and making contracts with them, so that when those captains get into those ports, it is not a question of who he is going to employ, but he has to get his men through these crimps. If the captain disputes the crimp's word, he produces his contract to show that he has the authority of the shipowner himself, I believe that the honourable Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn knows a good deal about yachts, but not much about the Mercantile Marine. I could give him more information, but I do not see why I should take the trouble, and I shall just give him what I please. The President of the Board of Trade can do a lot in this direction if he chooses to do it this Session, to provide a better class of men for the Mercantile Marine, and to reduce the proportion of the foreigners by a gradual process. I quite recognise that the shipowner would be opposed to any law to reduce the number of foreigners, to such an extent that the men would be able to force up the rate of wages, which the shipowner would be forced to pay. I think this can be done gradually by providing that none but competent men should be engaged on board a ship. Why should a foreigner, who is not a practical seaman, go on our ships and take the place of a British seaman? I do not say that all foreigners are not competent seamen, and I venture to say that there are as fine sailors among the Norwegians, the Germans, the Swedes, and the Danes, as you will find anywhere. But I am not going to say, however, that a foreigner is a better sailor than a Britisher; and I am not going to say that a foreigner who is not a sailor is better than a Britisher who is a sailor. The President of the Board of Trade has a splendid opportunity this Session of bringing in shipping legislation. I am sure the shipowner will not Le opposed to it, because he wants something done to prevent men leaving his ship, and to stop desertion. Within a very short period no less than 12,000 men have deserted their ships in foreign ports, and foreigners have been shipped in their places, and very often they are inferior men. The President of the Board of Trade can do something, for he has had the matter put before him by the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commission which was issued over two years ago, in which they recommend that the Government should immediately deal with this question, and I say that now is the opportunity to do so. We have not a great deal of work before the House, and this is a matter which will not meet with much opposition. Therefore I hope that the reply of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will be in the direction of assuring us that something will be done to remedy the state of things of which I have complained.

I fully expected that the honourable Member who has just, spoken, after making such a serious charge against the Mercantile Marine, would Lave made some attempt to substantiate it. He has made a very serious charge against a certain captain whom he does not name, and of whom we know nothing about. I have a very strong current of sympathy for the cause which he pleads for so earnestly—that is for the sailor. I have travelled a great deal myself over the different seas of the world, and have noticed the conditions under which our sailors carry on their employment. On some ships they are treated very well, and on some I admit that they have been treated very badly indeed.

Will you kindly name the ship?

Yes, I will. On the "Australia" they were treated very well.

And now will you give the ships where they were treated badly?

And will you give also the names of the captains, and state whether their hair was red or grey?

The charge was made here in the absence of the Member for Greenock, who is chairman of the line of steamers to which the ss. "Australia" belongs. I have travelled by that ship myself, and I know how those men are treated. Hut, as everyone knows on both sides of the House, those who travel on some of these ships prefer very often in the hot weather to sleep on the poop than clown below, no matter how many cubic feet of space be allotted to them. I have preferred to sleep on the deck myself. I think it is the privilege of this House to have Members who have the interest, of the sailors at heart, because there is one association connected with sailors that, to my mind, ought to command the most earnest and sincere sympathy of the Members of this House, and that is that they, of all men, have less political privileges and less opportunity of voting for the men whom they would like to represent them in Parliament. Sailors are very often away on their duty, and I venture to say that they are the only class who are handicapped in a great degree while looking after the interests of this country abroad. Therefore, I think their interests should be all the more keenly felt by those legislating in this House. Therefore, everything that the honourable Member for Middlesbrough has said in their favour is justified, because they have many wrongs, and I am certain that our Government—the Government we have in office—will do everything they can, and as far as I know, they have done a good deal, to remedy the grievances which honourable Members on both sides of the House have complained of. One thing they have done for the Mercantile Marine during the last few years is that of giving officers in the Marine service rank in the Royal Navy, and this has been appreciated very largely by the Mercantile Marine all over the world. But I believe these foreign lascars, and these Swedes, and others, who join our Navy, when they join seem to think that they have some new right conferred upon them that they do not have in their own country. They seem to be very willing to join other British ships when they get discharged from British ships. In the ports of China, in the Mediterranean ports and many of the ports of Europe and America, which I know something about, I have always found that these foreigners invariably give the preference to a British ship, no matter what harbour they may be discharged in. I think we should look very carefully indeed into this question of the treatment of British sailors in the Mercantile Marine. I am certain that the Government will do everything they can to remedy the grievances which have been pointed out by Members on both sides of the House.

I listened, as I believe the rest of the House did, to what was, on the whole, a very moderate speech made by the honourable Member for Middlesbrough. It seems to me that the honourable Member, who has a practical knowledge and is technically acquainted with the outlines of a sailor's life, put before the House, with only one or two slips, what are known as the everyday incidents of a sailor's life. I am sorry to find that in the House of Commons, not for the first time, honourable Members have been so anxious to disagree with ninety-nine hundredths of what the honourable Member for Middlesbrough said in defence of poor Jack that they will quarrel with the hundredth part just because he does not happen to have an affidavit from the crimping master and the captain, against whom he made no more specific charge than the honourable Member who has just sat down. What was the burden of the honourable Member for Middlesbrough's complaint? It was this—that, generally speaking, the sailor is not treated so well as he ought to be: that, admittedly, his food is bad, and his sleeping accommodation is defective. He is often bullied on board, and ho is still crimped ashore, and that, generally speaking, in consequence of these things happening, the foreign sailor, who is more subservient, I am sorry to say, and who has less blood and bone in him than the British sailor, is willing to submit to degrading conditions which I hope the British sailor will never submit to. Well, in consequence of the sailors' environment, we find that Members get up in this House, and, whenever they can, they put in a word for the British sailor, not as against the foreign sailor, but as against the preferential treatment which is given to the foreign sailor to gratify greedy shipowners and shareholders; and when a Member specially takes up the sailors' cause, some infinitesimal point of his speech is raised and objected to. I have had some experience of the sea, and I know that the sailors are treated very well on lines like the Cunard, the White Star and many other big lines, where, I am glad to say, the stokers and the sailors are treated relatively well; and if Members of Parliament when they visit foreign countries, especially China, would only patronise the vessels which had on them British sailors, and which paid decent wages, then I think the foreigner would not be so cheaply prevalent or popular as he is. The honourable Member said some were treated very badly, implying that that treatment was rare. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been to sea, although it is some years back, and this I do say, that if British sailors are treated as they were when I was on the West Coast of Africa. I should rejoice to hear of a mutiny on board every one of those ships, as it would be an evidence that the spirit of resistance to oppression had not yet died out. I have known men working under a burning sun down in a stokehole at£3 10s. a month treated as no convict is treated in Her Majesty's gaol, because I have had the pleasure of trying that. The way these poor fellows were treated when liable to yellow fever or ague was such that it made their lives a perfect hell upon earth—hard work, unsuitable food when well, indifferent treatment when ill. This was what was going on down below while the passengers and the officers above were luxuriously treated. Some of the first-class passengers, to their credit, were stealing grapes and bananas to take down to the stokers who were gasping like rats from ague and yellow fever. That is the state of things on some ships, with other complaints, about which Mr. Rudyard Kipling—who we all hope will recover—so eloquently writes. I know this is a very exceptional case, but I sincerely trust that when the honourable Member for Middlesbrough brings forward a substantial grievance we shall not have fault found with some trifling argument, while no attempt is made to grapple with the solid timber of this case. I trust that after the cases which have been put before the House, there will be no attempt made to discount the substantial case that my honourable Friend has brought forward. Now, Sir, I come to the resolution, which is—

"That this House views with deep concern the fact that the proportion of British seamen in the mercantile marine is rapidly decreasing, and also that pilotage certificates are being issued in increasing numbers in British waters to foreigners, and trusts the Government will take prompt steps to inquire into the cause, in order to secure a remedy for this state of affairs."

Well, Sir, I am not going to deal with the pilotage, but I am going to deal with the British sailor. What have we heard to-night from the honourable Member who represents Liverpool? We have heard this, and I rejoice at it, that the shipping trade is prosperous, and that 6O per cent. of it is British. The honourable Member for Liverpool said—and we know it is true—that the shipping industry is fairly prosperous. But coming from these facts, which imply that we can afford to improve the position of poor Jack, we now come to the way in which he is treated. Passengers are being treated with increased luxuriousness by every one of the lines. Even the cattle ships are being overhauled and tremendous expense incurred to prevent cruelty to animals. Every element, every interest, in the ship is being considered—in my opinion disproportionately—except one, and that is the sailor who drives the ship on deck and the stoker who fills her furnaces down below. We find that passengers are well treated, cattle are being looked after, and the officers generally can hold their own. The sailor and the stoker, in point of view of wages, are the worst off. Although food is generally cheaper, they do not get that advance in the standard of comfort that other workmen have recently secured. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, the sailor lives a dangerous life. Two thousand of our fellow-countrymen go down to the sea in ships literally every year, either killed, drowned, or permanently disabled. Consequently, Jack's lot is not a happy one, and I am inclined to agree with Dr. Johnson, who said he could not understand how it was that any idiot could think of going to sea when there was a gaol open to receive him. Now, he must have had some experience of a tramp steamer owned by a Briton, and provided with foreign sailors from crimp establishments and receiving a Government subsidy. I now come to Jack's behaviour on board, and all this talk about the English sailor being drunken. Well, I have never had liquor in my life, and I don't think I shall ever have it. I am not inclined to condone with drunkenness, but to talk about the British sailor, as some shipping journals do, that he is drunken, incompetent, and insubordinate, is not altogether true. Poor Jack, like the officers, has the defects of his qualities, but he is often criticised unfairly less because he is drunken than because he is independent. We are told that his condition is entirely due to himself. It is not so. I believe that unpatriotic shipowners who carry the mails and the Government transport ought to give preference to British sailors, and not always show the preference they do to the lascar or the coolie, who is employed, first, because he is cheap, and, secondly, because he can be bullied and dominated to an extent that the English sailor will not submit to. I believe selfish shareholders drive captains and officers and their men to worse conditions than many captains and officers are anxious to take. I believe the sailor's food is bad, and his accommodation on board ship is worse, but—and this is more important than all—his wages are disproportionately low. I believe that the bulk of all the complaints that the honourable Member for Middlesbrough has made centre and rest upon the low wages of seamanship. The point is: How can we alter that? Well, Sir, I believe that there are several remedies. I believe that the four-years-at-sea certificate, whether in British ships or foreign ships, should be insisted on by the Board of Trade. I believe it ought to be a condition of seamanship on board a British vessel that the men should speak the British language somehow. We do not want men to be up to the standard of Lindley Murray, or to run the gauntlet of the Reporters' Gallery in the House of Commons—a very high and a very critical one. But, Sir, we ought to render it impossible for the kind of thing to happen at sea, through the English language not being wholly spoken by the crew, as happens in the Surrey and the London docks. It is not at all infrequent, Mr. Speaker, when a ship comes into one of the London docks for the British sailors to be paid off, and for the foreign sailors to be retained to whip the cargo out cither by hand or by crane, and, in consequence of their not knowing the colloquialisms of the steamer or the dock, they very frequently let the "skip" up when they ought to let the "skip" down, and vice versâ, with the result that accidents take place on shore in consequence of their ignorance of the British language. But if this is dangerous on shone, how much more so at sea, when you have men almost incapable of interpreting any order that may be given! I therefore submit that the four-years-at-sea certificate, whether British or foreign, should insist upon the holder speaking the language, and, above all, that we should apply to all Government transports and mails the principle of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House, namely, that there should lie a minimum rate of wages for seamen, that the proportion of British sailors shall be determined by the House of Commons, and that we shall not have from £150,000 to £200,000 paid to a line of steamers where Britishers are at a discount, and where lascars and coolies are almost exclusively employed. Another remedy I would suggest is that the boys should, if possible, be encouraged to take to sea life by the Government. I do not know that I should hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to vote for a provision in many cases of a free kit for many of the lads who come from the poorest schools; but this without good food and better treatment by officers and owners will not suffice. I do think that if the President of the Board of Trade would revise the food scale of 1854, and promise for the sailor of the future better food than he now gets, he would cause many men to go to sea, who now stay away. He should also insist upon the lascars having the same sleeping accommodation as the British officer; and, above all, he would be well advised to tell their officers to remember that the young man who would like to go to sea to-day is not the uneducated mechanised automaton of 80 or 90 years ago. But the President of the Board of Trade can do something more practical. I would like to see the President of the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Government, call an inter- national conference, and the maritime nations thereat represented to fix the food, the water, the medical, and the cubic space standards, not only of this country, but for every country; to establish a minimum rate of wages that would be applicable to all; and to draft regulations against crimping and similar abominations. If he would adopt suggestions to this effect, I have not the least doubt that some good can be done. But, whether these things are done or not, there is the question straight in front of us. Every year the percentage of foreign seamen in British vessels increases, and whether you regard it from the point of view of national defence, maritime supremacy, or commercial success, it is not creditable to Englishmen to know that while our vessels are increasing our countrymen who sail them are rapidly diminishing. That must be due to special causes, several of which have been enumerated to-night. I come forward with no golden specifics. I do not come forward to say that the honourable Member for Middlesbrough is right and the President of the Board of Trade wrong. I believe there are grievances, and I believe those grievances await remedies. What those remedies are it is not for private Members to dogmatise upon. It is enough for us to recognise the fact that, while the tonnage of our vessels is jumping up by leaps and bounds, the number of our countrymen who sail them is rapidly diminishing. I appeal, I hope not in vain, to the President of the Board of Trade, whose duty it is to provide remedies, to brush on one side the pettifogging criticisms that have been directed against the main contentions of my honourable Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, and to admit—as he must admit—that there are substantial grievances, and to apply his mind to remedies for the present condition of things.

It is always a pleasure to hear my honourable Friend the Member for Battcrsea, because he talks with so much earnestness, and, I may add, with so much knowledge of the subject. I must, however, express my astonishment at the statement of the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, that ho knows of contracts between captain and crimp, and, again, between owner and crimp, to press seamen. The honourable Member ought not to make statements of this kind without giving proof in the shape of names.

Mr. Speaker, last July I supplied the President of the Board of Trade with nine or ten affidavits sworn to by seamen in New York before an attorney, giving the names of the ship, the captain, and the crimp.

And the conditions of the contract?

Yes.

That is what I should like. The honourable Member should move for that information as a return, because I do not think it is fair to bring charges of this very serious nature against captains and owners without giving definite proofs of the charges made.

The information is in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade.

The honourable Member for Middlesbrough has told us some rather amusing yarns which at sea would be called "galley yarns" One story was that a man on board ship had nails in his boots so long that it took the engineer two clays to file them down. That may be told by a marine, or perhaps by a sea cook, but not by anyone else. Then there is the other yarn about the man who said he was only three inches off his course. Why, Sir, that story is as old as the hills. It was originally told of a celebrated vessel which ran ashore on a falling tide on Mount Ararat. Really, the honourable Member ought to produce something fresher in the way of a yarn than that. Well, Sir, I yield to nobody in admiration of the qualities of the British sailor. I believe him to be one of the best, bravest, and most able men in the world, and in all respects far better equipped for his work on board ship than most Bishops or Members of Parliament, or than nine out of ten Cabinet Ministers on the Front Bench. He is committed, for a good many months, to a very dull life. It is true that he sometimes goes on the "bust," as it is called, with the result that after he has disappeared for two or three days he is brought back in a shore-boat without any money, and also without an clothes. But when he recovers from his spree he does his work all right again. He is a sort of big baby, but he is also a big hero, and I am sure no one can fail to admire the self-sacrifice, the courage, and, at the same time, the skill with which he works for the safety of his shipmates and his ship. I cannot express the admiration I feel for the British sailor, and honourable Members may judge, therefore, that I would not like to be second to anybody in my desire that the British sailor should flourish and increase, and, above all, should man British ships. The honourable Member for Middlesbrough told us that he does not propose that foreigners should be entirely excluded from these ships.

Hear, hear.

Quite so. He says that any proposal that entirely excluded the foreigner must prove a failure. Then the honourable Member for Battersea and the honourable Member for Middlesbrough have told us between them why it is that a large proportion of foreigners is to be found in British ships. I must say that they have made a case which does not do any service to the British sailor. The honourable Member for Middlesbrough tells us that the reason for the introduction of the foreign element is that men fail to join until the last moment. Again and again he gave that as the principal reason. What does it come to? It means that the foreigners are taken because the British sailor will not join his ship after he has signed articles. I gathered from him that the reason why the foreign element is present in British ships is that when a captain has engaged British seamen, they at the last moment do not join, and that consequently the captain in despair is forced to take foreigners. So that it comes to this—It is not the fault of the captain, nor of the owner, nor of the crew, that a foreigner goes in a ship under the circumstances described by the honourable Member for Middlesbrough. It is the fault of the British sailor, and nobody else.

I do not like to interrupt the honourable Gentleman, but he is misquoting what I said. I said that the reason why a large number of undesirable persons are aboard our ships was in consequence of certain men who were engaged not turning up. I do not say foreigners, but loafers and all other kinds of undesirable, incompetent persons.

I do not think the honourable Gentleman has altered the statement I made. He said that the reason why the foreign element was present in our ships was that men failed to join their ships at the last moment. He did not at the moment appreciate the full meaning of what he said, but he showed that the fault for the introduction of foreigners was not that of the owner or captain, but was the fault of the British sailor himself. The honourable Member for Battersea gave another reason. He said that the foreigner is willing to submit to conditions that an English sailor would not submit to, and that he was cheaper. That is a reason which I certainly believe to be true, but that is not the whole story. The honourable Member knows perfectly well that under certain circumstances—I am chiefly thinking of Dutchmen, Danes and Swedes—foreigners are good seamen, second only to our own. They know the English language sufficiently to work about the ship. Every sailor of every nationality knows the essential English words at sea, such as "port," "starboard," and the rest of them. They are almost universal throughout the world so far as the elementary work of the ship is concerned. Those foreigners may not come up to the English sailor; they are not only cheaper, they are very good and orderly. They will never be able to equal our men, and I am perfectly convinced no one else will ever be able. But they are very good; and when we know that the foreigner will join, whereas the British seamen may not, it may be natural on the captain's part to prefer him. I understand from the honourable Gentleman opposite that foreigners are taken into a British ship because the English seamen will not join. I am sure he will not contradict me.

I do not agree with that. The honourable Gen- tleman misrepresents what I said. The complaint of shipowners was that after they had signed on a crew, foreigners as well as Britishers, and when the ship was ready to leave the dock, they found they were often men short, and were compelled to take undesirable persons, British or foreign, who were incompetent.

One of the honourable Gentleman's difficulties is, apparently, to follow me, and I sympathise with him. This resolution consists of two parts, one which I believe to be entirely incorrect, the other to be very serious and of great importance. What I believe to be incorrect is the part which declares, or proposes this House shall declare, that it views with deep regret the fact that the proportion of British, seamen is rapidly decreasing. That was the old story trotted out by the Navy Leagues and persons who study Board of Trade statistics without thoroughly understanding them. I admit the difficulty of studying these statistics, because the statisticians of the Board of Trade will not enable us to accept a total without all sorts of reservations, additions, and subtractions. It is very difficult indeed. The result of the-Navy League, and of the books on naval defence, mostly written by eminent landsmen, is that people come to-believe, and this House comes to believe, that there are no British seamen: left in the country, and, like the honourable Member for Middlesbrough and the honourable and gallant Member for St. Pancras, I believe that to be a delusion which is entirely unfounded. I am prepared to show by statistics that the world contains half a million of British seamen. They do not all belong to the mercantile marine, or to the Navy. Some of them are fishermen. Those gentlemen who study statistics and work out elaborate percentages from them do not deal with the whole number; they take only a limited number. Take two foreigners in a dingy, and if you fix your attention on those two men alone, you will come to the conclusion that there are no British seamen left. But you must take the whole number, and I do not believe there is more than five or six per cent, of foreigners among British seamen to-day. But I do admit that in certain trades there is a very large proportion of foreigners engaged. We are told by the right honourable Gentleman behind me that although the tonnage has trebled the aggregate number of sailors has diminished. That is a matter for congratulation, for it means that machinery is being used instead of men. If the topsail is to be set, it can now be done by a donkey-engine on the deck. It means a diminished necessity for human labour, but not by any means a decrease in the efficiency of the ship or the crew. You require fewer sailors than in years gone by, and as steamships tend to replace sailing ships, you will require still fewer men than before. Therefore, I think no importance need be attached to the decrease in the number of seamen; neither do I think that decrease has taken place to any serious extent, nor that the proportion of foreigners to British seamen is increasing. I have admitted that in certain trades there are a great many foreigners, but in other trades there are none—among fishermen, for instance, in certain lines, such as the P. and O., you will find a large proportion of lasears. With reference to lasears we cannot forget they are British subjects. I claim them as such myself. They are not Britons, neither are Irishmen, but, nevertheless, we call them British. In my opinion, however, you cannot surpass the Englishman. If ever you get into a tight place you will wish you had got an Englishman instead of a lascar. The honourable Member must remember that the competition in shipping is very great, and that people are bound to work down, consistent with safety and the proper treatment of the crew, which I, for one, would be the first to claim, and that, after all, these lasears do the work set them very well. I, therefore, do not agree that there is any case for concern regarding the alleged decrease of British seamen. The oilier part of the Motion refers to piloting, and there I am in agreement with the honourable and gallant Member for St. Pancras. It is a matter of very great concern. Pilot's tickets are being issued to foreigners in England in increasing numbers. I cannot understand on what principle these certificates are issued at all, because the matter rests largely in the discretion of the Board of Trade in all ports where pilots are examined. If it were proposed to examine foreigners before granting pilot certificates, they would probably avoid the examination altogether. I know perfectly well that in King's Lynn foreigners have proposed themselves to be examined by the local pilotage board in order that they might receive pilots' certificates, but the board refused to examine them. And what happened was this: the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade suggested to them that something terrible would happen if they, did not examine these foreigners; they would be brought up to London, and I do not know all that would be done to them. The Pilotage Board still refused, mid my impression is that these foreigners have not been examined down to this day. I believe that is the spirit in which almost ail pilotage boards desire to act, and when they do examine foreigners for pilots' certificates, it is done through the coercion of the Board of Trade. I wish to make that charge against the Board of Trade. I have no doubt they do it from motives of public policy, but I should like the right honourable Gentleman seriously to consider this matter; first of all, whether he is right in forcing, as I believe he did force, on the King's Lynn Board, and as I believe he did force on other boards, the examination of foreigners for pilots' certificates. It must be remembered that a pilot must, in order to continue to be a good pilot, be always in pilotage waters. For unless it is a rocky coast with a rocky bottom, the channels are constantly changing, and you cannot remain a good pilot unless you are going constantly up and down the pilotage waters. That is the first objection I have to the foreign pilot, who frequently goes away and does not come back for six months or more. There is the danger of incompetent pilots carrying British pilotage certificates. My second objection is that it is not advisable for foreigners to gain a knowledge of our pilotage waters, so that if they belong to the nation of an enemy, or are employed by an enemy in time of war, the enemy's ship would be able to bring her own pilot and navigate her into our harbours or up our rivers. That is a serious case. We never know when war is going to break out, and if you have a number of English certificated pilots—if you have a few in each port—of foreign nationality and foreign proclivities, that will be a very awkward thing. It would affect one's feeling of security to know that there were men capable, in time of war, of bringing the enemy's vessels into our ports and up our rivers. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will say that he is practically compelled by force of law to grant these certificates—

Hear, hear.

I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that he is. Well, I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will quote to us the Act of Parliament which forces him to grant these pilots' certificates to foreigners, and that he will particularly specify the penalties to which he is subject if he does not enforce the law. One of the greatest functions of a Minister, and one of the greatest services he can render to his country, is not to enforce an Act if it is a bad Act in itself. That is where his discretion Comes in; he is not a subordinate official who must do what his superior tells him. But if he believes that he is compelled to' enforce the law, then I do humbly submit to him that the time has come to seek some alleviation of the section of the Act which forces him to do this, or the repeal of the section altogether. But in the meantime I trust that the right honourable Gentleman will be sparing in the exercise of the power of granting certificates to foreigners, and I hope he will be able to tell me and other honourable Members that he does not propose in the future to coerce pilotage examination boards to give certificates to foreigners. It is a bad thing to realise that a foreigner knows all about our ports and harbours Now, while I entirely disagree with the first part of the Resolution, I entirely agree with the latter part. I trust the honourable Member for St. Pancras, having provoked an eminently delightful and in some respects a wonderful discussion, will not consider it necessary to go to a division.

Before I speak on the question immediately before the House I wish to refer to some of the statements made by the honourable Member for Middlesbrough. I happened to be in New York at the time the honourable Member for Middlesbrough was there, and I can bear testimony to the conspicuous services which that honourable Member rendered to British sailors in America. I myself examined the cases to which he has referred, and if the President of the Board of Trade looks at them he will, I am sure, recognise the necessity of a searching inquiry being conducted into the statements made. I am sure that the honourable Member for Middlesbrough comes back to this country more thankful than ever that he is a Britisher and lives under the Union Jack. Now, I think we have wandered away from the Resolution which we have been discussing this evening as to the general condition of the British sailor. The particular question which my honourable Friend has brought before the House is one of national importance. I myself have travelled on every ocean and in every variety of vessel—I always go on British vessels—and I have heard and seen something of the over-employment of foreign seamen on board British ships. I believe there is no sailor equal to the British sailor, although the seamen of other countries bordering on the North Sea have many fine qualities. A ship, however, I have always believed and still do believe, is safer when all the crew are British. In one vessel in which I made a voyage to New Zealand there was actually a man who could not answer to his name in English, and the captain told me that he was often driven to employ such men. Does this evil exist to any large extent? Well, I think the last returns issued by the Board of Trade show that there has been a large increase in the alien migration into this country compared with January in last year, and that this increase comprised 200 or 300 alien sailors, who had, of course, come to British ports seeking employment. I think the honourable Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn is altogether wrong in his statistics as to the number of British seamen. He includes fishermen in the term "British seamen," but you cannot regard fishermen as seamen. Of course, you can prove anything when you bring men of that stamp into the ranks of British seamen. When are talk of the crews of British ships we mean those who go across the ocean. I believe that over 21 per cent, of foreigners are actually in employment on British ships at the present moment, and therefore the evil does undoubtedly exist. There is surely an enormous danger in such a large percentage of foreign pilots being employed in our home ports. Take the case of the port of Newhaven alone: we find that out of 40 pilots licensed to navigate vessels into that port, no fewer than 20 are foreigners, or half of the whole number. Surely that is a serious danger, and we ought to recognise it; and surely the Board of Trade has some power in its own hands, without increased legislation, to alter such a condition of things. I do feel that the Government ought to recognise this evil on board British ships, and that it is one that demands their instant attention. I hope the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will accept in a sympathetic spirit the Resolution of the honourable Member for St. Pancras.

The honourable Member for King's Lynn stated that he entirely agreed with the first part of the Motion, but was strongly opposed t-o the second. Now, for my part, I am strongly in favour of the second portion of the Resolution, and I am strongly against the first. Why should we be in that position? My honourable Friend the Member for Haggerston says that in the port of Newhaven, out of 40 pilots employed there, there are 20 foreigners. I suppose my honourable Friend knows that we have British steamers sailing to Dieppe and Boulogne, and that, as a consequence, we have British pilots who hold French certificates, taking British steamers into these ports. On the other hand, we have a number of railway steamers belonging to the Western Railway in France, the pilots of which have passed an examination in England, and are able to bring their ships into English ports. The honourable Member does not seem to see that if you stop granting pilotage certificates to French officers coming into our ports, the French authorities would cease to grant similar certificates to British officers entering their ports. The Jingoes in France would point out what a serious danger to France it is to grant pilots' certificates to British seamen; and the consequence would be that on both sides of the Channel the steamers would be compelled to lay off until a French or a British pilot came on board and took the steamers into port. This would, of course, cause infinite trouble and delay both to the passengers and the transit of mails. Let us take all the ports in the North. Sea. You have got Norwegian companies having lines of steamers running to out Eastern ports, and you have got such companies as the Wilson Line running across to Norway. Then you have got German lines trading to British ports, and British liners trading to German ports. If the Norwegian and German officers have got British pilotage certificates, the British captains have also obtained German and Norwegian pilotago certificates. If you try to stop the granting of British pilotage certificates to foreign seamen, the result, it is evident, would be much worse for the British than it would be for the foreigner, for we have a much larger tonnage of shipping engaged in this trade than the foreigners. You can, if you like stop granting British certificates to foreign shipmasters, but the result will be, as I have said, that every time a passage is made the ships will have to remain out side the port on either side to wait for the pilot, and there will be more serious risks, greater delay, and greater suffering on the part of the passengers than at present. I think the President of the Board of Trade would be foolish to entertain the object which my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn seems to have in view. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Do I under stand the honourable Member for Caithness to say that in France they give certificates to Englishmen as pilots for Dieppe and Boulogne?

Yes. I may say that there is a keen competition between the British and the French in respect to the cross-Channel trade. I am sorry to say that the British are going to the wall, and that the French trade is increasing. Possibly that is because the French are working harder than our people, and have more money behind them. But to return to the first part of the Resolution. I think it would be very difficult for this House to do very much by legislation to meet many of the evils brought before us by the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, because some of the worst cases are where rail way servants use certificates which are forgeries, pretending to be someone else than they are, and so they get employ- ment. My honourable Friend points out that the Board of Trade should prosecute them; and there, I think, is a strong case against the Board of Trade. Take again the case of the lascars. There was the ship "Australia," mentioned last year, belonging to a London company, whose vessels are registered in London, and which sail from British ports to other British ports in British Colonies. That ship never touched at India, nor did many of the vessels of that company. They never went near India, and yet the right honourable Gentleman argued last year that the Indian law should apply to these ships and not the British law. As I have said, these ships never go near India, but carry British cargo, British passengers, and even British mails, from a British port to another British port in a British Colony. And the right honourable Gentleman has not the slightest intention of prosecuting that British shipping company for violating a British shipping law. And why? Because it is a very powerful company, and because a Member of the Government is a director of the company, and because an influential supporter of the Government is chairman of the company. I really do not see how we can do much by legislation for the British seaman. As an old-fashioned economist, I do not see why we can interfere in regard to the employment of foreign seamen. Look at the number of Swiss and German waiters employed in London, and we do not propose to interfere with them. We have got to depend upon them, and I do not even think the honourable Member for King's Lynn would propose to interfere with them. The case of the British sailor is, however, a very serious one. The fact is, that the British sailor is, and must be, unless some change is made, a constantly-decreasing factor, because the great bulk of our trade is being transferred from sailing vessels to steamers. In former days, boys were necessary in sailing ships; but there is no need to have- boys on board the modern steamer. In some senses, it was absolutely necessary to have boys on board sailing ships to go aloft, for the men refused to do it. It was too dangerous for them.

Oh, oh!

Yes, the boys could go where the men could not. But under the new conditions you have not the necessity for boys in the modern steamer, and hence the younger generation of sailors is not coming into existence in the same fashion as under the old condition of things. Last year the President of the Board of Trade made a suggestion, but, as with most suggestions made by the Board of Trade, it was not very wise. The right honourable Gentleman proposed to give back 10 per cent, of the light dues to steamers that carried boys. I do not know how much money he expended in that fashion. But the way it would work out would be this: that a vessel engaged in the coasting trade, or in making short voyages, and therefore paying very heavy light dues, would get large sums from him; but another vessel, trading perhaps to Australia and going from Australia to India, and from India back to this country, would get practically nothing. So that the offer made by the Board of Trade was one which the owners of long voyage vessels could not accept. And you could not expect the shipowners of such vessels to accept it. If you were to take£50,000 of the light dues and give that money as premiums to those ships which would carry a definite number of boys something practical might be done. Now, the reason why men are not going into British shipping now is that there is not the same inducement for boys to enter as apprenticed seamen as in other trades. And there is the point raised by the honourable Member for Battersea, that you are still standing by the old sustenance limit of the Act of 1854—the old Lime Juice Act —under which the very minimum standard of rations of 45 years ago is still the minimum of to-day. And that minimum is, in very many cases, the maximum of shipowners. You have got the salt pork, and the salt beef, and the old abominations, while, on the other hand, in every other range of life, we have better conditions and improved diet all round. Even in prisons the diet has been immensely improved, and the condition of sailors is worse than prisoners in our gaols. Not much can be done, therefore, I am afraid, in the way of legislation for the British sailor. But it is very important that something should be done, because we have to depend upon the Mercantile Marine for our Naval Reserve in the great naval war of the future. My honourable Friend the Member for St. Pancras was perfectly justified in calling upon honourable Members, on the Board of Trade, and on Parliament as a whole, to increase the efficiency of the Mercantile Marine, because that is the source of cur Naval Reserve. And I am sorry to say they do not do anything in that direction in connection with our subsidised mail steamers. The Peninsular and Oriental Company is the very greatest offender. They violate all the conditions of their contract laid down by the Government, and which, as the honourable Member for Battersea says should be carried out, but which are not enforced by the Admiralty. You have got many splendid steamers to which you pay high subsidies, and which you can turned into armed cruisers, as was done during the Spanish-American War. Well, some of these steamers are manned by lascars and foreigners, instead of being manned by men of the Naval Reserve, according to the conditions of the contract. They ought to have guns on board, and these ought to be brought up on deck for gun drill, as is done in the case of the ships of other nations who give grants of that kind. If these steamers were manned by the proper class of men, we would be able to make our Mercantile Marine a true Naval Reserve. The facts are before the House. You can do a great deal by administration without legislation, and I hope that the Board of Trade and the Admiralty will perform their duty, and no longer allow ships which are subsidised to remain as at present, and that no further mail or other contracts will be given except on the condition that a large proportion of the officers and crew belong to the Naval Reserve. In that way you can use the Mercantile Marine as a great source of strength to the Navy.

I quite agree with the object which the honourable Member who moved the Resolution has in view. Everybody must admit that there is no finer race of men in the world than the British seamen. Some of the most famous pages in our history have been penned about the deeds done by British seamen, and, therefore, it stands to reason that everybody should desire to see British seamen employed on British ships. But I do not quite agree with the honourable Member who moved this Resolution as to the remedies which he suggested. I understood him to say that one of the reasons why foreigners were preferred to British seamen was because the foreigners were cheaper. That is a fact which it is very difficult to get over. There is at the present moment great competition amongst shippers, and great competition in the shipping interest, and it is most important that the shipping interest should be retained in the United Kingdom, and that the carrying trade of the world should remain in our hands. We all know that many foreign nations are competing with us for the carrying trade, and the sole reason why we hold that trade as we are able to do is because we are able to conduct it at a reasonable rate. If we are going to enhance the freight of ships, we run a danger of losing that trade. Therefore, I think that though I quite sympathise with the object the honourable Member has in view, it would be very serious to pass legislation which would touch that point. The honourable Member went on to say that he thought something should be done to encourage the employment of boys on board British ships, and I certainly agree with him in that. I hope something will be done to encourage boys to enter the service. If I am not mistaken, I am under the impression that the First Lord of the Admiralty has done something in that direction.

No. There was a recommendation from a Select Committee.

Well, I trust that the Government will see their way to carry out the recommendation. I also think, with the honourable Member for Caithness, that where steamers are subsidised some conditions should be attached to the contract a3 to the men to be employed on the subsidised ships. That is reasonable, but I do not know how far it could be enforced. I do not see how any other steps could be taken in that direction. The honourable Member for Middlesbrough says that in many instances British sailors would not join the ships for which they had signed when foreigners did join. I do not know how legislation could prevent that. I do not see how legislation could compel a British sailor to join a ship if he did not choose to do so. But I think, if it is possible, short of legislation, to take some steps to induce British seamen to enter British ships, that should be done, and if that could be accomplished, the Resolution which we have discussed tonight at great length will not be lost.

I have listened to the Debate to-night with great interest. I do not propose to occupy much of the time of the House, but I should like to make one suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade, who has admitted that there has been a great increase in the number of foreigners in the Mercantile Marine. Now, personally, I see no difficulty whatever in providing any number of British subjects for British ships. I would suggest, and it would not involve any large expenditure, that the right honourable Gentleman should divide the whole British coast into sections, and station old gun brigs at given points. These brigs should be so fitted up as to enable training to be provided for boys, and I would offer inducements to lads to serve in them, for, say, a couple of years. After that period we should be able to give a lad a certificate that he is a good seaman, and can steer, haul, and work a steam winch. By this means, in the course of a few years, we should get a large number of British-born lads fit to serve in British ships, and in about 10 years I think there would be no necessity for employing foreigners. This is only amplifying what is being done to find sailors for the Royal Navy, and it would benefit the Navy equally with the Mercantile Marine. I do not think that my suggestion should be lost sight of by the President of the Board of Trade.

I think the whole House has listened with great interest to the speech of the honourable Member who is BO perfectly well acquainted with the subject with which it deals. I cannot claim any such practical knowledge, but I would like to point out to the House that not very many years ago it appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole question of pilotage, and the giving of certificates to foreigners as pilots. The Committee was composed of gentlemen on both sides of the House, who were selected because they were more or less acquainted with the subject. I am now dealing with the second part of the Motion. The Committee sat, I think, for three months, and the report of its proceedings fills a great many pages. I remember very well what happened on that Committee. I remember that the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and Trinity House did not think that the granting of certificates to foreigners was of any great importance with regard to the, safety of navigation in waters belonging to this country. As the honourable Member for Caithness very wisely observed, you must remember that if we decline to give pilotage certificates to the captains and mates of foreign vessels the result will be that foreign Powers will deny the same right of pilotage to our captains and mates, and there will be a heavy increase in cost to the shipping companies. In the opinion of the experts, at any rate, who gave evidence before the Committee, the amount of danger likely to arise in case of war is infinitesimal. It was proved before the Committee that the number of foreigners holding pilotage certificates is extraordinarily small. They are principally Norwegians and Danes, who for years and years have come to this country, and, although they may not have become naturalised, are practically British subjects, and have no intention of going back to their own country to live. I would recommend the report of that Committee to the consideration of the House; it is a very strong one. It recommended certain legislation, and as a result, a Pilotage Bill was introduced, which was eventually thrown out in Committee. That is all I have to say with regard to the question of pilotage. Now I wish to say one or two words with regard to what fell from the honourable-Member for Caithness respecting the difficulty of inducing boys to go into the Navy. I very much agree with the honourable Member, but I do not altogether concur with the suggestion of the Member for Gateshead that brigs should be stationed at various points of the coast for the training of lads. I believe the question for the future is one of stokers and not sailors. Of course, you must have sailors to a certain extent, but future wars will be carried on by stokers.

I was talking of the Mercantile Marine.

I am afraid that before long British goods will be solely carried in steamboats, and then you will want stokers and not sailors. The House should look to the encouragement of a class of men who will be engineers and stokers, fit to work the machinery on board the great trans-Atlantic liners, and not encourage merely the engagement of men who can simply hand-reef and steer. I think the House would be wisely guided by the report of a Committee which it appointed not so many years ago, and may I add, with regard to the first part of the Resolution, that I entirely agree with the opinion expressed by the Mover.

I think we must all have listened with great interest to the suggestion of the honourable Member for Gateshead, who has spent most of his life in a seaport, but I was seriously disappointed when I found that the sole suggestion lie had to make was that the Government should put a few gunboats round the coast with the view to inducing boys to become sailors. No doubt, when a boy has thus been trained, he enters into the service of some shipowner, and feels delighted that he sails under the British flag. He Thinks, I suppose, of the glorious traditions of the British Navy, and having spent a year at sea, he finds himself in possession of £48; that is, supposing he has had continuous employment. But in these depressed times continuity of work is not always obtainable. If this Debate has shown anything, I think it has proved conclusively that the British sailor is not what he ought to be, by reason of the fact that he is constantly going on what is described as "big bursts." The fact is, the Mercantile Marine offers really no substantial prospects for a boy. The honourable Member for Gateshead tells us that his remedy is gun-brigs.

I simply suggested that they should be used for training the boys.

Yes, but if there is a training there must be some equivalent for it. I think the honourable Member for Middlesbrough has substantially made out his case that the British seaman of to-day is not treated in a manner worth of the great part he plays in the trade and commerce of this great Empire, which we all love so dearly, whatever may be our political opinions. You are not going to tempt a better class of men into the Navy by circulating artificial information about the Navy and Naval Reserve. If you want good seamen you must pay a fair and adequate remuneration. Shipowners have no right to come to this House and complain of drunken British seamen, when they are sweating the men in a most abominable manner. Take for instance the question of food. As to that I will not rely upon the-opinion of the Member for Middlesbrough. I will take that of one who it cannot be suggested is prejudiced in favour of the men, as he is an officer on board a ship, and he tells mo that the food provided on many of the smaller liners and in tramp steamers is so bad that no decent man can put up with it for any length of time. I was pleased to hear the suggestion of the honourable Member for Middlesbrough that certificates should be given of competency and efficiency, for I believe that if that were done shipowners would no longer have to complain of the drunkenness of seamen or of the men deserting. Officers of ships, as I know from their own statements, often find great difficulty in dealing with men, and if certificates of competency were issued, that difficulty would be lessened. While I agree that the honourable Member for Middlesbrough has made out a good case for the better treatment of the men employed in the Mercantile Marine, yet I am rather suspicious of this Motion, because I am aware that honourable Members opposite, who are such great patriots, are threatening action in regard to aliens generally. Personally, I know no difference between races and nationalities, and I am bound to say that I see no reason why there should not be foreigners in the Mercantile Marine just as there are in the tailoring, shoemaking, and cabinet-making trades. As I am not prepared to exclude them from British ships, I cannot support the Motion. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the honourable Baronet on the question of pilotage. I know that our pilots hold very strong views with regard to the regulations now enforced. Why a captain who has come to Hull for a quarter of a century should, simply because he is a foreigner, be denied the right to pilot his own ship in British waters, which he knows just as well as any pilot in the Humber, I cannot see. It is because I am a very strong free trader, and because I have no race prejudices at all, that I feel myself unable to support this Motion, although I sympathise to the full with the honourable Member for Middlesbrough.

I have listened to what has proved to be a very interesting and instructive discussion in respect to matters in which I have the greatest interest. For myself, I do not hesitate to say that I do not agree with the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. I do not regard with satisfaction the very considerable increase which has undoubtedly taken place in the number of foreign seamen on board British ships.

Neither do I.

I am glad the honourable Gentleman agrees with me in that. I certainly do not regard it with satisfaction. I think that every legitimate effort should be made to endeavour to man British ships with British sailors. I agree with my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn in the admiration he has expressed for the British sailor; indeed I think he has almost exhausted the catalogue of adjectives which can be applied to them. I know that if ever I am on board a ship and we find ourselves in a tight place, I should prefer the vessel being manned with British sailors.

Then keep out of the P. and O. boats.

I do not want at the present moment to embark on a discussion with regard to the P. and O. Company. I shall have something to say as to that presently. I am sorry that to-night, when such an interesting discussion is taking place on matters vitally affecting their interests, the shipowning Members of this House are conspicuous by their absence.

They tried to count us out.

I should have been delighted to have seen some shipowner here to reply to some of the charges which have been levelled at their heads, for, no doubt, it can be done most effectively. It is alleged that British sailors are badly treated, and that they were never worse treated than they are at the present moment. I absolutely deny that assertion; on the contrary, I consider that the condition of the British sailor is very fair indeed.

I never made the assertion. What I said was that the standard of sustenance laid down by the Board of Trade for sailors was laid down 45 years ago, and while that for convicts had been improved since then, nothing had been done for the sailors.

I am very far from saying that no improvement could take place in the lot of the British sailor, but I contend that that lot is better now with regard to food, wages, and lodging than it has ever been at any previous time.

So it ought to be.