I beg to move, "That Standing Orders 204 and 235 be suspended in the case of any Bill the time for the Second Reading of which expired during the Whitsuntide Recess, and that the Second Reading of any such Bill shall be set down on Monday, 15th June."

I do not doubt the necessity of suspending the Standing Orders referred to in this Motion, but at the same time I should like to have some little explanation of the matter. I do not think that the House should be asked to decide a matter of this kind without knowing the reason for the step which it is asked to take.

Can the Deputy-Chairman say whether the Aire and Calder Navigation Bill will come within the scope of this Resolution?

The reason for the Motion is the effect of the unexpected rising of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess. The House rose for the Whitsuntide Recess sooner than was anticipated. The officials of the House put down the Second Readings of these Bills for a date at which they could have been read if the House had risen on the date originally intended, but, as the House rose some days earlier than the date originally intended, the Second Readings of these Bills could not be secured before the Whitsuntide Recess, and it is therefore necessary to put down the Motion which stands in my name. I am unable to answer my hon. Friend as to whether the particular Bill to which he refers is included or not, but I will let him know.

I will object until I do know.

I beg to move, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment of any additional Salaries which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, as regards any additional member of the Land Court a salary not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year out of the Consolidated Fund, and as regards any additional members of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may sanction out of moneys provided by Parliament."

I do not rise to oppose this Resolution, as the terms of it were drafted through the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. McKinnon Wood) after communication with myself. We are all agreed that we require two extra members of the Land Court. Obviously, these gentlemen must be paid proper salaries for their work. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday that it would be desirable to draft this Resolution in the exact terms of the Act which we are amending and the Clauses dealing with the Board of Agriculture and the Land Court, and that he was good enough to do. I have a little doubt in my mind this morning as to whether it was altogether wise to restrict the payment of the salaries of the new members of the Land Court to £1,200, as it might be convenient in future, owing to the very great pressure of business devolving on that Court, perhaps to split it into two, and have a vice-chairman at the head of one division and a chairman at the head of the other. In this case it would be essential for the right hon. Gentleman to have an Act of Parliament with some further provision against that. What the Committee may do about that I am not able to say. We cannot deal with the question until this Financial Resolution is passed, but I merely throw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it wise that he might slightly increase the maximum to, say, £1,500 and leave a sort of free hand in the matter. It is my hope and belief that the right hon. Gentleman will do his very best in making these appointments to secure men who really understand the work they have to do, and who have the confidence of the people of Scotland, and who may to some extent get rid of the want of confidence that now exists in regard to one of the bodies in question. I have always thought that in making fresh appointments of this kind under new Statutes it is a pity to import political feeling at all. We have too much political party feeling imported into the appointment of our judges and people of that kind. I think it a pity to have it in a board which is being constituted for the first time, but if it has to come in the case of a perfectly new board, when the question of spoils to the victors does not arise, I think that they ought to be equally divided between the two parties, at the start at all events. In the end I suppose that they will follow the natural course of being appointed, as they are now, by the party in office for political reasons. In this particular case I am not going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to redress the balance by appointing Unionist politicians. I do not care in the least what the politics of these gentlemen are provided that they are known to be thoroughly experienced and men who would have the confidence of those whose property they are going to interfere with, and whose decisions would be of the greatest importance. In this particular case in the working of this legislation it would grease the wheels in a way which I need hardly say would help very much to secure its working in a satisfactory manner. I have no objection whatever to make, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get his Financial Resolution without any Division.

I wish to offer one suggestion in regard to the general question. I think a difficulty has been experienced in connection with the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill of finding suitable land available for small holdings. I hope I am not out of order in the suggestion I am about to make, but the Resolution is in connection with salaries, and my suggestion would render additional salaries necessary. My suggestion is that well-known farmers in various parts of Scotland might be employed by the Board—

That can be provided for now.

It is not done.

It can be done under the Act.

It is not done to the extent that it ought to be done, and my suggestion is that it ought to be done to a very much greater extent than at the present moment. I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland to the point. Though I know it would involve an addition to the present expenditure, yet I hope he will adopt the suggestion of employing well-known farmers in connection with obtaining suitable land for small holdings. I know only one case in which it has been done, though it may have been done in other cases, but the suggestion I make would, I submit, simplify the procedure and help the Board immensely if it were adopted.

The point which the hon. Gentleman has raised can be dealt with under the existing Act, and therefore it is not a matter for discussion now.

I beg to move to leave out the word "any" ["as regards any additional members"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."

I should like to endorse the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), in regard to the appointment of gentlemen whose salaries we are about to vote, that they should be considered solely as to their efficiency and without any reference whatever to what their political opinions may be or may not be. As far as I am concerned I go further even than my hon. Friend. I understood him to suggest that the appointments should be divided between the two parties. But I would not even do that. I would appoint all Radicals if they were competent, or all Conservatives if they were competent. I would take the most competent men, disregarding altogether whether they were Radicals or Conservatives.

Or Socialists.

That is going rather far, for I think, though I do not expect everybody to agree with me, that it would not be possible to find a really competent Socialist. He may have a kind heart, but beyond having a kind heart it does not seem to me that there is much to be said for him. That, perhaps, is rather irrele- vant, and I must apologise for it, though it is not my fault, for I was rather led into it by the hon. Member opposite. I am also very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs for his few remarks, because they taught me something about the subject that I had not known before rising to speak. I do not know whether in a future Unionist Government my hon. Friend will take the place of the Secretary for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad that we are all agreed upon that; but at present, unfortunately, we are not on that side of the House, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Secretary for Scotland would have given some explanation of the Resolution to us, who are Englishmen, and who, after all, will have to pay the larger proportion of this sum. He might have explained to us why it is that this money is necessary. There is every reason why he should do so, because this Bill is being dealt with in Committee which consists of Scottish Members, and to which English Members are not admitted.

I presume the right hon. Gentleman is waiting to hear what I have got to say before he makes his remarks. First of all, I should like to congratulate him on having put the Resolution upon the Paper. I have never been backward in calling the attention of the House or Committee to the faults of the Government, and when, by accident, they do something right, I think that it is only fair that I should mention it. There has been rather a growing disposition on the part of the Government to put these Resolutions on the Paper. It is one of those things which supporters of the Government always insisted upon when they were in Opposition, and I am glad that they are at last following out that which they said ought to be done. Having said that, I wish to ask one or two questions, as I have certain Amendments to move. In regard to these Resolutions I have always moved an Amendment limiting the amount. The right hon. Gentleman has put into this Resolution the amount of £1,200 a year. That is a very excellent thing, and I am very glad he has done it. I offer him my congratulations on having followed an example which has been set before in this House. But I want to know why, having taken that good step with regard to the salary of an additional member of the Land Court, he has not done the same thing in regard to the additional members of the Board of Agriculture.

I also want to know why he has limited the addition to the Land Court to one, and why he has left the number of the members of the Board of Agriculture unlimited? My hon. Friend, I believe, said that the number of the members of the Board of Agriculture is going to be limited to two. Why have we not got that in the Bill? Therefore I propose to leave out "any," and insert "two." In the meantime I think it more convenient if I state generally my reasons for the Amendments. A further Amendment which I propose to move is a limiting Amendment in regard to the salary of the additional members of the Board of Agriculture, in exactly the same way as that is done in respect of the additional member of the Land Court, whose salary is limited. I happened to be fortunate enough to come down to the House about ten minutes before twelve o'clock, thinking perhaps it would be well to know a little about this Resolution. I consulted one or two of the Acts which fortunately are kept in the Lobby. I wanted to find out what the reason was, or if there was any reason, for the extraordinary omission to limit the salaries of the additional members of the Board of Agriculture while the salary of the additional member of the Land Court was limited. I do not know whether this is the reason, though I think probably it is possibly the reason which the right hon. Gentleman will give me—if it is I tell him in advance that it is not a good one—the reason may possibly be that the salary of the member of the Land Court is on the Consolidated Fund, whereas the salaries of the members of the Board of Agriculture are voted by Parliament every year. I do not know if that is the reason, but if so I do not think it is a good reason. The right hon. Gentleman may say "we limit the salaries of the Land Court judges because they do not come up for review, while in the other case of the Board of Agriculture they do." My answer is that we are parting with our power at the present moment if we put in this unlimited power. It is no use saying the matter comes up on review next year. Everyone knows the time given to Supply is not very great, and it is not always possible to catch your eye. It would also be an invidious task to move to reduce the salary of a particular official. I do not think any Member would succeed in carrying such a proposal, and I am not at all sure that he would not be rightly defeated. I desire to have a maximum amount put in. I know this matter has been before a Scottish Committee, and Scotsmen are not very free with their money, but as a good deal of this money comes from Englishmen perhaps a good deal of that caution which is ingrained in the nature of Scotsmen might not be so carefully expressed in the case of the Sassanach. I beg to move the Amendment.

The reason why we propose to add another member to the Land Court is that we think by a rearrangement of the quorum which is necessary to constitute the Land Court we can have three Court sittings. With a quorum of two members and a total number of six that is not possible with one member of the Court of Appeal. I think the hon. Baronet agrees that this is reasonable.

I do not make any objection to that.

The reason why I have inserted in the Resolution the salary of the member of the Land Court and not the salaries of the new members of the Board of Agriculture is because that was the procedure adopted in the Act of 1914, and, as the hon. Baronet said very truly, that money comes out of the Consolidated Fund and is not subject to review. With regard to the other figure, in the case of the Board of Agriculture, I may say that I did not think it advisable to put in a figure because it would remove the matter practically from the control of the Treasury. As the matter now stands, the salaries are "such sum as the Treasury may sanction," and they are subject to review in Parliament. I can promise the hon. Baronet that I do not propose to make the salary larger than the present salaries of members of the Board. I do not think the hon. Baronet desires to ask me to take away the discretion of the Treasury by passing a Resolution which might in practice do so As to the Amendment which he has moved as to the numbers, I have not the least objection, as the number is fixed by the Bill. I hope that the hon. Baronet will not press the other Amendment.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met my arguments. I agree that it would not be advisable to take away the power of the Treasury to fix a smaller salary. That the Treasury should have control I quite understand. My second Amendment I propose to move in this form: After the word "remuneration" to insert the words "not exceeding one thousand pounds a year each, as the Treasury may sanction." That preserves to the Treasury the power of settling the amount. I do not mind putting in a larger amount, because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury ought to have the power. All I want is to see that there is a maximum, and that the House shall, at any rate, have some control over the expenditure of the money. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me he thinks £1,000 too small, I am quite willing to put in £1,200, which will retain the control which the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly says the Treasury ought to have.

I do not think there is any serious objection to the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment made: After the word "remuneration" ["salaries or remuneration"] insert the words, "not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year each."—[ Sir F. Banbury. ]

Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment of any additional Salaries which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, as regards any additional member of the Land Court a Salary not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year out of the Consolidated Fund, and as regards two additional members of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland such Salaries or remuneration not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year each as the Treasury may sanction out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next, 15th June.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

In moving the Second Reading of this important and, I venture to say, vitally necessary Bill, we have a right to give the House of Commons the causes of its origin, the justification of its provisions, and the necessity for its receiving speedy enactment. For several years the mercantile nations of the world have been considering how they could improve the construction and safety of ships, and how best they could protect both life and property at sea. The subject has engaged for a long period all the best minds of experienced navigators, of naval and marine architects, and of all those who are connected with the sea. They have for some time come to the conclusion that there was need for an international agreement and the adoption, wherever practicable and possible, of universal standards for ship construction, for the safety of ships, and for the protection of everybody against the perils of the sea. This desire on the part of navigators, engineers, owners, architects, officers and crews was accelerated by the appalling disaster to the "Titanic" some two years ago, and it has been strengthened by subsequent events; while the growth of large and speedy ships, with enormous crews and large totals of passengers, gives additional emphasis to the desire to which the loss of the "Titanic" and other disasters have given rise. To secure this end, an international conference was called in London. Representatives of fourteen of the great maritime nations of the world sat from 12th November, 1913, to 20th January, 1914. Besides Great Britain, thirteen of the largest maritime countries and three of our British Dominions were represented. That conference, with elaborate pains, with great skill and capacity, by means of sub-committees utilising the most experienced minds on this subject, came to practical conclusions which were embodied in the Report and recommendations of the Convention. It is the Bill embodying the results of that Convention to which I now ask the House to give a Second Reading.

For the first time we have an international standard of safety for foreign-going passenger ships. Amongst the useful and necessary things that can no longer be delayed upon which the Convention decided, and which this Bill carries out, the chief heads may be briefly mentioned. First, it was decided that ships, whether cargo or passenger, must be provided with wireless telegraphy if there are fifty persons on board. It was also decreed that provision should be made for an international ice patrol service, so that disasters like that which unfortunately occurred to the "Titanic" may be prevented, and steps provided by the Convention and in this Bill enable that to be done. The Convention also decided, very wisely, that the removal and destruction of derelicts was a matter of immediate necessity, and this Bill enables that to be provided for. It also provides rules and conditions for the avoidance of ice, for the finding out and destruction of derelicts, and, what is important from the constructional point of view, for the sub-division of ships—a, very important matter when ships are assuming the large size which they now do. It provides also that there should be a sufficient and efficient crew on all ships, that musters and drills of officers and crews should be developed and considerably improved, and, not less important, that the question of the prevention, detection and extinction of fires on ships at sea should be more drastically dealt with. Another important matter will be rules and regulations with regard to the construction, the use, and the closing of watertight doors.

On the human side, one of the recommendations of the Convention was that sufficient boats or rafts, sufficient to accommodate all the persons and passengers on board, should be provided and carried by every ocean-going passenger steamship. To make this Convention fit in with the existing law has been the object of legal experts. But the existing law is not materially affected other than where the Convention alters it—at any rate, not to the extent that some Members might think. It has been necessary to expand a few points, but generally the Bill may be regarded as a Convention Bill. The Bill must be passed this year. I say that with all respect, because all the other nations who are parties to this International Convention are already taking steps to embody their part of the bargain in legislative measures, and before the respective Parliaments of the fourteen consenting nations the same process is being adopted as that which we are taking to-day on behalf of Great Britain in the British House of Commons. If this Convention Bill is passed, it will add to the; safety of ships, reduce the perils at sea, and lead, we hope, to a material reduction of preventable casualties, and, as I believe, of avoidable loss of life.

On the human side we have only to give one or two simple facts in justification of a measure of this kind. In the last twenty years no less than 4,700 steam and sailing vessels, of 3,000,000 tons, owned by the United Kingdom, have been lost at sea. Crews and passengers to the number of 18,474 have been lost. The ratio of crew to passengers lost is as three to one. I am very glad to say, and everybody will be pleased to hear, that the ratio of the loss of life both of crews and passengers, as well as of tonnage, is declining. One of the chief effects of this Bill will be to accelerate that decline more rapidly than it has been recently. In connection with this Bill, the Regulations which will be issued, and thereby legislative expression given to the decision of the Convention, will put material things in ships, in appliances, in boats, rafts, etc., in safer condition than they are now, and make these fit and worthy of the splendid courage of our sailors, and the wonderful devotion to duty of the officers and men of the British mercantile marine. To their lasting credit and honour they show this courage and devotion in every emergency and whenever duty calls. The legislative expression of the desires of the Convention in this Bill will come into force on 1st July, 1915. They will be given effect to, as I have said, partly by legislation and partly by regulation. Some of the Regulations as to life-saving appliances will, by administrative action, give effect to the necessary im-improvement in regard to these appliances.

The Board of Trade have for the last month had before the House of Commons the first set of rules connected with this matter. The Board of Trade, the Admiralty, and the Foreign and Colonial Offices are acting together in this particular matter. The other nations, as I have said, are working most fairly with this Government in carrying out the decision of the Convention. I may add that as all the other nations are so harmoniously carrying out their part of the obligation, it is, we believe, the duty of the greatest maritime nation in the world, Great Britain, that builds 70 per cent. of the capital ships of the world, and owns 60 per cent. of them, not only to keep abreast of invention and practical science in the matter of navigation, but it is its business, as it has been hitherto its pleasure and duty, to lead the world. I may only say in conclusion that if the House gives, as I am sure it will, a Second Reading to this Bill, and the Bill goes to Committee, points sus- ceptible of adaptation, and suggestions in conformity with the outstanding decisions of the Bill, will have to be sympathetically met and considered. As President of the Board of Trade, it is my duty to put this Bill before the House by virtue of the decision of the Convention to which His Majesty's Government was a party. It is a good object. It harasses no industry. It interferes with no trade. On the contrary, it makes the carrying trade of the world, both as regards men, goods, crews, and officers—as it should be—as safe as it can be made. I believe if this Convention Bill is passed, and the regulations connected thereto, to give practical enforcement to its decisions, go forward, in the years to come we shall see that our mercantile fleet is not only larger and stronger and even swifter than it is now, but that the men, women and children "who go down to the sea in ships" will have greater safety and protection. It is very difficult to get the nations to come together in these days. When the nations do come together, not to increase armaments, not for the destruction of life and property, which is still too frequently the case under the present naval and military conditions—when, as I say, they come together as they have done, harmoniously and in cooperation to save life, and to prevent the destruction both of life and property on the oceans of the world, it seems to me that it is the duty, as it should be the pleasure, of the House of Commons to give legislative expressions to their decisions and recommendations on this important matter.

I welcome this Bill for various reasons. One is that it is a step in international agreement, which, I hope, will be carried further than at the present time. The other is that I think the Bill puts forward regulations and demands which must command the support of everybody who takes an interest in our mercantile marine. As to the Convention, the names of our representatives who signed it are alone a sufficient guarantee for it. But I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of some of the names with which I am not acquainted, if there were any actual sea-going captains upon that Convention? I see that in Article 7, page 21, that a portion of the administrative part of the Act dealing with the ice patrol and the destruction of derelicts is to be carried out by the United States of America. I am quite certain if the United States undertake that duty they will do it with the greatest efficiency, but in this matter of the destruction of derelicts I must say that I hope our Navy, if derelicts are brought to their notice, will not be prevented from sinking them if they come within their sphere of operations. There is one thing about this Bill which I think must strike anybody who reads it carefully, that the Boards of Trade are very careful to take to themselves very considerable powers of amending, and even of evading, the rules and regulations of this Bill. I do not suppose our Board of Trade will do anything against the spirit of the Bill, but I think the point is one to be borne in mind. The shipping community, both shipowners, officers, and men, are now so well organised that they are able to modify public opinion. Therefore, I think our position is rather as custodians of the public safety for those travelling at sea. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy about the "Empress of Ireland," it must be remembered that whatever Regulations are made, there is always a risk in travelling at sea. The "Empress of Ireland." so far as we are aware, was equipped with lifeboats for all, with sufficient life-saving apparatus, with wireless telegraphy, and the danger of ice was net in that case the cause of the disaster.

There are one or two points which I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade to elucidate. Is the cost of the ice patrol to be borne by the general taxpayer or by the shipping community in the same way as light dues? If the shipping community are to a certain extent saving money in insurance, it is only fair that they should be called upon to subscribe to the operation of these Clauses. In Clause 6 there are provisions as to distress signals, and that ships shall not display any private signals which cannot be easily distinguished from distress signals. I welcome that Clause, especially as regards the night. It has to be remembered that when the "Titanic" disaster took place there were ships in the vicinity, and the masters subsequently said they did not proceed to the assistance of the "Titanic," because they thought that it was the White Star Company's steamers merely exchanging signals with each other. I would like also to ask the President if it is possible for ships fitted with one installation, say with the Poulsen system, to communicate at once with a ship that has the Marconi system, and vice versâ? I am not sufficiently acquainted with the technical part of wireless telegraphy to know whether that is so or not. Under Part II. it seems to me the Board of Trade are giving with one hand and taking away with the other, because in Clause 8 it lays down, in the first paragraph, very distinctly that ships shall be provided with sufficient lifeboats to take off all the people travelling. That, of course, means that they shall have sufficient boatmen, but under paragraph 3 of the same Clause the Board of Trade almost cancels the other paragraph of the Clause, and Clause 11 substituting rafts for boats seems to me to water down to a very considerable extent the life-saving apparatus called for under Clause 8. I should also like to ask some questions about Clause 11. The words "if in fault" seem to me to cause considerable ambiguity as to the meaning, and I ask if the words apply to the ship or to the owners or to the masters, because from beginning to end, as you read the Clause, it seems to me the words may be applied to the three, and they are certainly not as clear as they ought to be in an Act of Parliament.

1.0 P.M.

There is one other particular subject, which I ask the Board of Trade to explain, and that is with regard to the coasting trade under Clause 13. Clause 13 gives the Board of Trade complete powers to make or draft what Regulations it likes in regard to the coasting trade. I should like to ask on what principle they propose to proceed in giving exemptions with regard to life-saving apparatus, because there is very great variety in the quality of the weather met with in our ships engaged in the coasting trade. If you pass over London Bridge and see a steamer going to Margate, it must occur to anyone to ask themselves if there was a collision what provision has been made for life-saving. If you stand at the landing-stage at Liverpool and see an Isle of Man steamer, it seems almost impossible that it has the necessary provision in case of emergency to save all its passengers. I asked a question two years ago upon that subject and it was never answered. I have repeated the question, and I hope for an answer on Monday. If you go on coasting voyages up to the North of the Shetlands you realise that although it is called the coasting trade, you are called upon to stand the very roughest weather, and I should like to know what particular protection the Board of Trade give with regard to steamers in the coasting trade. Do they allow the local officials to make the Regulations, or are they to be submitted to the head office and approved by the Board of Trade in London? Under Clause 15 there is a paragraph which I think calls for explanation. It makes certain regulations for ships trading between latitude 30 deg. South and 30 deg. North. What are these parallels of latitude arranged for, and has it anything to do with the Pilgrim trade to Mecca? The vessels are confined to trade with one particular continent, so that it cannot have to do with ships going from India down to South Africa. And I should like to know why these latitudes are fixed. Are the Regulations which the President of the Board of Trade proposes to lay down under Clause 23 applicable to all British ships, because Clause 24 seems to give almost unbounded elasticity to the Board of Trade to do what it likes. I think it must occur to anybody reading this Bill that if foreign Governments give their own shipping departments the powers which are claimed by our Board of Trade, it is quite possible that if they do not all join in carrying out the spirit of this Bill it may become really a whole series of pious aspirations and not an effective document in any shape or form. I hope that will not be the case. I believe our Board of Trade will do its best to carry out this Bill both in the spirit and in the letter, and I am very glad to say that in any conversations I have had with the Board of Trade, especially during the tenure of office of its late President, I know it will be carried out in a non-party spirit, and in a fair and impartial manner. I thoroughly endorse the concluding passages of the right hon. Gentlemen's speech in introducing this Bill, that it is our duty, as responsible for the safety both of our fellow countrymen and all the passengers in our ships, to give this Bill a Second Reading and amend it afterwards in Committee, if necessary.

I rise to support and to give general approval to this Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a matter of gratification, not only to the public but to the shipowners, to know that the Government succeeded in bringing about the Conference which recently took place, and I think I can say that the conclusion arrived at by that Conference has met with the support of the shipowners. One difficulty which the shipowners of this country have had is now passed. Anxious as they have been for the safety of the lives of those in their care, they have been hampered by the fact that, after they went to certain expenditure in improved methods of construction, and in carrying certain life-saving apparatus of an expensive character, and installing wireless telegraphy and engaging operators, their neighbours were not obliged to do the same, and British shipowners were placed at a disadvantage in competition with the world. Now this Convention and the Acts which will follow in the various Legislatures of the world will bring about a very much improved state of matters in that direction. British shipowners can now heartily join in all these new methods, in providing additional boats and wireless telegraphy, and will feel that in so doing and in satisfying and meeting, as they desire to do, the needs of the community, they are not hampering themselves in the competition of the world.

As regard to wireless telegraphy on cargo boats, as the House is aware, it is the law of the United States that no steamer with fifty of a crew, and with less if she carries a passenger, is allowed to proceed to sea without wireless. I happen to be acquainted with a fleet of steamers trading regularly with the United States, and, although not one of those has a crew of fifty nor carries passengers, nevertheless we have observed in practice that the installation of wireless is a distinct advantage, and we have installed wireless telegraphy, although not required to do so by the law of the United States or of this country. And I am bound to say, not only does the provision of wireless contribute towards the safety of life on those steamers, but it is an advantage commercially to know where your steamers are, and to know that they will arrive at certain ports at certain times. With regard to wireless installations which will be provided under this Bill on certain classes of steamers, we ought not to forget that wireless telegraphy ought to be put to the very best uses. In some parts of the world I am afraid that the land stations are by no means able to cope with the present situation. There are numerous land stations which I could specify, especially around the South American coast, where the service is very poor, where inattention is frequent, and where steamers may call and call and get no response whatever from the shore. That occurs not only in South America but in other parts of the world. This is one of the matters which the Board of Trade may very well take note of, and see that proper communication should be kept up with the shore stations throughout the world if wireless telegraphy is to be made the best possible use of. Another point is the confusion which may arise through having an in numerable number of land stations, and an innumerable number of steamers using wireless telegraphy. I understand that even at the present time a difficulty arises when several steamers are sending messages at the same time. I do not know what will happen when every ship has a system of wireless telegraph installed, and when the number of land stations is increased. This is one of the matters which the Board of Trade and their advisers have no doubt considered. As one who has had to do with the committee of inquiry into derelicts, the dangers arising from them, and the best means of dispersing them, I might be allowed to say a word or two about that aspect of this Bill.

The patrolling of the Atlantic has been recommended by various people interested in the safety of life, and it is well known that the United States Government have performed a great public service to the world by providing a patrol ship in the West part of the Atlantic. I think this House may well pay a tribute to the United States Government and the American people for providing at their own expense the "Seneca" which has destroyed a large number of derelicts during the time she has been at work in that part of the ocean. Most of the derelicts arise on the East coast of the United States, and they are mostly schooners trading on the East coast of the United States, and owing to the Gulf Stream, these vessels when abandoned are carried north and east into the track of our Atlantic liners. Comparatively few derelicts are found on the east side of the Atlantic, and by far the larger number arise on the west side. Recognising their duty in regard to the safety of life in the Atlantic, the United States Government have for years now destroyed those derelicts as far as possible. When the Committee inquired into this matter, one of their recommendations was, that this service for destroying derelicts should, if necessary, be supported by international contributions, and the cost should not be allowed to fall entirely on the United States. I am glad that our Government is now recognising that, and is going to respond.

There may be people who will cavil as to whether we should pay 30 per cent. of the cost, but I do think that we shall be very ill-advised as a nation, having so large a share of the carrying trade ourselves, to cavil about the exact percentage. The "Seneca" costs about £15,000 a year to maintain, and it is proposed by the Convention that there should be two vessels of the "Seneca" class devoted to this work. Assuming that the cost of these two vessels will be double the cost of the "Seneca," we have an expenditure of £30,000 a year, and it is proposed by this Bill that we should bear 30 per cent. of the cost, which is £10,000 per annum. I do not think anyone will grudge £10,000 a year for this service. It has been suggested by the last speaker that possibly this £10,000 a year will fall upon the shipping community. I have not asked any opinions about this point, but why should it. I think it would be ill-advised to put this charge upon the shipping community, because not only is the shipping community interested, but we are all interested as a nation in the safety of navigation on the Atlantic, and this money ought to come from public funds, and not from any special class of the community.

I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the position of the "Polar Star," which has been working in connection with observation of the movements of ice at the expense of the British Government. Are we to continue to maintain this vessel, or will its place be taken by the second vessel to be provided? With regard to wireless telegraphy, when a ship sights a derelict, messages are to be sent stating that it has been sighted in such a latitude and longitude. I wish to point out that the word "derelict" is loosely used by shipmasters. Sometimes a shipmaster will describe nothing as a derelict less than a floating and abandoned vessel, but others would be ready to describe as a derelict in their log book a boat, a spar, or a floating hen-coop. I think we ought to insist that the derelicts, the presence of which is to be made known, should be confined to the dangerous derelicts which might cause damage. I would go further, and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not be prepared to introduce some Amendment into the Bill, or some regulation or rule, to ensure that dangerous derelicts should be described, because there are certain kinds so low down in the water that practically they are only a wash, and it is no use telling the captain of the "Aquitania" that there is a derelict in a certain latitude and longitude unless you tell him what it is. The most dangerous derelicts are those least capable of being observed, and therefore it is necessary that the shipmaster should describe the derelict which, he is reporting.

With regard to the dissemination of this information, the Committee having inquired very carefully into the matter, found that reports of derelicts are received by the Admiralty, the Meteorological Office, and by Lloyd's and the Board of Trade, and they found that there was a certain amount of over-lapping in the receipt and dissemination of this information. This Committee considered the matter very carefully, and I think it was a Committee worthy of the attention of the Board of Trade. The Committee unanimously recommended that the information should be sent at once to Lloyd's, and disseminated by Lloyd's. Now this Bill provides that the information should be sent to the Meteorological Office. What is the use of that? The Meteorological Office issue a chart once a month, arid sometimes supplement it by issuing a chart once a week. But the whole point about getting information as to derelicts or icebergs is that it should be sent to shipmasters promptly, and not a month, or a week after they have been sighted. There is no body in this country which is so competent to get into touch with ships and disseminate information as Lloyd's, and I would suggest to the Board of Trade that they should have this information sent to Lloyd's, and that on Lloyd's should rest the obligation of sending it out at once, and further the Government should provide that it should be sent free, not only from the stations to the ships but also over land lines. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept some Amendment to ensure that the information will be sent to Lloyd's, and that the obligation of disseminating that information will rest upon Lloyd's. Of course there is no objection to the information being sent to the Meteorological Office as well.

With regard to certificates of safety, it is suggested that they should only extend to one year and that there should be power given to certain officials to extend them for five months more. What is to happen to the British ship that never comes home? There are British ships which trade upon the West Coast of America for ten, twenty, and thirty years and do not come home. Are they to be entirely debarred from having a certificate of safety? Supposing vessels go out of their class at Lloyd's, Lloyd's surveyors are all over the world, and they can repass the vessel wherever she happens to be. Why should not Lloyd's surveyors be able to renew these certificates of safety to ships abroad, because I look upon these certificates as a kind of advertisement of British shipping as against the locally-owned shipping, which very often is deficient in various ways. I am thinking particularly of trades which I know, where the local ship is sometimes so bad and unsafe that a man hesitates whether he will travel or make shipments by it, but their rates compete with our British ships. I think that we might well give our British ships this advertisement and help. They would be able to say "We have a certificate of safety which is not possessed by these locally-owned vessels." I should like the President of the Board of Trade to consider that point when he is going into these matters. I give my hearty support to the Government in bringing in this Bill, and I am glad to know that we can do it without injuring British shipowners in their competition with the shipowners of other countries.

The House must have listened with very great interest to the extremely practical speech made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and also to the very valuable suggestions which he offered to the President of the Board of Trade, evidently speaking, as we all know the hon. Member does, as one who has an intimate knowledge of these shipping matters. The hon. Member dealt in detail with some of the provisions of the Bill, and I feel confident that many of the suggestions which he offered to the President of the Board of Trade will be acted upon by the Board of Trade, and indeed, when we come to the consideration of the Bill in Committee, I think that some of the proposals which he made might he definitely embodied in the Bill itself, so that we may be quite certain that proper effect will be given to them. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the speech with which he introduced this Bill, and with every word of which I am heartily in sympathy —I specially welcome the tribute which he paid in his concluding sentences to the officers and men of the British mercantile marine, and I was very glad to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman—gave a broad explanatory exposition of its principles. It seemed to me that any hon. Member who had not previously made himself acquainted with the Bill might have gone away with rather a wrong impression as to what it actually intended to do and what it did not intend to do. The right hon. Gentleman, in the early part of his speech, said that great development had taken place in the construction of vessels, and in the British mercantile marine as a whole, and that the time had arrived when a universal Standard for British ships should be laid down, so that they should be constructed on the safest possible principles, and so that measures should be taken for the protection of everybody engaged in maritime pursuits against the dangers of their callng. I am fully and completely in accord with that, but I shall endeavour to show that the provisions of the Bill do not in reality carry out the principles which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down.

The Bill, of course, is an attempt on the part of His Majesty's Government to give legislative effect to the findings of the National Convention which was summoned and which was held in London during the last months of last year, and which brought its labours to a conclusion in January, 1914, dealing with the safety of life at sea. To this Conference representatives of all the most important maritime countries were summoned. It was unfortunate, to my mind, that during the progress of this Convention there was no opportunity, as far as I am aware, of the general public of this country becoming acquainted with what was proceeding. It was decided, for reasons the advisability of which I think is open to question, that this Conference should be held in private, and that the representatives of the Press should not be admitted. I think, on the whole, that was rather regrettable, because I have no doubt evidence was taken of a very valuable character, and it would have been far better from the point of view of the general public and of the shipping community as well if we had been in a position to decide for ourselves upon what evidence the Conference ultimately came to the conclusion which was laid before us in the Blue Paper issued at the beginning of this year. Such, however, was the decision of those who were responsible for the summoning of this deliberative assembly. The fact that this Conference was held was largely attributable to the disaster which occurred to the "Titanic" in April, 1912, and I must say it is a very sad coincidence that we should be called upon to examine the provisions of this Bill at a time when the British mercantile marine has sustained another disaster only second in magnitude, and in some respects even more terrible, by the loss of the "Empress of Ireland" off the Canadian coast a week or so ago. It would, of course, be very undesirable that in any Debate taking place in this House at the present moment we should attempt to discuss the causes of that regrettable disaster in which so many lives were lost before the official inquiry has been concluded, and the causes of the disaster have been actually ascertained, but I cannot help thinking, even with the limited knowledge which at present is all that we necessarily possess with reference to the collision between those two vessels, that had that disaster occurred before this Bill was drawn up there probably would have been very great modifications or additions to the proposals which have been laid before the House.

An examination of this Bill in detail shows us that so far from the measure being of universal application, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his speech, its provisions are exceedingly limited, and, in view of all the facts, this is somewhat surprising. After all, the Convention which dealt with this matter was summoned for the purpose of considering the safety of life at sea. When we come to examine the Bill, which is founded upon the findings of the Commission, we find that, so far as the bulk of its provisions are concerned, they only apply to a very limited number of vessels. They only apply to the foreign-going passenger vessels of the British mercantile marine and the statistics will show that this means only about 20 per cent. of all the vessels in the British mercantile marine flying the British flag. That is to say, some 80 per cent. of the vessels of this country will be practically unaffected by the most important provisions of this Bill, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman was really overstating the case when he, in opening the Debate, said that the intention of the Bill was to give effect to the decision that the time had arrived when a universal standard should be laid down for the safety of all those engaged upon British vessels against the dangers of the sea. As a matter of fact some 80 per cent. of the British mercantile marine will be practically unaffected by the proposals of this Bill.

I should like to say a few words with regard to the first Clauses of the Bill, which deal with the questions of ice and derelicts. They provide for a contribution on the part of the British Government towards an international patrol service for the purpose of ascertaining where these dangers exist. I cannot associate myself with the suggestion made by one of my hon. Friends that these charges should be entirely or largely borne by the shipping community. I should certainly regard any service of this kind or any provision made by this country towards international patrol as one properly falling on the British Exchequer as a whole, and not on any particular class of the commercial community of this country. With regard to the provisions for the greater safety of vessels against the dangers of ice, I notice an obligation is laid, in connection with this part of the Bill, upon all British masters—masters of cargo vessels as well as passenger vessels—to give information either by wireless telegraphy or by other means, in order to safeguard other ships that might, unless so warned, come into collision with the dangerous ice. The first part of the Bill is extremely satisfactory, and no one could have any objection whatever to the provisions which are being made or to the portion of the cost which will fall on the British Government. I notice that Clause 3, which no doubt has special reference to the "Titanic" disaster, states that where ice is reported at or near the course of a British vessel, the master shall at night—I do not quite know why that limitation is put in—proceed at a moderate speed or change his course. That provision seems to be an obvious precaution which I should have thought would have occurred to the master of any vessel, without its being necessary to lay it down in an Act of Parliament. It does not seem that there is any great value in the suggestion, in view of the fact that no definition of the expression "moderate speed" is included in the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the response to and use of distress signals. With regard to Clause 5, there is laid down a statutory obligation on the part of the master of any vessel to respond to any call from a ship in distress. One would certainly think that such a provision as this unnecessary, but in view, unfortunately, of what has occurred in the past, I am afraid it is necessary that this statutory obligation should be insisted upon, and that there should also be the provision which we find in this part of the Bill of a penalty upon masters who fail to give assistance when called upon to do so. It is a rather melancholy reflection to think that in the case of a British vessel any Clause of this kind should be required in an Act of Parliament. So far as this portion of the Bill is concerned, the provisions apply to all classes of British vessels. But when we leave these Clauses and come to the latter part of the Bill, we find a discrimination between passenger steamers and ordinary cargo boats, and I think we shall require some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to several points. For instance, in Clause 7 we find that a passenger steamer subjected to the provisions of Part II. of this Act is to be provided with a Morse signalling lamp of sufficient range. Why should such a necessary part of any ship's equipment be confined to passenger steamers alone? We should have some very definite information from the right hon. Gentleman why this distinction is being made. After all, this is not a Bill which deals solely with passenger vessels. Very many of its provisions deal with other classes of vessels flying the British flag, and it is rather remarkable that those Clauses which are particularly concerned with the safety of those on board any particular vessel are in each case restricted to foreign-going passenger ships, and apply only to 20 per cent. of all the vessels in the British mercantile marine.

Coming to Part II. of the Bill, I desire to associate myself with the observations made by my hon. Friend respecting Clause 8, which lays it down that—

"every passenger steamer which is registered in the United Kingdom shall be manned with a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life at sea for the purpose of the intended voyage, and shall, during her voyage, be kept so manned."

One would have thought that such a provision as that might have gone without saying. It seems an extraordinary thing that it could have ever have been contemplated that a passenger steamer should go to sea unless she were manned with a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety. I suppose that such a Clause as this being inserted in the Bill is an admission that in the past such necessary regulations for the safety of vessels have not been carried out properly. But it is an extremely vague declaration, and when we compare it with the very definite Clauses laid down in the Convention itself, it is rather remarkable that the Government have not thought it necessary to give clearer effect to what was actually proposed at the Conference. I desire to support the criticism which my hon. Friend gave with regard to Subsection (3) of the Clause. It seems practically to nullify the whole effect of Subsections (1) and (2). Sub-section (3) says:

"The Board of Trade may, if they think fit—"

What an extraordinary suggestion this is—make the rules which are, necessary to carry the previous Sub-section into effect. It seems to contemplate the extraordinary state of affairs that the Board of Trade may not, if they do not think fit, cause these rules to be carried out. What is the good of putting these legislative enactments in the first part of the Clause, and then in the concluding Sub-section saying that the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, make the necessary rules for carrying them into effect? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation of that Sub-section, which, apart from the words to which I have referred, is extremely vaguely and unsatisfactorily framed. To come back to Sub-section (1) of Clause 8, the same objectionable limitation occurs there to which I have already referred. It says:—

"Every passenger steamer which is registered in the United Kingdom shall be manned with a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety."

It is a most remarkable limitation to put into this Bill that this provision is not to apply to the ordinary cargo ships which constitute about 80 per cent. of the British mercantile marine. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why it is not considered sufficiently important to deal with the safety and security of this 80 per cent. of cargo vessels which are not affected by the provisions of this Bill. I conclude that Clause 8 is all that the Government propose to put into their Bill with reference to that part of the Convention—I think it is Articles 54 to 56—dealing with the provision of efficient crews, which the Convention lays down is essential for the manning of the lifeboats carried by these vessels. If that is all that the Government have to say in their Bill after the very clear and definite instructions which were given by the Convention, I think it is extremely unsatisfactory. Here, again, we come back to the limitation of these provisions, such as they are, to passenger vessels. We had an example in the disaster to which reference has already been made. Take the case of a collision between a cargo vessel and a large passenger steamer. Is it not obvious that efficient manning is just as necessary for the boats of a cargo steamer as it is for the boats of a passenger vessel, and that if provision is not made in this Bill for the efficient manning of the lifeboats on the ordinary cargo steamers, cases will arise when, owing to the fact that provision has not been made in this respect, the boats of those steamers may not be in a position to effect a saving of life when a collision of this kind takes place? I desire to emphasise at this point of the Debate the fact that, in my opinion, these provisions and regulations ought to apply not merely to passenger vessels, but to the vast majority of the ships in the British mercantile marine. I am bound to say that with our past experience of the Board of Trade I am not over sanguine—I will not put it higher than that—that with the very wide scope which they have secured for themselves in Sub-section (3) they will give definite effect to Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 8.

These same objections apply to Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill, which limits all these safeguards and securities with regard to life-saving apparatus to passenger steamers. In regard to Clause 13, I had that Clause particularly in mind when I referred to the disaster to the "Empress of Ireland." Clause 13 gives power to the Board of Trade to exempt vessels from the provisions of this part of the Bill when they are not at a very long distance from, the shore. We have seen by this disaster, and many others which have occurred, that if a ship gets involved in a collision or any other danger there is just as great a risk of a serious accident involving heavy loss of life if the ship is 50 miles from the land as if she is 250 or 300 miles from land. In regard to the provisions for wireless telegraphy, it is certainly satisfactory to find that these are applicable to all vessels, whether passenger ships or cargo ships, subject to the provision that such a vessel must carry fifty persons. The safety certificates which have been alluded to are, as I read the Bill, only applicable to this limited class of vessels. I really do not see why, if it is considered desirable that British passenger ships should have these safety certificates, which the hon. Member who has just spoken said would be an advertisement and an advantage to British trade, all the vessels in which the British mercantile marine sail and to which these provisions will not be applicable should not receive safety certificates of a similar character.

I have dealt with the provisions of the Bill, and should now like to say one word as to what the Bill does not contain. The Government seem to have completely ignored—and I think it was rather remarkable, when such an opportunity presented itself, that they did not take advantage of it—the recommendations of the Manning Committee of 1896 and the recommendations of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee of 1908 and 1911; and, so far as I can see, they have done nothing—which would have been a great measure of safeguard—to compel ships to carry duly certificated officers. It is quite obvious that, though we are making provision for safety of life at sea, a vessel which is navigated by an uncertificated or an irresponsible person is just as great a danger to the security of other vessels as it is a danger to the security of the vessel itself, and in many cases these disastrous collisions which have arisen have been caused by this very reason. Another point which I should have thought would be dealt with in a comprehensive Bill of this character was the question of deck loads. The scandal of deck loads is one to which the attention of responsible Ministers has been called time after time. The number of disasters attributable to this cause, I should think, is probably hardly realised by the majority of Members of the House. It is only last year that a Return was issued containing particulars of the casualties which have occurred to vessels directly responsible to the carrying of deck loads. I hope hon. Members will take an early opportunity of making themselves acquainted with this Return.

I think the hon. Member has quite failed to observe the character of the Bill. I have listened to him for half an hour or more. It is a Bill to enable legislative authority to be given to carry out a certain Convention, and it is quite out of order to enter into general shipping questions not dealt with in that Convention.

I have read the Bill, and I have read the Convention, and it seems to me that the Bill goes much further than the Convention. In Clause 8, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, rules are laid down as to the number of men who shall be carried on certain vessels. I have been reading the Convention for some considerable time, and I cannot find any Clause in it which deals with that particular provision. Therefore I want to ask your opinion upon two points. First of all, is the Bill in order, because if it is a Bill dealing, as you said just now, with the Convention solely for the purpose of carrying it out, it is not in order to put in Clauses which are not in the Convention, and which have nothing to do with the Convention.

Article 15.

Of course that answers my point.

The hon. Baronet is quite right on a question of that kind, whether there are things in the Bill not required by the Convention, but to take this opportunity to go into a lot of other matters relating particularly to shipping, is an abuse of the opportunity on the Second Reading of this particular Bill.

I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member, although I thought his reference to deck loads irrelevant. It would probably save further elaboration if I told him that the Board of Trade have already decided to call an International Convention which will deal with deck loads.

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. M. Robertson) said Article 15. I have looked at Article 15, and it is all about openings in watertight bulkheads.

Article 15 refers to Clause 8.

Article 15.

I certainly think the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is of very great importance, and may be regarded as some excuse for my having raised this matter. I hope we shall be given some explanation as to why these very necessary provisions which are being made in this Bill for the safety of passenger vessels have not been extended to other classes of the British mercantile marine.

I certainly have no desire to delay the passage of this most useful measure, and do not therefore propose to follow the criticisms of the hon. Member, which, I think, so far as they are relevant, can be very easily met on the Committee stage of this Bill. I desire to join with my hon. Friend (Sir A. Williamson) in welcoming this very valuable contribution to shipping legislation, particularly because it goes some distance further than we have been able to go in the past in setting up an international standard of safety and so reducing the handicap which has hitherto been placed upon the conscientious British shipowner who, if he did provide extra safeguards, was thereby put to additional expense, and was at a disadvantage in the very keen competition which exists in the international shipping world. But, while I welcome this Bill as a whole and in its general principles, I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend that he has promised that he will keep an open mind in the Committee stage in regard to the non-essential details of the Bill. In regard to one or two matters, we feel some slight anxiety as to what the effect of the Bill may be, and in particular we feel this, because there is a departure from precedent in this Bill, for, while it has been quite customary hitherto for the Board of Trade to be empowered to make Regulations, which are laid on the Table of the House, and that to some extent is a safeguard, though in these times it is not a very valuable one, hitherto all these Regulations have been denned as being such as were necessary to carry out the principles laid down in the measure under consideration. This Bill goes a step further and says, they may issue Regulations, not as may be necessary, but as they may deem expedient. That is an extension of the powers of the Board of Trade which, I think, requires a little careful watching on our part, for, though I have no complaint whatever to make of the Board of Trade, which is always most fair in its treatment of shipping. I think we, as legislators, needs to look with some suspicion on an attempt to increase the power of legislation by Departments without reference to this House.

My next point is that while we do not object to inspection, indeed, we welcome it, it can be overdone. It seems to me to be almost unnecessary that the inspection of the wireless telegraphy, which is to be set up on board ship under this Act, should be under the control of inspectors appointed by the Post Office. We have no complaint against the Board of Trade, but we have had difficulties where we have been under two different supervisions of different Departments, and I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is eminently desirable that this inspection should be carried out by inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade, and I can conceive that they should be appointed by the Board of Trade in conjunction with the Post Office who, of course, are experts on the question of wireless telegraphy. Another point seems to me important, and that is in regard to the penalty which is placed upon the owner or master of a ship in relation to certain provision as to drill and so forth. I have particularly in my mind the question of compulsory boat drill, in regard to which the master or shipowner may be fined if the drill is not properly carried out. The provisions under existing Acts of Parliament are inadequate to ensure that the crew shall do their share in connection with that drill, and, therefore, a master may be fined for not carrying out something which it is not in his power to do. I do not wish it to be said that this comes under service on board ship, and that you cannot go beyond that. Actual experience has shown that it is not possible to insist upon sailors taking part in boat and fire drill, and it is only fair that they should take their share in carrying out this drill which it is essential, not only for the safety of the ship, but also of the passengers and crew on board. I wish to ask if the Board of Trade cannot bring some pressure to bear on crews to carry out this obvious part of their duties.

I really rose to call attention to a danger that arises from the wireless telegraphy Clauses of the Bill, which was impressed on my mind all the more by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) two days ago on the Post Office Vote when he drew attention to the fact that the Marconi Company was rapidly obtaining a monopoly of wireless telegraphy. Under this Bill, if it becomes law, shipowners will be bound to equip their ships with wireless telegraphy, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are being placed under the heel of the monopolist Marconi Company, which is, I understand, an excellently managed and efficient organisation. I urge my right hon. Friend, if he has not already seen it, to look at the Report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, a body of considerable standing. In their Report of the 24th July, 1912, they say:—

The Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee carefully safeguarded themselves in regard to the Subject of compulsion as to wireless telegraphy in that Clause, and I trust my right hon. Friend will be able, before the Bill goes to Committee, to give an assurance that we are to be safeguarded from what might be a heavy tax indeed, and from which we will be unable to escape. With these exceptions, I think the shipping community heartily approve of the Bill. I certainly have no intention of delaying its passage at the present moment. I trust that my right hon. Friend will meet us upon these points in Committee.

I wish to express my sympathy with the object of the Bill, and with the sentiments expressed by the President of the Board of Trade in introducing it. I feel that it is necessary to support the remarks made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. Rea) on the points he has raised. The Bill itself appears to me to be somewhat of a framework, and that the Board of Trade can. dress it up in any way they are minded—and, indeed, that seems to me to be becoming very usual in connection with Bill of the present Government. They make a framework Bill and leave it to the Department to make Regulations which really govern the whole subject. It seems to me to be a very unwise course to adopt. It is really taking away from Parliament itself the power to deal with these very important matters. We know that Parliament has power to interfere with the Regulations made by the Board of Trade. We know that the Board of Trade have to give notice of their intentions in draft Regulations, so that those who object may have an opportunity of being heard, and that afterwards these Regulations will be laid upon the Table of the House for forty days. We know also that this House of Parliament will never give enough time to merchant shipping questions to really get to understand them. This Debate which is taking place to-day is a very apt illustration of that fact. Here we have a very important Bill before us and practically no House to attend to it at all. That is just the point I was going to make. When Regulations are laid upon the Table, you cannot get a sufficient House to consider them and to understand the questions which are involved. Therefore, I do think that we are going an extravagant length in leaving the whole of these important questions under this Bill to the regulation of the Department from which practically there is no appeal. Without detaining the House in going into a great number of questions, there is one that calls for some remark in connection with Clause 12, which gives power to the Board of Trade to make Regulations about certificates of lifeboat men. A certain number of men on a ship are to be required to have certificates that they are competent to deal with boats, but the Bill does not provide any method by which these certificates are to be granted or as to tests of efficiency, and it seems to me that the Bill should provide some method by which these men are to be examined and tested as to their efficiency. Unless we have such a method of giving certificates, really the trade of the country is going to be held up when this Bill is passed. In every seaport there must be some body for granting certificates, and the money for that ought to be provided under the Bill. I think it ought not to fall upon shipowners or any other community to provide the method of granting certificates. If the country is bringing in these Regulations and insisting on certificates, they should provide some means of giving the certificate.

Is it suggested that the country should pay for this?

No.

I was referring entirely to the certificates of lifeboat men who have to be carried on board these ships. With regard to wireless telegraphy, I would like to endorse the remarks of the last speaker. I cannot see how we can possibly make it compulsory upon shipowners to provide wireless installations, unless there is some free market in those instruments or unless some Regulations are made by the Government to enable the shipowners to obtain the necessary instruments, not only at a reasonable price, but upon reasonable conditions. I desire to express my great satisfaction at the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn on the subject of derelicts, and the distribution of information with regard to wrecks and casualties and derelicts. So far as I can see, in England there is no one charged with the duty of disseminating the information received from ships at sea, or from coast stations, of any obstructions to navigation. The three or four bodies which were mentioned send information voluntarily, but it is not their duty, and there is no central authority to which that information comes. It is a matter of chance—almost of the fancy of the person who sends the information. We certainly should provide for a central authority, either in London or Liverpool, who should be charged with the duty, and have funds at its disposal for the purpose of distributing the information when it is received. I believe that I am right in saying that the United States and also Germany have a Government office which attends to this duty. It prepares a chart each week which is given to shipmasters when they are leaving port, and it also sends information of dangerous obstructions by telegram to the various shipowners. The Canadian Government have also an office which fulfils much the same purpose, and it seems queer that England, which is the largest shipping country, should be so backward in making similar necessary provisions. There are a great many questions which might be raised on shipping matters in this House, but we are all waiting for the Shipping Bill which has been promised over and over again by the present Government. There is a small Bill on the Paper now, but there are many other questions which they have promised should have attention. There is a strong wish that the Government should deal with them, and I hope that they will not delay very much longer in doing so.

I desire to express approval of this Bill, both in its national and international aspect. There are one or two short suggestions which I should like to make. To a very great extent the Convention, and the public feeling behind it, are the outcome of the "Titanic" disaster, but since the Convention was signed we have also had experience of the disaster to the "Empress of Ireland," and the circumstances of that disaster have shown that it might be desirable, if possible, to strengthen these provisions in several ways. A great deal has been said about wireless telegraphy. We know how very useful wireless telegraphy has been in connection with these disasters. One very grave danger that may happen, and appears to have happened in the case of the "Empress of Ireland," is that, in the event of collision, the engine-room may be flooded, the generation of electricity may stop, and you might not be able to have the wireless telegraphy worked. It seems to me—I do not know whether it should be done in the Bill or by Regulations under the Bill—that there is a great deal to be said for some sort of arrangement for having accumulators, in another part of the vessel with electrical fittings, or such an arrangement that if "by any chance the main generating circuit should be interfered with—for instance, by the flooding of the engine-room—the other circuit should automatically come into play. I have been unable to find any provision in wireless telegraphy arrangement, but I venture to commend something of that sort to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the more so because I know that the Section with reference to wireless telegraphy gives certain powers of amendment and regulation to the Board of Trade.

In the same connection I may mention the case of electric lighting, in modern conditions of shipping all ships practically are lit with electric light. Not only under-deck lights, but also head-lights, side-lights, and the other lights which are to be exhibited to other ships. There again, however, there is a danger that if the engine-room is flooded and the electric generation ceases, these lights may go out, as I believe they did in the case of the "Empress of Ireland." And it is not merely a question of these lights, but it is very important that in the event of disaster there should be continuous power for having a searchlight or something of that sort on deck in order that measures may be taken promptly, and that people may see their way about. Another matter that has received a great deal of attention has been the question of boats for all. It is common ground that the first object should be to make the ship itself unsinkable in almost any conditions. The second principle which is accepted is to have boats for all. But I doubt whether the practice which generally prevails of interpreting that as having an enormous flotilla of comparatively small boats on the boat deck is a satisfactory solution of the difficulty—indeed, those arrangements seem to belong to the time when ships were of a smaller type. In the case of the "Titanic" disaster the ship was on an even keel as it happens, and boats were lowered and launched with a success which would not be possible save in those very exceptional circumstances. In the case of the "Empress of Ireland" we had other circumstances, because the vessel had slanted and a great many of the boats could not be launched. In fact in the average maritime disaster it might always almost be said that half the boats could not be launched. I know that there has been a proposal in reference to the launching of boats to meet that point.

Then there is another difficulty on this question. If the boats are to be placed on the boat deck, it would be necessary that the same set of davits should serve, and they would be working with davits perhaps fifty or sixty feet above the water, so that the length of the fall would be very great, and possibly the boat might, by the action of the sea, be forced against the vessel. One boat is launched after another, and one can see that, with a foil of fifty or sixty feet the work is of the greatest difficulty. It has always seemed to me that the arrangement in respect to the falls are inadequate, and I do earnestly commend to my right hon. Friend that it is desirable that the mechanical appliances in respect of the boats should be better than they are now. The danger is that the falls may be fouled by becoming twisted or from some other cause, by reason of their length, and I wonder whether the Board of Trade would not take into consideration the possibility of offering a reward for some design that might provide for upper works of such a character that in the event of disaster they might be detached and be used as life rafts. It seems to me that something of that sort might be done, and I throw out the suggestion that invention might be encouraged along those lines.

I have very few words to add to what has been said in regard to the Bill, which I hope will introduce an element of safety into life at sea. I agree with what was said by the hon. Gentleman on the other side who spoke last, as to the provisions of the Bill, and as to the powers which it gives to the Board of Trade. It is perfectly true, as he said, that the Bill is a mere skeleton, and the Board of Trade will be expected to put flesh upon that skeleton. I do not know whether that is the best way of passing legislation of that sort, but if I were to make a criticism upon the Bill, it would be as to the meagre character even of the skeleton, and I think the Board of Trade's hands would be very considerably hampered in making the provisions of this Bill good. For instance, I find in regard to the question of wireless telegraphy, that the provisions are compulsory only in the event of a steamer carrying fifty persons, or a ship carrying fifty persons, and it occurs to me that very big ships might go to sea with fewer than fifty persons on board. I should have liked to see this particular skeleton so framed that the Board of Trade could make provision for the safety of ships carrying far fewer than fifty persons. I have in mind those who are near and dear to me, who have been shipwrecked and very nearly drowned in consequence of just that absence of provision in this Bill for such ships. Then, coming to the provision with regard to boat drill and drilling generally, I do not know whether the Bill is sufficiently drastic in that respect or not. I think it is very desirable at all events, that the men who go to sea in ships should practice, so that in times of emergency they shall be efficient in the way of launching boats, and taking any steps that are necessary to save the passengers and that part of the crew who are not in a position to save themselves.

I notice by Sub-section (2) of Clause 12 that there are some provisions for penalising the master in the event of his not making proper provision in that respect. There is no provision for penalising the men, and I am not going to suggest that there should be any. I think the same object might be attained in other ways. I should like to see in Bills of this character, in the way of making provision for safety at sea, some- thing in the nature of co-operation with, those who represent the seamen. I cannot help thinking that if provision were made whereby the Board of Trade could take counsel with the men and devise ways and means of inducing the men to practice boat drills, in that event our object might be achieved without penalties. I do not like making new crimes, and therefore I am not at all sorry that there is no. penalty in this particular matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the master?"] He is a responsible person, and he has got to make provision for the safety of everybody on board. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is in error in saying there is no provision in the Convention for the men. If he looks at page 24 of the Bill, he will see that Article 15 sets forth:—

"The Governments of the high contracting parties undertake to maintain, or, if it is necessary, to adopt measures for the purpose of ensuring that, from the point of view of safety of life at sea, the ships defined in Article 2 shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned."

Article 2, which is mentioned, states that the merchant ships to be affected are only those which are mechanically propelled, and which carry more than twelve passengers. Here again you rule out from the work of the Board of Trade, in respect of the question of manning, all those ships which are not mechanically propelled,, and, though that does not perhaps amount to a great deal now, I think it is a very serious limitation of the powers of the-Board of Trade in this respect. Then again, under the Clause giving effect to the provisions, so far as the Board of Trade are entitled to make any under the Bill,. I find that they are of a very vague character. Clause 8 does not lay down any rule with regard to the number of men that should be carried on a certain size of ship, or anything of that sort. It simply makes provision that the Board may, if they think fit, make rules with respect to the manning of passenger steamers for the purpose of this Section, from the point of view of safety of life at sea. That may mean a great deal, or it may mean very little. It depends entirely upon how it is interpreted by the Board of Trade, and to what extent there is activity in the Board of Trade. I hope that this is not intended as in any way a substitute for the Bill which the Board of Trade submitted to the House last year, and which, I hope, will be again submitted to the House this year, in regard to the manning of steamers, because the present position, so far as the manning of steamers is concerned, is exceedingly unsatisfactory. I believe I am right in saying that there is no duty imposed upon the shipowner to provide more than two engineers for any ship, no matter what size it may be. I believe that at the present moment, so far as the law is concerned, even the "Empress of Ireland" or the "Titanic" might have gone to sea with two engineers on board, and no more. Of course that is ridiculous, and it is time we had some legislation, not only of this vague character in this Bill, but providing that a larger number of engine room staff should be on these steamers, and also that all steamers, including coasting steamers, shall be manned efficiently in the engine room as they ought to be. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we give a hearty welcome to this Bill as, at all events, being a step, however small, in the right direction, towards increasing safety at sea, and so far as the provisions go, I hope the Board of Trade will give effect to them. I am not so sure that this was the right way of proceeding. After all, this country is the largest maritime country in the world, with 60 per cent, of the entire tonnage. Instead of taking the initiative ourselves, and showing other people the way, we have waited and got a minimum of provisions, such as you will always get when you bring a crowd of people together. You have brought together representatives of all the maritime nations of the world, and necessarily there is not a great deal come out of the Convention. Still, in so far as the Bill does give effect to the Convention, I hope the Board of Trade will carry it out. I should have preferred the Board of Trade to bring in a Bill of its own, and give other people a long lead in these matters.

I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill, but to direct attention to one or two points which, I think, want consideration. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dundas White) did not perhaps realise what is the real position as regards the use of the boats in the case of accident at sea. A great deal has been written and said in regard to providing boats for all. I have no doubt that was done in the case of the "Empress of Ireland" the other day. But the truth of the matter is that in the case of modern huge ships carrying two or three thousand persons, only on very rare occasions are the conditions favourable for rescue by boats. The conditions in vessels of smaller size in that respect are much more favourable. No doubt the provision of boats for all is very proper as offering a very considerable measure of hope of escape, but the real safety of those who go to sea must rest on the navigation of the ship and the attention of those in charge. Those ships are conducted across the sea with the greatest skill, and the number of accidents has been extraordinarily few. Just consider the question of the use of the boats. Ships like the "Empress of Ireland" or the "Titanic" have their boat decks some sixty or seventy feet above the water, and let anyone in the House imagine a person placed on one of the highest buildings in the City of London with the side of the building swaying twenty or more degrees, and then to have to make an effort to reach the street, as in the case of a boat! Under such circumstances the thing cannot be done. I am glad to see that this question is going to be considered in Committee, and I think the Committee will come to the conclusion that boats for all in those enormous ships is not a remedy for the great loss of life which inevitably occurs in the case of a grave accident.

The hon. Member who has just spoken wants the Board of Trade to have more power. I am one of those old-fashioned Members of this House who consider that the House itself should lay down the conditions and that the Board of Trade should act on them. This Bill is another most vicious example of the modern system of legislation which hands everything over to a Government Department. Almost at the end of every Clause there is power given to draw up Orders. We should have some definite, plain, clear principles laid down with the Bill on which the Board could act, and in the case of details there is no need to make the rules so rigid that they cannot be adapted to changed conditions as the Board may think necessary. Clause 27 provides that rules shall be laid before each House of Parliament to enable Members to make a petition against them, and forty days is mentioned. Let me give an illustration of how that works. On 5th August last year an Order under an exactly similar Clause was presented to the House, and it had been issued on 23rd July. At that time the Government had the whole time of the House, and there was no oppor- tunity to move in the matter because after Government business the House automatically adjourned under Resolution. The Order thus took effect at the end of the Session. The remedy, therefore, in this Bill and previous Acts is of no value, and I hope the Committee will so amend this Clause that the forty days will be made effective for Members of the House to take action. It is difficult enough to raise a question of the kind after eleven o'clock. I am not, as I have said, opposing the Bill, which is a Bill for consideration in Committee. I hope the Committee will spend all the time necessary in thrashing out this subject, and that they will take care to lay down broad principles for the direction of the Board of Trade. We are already overridden by officials, many of whom are appointed, not on their merits, but owing to political pressure and party considerations. I am not complaining about these gentlemen when they get their appointments; they, no doubt, do their best, but many of them are not thoroughly qualified to deal with the matters with which they are charged. Under these conditions I think the House would be well-advised in putting some limit upon the powers granted to public Departments. There is another matter connected with the Board of Trade to which I wish to call attention, but perhaps it will be better that I should do so in Committee.

I should like to support the remarks of my hon. Friend in reference to the difficulty which arises in connection with the provision that Rules or Orders shall not take effect unless they have lain for forty days upon the Table of this House. My hon. Friend has pointed out, quite rightly, that towards the close of the Session, at the conclusion of Government business, the House adjourns without question put. I have not the slightest objection to that; it is necessary in the in terests of the business of the House. But I think that under those circumstances no Rules should be made at that particular time. Either they should be made forty days before that Rule comes into force or they should be deferred until the next year. There is also the difficulty that when we are, unfortunately, endowed with a Radical Government there are so many matters which require minute investigation and careful watching that it is very difficult to know exactly what Rules are laid upon the Table. It often happens, as occurred only a few days ago, that a Rule is not discovered until it has lain on the Table one day too long, and then nothing can be done. I would point out to my hon. Friend, however, that there is still a fragment of the House of Lords left, and that additional criticism of these Rules might be obtained there.

I hold that the House of Commons ought to do its own business.

My bon. Friend a short time ago said that he was one of those old-fashioned Members who held a certain view. I also am an old-fashioned Member, and I hold to the three estates of the realm. It does not matter to me which estate does a certain duty so long as the duty is done efficiently. I think that in the old days the House of Lords used to do its work more efficiently than the House of Commons, and the Chamber whose powers I would have liked to see limited was the House of Commons, and not the House of Lords. I am glad to see in his place the hon. Baronet opposite who wanted messages to be sent by land lines free. I do not know why that should be so. When I was in business I did not have anything of mine sent free. Why should shipowners have their messages sent free? If it is necessary to send messages, the shipowners, as they get the profit, might surely put their hands into their own pockets.

The hon. Member rather misunderstood my hon. Friend. His suggestion related only to messages with regard to derelicts.

Even then I suppose the shipowner gets the insurance, and he might out of that send the messages without asking the unfortunate taxpayer to pay for them. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) urged that no penalty should be put upon the crew, and he suggested that the trade union secretary should be consulted. I do not know whether he meant that a trade union secretary should be carried on every vessel, and that when there was a little disagreement with the crew he should be sent for to effect a settlement, or whether he meant that the trade union secretary should be sent for prior to the sailing of the vessel. In the latter case, I do not know what power he would have over men who had not done anything, and who might not be prepared to do anything. On Clause 12 I shall certainly ask the right hon. Gentleman to put some penalty upon the crew just as is done upon the master. Unfortunately I have never been a shipowner. I wish I had. I do not pretend to speak with any great knowledge of shipowning matters. But this is a very important Bill, and I very much regret that it has been discussed in such an empty House. During a large part of the time there have not been more than ten Members present, and not many of those have been really conversant with the objects of the Bill. I interjected a remark with regard to Clause 8. I find that I was in error. I am sorry I made the mistake, but the Bill is a rather difficult one to go through in a hurry. I find that Article 15 does deal with the question of manning. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having contradicted him, but I was dealing with the Articles numbered in Roman letters, and not with the Articles numbered with ordinary figures. Article 15 says:—

"The Governments of the High Contracting Parties undertake to maintain or, if it is necessary, to adopt measures for the purpose of ensuring that, from the point of view of safety of life at sea, the ships defined in Article 2 shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned."

In the Bill itself Clause 8 gives expression to that Article. But, as has been already remarked, Clause 8 does not altogether coincide with the Article, because the Article says that the Governments of the High Contracting Parties "undertake" to maintain or, if it is necessary, to adopt the necessary measures. But Clause 8 says that the Board of Trade may, "if they think fit," make rules—which is a totally different thing. It gives an option to the Board of Trade. It does not put any obligation upon them. Not being a shipowner, I am speaking with a great deal of ignorance on this matter, and, if the shipowners do not object to this, and if it is necessary that it should be done, I have nothing to say. I do think that it will be necessary in the Committee to ensure that the Board of Trade shall see that the proper crews are carried, and if the proper crews are not carried, not "if they think fit" but they "shall" attend to the matter. With respect to the men on passenger steamers, I should like to express my agreement with the views of the hon. Member for Black-friars, and with the views 6f one or two hon. Members on this side of the House, that it would be very much better if we put into Bills, so far as we can, what we really desire should be done. We should not leave all these things to the discretion of a particular Department. As a matter of fact, we do not in the least know what we are doing. What are we doing here—the few of us who are here at the present moment—is to consent to the Second Reading of a Bill which will give power to the Board of Trade to do all sorts of things. I really do not think that that is advisable. I am rather surprised that the two or three shipowners present have not expressed their opinion on that matter.

May I suggest to the hon. Baronet why the shipowners have not done so? It is because they are not under the impression, which the hon. Baronet seems to be labouring under, that this Convention Bill supersedes the Merchant Shipping Act.

Then I really do not understand it. Surely, if we pass this Bill, what is in the Bill becomes law? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] Surely it will supersede anything that has gone before?

Not necessarily!

If this Bill gives power to make recommendations and rules, and the rules are objected to by someone who draws attention to some previous Act, the right hon. Gentleman is the last person in the world to accept that as relevant; he will go on with his rules. Clause 12 has already been brought to the notice of the House by one hon. Member. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Clause provides that "the owner of a ship (if in fault), and the master of the ship (if in fault), if the crews do not practice certain practices and drills with a view to emergencies, shall be fined." I am informed—I do not make the statement on my own account, for, as I have already said, I am not conversant with ships—that these drills are not part of the ordinary duties of the crew, and that it would be possible for the crew to say that they refuse to comply with these drills which are outside their ordinary duties. I think it is very necessary that if the captain or master of a vessel, and the owner are liable to fine—and the fines are large—a maximum in the case of the owner of £100, and in the case of the master of £50, if they are to be subject to these large penalties, that a certain penalty should be put upon the members of the crew if they refuse to take part in these drills, or perhaps are not proficient. I do not advocate a very large penalty; something like 40s. or so would probably meet the case. If the right hon. Gentleman is desirous, as I am sure he is, in seeing that these drill duties are carried out efficiently, I think it is necessary that he should put a penalty of the sort I have suggested upon the crew.

The next point I wish to deal with is that of wireless telegraphy. Here, again, it is not for me to say whether or not it was necessary that every ship

"which carries 50 or more persons shall be provided with a wireless telegraphy installation."

I do not know what the cost of wireless telegraphy is. I really do not know what the views of the shipowners are upon that particular question, but I have read this very carefully, and I have a very strong opinion that, unless these provisions are altered, that what may occur will be that the Marconi Telegraphy Company will go round to every ship and say, "You have got to put our installation into your ship." That, I think, would be a very wrong thing to do. I will give the House the reasons which lead me to think that that might occur. Clause 15 says:—

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every British ship registered in the United Kingdom which carries fifty or more persons shall be provided with a wireless telegraphy installation, and shall maintain a wireless telegraphy service which shall be at least sufficient to comply with the rules made for the purpose under this Act, and shall be provided with certified operators and watchers at least in accordance with those rules."

We do not in the least know what these rules are! Under this Bill, if we pass it, we are going to give the Board of Trade power to say that a wireless telegraph service and wireless operators and watchers shall be supplied in accordance with rules which they are going to lay clown and which we do not know. We know perfectly well that the Postmaster-General has entered into an agreement with the Marconi Company. It is quite possible—I am not saying this in any kind of way to cast blame upon the Government—but it is quite possible that the Board of Trade may say to the Postmaster-General, "What do you consider to be the best system of wireless telegraphy? We have got to make certain rules with regard to the installation of wireless telegraphy." And here I should quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think we must see that the best system is installed. What does the Postmaster say? He will of course at once say, "The best system of wireless telegraphy is the one I have got. That is the Marconi system. Therefore in your rules you must see that the Marconi system is installed." What does that mean? That means a monopoly, and a very large and important monopoly, given to the Marconi Company. I am not going to say anything against the Marconi Company. I do not know anything about its installation and whether or not it works well. I had, Mr. DeputySpeaker—I was going to say—the misfortune to sit upon the Marconi Committee. I know we had a great deal of evidence from a great number of scientific witnesses who averred that their system was best, and that the Marconi system was the worst. However that may be, I do not think we as a House of Commons should pass a Bill which may in any kind of way lead to the making of rules which will give a monopoly to any particular company. I have no doubt that the effect of this would be to give, or might be to give, a monopoly to the Marconi Company. If the House will turn to Clause 16 they will see that that Clause says:—

"(1) The Board of Trade"—

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this?

"in consultation with the Postmaster-General."

Why are those words, "in consultation with the Postmaster-General," put in unless it is, as I have said, that it is in the contemplation of the right hon. Gentleman that the system which now belongs to, or is now shared by, the Postmaster-General and the Marconi Company is to be put in the rules, and that to that system a monopoly is to be given? I think that is a very serious thing, and this House before the Bill goes to Committee ought to express its opinion very strongly upon this matter. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Colonel Yate) who, I believe is going to speak later on, will support the contention I have just raised, because I feel quite certain it is only fair to the shipowners that they should have an opportunity of selecting the installation they desire to place in ships to enable them to communicate by wireless telegraphy. I have taken, the part of the shipowners where I think they deserve to be protected from the Government, but I come now to two articles in the Convention, and here I am afraid—I hope the remarks which I have just made were acceptable to the shipowners—I am going to part from them, and my remarks may not be acceptable to them. On page 20 and 21 we find Article 6 and 7 of the Convention. Article 6 says:—

"The high contracting parties undertake to take all steps to ensure the destruction of derelicts in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean east of a line drawn from Cape Sable to a point situated in latitude 34 degrees north and longtitude 70 degrees west. Further, they will establish in the North Atlantic with the least possible delay a service for the study and observation of ice conditions and a service of ice patrol. For this purpose:—

Two vessels shall be charged with these three services.

During the whole of the ice season, they shall be employed in ice patrol.

During the rest of the year the two vessels shall be employed in the study and observation of ice conditions and in the destruction of derelicts; nevertheless the study and observation of ice conditions shall be effectively maintained, in particular from the beginning of February to the opening of the ice season."

And then goes on to say:—

"While the two vessels are employed in ice patrol the high contracting parties, to the extent of their ability and so fax as the exigencies of the Naval Service will permit, will send warships or other vessels to destroy any dangerous derelicts, if this destruction is considered necessary at that time."

Article 7 deals with the point on which I am afraid the shipowners and myself may differ, namely, who is to bear the cost. Of course I thought the shipowners should bear the cost. All that is being done to get ice out of the way and so forth is to the advantage of the shipowners. Up to this it is their liability, and they are responsible for payment which might have to be made to people who lose their lives owing to accidents to their vessels. Surely in common decency they ought not to ask us to pay for the advantages they are now to receive. The shipowners pay for the lights along the coast.

Yes; a great deal more than they cost.

Well, there I sympathise with the shipowners, but I do not think that this is the way to get their own back.

Perhaps the hon. Baronet would suggest to the Government that this cost should be paid out of the surplus made on the lights, which is very large?

3.0.P.M.

If the hon. Gentleman is right, and if the shipowners pay too much for the light services, that ought to be taken into account, but this is hardly the way to do it. Various countries such as Austria, Belgium, Italy, and so on, pay so much per cent., but I think it would be very much simpler for the shipowners to provide vessels to deal with this particular ice question. It is generally on the passage to and from the United States that icebergs are to be met. When I look at the prices charged by the steamship companies I think they are quite sufficient to enable them to see that passengers are carried with the ordinary amount of safety across the ocean. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade whether he has carefully considered the next paragraph in Article 7, which is to this effect:—

"Each of the high contracting parties has the right to discontinue its contributions to the expense of working these services after the 1st September, 1916."

That is a very short time. Presumably this Act comes into operation on the 1st September this year, and the result would be that the Act will only be in operation two years, when perhaps the whole of these contracting parties would be able to say, "We will not contribute any more to the expenditure of this control." What is going to happen then? I really think the Convention should have provided for the service and should have paid for the service, if necessary, and I do not doubt that it is necessary; but I think the Convention should have, at any rate, agreed that the service should have been paid for for a longer period than two years. Now I have more or less dealt with what seems to me to be the particular points in the measure requiring comment, and in conclusion I hope that the hon. Gentleman when he replies to the remarks which have been made this afternoon will really give us some assurance that the Rules which are to be made shall be submitted to Parliament in such a form and manner that Parliament shall have proper control. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give us that assurance, would he not agree in the Committee stage to put in roughly the sort of Rules— I do not mean to say in detail, but in such a way as would give us an illustration of what I mean? There is a rule in regard to manning. I presume that manning is regulated to a considerable extent according to the tonnage of the ship, and that for so many hundred tons it is necessary to have so many men. Could not the hon Gentleman put in a Clause that every vessel for so many tons shall carry not less than a certain number of men? That seems to me to be a simple way which would not pin the Board of Trade down in too stringent a manner, but would give the Committee and the House of Commons an opportunity of forming some idea of the effect and nature of the Rules the Board of Trade is going to make.

I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London regarding wireless in so far as its adoption is made compulsory. Surely the shipowners should be left free to say what installation they are prepared to put in! It must be acknowledged we have not arrived yet at finality in wireless telegraphy, and nothing should be put into this Bill to prevent the free and open choice of what is necessary in the future. The hon. Baronet further referred to Clause 15 of the Convention and to the Rules which are to be framed under Clause 8 of the present Bill. The hon. Member for Blackfriars also referred to the latter and told us that, so far as he knew, there was no rule that any steamer was obliged to have more than two engineers on board. There is another point to which I should like to call attention, and that is, that so far as I am aware, all that a passenger steamer is obliged to carry is two mates, a first and second officer. I refer specially to passenger steamers like those which cross the North Sea to the Baltic, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, and which carry a large number of passengers. Those vessels are manned by two officers, a first and second officer, and I think this is the point which comes under the head of proper and efficient manning. I think ships of that sort should have more than two officers, because those officers have many other duties to perform in port in connection with the cargo, etc., as well as the keeping of watch at sea. The work is an undue strain upon them, and it can hardly be said that a passenger ship of this size is efficiently and properly manned with only two officers on board to keep watch. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that under the Rules to be framed by the Board of Trade provision will be made that in future shipowners will be compelled to see that these passenger ships have at least three watch officers? As regards boats and davits, under Article 50 of the Convention reference is made to other appliances equivalent to them. The hon. Member for Rutland spoke of the impossibility of launching boats from the top decks of these high steamers, seventy feet or more out of the water. We have heard of various plans by which it is proposed to have folding doors near the water-line from which the boats can be speedily launched. There are various other inventions, and I want to know if any steps have been taken to bring these inventions to the notice of the Committee, and under the rules of this Convention will this information be brought to the notice of the other Powers concerned?

With regard to the questions just put to me by the hon. Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate), I may point out that this question as to the number of officers really applies to the Merchant Shipping Bill which the Department has in preparation, and it cannot be dealt with in this Bill. The matter is under consideration with regard to our larger Merchant Shipping Bill.

Can it not be dealt with under the Rules drawn up under Section 8?

This Bill is to carry out the provisions of the International Shipping Convention, but it does not restrict us from making our own provisions in regard to certificates of officers and engineers on our own ships.

Does it not deal with the efficient manning of the ship?

The Bill gives the Board of Trade power to make regulations as to manning. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London suggested that we might insert a specimen rule with regard to manning, and he was good enough to sketch one out. If we were to insert such cast-iron samples of what the regulations ought to be, the carrying out of the purposes of the Convention would very speedily come to a deadlock. Even a committee of experts would find it very difficult to put such regulations into the cast-iron form which the hon. Baronet has suggested, and he does not appear to realise the difficulty which attends the making of such regulations. He is entitled to argue that the difficulty of making the regulations was no reason why the Board of Trade should be untrammelled in the matter, and he asked me for an assurance that we should take care with regard to the rules the Board may make that the House of Commons should have a real control. In its wisdom I think the House of Commons has provided already in the Rules of the House a real control, and I shall be very glad to assure the hon. Baronet that so far as we are concerned we shall not make the slightest attempt to evade the control of Parliament, but shall rather take steps to give the House the fullest and freest use of the Rules of the House for controlling that matter.

I did not suppose that the Committee upstairs by itself could frame rules dealing with manning. What was in my mind was that the hon. Gentleman himself, with the assistance of the members of the Committee, might draw up a skeleton rule which, to a certain extent, would limit the powers of the Board of Trade in this matter, and I think that is advisable. Perhaps the hon. Member will consider that matter.

The great majority of the remarks which have been made seem to me to consist of Committee points, but a certain number of questions have been addressed to me asking for information which perhaps it would be well that I should answer. With regard to Clause 15 I have been asked whether, under that provision, there would be a certain amount of latitude to provide that ships carrying pilgrims to Mecca should be exempted from the operation of the rule as to carrying wireless installation. This Bill has nothing to do with pilgrims going to Mecca. In such cases as the carrying of large numbers of Kroo boys on the West Coast of Africa, to insist upon carrying wireless installation would be rather arduous, so power is given to exempt such ships. I have been asked whether our regulations are to be made by headquarters or at the ports. I may state that they are always made at headquarters, and no official at the ports has power to make regulations. I have been asked in regard to the personnel of the Convention whether we had any delegates of nautical experience. I say that we had the assistance of two officials of high standing and experience,, one from the Board of Trade, and one from Trinity House, and we also had the assistance of Captain Charles of the "Lusitania," who is regarded in shipping circles as one of the most distinguished practical authorities. I have been asked why there have been no reports of the meetings of the Convention. May I point out that in the case of diplomatic Conventions of that kind reporters are never admitted.

As regards the hon. Member's statement: that the Convention took a lot of valuable evidence, I may point out that the business of the Convention was not to take-evidence but to do things and endeavour to come to an agreement after consideration of the proposals all round. Some hon. Members have made complaint to the effect that nothing is being done for cargo ships. We have already issued very systematic rules with regard to life-saving: appliances. Hon. Members will please not suppose that this Bill, which is framed for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Convention, represents all that the Board of Trade has done or is, going to do in the matter of rules for the saving of life. The hon. Baronet the-Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) put a question with regard to a vessel he named the "Polar Star," but I think he meant the "Scotia." He asked whether that ship was to be abandoned or whether she was still to goon with her service. That ship is withdrawn now, and the work that is to be done in future will be done by the two vessels which are provided for in the Bill. The instruments which were in use in the "Scotia" will be presented to the United States Government for use in the ships, they will run. The hon. Baronet put another question in regard to the communication to shipmasters in general of information as to derelicts, and he suggested that it could best be done through Lloyd's. I may inform the House that we are actually in communication with Lloyd's at the moment, and have every hope of making arrangements that will be as effective as the hon. Member desires. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White) that there should be a temporary installation for lighting in case of the ordinary electric lighting of a ship being put out of action in case of disaster, I would point to Article 35 of the Convention, which provides for precisely such an arrangement. That is one of the things that would be carried out by the Board by way of Regulation.

The hon. Gentleman has said nothing about the imposition of a wireless telegraphy monopoly.

It would really not be in the power of the Board of Trade, if they were capable of doing so, to impose any such monopoly. The power given to the Board by the Bill is strictly limited to the articles of the Convention. They can only have power for the carrying out of those provisions. If the Board actually wished to impose a monopoly of any kind, it would not have the power under this Bill. But I can assure the hon. Baronet that, so far from lending ourselves to the imposition of any kind of monopoly, we take every precaution against the approach of any such thing.

The hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the examination certificates of the boatmen.

That, again, is a matter for Regulation. We have actual Regulations under consideration. It is one of the things that can only be done by Regulation. The hon. Member would find it very difficult indeed to put it in the Bill.

I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman could tell us the principles on which the Board of Trade are working in regard to life-saving apparatus on coasting vessels carrying large numbers of passengers.

Shall I send the hon. Member the Regulations we have actually published? If he will consider them and wishes to make any representations, I shall be very glad to discuss them with him.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The House will remember that last year we passed a Soudan Loan Act by which this country guaranteed the interest on a loan of £3,000,000 to be raised by the Government of the Soudan. The House at that time was, I think, satisfied that there was no likelihood of the British taxpayer becoming liable to pay that guarantee. The House considered it so desirable in the interests of our great cotton industry in this country that further areas should be brought under cotton in the Soudan, that it was thought justifiable to cheapen and facilitate the raising of the loan by giving this guarantee. We had practically a guarantee from the authorities of the Soudan that they would not raise their loan faster than they were certain that the revenues of the Soudan would produce the interest and sinking fund, and the Act was passed to facilitate and cheapen the issue of the loan.

That is last year's Act.

That is last year's Act. The House was also, I think, impressed with the utility of the purposes for which the loan was raised, especially the irrigation of the Gezireh Plain, about which a full and very interesting statement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 3rd April, and by other Members of the House, and hon. Members were satisfied that the Treasury would retain control over the raising of the loan, over the establishment and regulation of the sinking fund, and over the arrangements for properly charging on the revenue and assets of the Soudan the sums necessary to extinguish the loan. If that Act be referred to, it will be found that in a Schedule to it the purposes for which it was intended to spend the money were set out. The purposes were as follows:—For the irrigation of the Gezireh Plain, £1,000,000; for minor irrigation schemes at Tokar and Kassala, £300,000; for the extension of the railway system, £1,600,000; and for contingencies, £100,000. Since the Act was passed Lord Kitchener, following on his annual inspection of the Soudan, has come to the conclusion that it will be in the best interests of the Soudan to vary the Schedule by devoting more of the money to the irrigation of the Gezireh Plain, and by postponing some of the other purposes which last year he had in view. There is a provision in the Act of last year for applying savings under one head of expenditure to another head of expendi- ture, and we considered rather carefully whether we could rightly do what Lord Kitchener and the other authorities desired by using that Clause. If we could have allowed £1,000,000 to be taken as saving from one purpose and applied to other purposes, all that is now desired would have been done, but that was not thought justifiable. When it was a question of such large sums we did not think It right that they should be brought under the proper meaning of "savings," and it was thought, as we did want in some considerable measure to vary the amounts spent on the different purposes indicated in the Schedule, that it was right to come to Parliament for authority to do so, rather than to use the Clause about variation 111 the use of savings. It is now desired that the amount should be reallocated, so as to enable the Government of Soudan to spend up to £2,000,000 on the Gezireh Plain irrigation scheme, £200,000 on the minor irrigation schemes, and £800,000 on railways.

Am I right in thinking that no extra expenditure is to be incurred at all, and that it is only a difference in the allocation of the £3,000,000 authorised last year?

That is so. There is no variation in the total amount to be raised, and no variation in the Treasury control over it. It is merely a reallocation of the amount among the purposes which were sanctioned last year. There is not even any new purpose included, or any old purpose left out. It is only a variation of the amount allocated to the different purposes. Those interested will remember the chief point made, as justifying this guarantee last year, was the extremely promising prospect of the irrigation of the Gezireh Plain, which comprises a tract of, roughly, 4,500 square miles of extremely excellent land for growing the particular sort of cotton which is especially needed for Lancashire. It is proposed to do that by building a dam on the Blue Nile, near Sennaar, and a canal 1,150 miles long northwards from there in the direction of Khartoum. Since last year the scheme has been gone into more fully by a detailed survey and rock boring to examine the bed of the river and determine the depth of foundation necessary for the darn and other work. A Commission of very competent engineers—Sir William Garstin, Sir Arthur Webb, Mr. Hugh McClure, and Mr. MacDonald, the Egyptian Under-Secretary for Public Works, have examined the matter, and have come to the conclusion that this scheme will cost more than was originally estimated. The chief reason for the extra cost is that it seems well to build a dam from the first which will be sufficient to provide water, not only for the area of 500,000 acres or 800 square miles originally proposed to be irrigated, but which shall be of sufficient strength and permanence to permit of subsequent heightening and the irrigation of the whole navigable area of Gezireh Plain of 4,500 square miles. The Commission found that the scheme was quite practicable. There is solid rock of excellent quality on which to build the dam, but borings have shown that there is a superincumbent mass of decayed stone and boulders much deeper than might have been anticipated, and it will be necessary to divert the river from its course. It is quite a possible thing to do on the site which has been selected.

The Commission estimate the cost 01 the dam under these circumstances at about £1,400,000, and of the canal £600,000, and in their opinion the whole scheme is a most desirable one, and is certain to prove profitable. Lord Kitchener confirms this by telling us the limited area which it is first proposed to irrigate will produce, approximately, 10,000 tons of cotton a year, and that in its turn will produce a direct increase of about £250,000 in the Soudan revenue, which increase will enable the Soudan to continue the other schemes, to which the loan would otherwise have been devoted, with their own money, and without coming to Parliament for a further guarantee. In fact, Lord Kitchener stated that nothing he asks us to do now will entitle him to again ask for further guarantees of loans, because, first of all, the finances of the Soudan are now in a good condition; and, secondly, as this scheme develops, they will very rapidly improve. The only other point is, if this is to be done, Lord Kitchener wishes that it may be done soon, so that the season when work can actually be carried on, between November and May, shall not be missed. Naturally he must place his contracts and get through with the preliminary stages, and if we can pass this Bill early this summer he will be able to secure that the next working season shall be actually utilised for work, because he will be able to complete his contracting arrangements immediately on the passing of the Bill. That is why I ask the House to give the Bill, which, as I say, merely varies among already approved objects the expenditure and allocation of the money. That is why I ask the House to give it a Second Beading to-day, and to allow us to get the other stages at a reasonably early date. I will do my best to answer any questions that may be of interest to hon. Members.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us with regard to the amended proposals, which, as I understand them, propose to halve the amount that was to have been spent on railway schemes, which of the railway schemes outlined when the first Bill was before the House it is proposed to drop at the present moment?

I do not remember for a moment that there was any precise indication of the various railway schemes. I thought they were referred to in a rather vague form, but I will find out and give the hon. Member the information he desires.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member in that matter. A sum of £1,600,000 was to be raised for the extension of the Soudan railway system, and the railways were principally in the South of the Soudan, where there is plenty of rainfall and where no irrigation is required. There is a small piece in the North of the Soudan, but it is only a connecting piece, and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the bulk of this sum of £1,600,000 which is now to be reduced to £800,000, is to be applied in a sphere where cotton of the American type is grown with the natural rainfall, and it is proposed to divert the £800,000 in order to increase the works of irrigation in the northern part of the Soudan, where there is no rainfall, and where irrigation is absolutely necessary, but where there are plenty of railways, and where cotton of the Egyptian quality is grown, it being the kind of cotton which Lancashire most needs. Hon. Members know the great changes which the cotton trade of this country has undergone during the last twenty years. We no longer produce the immense amount of coarse cotton goods that we did before. Year by year the proportion of fine goods is increasing. By that means, and by that means alone, are we enabled to retain our predominance in the cotton trade of the world. It is of the greatest possible importance that we should get steady and large supplies of fine Egyptian cotton as possible for the purpose of maintaining our trade. This is not a foreign trade question; it is a national question, because the cotton trade of Lancashire is the greatest staple industry in the country. Its exports alone form 80 per cent, of the manufactured goods. We sent out £122,500,000 in 1912. I do not quite know what the figures were for 1913, but I think they represent between one-third and one-fourth of the total amount in value of all the exports of this country. The hon. Member will, therefore, see what a serious matter it would be if that proportion of our exports were seriously interfered with or diminished.

There is always a danger that the cotton supply of the world may fail. The Egyptian cotton supply may fail, and, in that case, of course, our exports would diminish, the large population of Lancashire would be injured, and the country would naturally suffer. I am sorry to have to say Egyptian cotton, since 1906, has been going down very rapidly as far as production per acre is concerned, although the total quantity is greater, and the time has now arrived when it is absolutely essential that the area of cotton production should be extended as quickly as possible. The British Cotton Growers' Association has just had its annual meeting, and they say that they are extremely anxious that the Gezireh should be developed as soon as possible, and their great hopes for the success of cotton productions in the British Empire are bound up with the opening of the Gezireh Plain. That will take four or five years, but from calculations I have made a little more than half a million of acres, if irrigated, will supply as much cotton of the Egyptian kind of the finest quality as is now produced by the whole of Egypt, because the production per acre in the Gezireh Plain is much greater than the production per acre in Egypt. At the present moment the production per acre in Egypt is only about 433 pounds per acre, whereas in the Soudan it is 550. I suppose that cotton growing in the Gezireh Plain will start under very much better auspices than did cotton growing in Egypt, because the quality of the seed sown will be pure, for the Government will see to that, and from the outset there will be these extensive irrigation works, with a sufficient railway system in the hands of the Government to convey the cotton to the coast. The House ought to have very great confidence in this recommendation, because it comes from Lord Kitchener. We are told that he has done so much for Egypt, and I am quite sure that any proposition he makes must be a practicable one, and one that ought to be listened to with great respect, because he would not have made it without having the greatest possible reason for putting it forward. The total area of the Gezireh Plain is 5,000,000 acres. If a little more than half of that can be irrigated it will be able to supply more cotton to Lancashire than she could possibly want.

The estimate is for a dam sufficient for half a million acres. The Government have adopted a very wise course in making the dam strong enough in order that it may be raised ultimately for the irrigation of 4.500,000 acres in the Gezireh Plain, although I do not think that will be necessary for many years to come. As the hon. Gentleman said, the nature of the subsoil upon which the structure is to be raised being of such a doubtful character, it is very important that it should be made as strong as possible in the first instance. I should like the House to remember that the British Cotton Growing Association is not a limited liability company for commercial purposes. It consists not only of the employers who are interested in cotton-growing, but of the workmen themselves. The working classes in Lancashire, out of their wages, have subscribed to the capital of the company many thousands of pounds, and they are co-operating with the employers in every way in endeavouring to extend the area of cotton growing within the British Empire, in order that should there be a shortage of cotton in anyone part it may be made up in another. It is not necessary to go into the question as to the capacity of the Soudan Government to meet the liability under the Act of 1913, because that Act has already been sanctioned by this House. It is a matter of great congratulation that the prophecies made by Lord Kitchener and repeated in this House when the Bill was being discussed, that the revenues of the Soudan were increasing, and that the Soudan would soon pay its way, have been fulfilled, and that the Soudan is doing so excellently well. It is quite clear that as soon as this land is irrigated it must grow very largely in value. It did so in Egypt immediately the dam was constructed. If the land goes up more than double in value, the source of revenue of the Soudan being at the present time the land tax, I suppose that the land taxes will also go up in value and the revenue must increase by the works proposed to be carried out. In conclusion I would appeal to hon. Members, if for any reason they feel inclined to oppose the Bill, to let it go through this afternoon.

I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. This Bill is practically the same Bill as that of last year, except that the Schedule is entirely new. The machinery is the same, but the substance is very different. The hon. Gentleman in making his explanation did not inform the House whether any money has been raised under guarantee under the Schedule which was in the Bill of last year. I understand that certain items are struck out altogether, and I take it that no money has been raised under guarantee in regard to those items, or they would have been included in the Schedule to this Bill. I desire to learn whether the Treasury have given guarantee for any portion of the loan for the items which are retained. The House ought to be in possession of full information on that matter. I think the House and the country will have much greater confidence in the Schedule now submitted after full and careful examination, than it had in the Bill passed last year. Then there was evidence of haste. I am glad that the matter has had a year's consideration, and that we have fuller information on which we may act. I do not want to obstruct the passage of the Bill, and if it requires any further explanation, that is not a matter of principle and may very well be left to the Committee.

I desire to express my great satisfaction that no opposition has been offered to this Bill like that encountered by the East African Loan Bill. The present administration in Egypt is not only good in itself, but it produces a good spirit right through the British Possessions in the East, and in every other country in the East where it is necessary that British administration should have a high character. For that reason I am extremely glad that this Bill is to pass, not only because it makes the desert blossom like the rose, but because it is a piece of the thoroughly good policy which is now being pursued in Egypt, which is the greatest credit to ourselves there and in all other parts of the world. As one interested in the East, I am unwilling to let this opportunity pass without saying how heartily I approve of the Bill.

With the leave of the House, I should like to answer the hon. Member (Mr. Gretton). No purpose is withdrawn, and although the amount devoted to the different purposes is varied, it is still proposed to devote £800,000 to railways, and it is still proposed to devote £200,000 or £300,000 to minor irrigation schemes. No definite purpose is withdrawn, although it is varied, and it will be proceeded with, although to some extent with a less amount of money. I believe that a sum of £500,000—although I am not absolutely sure on this point-has already been raised, or arranged to be raised, with the Treasury. The Treasury have already certified that they are satisfied that the provisions of the Act have been carried out with regard to that amount. I believe that was for railways, or it may have been for some preliminary work in connection with the Gezireh scheme.

Will the hon. Gentleman convey information on the point to the House at some subsequent stage?

Yes, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next."—[Mr. Acland.]

I should like to have some information as to the intentions of the Government. Do they intend to take this Bill after midnight or at some time when it can be discussed, or what is really the idea of keeping it in Committee of the Whole House?

No Debate is permissible on this Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

This Bill has really only one object—single, clear and defined—and that is to do the very best we can to raise the status and improve the position of the assistant masters and mistresses in secondary schools in Ireland and to secure for them a status and some degree, if possible, of fixity of tenure which will have the result of making that branch, the most important branch of the profession of teacher, one which a self-respecting and responsible person may be proud to hold. The position of usher in a secondary school has been, I suppose, for centuries the subject of satire and the object of passionate reform, and if this were eternity instead of a quarter to four on a Friday afternoon I might occupy myself agreeably in enlarging upon that theme. I will only just, as a concession to my spirit, refer Members of the House to the biography of probably the Irishman whose name is better known throughout the civilised world than that of any other Irishman who has ever lived, Oliver Goldsmith, and they will find in his biography that when he was an usher in an academy, I am sorry to say at Peckham, he was compelled to sleep in the same bed with the French master. Undoubtedly there has been an enormous improvement since then, but even at the present moment it is still the object of every educational enthusiast to improve secondary education in Ireland. The best way of doing that is to improve the position of those who are engaged in imparting it. Irish secondary education does not yet get its fair share, or, indeed,, any share, of the public Grants which go to it in other parts of the United Kingdom. Apart from university education Irish intermediate education is not on the Votes at all, and can only be discussed in this House by the contemptible device of a token Vote. It is administerd by a. board nominated by Dublin Castle, which expends annually an income of some-£80,000, derived largely from a share-allotted to it of the Irish Church Fund. On that income it lives and it expends it in Grants to the secondary schools in Ireland, which are very gratefully received by the managers of those schools, where the fees are very small, and also ire prizes, scholarships, and exhibitions which are won and held by the pupils.

The intermediate examination in Ireland is one of the best known things in that island. It is the object of terror, ambition, and of competition, and it plays its. part as well as any examination scheme ever can play its part, while maintaining, I think, on a fair level, the secondary education of that country. But otherwise' it gets no assistance whatsoever from public Grants. I think, therefore, the slender provision made in this Bill for the single object which I have already described, is one which Ireland very well deserves. Secondary education in Ireland is very cheap. I dare say, in a certain sense, it may be too cheap, but however that may be, the very fact that it is cheap shows the desire on the part of Irish parents in all classes to give their children the benefit of the very best education they possibly can. In fact, the fault I should be most inclined to impute to Irish parents is that they place too high a value on the mere literary side of education—a side of the weakness of which I am only too well aware. But I am glad to say that in Ireland the scientific side is engaging more and more attention and Irish children have shown themselves singularly well qualified by nature for mathematical and scientific pursuits. Therefore, I think everyone will agree that secondary education in Ireland is a case which requires every assistance which can be given.

Owing to the cheapness of the school rate and the fierce competition that exists in Ireland, among the various colleges and academies which carry on secondary education, those fees are kept even lower than they would otherwise be. That falls upon the unfortunate assistant master. He is the person whose salary is rendered microscopic in consequence of this competition and his duties are multifarious and uncongenial and often most undignified. We seek to remedy that, and the first Clause in the Bill provides for the constitution of a register. To English educationists I need not say anything in favour of that proposal. Everyone agrees that in order to raise the status of any profession it is necessary to have, in some way or another, a registered body of its enrolled members, of persons who are duly and properly qualified to discharge the duty which they advertise themselves as prepared to carry out. We have this register established in England, and it was one of the duties which I had at the English Office to negotiate the passage through Parliament of a Bill of that description. I was not successful in doing it—I had not time to do it— but it has been done since. What we desire to do by the first Clause of the Bill is to establish a registration council in Ireland which is to have representatives of the teaching profession, of the Intermediate Educational Board, and of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and also universities and other bodies interested, and this register will be established and maintained. In future, no doubt, the standard will be a comparatively high one. To start with, of course, we have to recognise that those who are already engaged in the business, trade or profession, call it what you will, and who have had three years experience of it will be able to be placed on the register. Hereafter it will be a register on the same lines as has been established in other parts of the Kingdom. Another object we have is fixity of tenure. It is most absolutely essential that there should be some amount of notice required before one of these unfortunate assistant teachers is dismissed and the proposal is, under the provisions of this Bill, that that notice should be a period of three months. It may be a question for Committee as to the date at which that notice shall be given—from what portion of the academic year it shall count. That is a matter upon which we shall be very happy to hear any views which may be presented when the Bill, which we propose to keep in the House, will come on in Committee.

The next provision is with regard to a minimum salary. It might be desirable, if we could, to fix a minimum salary for every teacher, but that, of course, is practically impossible. You cannot say what the minimum salary in the case of all teachers should be. In many schools, which are doing their work well and efficiently you will find that the necessity for paying this salary could only be accomplished by raising the school fees and shutting out many boys and girls from the educational advantages which they at present enjoy, and it would also induce the managers instead of employing, as we hope they will be able to do, teachers on the register—it might drive them to employ other persons who would be very willing to engage in this profession of instruction, but who would not be duly qualified persons. Therefore the scheme that we propose is this: Under the provisions of the Bill £40,000 a year is to be set aside as the teachers' salary Grant. It is impossible to include in the Bill itself the rules which are necessary for the division and appropriation of this Grant. In educational matters that is never done, either here or elsewhere. The actual appropriations of the sums are made matters of minutes of the Educational Boards. We have published with the Bill the scheme of division which we propose. We propose that this £40,000 should go to those schools who succeed in obtaining 'Grants from the Intermediate Education Board, and thus you will secure that only those schools can obtain any portion of the £40,000 which have satisfied the very stringent examination of the Intermediate Education Board. Then, after they have done that, it secures that the schools are of high character, and that no religious test or obligation of any sort is imposed. We propose to provide that money, and that it should go to the lay teachers who are there in the schools in the proportion of one in forty pupils. The money does not go direct to the teacher, but it goes to the schools, and only if in the schools there is a lay teacher for every forty pupils on the rolls.

You may ask why lay teachers? It might appear that here we are in rather a difficulty as to our answer. My answer to that is this: I am happy to say that we have had a great deal of discussion with people in Ireland, and have come to a satisfactory arrangement about it. The answer is that the object of the Bill is to improve the status of the professional teacher. The clerical teacher requires no improvement of his status in life. If he is a secular cleric he has behind him his profession, and after he has been engaged in tuition he very often becomes a curate or parish priest, and very often he rises to eminence in his Church, and in one or two instances he has become a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. If he belongs to some religious order he has behind him the authority, the status, respect, and the veneration which belongs to those religious orders, which devote a great deal of time, often with the utmost possible success, and notably in the case of the Christian Brothers, to the work of education. And there is no need for me or the British Treasury or any Chief Secretary to concern ourselves deeply with the welfare of those teachers. It is secured in this world, and I doubt not also in the next. I am thinking only of the lay teacher, the master or mistress, the assistant or humble usher, who is taken on at a miserable salary and is liable almost to instant dismissal, and who is made the victim of the excellent cheap system now prevailing in Ireland. He is the person whom this Bill proposes to benefit.

In regard to the layman, people may say that we ought to have inserted in the Bill all the details with respect to teachers which are found in the White Paper. I say that is perfectly impossible. First of all, it would make the Bill irksome and cumbersome, and prevent the alterations which may be necessary from time to time in working out the proposal. The rules will be subject to the ordinary power of Parliament. They will lie on the Table and may be the subject of discussion, and this House may refuse to consent to them in the ordinary way. I, therefore, humbly present this measure to the House. It has cost more time and trouble than anybody might think from the cursory description I have given. I am animated in this matter by the most sincere and deep rooted conviction that here you have in Ireland a large population eagerly desirous, beyond all ordinary proportion, of the benefits of secondary education, and in order to secure that we must do everything in our power to improve and maintain the status and position of those engaged in the profession of teaching.

4.0 P.M.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having in this crowded Session succeeded in obtaining time to bring forward this Bill, which, although it appears to be a very small Bill, has in it the germs of very great things for the future development of intermediate education in Ireland—a Department of education, certainly, not the least important, and which has up to the present been painfully neglected, even more neglected than any other department of education in Ireland. It is not a large Bill, but it contains, in my opinion, great principles which in their development in the future, will carry secondary education in Ireland to a level far beyond anything it has attained in the past. I attach special importance to two things in this Bill. First of all, I attach importance to Clause 1 setting up the registration of teachers, because the profession of secondary teacher in Ireland until now has been one of the most deplorable which any educated man could take up in any country in the world. In fact, there was no recognised profession, and those who drifted into the calling of secondary teachers, and attempted, particularly in Catholic schools, to earn a living, came afterwards to have one desire in life, and that was to escape from the servitude in which they found themselves. The consequence was that, of course, it was impossible to have proper teaching, and equally impossible that the teachers should be self- inspecting and hopeful citizens under such a system. The result in the schools was exceedingly bad. I believe that the setting up of this register will have an immense effect in raising the whole status of secondary teachers in Ireland, raising their self-respect and putting them in a position to obtain other concessions and further advantages in their future career.

The second thing to which I attach enormous importance is the Grant of £40,000 a year—the first Grant which has ever been made for Irish secondary education. It is not a full Grant or a fair equivalent Grant for those made in England and Scotland—not nearly so—but still, I do not propose to look a gift horse in the mouth, and after twenty years of pleading and hard work in this House, the fact that for the first time we have succeeded in getting any Grant on the Estimates for secondary education in Ireland marks, I consider, a great advance. That Grant has been made for the purpose of increasing and improving the salaries of assistant teachers. I entirely agree with the Chief Secretary and the draftsmen of the Bill as to the principle of the method by which that Grant is to be distributed, and the question of the notice to "be given to teachers for dismissal—that is to say, what the Chief Secretary describes as security of tenure. It is a very modest security of tenure. Three months' notice is, I think, too small, but still it is always well to make a beginning as they have no tenure at all at present.

These are to be provided for under the rules drafted by the Lord Lieutenant and laid on the Table of the House. We have a draft, not certainly a final draft, in the White Paper containing the rules which the Government propose if the Bill passes. I think that is by far the best way of carrying out these Regulations, because it will be open—and I am anxious that this should be thoroughly understood in Ireland, as there has been, as the Chief Secretary knows, a great deal of controversy and difficulty in the drafting of the scheme in respect of some of its provisions. But it will be thoroughly understood, in Ireland especially, that when this Bill has passed into law the rules which will be submitted in accordance with it by the Lord Lieutenant can be altered any year if it is found that in their working they, in any way, injuriously affect any of the schools, or are unacceptable or are unworkable under the Irish system. Alteration cannot take place without the consent of this House, but it will not be necessary to introduce a new amending Bill simply to make an alteration in the rules. That is an excellent provision which will conduce to the fair working of this Act. I thank the Chief Secretary heartily and congratulate him. He has already done a great deal for education in Ireland, more than any of the predecessors have succeeded in doing. He has given a great university, which is a most striking success. He has given Belfast a great university, which in spite of themselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, I will not go into this. I will conclude by saying that we are all grateful to the Chief Secretary for what he has done for Irish education. It is true that this is a small beginning, but it is a valuable beginning. I think that I can safely undertake to-day to tender him the heartiest thanks of this class of teachers in Ireland who for long years have been left out in the cold, and have not been able to find any Statesman to take the smallest interest in them.

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Mayo on second thoughts did not continue the somewhat contentious note which he threatened to strike towards the close of his speech, because this is one of those rare occasions on which I can quite honestly and sincerely say that, speaking on behalf of the Unionist party, I am in entire agreement with the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for Mayo as regards this Bill. I do not think that there is a man who knows the condition of education in Ireland who has not long ago realised that the condition of teachers, especially of the assistant teachers, in the Irish schools has compared very favourably indeed with that of those who hold equivalent professional rank in this country. The pay is very much less, and the difference in the cost of living is, in some cases, I think, almost against the teacher in Ireland as compared with the teacher in this country. Therefore, from the purely monetary point of view, I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have been able to arrive at the proposals set out in this Bill. I am quite well aware, as everyone who knows the history of the controversy is aware, that this Bill, though a very short Bill, which does not cover very much paper, really represents a great deal of work behind the scenes. I quite appreciate the fact that this Bill is also, perhaps, in the nature of a compromise. I do not say that it is, in fact I hope that it is not, the last word upon this subject, but at all events, as the hon. Member for Mayo said, it is the beginning. For that reason I welcome it, and I am glad to have a register set up. That is very important; it recognises the professional status of these men in a way in which it has never been recognised before, and I am even more glad that it recognises, or at least does something to recognise, the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

The work that these men are doing is perhaps comparatively obscure and humdrum, but it is a really important work; they really are performing a national service, and they ought to be adequately paid for performing it. Something has been said about the form of the Bill. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that it would be very difficult to put all the precise Regulations which he proposes into the Clauses of an Act of Parliament. I think that it is a great deal better that they should be left as they have been left in the Draft Regulations. The only point is that this is apparently the only opportunity which one has to say anything with regard to the nature of these Regulations. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I just say one word about the proposed Regulations which he has laid. In the first place, it is suggested that in accordance with the usual practice these Regulations are to lie on the Table of the House for forty days. I think it would be of advantage if the right hon. Gentleman takes care that those forty days are forty sitting days of the House, because there appears to be an omission in the drafting of the Clause, which contains no provision that the Rules are to lie on the Table while the House is sitting. They are to be presented while the House is sitting, but there is no provision that they are to lie on the Table during forty sitting days of the House, when opportunity might be given to Members to make an alteration of these Rules.

indicated assent.

That is the whole point of the Bill, which really lies in the Rules that emphasise the fact that the measure is going to benefit the lay element of the teaching profession. One might even earmark the Grant more specifically to the lay element of teaching than is proposed in the Bill. It is suggested that the Grant might be called the "lay teachers' salaries Grant," but, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that will be hardly necessary. That is my own personal opinion—at all events, the right hon. Gentleman has recognised and pointed out clearly to the House that it is to the lay element of the teaching profession that the money is to go. In regard to another question, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at his proposed scheme, he will no doubt recollect that one of the conditions of the Grant is that the number of lay registered teachers is to have a certain proportion to the number of intermediate pupils attending the school. It has been pointed out that there is some apprehension among the teaching profession in Ireland in regard to the definition of the words "intermediate pupils." It is important, since the Grant depends on the proportion of lay teachers, which in turn depends on the number of intermediate pupils, that there should be an exact definition of what is meant by the words "intermediate pupils."

I hope that in the revised draft of the Rules finally presented to the House some provision will be made by which it will be seen what is exactly meant by those words. I have not been able to find any actual definition in any of the Acts, arid as the whole matter depends on it obviously it is rather important that there should be a definition, if possible. Then there is the question of the two old grievances to which the hon. Member for Mayo referred in regard to the teaching profession—the question of teachers' salaries, and the question of a notice of dismissal. I am glad that at all events the condition of this Grant is that there should be a fixed minimum of £120 in the case of men and £80 in the case of women. I do not think anyone can complain that the figures have been put too high. There is a grievance in regard to these salaries, of which the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, and of which the teaching profession complain at the present moment. That grievance is that very often the teachers practically do not receive the salary to which they are entitled in respect of the two months of July and' August, which are the months of the summer holidays. For instance, the teacher who is engaged for a fraction of the year is paid upon the fraction of ten months, and not upon the fraction of twelve months. That is a grievance which appears to have a very good deal of foundation. I think if you engage a man to teach for a year he should be paid for a year, and if for a fraction of a year, that it ought to be a fraction of a whole year, and not of ten months. I do hope that opportunity will be taken at a later stage of this Bill by the right hon. Gentleman to put a provision into the Rules which will do something, if possible, to redress this grievance.

A grievance of a kindred nature arises with regard to the three months' notice. Under the proposed Rules teachers are to have not less than three months' notice of dismissal. That is something, and, as an hon. Gentleman says, it is a great deal better than nothing. There is a point in connection with that which, I think, is also of importance, and it has to do again with the question of the summer recess. I certainly hope that if at all possible those three months will not be so arranged as to include the months of July and August, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House why. Most of the advertisements for the filling of vacancies and most of the shifting and changing occur about two months before the end of the summer session—about May. If you are not going to give a teacher notice until, say, the middle of June the unfortunate man is going to find himself three months from that date—that is to say, in the middle of September, out of employment, with little prospect of obtaining employment until the cycle of the year comes round, in which those positions are normally in the habit of being filled up. I think that is not fair and very undesirable. I certainly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, if possible, provide that the three months which the notice of dismissal is to cover do not include July and August. May I also call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one thing with regard to the establishment of the register? Inasmuch as this Register is going to be really important as conferring a status upon these men, which they have not got at present, it is obviously important from their point of view that it should be set up as soon as possible. There is no provision in the rules about the setting up of this register. Section 4 of the rules states some provisions which are to take effect at the expiration of one year after the establishment of the register, but it does not provide any time within which the register is to be set up. I cannot expect that the right hon. Gentleman will put a time limit for the establishment of the register into the Bill, and I do not ask that as it would not be fair. I do ask that he should at least state that there shall be no undue delay, and that the work of forming the register will be taken in hand at once and that it will be completed at the earliest possible moment. I have not the slightest desire in any way to delay or to defeat the passage of this Bill to-day, and on behalf of those for whom I am speaking I thank the right hon. Gentleman and I thank the Government for having set their hands in this way to a work which is of great advantage to men in Ireland who have, I think, been too long waiting for the recognition which they deserve.

I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) in congratulating the Chief Secretary on the splendid results of his labours in introducing and, as I hope, in passing this Bill. This Bill contains two great principles. For the first time in the history of Ireland we have established a Council of Secondary Education that will be responsible for securing that teachers employed in the work of secondary education in Ireland shall be qualified to do the work I have no doubt it may appear strange to Members of this House to be told that at the present time in Ireland any man or woman may be taken off the streets to teach in our secondary schools in Ireland, and to be paid whatever salary the headmaster wishes to give. Not alone is that a scandal to the proper management of education in any country, but it is absolutely injurious to the children who have to submit to the so-called education which such people could give Therefore it is important, not alone from the point of view of raising the standard and improving the position of the men and women who will be engaged in this important work, but it is equally important that the children of the nation who are about to go to the higher university and technical schools should have the best education the State can give them during the three or four years that they are in the secondary schools. If only for this provision alone, the Chief Secretary is to be congratulated on having introduced this Bill. The other point is the £40,000 which for the first time is being given for secondary education in Ireland. As my hon. Friend has said, this is not at all the proportion to which we are entitled as compared with England or Scotland; it is not a half or a third our proper proportion. Scotland gets over a quarter of a million sterling for secondary education, and has been getting it for years and years. I hope we may yet press the Chief Secretary to make the Grant a little more in cur case. There was £10,000 offered for scholarships. I hope he will be able to in duce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow that £10,000 to be added to the £40,000. Even then it would not be half sufficient for the work we shall have to do in Ireland. Under our own Parliament there is no work that will be more important and more valuable to the nation than that of secondary education, and there is no work on which money can be more usefully spent.

With regard to the draft rules, I thoroughly agree that that is the proper place in which to embody regulations for the distribution of this Grant. I am not at all certain as to what exactly the Chief Secretary meant in regard to the year for which the money is to be expended. The manager of a school wants to know on the 1st September what money he is going to have for the coming year. It is very important that the manager of a school when appointing a number of teachers should know how much money he will have at the beginning of the year before making those appointments. I suggest that it should be made perfectly clear in the rules that a manager in September, 1914, say, should have the amount coming to him under this Bill calculated upon the income which he has earned in the year 1913. It makes no difference whatever to the Treasury, but it makes a great deal of difference to the managers of Schools. That is perhaps a small point, but I hope the Chief Secretary will consider it. I am aware of the many difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman has had to encounter in this matter, and I have also to congratulate him upon the excellent work he has done.

We have the usual spectacle to-day of Members from all parts of Ireland concurring in a raid on the British Treasury. On this particular occasion it seems to be somewhat anomalous. The Chief Secretary and the hon. Members behind me appear to have forgotten that a Bill for "the better government of Ireland," as it is called, has passed this House, and according to the intentions of the Government will shortly become law. Under these circumstances the rules and regulations drawn up by the Chief Secretary will be so much waste paper, because the matter will be handed over under the Bill for the better government of Ireland; while if we now pass this it will remain an additional charge upon the British taxpayer. But I, for one, have some considerable confidence—though it is not a thing that I would endeavour to discuss as to what will eventually come to pass—that matters will go on as much as they are for some little time to come. Under these circumstances I am inclined to think that the secondary school teachers in Ireland ought to have their status raised. I am not sure that the Chief Secretary made it quite plain in his speech that this Grant will extend to women teachers as well as to men. He said he had taken the men to his heart, but he did not tell us as to the women.

I would just like to say a word or two as to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. In respect to my reference in relation to the men that reference also extended to the women. In this matter they are as dear to my heart as are the men. There is no doubt whatever about that! As to the impending of Home Rule, I can only say that I have just come back from Ulster. While there I was in conversation with an energetic Ulster covenanter. I made the remark to him that they were going about their business much as usual. His reply to that was, "We always work up to the very last moment before any change is decided upon." I, as Chief Secretary, can only say that I will continue to lay to heart the welfare of the people of Ireland, and will continue to work for them up to the very last moment. Criticism has been put forward in relation to one or two small points. One was in regard to the necessity of some definition as to what an intermediate pupil is. I am fully alive to that. There was also a point as to the desirability of securing that the three months' notice shall not operate so as to deprive the teachers of the paid portion of the year during which their services are engaged. I thank hon. Members for their reception of the Bill.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any change as regards the business for next week—whether or not the Supply will be that already notified?

I am able to supply what the Noble Lord requires. There has been a slight change.

On Monday we will take the Third Reading of the Plural Voting Bill.

On Tuesday the Supply will be the Board of Agriculture.

On Wednesday we will take the Money Resolution of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Bill.

On Thursday the Supply will be the Local Government Board.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Birrell. ]

Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after Four o'clock, till Monday next, 15th June.