asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is on his instructions that the Derby sweepstake organised in aid of the Barking Hospital fund has been stopped by the police?

My attention was called to the fact that tickets were being publicly sold, which clearly brought it within the provisions of the Lottery Act. I communicated with the promoters, and the promoters withdrew the lottery.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any difference between this principle and the principle of the Stock Exchange draw, where the tickets are sold to stockbrokers, who publicly sell them to any of their clients who want them?

Yes, I am quite satisfied that the cases are distinguishable. As I explained to the House a fortnight ago, the Stock Exchange draw was a privately conducted draw, and tickets were not sold to the general public, but in this case I have actually got a letter from the hon. secretary enclosing to a perfect stranger a book of tickets, asking him to sell them and offering him any more that he liked to sell. That makes it quite clearly a public lottery within the meaning of the Act, and I have no discretion in the matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously say that he is not aware that at least the majority of the Stock Exchange sweepstake tickets are in the hands of the public?

That is not the point. The point is whether they are sold by the promoters to the general public, and the information in my possession is that they are sold by the promoters to members of their own body.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that it is very hard luck on the hospital committee, who may have spent a great deal of time and money in organising this, if, owing to neglect or ignorance, the tickets get into the wrong hands?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must realise that as long as there are laws it is the duty of the Home Office and the police to see that those laws are respected. I have very great difficulty in distinguishing where the line is to be drawn, but I am quite satisfied that in this case the line is rightly drawn. The Stock Exchange is inside, and the other is clearly outside. There is no doubt about it.

asked the President of the Board of Education the total amounts spent in relief of distress in Northumberland and Durham, separately, from the Lord Mayor's Fund?

The amounts spent from the Lord Mayor's Fund in Northumberland and Durham are £42,000 and £138,500 respectively.

Does the Noble Lord consider that £138,000 for Durham is an adequate share of the Lord Mayor's Fund, when it was raised for the purpose of relieving distress?

That is not Durham's share of the Lord Mayor's Fund, but the amount that has been spent up to date.

When the Noble Lord says that is not Durham's share, what does he mean?

Perhaps the hon. Member will ask his next question.

asked the President of the Board of Education the total amount subscribed to the Lord Mayor's Fund; the amount spent in relieving distress; other sums spent, and for what purpose; and the balance now in the fund?

asked the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount expended by the Lord Mayor's miners' relief fund; how much is at present in the fund; and whether urgent cases of need are being relieved since the closing of the fund?

The total amount subscribed to the Lord Mayor's Fund, including the amount voted by Parliament, is £1,734,300. The amount paid out of the fund is £733,000, leaving a balance of £1,001,300. The whole of the amount paid out, with the exception of relatively negligible sums spent on printing, etc., has been allocated for the purpose of relieving distress, which is not affected by the fact that collection for the fund has now closed. The salaries and expenses of the Civil servants lent by the Government to assist in the organisation are being met from the Grant-in-aid of Administration.

Can the Noble Lord tell us what it is proposed to do with the balance of £1,000,000 left in the Lord Mayor's Fund? With all the distress in the coalfields, is it not a disgrace that there should be so much money left in the fund?

I should have thought, with the distress in the coalfields, it was a matter for congratulation that there is still £1,000,000 to spend in relief of that distress; and that money is being spent and will continue to be spent under the system of administration which has been set up by the joint committee of the Lord Mayor's Fund.

Is the Noble Lord not aware that the public were asked to subscribe for an urgent and immediate need, and that no one imagines that that urgent and immediate need is over, and does he not think it would be better to spend that money in meeting that urgent need rather than have the whole thing carried over, in the way that the public is getting used to? Would it not be better to make a new appeal in the autumn and spend the money now in hand?

The money is being spent as fast as the local committees think it can be spent in a desirable manner. It is not being controlled or in any way held up by any central body, no appeal from any local committee has ever been refused, and no less amount of money has ever been sent to any locality than the local committee asked.

Is the Noble Lord aware that in the county of Durham tradesmen cannot get their payments made out of this fund to supply boots?

asked the Minister of Health whether, in respect of the appeal against the decision of the London County Council to zone the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate in their South-Eastern town-planning scheme as a public open space, he will state on what grounds he has directed the Council to issue an interim development order to permit this land being developed as a building estate, seeing that he had previously in writing informed the Council that their decision to zone the land as a public open space was correct?

Before allowing this development to proceed, I afforded the London County Council an opportunity of entering into an agreement for the acquisition of the land on terms to be settled, if necessary, by arbitration. The County Council did not accept the opportunity, and, as the land was ripe for building development, and no claim for compensation could be made in respect of the prevention of its development pending the preparation and approval of the town-planning scheme, which is likely to occupy a long time, I did not feel justified in refusing to allow the development to proceed.

Has the chance of this estate now being an open space finally passed?

Yes, I think it has.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can now make any announcement regarding the nature of the specific Treasury offer to the claim presented for an increase in pay of the P-class clerks?

An agreement has now been concluded in this matter between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the staffs concerned.

May I take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for the attention that has been given, which I am sure will be appreciated in all parts of the House, and will he state whether the Report will be published?

The agreement goes into very considerable detail, and I shall, if my hon. and gallant Friend desires it, have pleasure in sending him a copy.

Will it be circulated?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like a copy, I will send him one.

Would it not be better if the Report were published?

I will consider that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if, as a result of the further consideration he has been able to give to the financial position of the fishing harbours in England and Wales, he is now in a position to make a more definite announcement in regard to Brixham?

After a preliminary survey of the charges actually made at the various ports used by the inshore craft and herring industry, I anticipate that it will be possible to grant to Brixham out of the funds which have recently been made available such a sum as will be sufficient, when the benefits from the de-rating scheme are taken into account, to obviate the necessity of making any additional charges under the new Order which the Brixham Council have obtained.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate figure?

I am afraid that I cannot say what it will amount to in money, but it is the intention to prevent any additional cost either to the fishermen or to the fish salesmen on account of the service of the loan.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a large number of shares in English companies or English holdings in other companies have been sold to America during the past year; if any account has been taken of the proceeds of such sales; and how far this would explain the so-called balance of trade?

I would refer the hon. Member to the article "The Balance of Trade," in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 28th February last, and, in particular, to the table which summarises the calculations and is headed "Balances of Income and Expenditure in the Transactions (Other than the Lending and Repayment of Capital) between the United Kingdom and All other Countries." It will be clear from this heading that such transactions as those to which the hon. Member refers are not included in the calculations as to balance of trade.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy of the "Journal"?

I shall be delighted to do so, and I hope the hon. Member will become a subscriber.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British steamer "British Prince," originally known as the "London Shipper," carrying crews of white seamen on previous voyages, on the 23rd day of April, 1929, engaged a crew of Chinese sailors, firemen and members of the catering department at Dock Street shipping office, London, thus displacing 33 white seamen; that all these Chinese seamen engaged gave their address as 42, Pennyfields, East, which is a Chinese common boarding house; that a number of the Chinese engaged originally sailed in Dutch vessels; whether the language test was strictly applied to the whole of the crew and, if so, by whom; and whether, having regard to the extent of unemployment among British seamen, he will inquire into this case?

The steamship "British Prince" engaged a Chinese crew on 23rd April, for a voyage to Shanghai where the Chinese are to be discharged. The ship had previously been known as the "London Shipper" and had been employed in trade between this country and America carrying a European crew. I am informed that she is now to be employed in the Far Eastern trade for an indefinite period. The address given by the Chinese seamen was as stated in the question. Two of the Chinese stated that their previous employment was in a Dutch ship. The language test was applied to the crew by two Board of Trade Deputy Superintendents. Four of the crew, who had not been previously examined, were strictly tested. The remainder were in possession of certificates of discharge, bearing endorsements showing that they had previously passed, but were nevertheless re-examined. I am informed that the whole of the Chinese crew possessed a good knowledge of the English language.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his inquiries, ascertained whether the keeper of this boarding-house is licensed by the Board of Trade to supply these crews?

No, Sir, I have not that information, but I will certainly make inquiries. I made careful inquiries into the items set out in the question, because I thought this was a matter of some importance. Very careful investigations were made by two superintendents. I will ask about the other matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that another four or five ships belonging to this line are about to come into dock and will probably be treated in the same way, and will he see that the white crews are not replaced?

That is not quite the position. What was happening was this: This ship had been sailing between here and America and, of course, as long as she was doing that she sailed with a white crew. She is now being put into commission to sail entirely in Eastern waters, and she only took this Chinese crew for Shanghai to re-discharge them there. It is fair to say that had she taken out a British crew for that purpose the owners would have been bound under the law to repatriate them, I suppose at considerable cost.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the wages paid to these Chinese seamen will be the same or lower than the wages stipulated by the National Maritime Board?

There is, as I think the hon. Member will remember, a very important Section in the Aliens Act dealing with this point.

If the right hon. Gentleman discovers that the boarding-house in Pennyfields is an unlicensed place, will he promise the House that he will put into operation Clause 111 or 112—I am not sure which it is—of the Merchant Shipping Act? It is the anti-crimping Clause.

The hon. Member may be perfectly certain that my Department will always carry out the provisions of the Act. He would not expect me to make any further statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the total amount available for assisted emigration since the passing of the Empire Settlement Act; the amount actually expended; and the number of persons who have migrated under the Act?

I have been asked to reply to this question. If the statutory maximum of expenditure had been reached in each year since the passing of the Empire Settlement Act, the amount expended up to 31st March, 1929, would have been £19,876,993, which sum includes the amount of advances recovered. The actual expenditure authorised by Parliament during the period was £6,929,785, and the expenditure to 31st March, 1929, was £4,991,796. The total number of persons assisted under the Act to 31st March, 1929, was 308,168.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many pits were working in January, 1925; how many in January of this year and the number of workpeople employed in the respective periods?

At the end of January, 1925, 2,328 pits were working and 1,141,000 wage-earners were employed. The corresponding figures at the end of January, 1929, were 2,066 and 907,000.

Do those figures indicate that round about 500 pits have been closed since January, 1925?

That is a matter of arithmetic.

Are not the Government responsible?

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any experiments have recently been made in this country with engineless gliding planes; if so, have any useful results been recorded; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of giving official encouragement to experimental work with gliders?

As regards the first two parts of the question, I am not aware of any recent gliding experiments. As regards the last part, I am not sure what form of official encouragement my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he is thinking of financial assistance, I doubt very much whether it would be possible to find funds for this purpose without diverting them from other more essential services.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to say when the 31 persons arrested in March on a charge of conspiring to deprive the King of the sovereignty of India and kept in prison since the arrests are likely to be brought up for trial; whether the delay is entirely due to delay in the preparation of the case against these men by the Government; and, if so, whether he will make a statement to the House respecting the factors causing the delay in the preparation of the case?

The Government of India have reported that they hope to be able to start the case at the beginning of June. The hon. Member will appreciate the necessity in a case of this importance of a thorough preliminary investigation, and the material discovered in the searches at the time of the arrests was so voluminous that its examination has necessarily been a lengthy process. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that every effort is being made to bring the accused persons to trial as soon as possible.

Is the whole of the delay due to these preliminary investigations?

I do not understand the question.

In the answer the right hon. Gentleman referred to the extensive investigations which took place before the trial. Are those investigations responsible for the delay?

Certainly, and if the hon. Gentleman wants an assurance on that point he will find it in my reply.

Will the Under-Secretary tell us if it is not the case that some of the charges relate to events which took place about four months before the arrests were made, and was there not enough time to collect all the evidence before those arrests were made?

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the Government had sufficient evidence in their possession at the time of the arrests to justify the charge against these men?

That is not in order.

Surely it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Noble Lord whether at the time the Government made these arrests they had sufficient evidence to support the charge?

The question asks the reason for the delay, and the Noble Lord has answered that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the agreement which has been made between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Administration on the subject of the use and control of the Nile waters; and whether the proposed agreement will be submitted to the Egyptian Parliament?

I am glad to be able to state that an agreement satisfactory to both parties has been reached between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government with regard to the distribution of the Nile waters, and the text of the agreement has appeared in the Press. I feel sure that it will be generally recognised that this settlement cannot fail to facilitate development and promote prosperity both in Egypt and in the Sudan. I am not in a position to reply to the latter part of the question.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it very necessary, in the case of an agreement of this sort, which affects the whole of the people of Egypt, that the elected representatives of the people should be consulted?

That is entirely a domestic matter for Egypt.

In the meantime, would it not have been more decent to suggest that the Egyptian Parliament should be called together to ratify this very important agreement?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Nanking Government has banned the "North China Daily News" the use of the Chinese post office; and whether, in view of the conditions under which China is a member of the International Postal Union, he will take immediate steps to make representations to the Chinese Government against this differential treatment of the mails?

Yes, Sir; this matter has been reported by His Majesty's Minister at Peking. In view of the saving for internal legislation contained in Article 6 of the Universal Postal Convention, and of the right of prohibition defined in Article 41 (1) (g), that instrument furnishes no ground for representations to the National Government, but Sir M. Lampson has instructed His Majesty's Consul-General at Nanking to take up the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fatal accident at the Hong Kong aerodrome on the 28th April, 1929, when three Chinese subjects were killed by Lieutenant A. O. Watson, of His Majesty's Ship "Hermes," piloting one of a ceremonial escort of aeroplanes; and whether the British Government propose to offer compensation to the relatives of the victims?

I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but only a telegraphic report of this most regrettable accident has as yet been received. Pending the receipt of detailed particulars, I am not in a position to give an answer to the second part of the question.

Will the Admiralty take steps to see that this useless form of ceremonial is reduced to the very minimum?

I propose to raise, not at great length, a matter which I am sure will he of interest to the whole House, namely, the welfare and conditions of service of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, or, as I believe I am now correct in calling it, the Royal Mercantile Marine. In the last 10 years, Mr. Speaker, during which you and I have been in this House together, this matter has not often been raised, and yet there is no body of men and no industry of greater importance than this. Our Mercantile Marine is still the greatest in the world, and I believe it will be generally agreed that the nation owes a great debt of gratitude to those men of the Mercantile Marine who go down to the sea in our ships. £2,000,000,000 worth of food, oils, coal, raw materials and manufactured goods are carried in British ships every year to and from these shores, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are always roaring out about national defence, will, I am sure, be interested in anything affecting the welfare of the men who man these ships from the national defence point of view.

It is our duty wherever we can to see that the conditions of service in this great Mercantile Marine are such that the best type of efficient man and lad is attracted to the Service, whether for service on the bridge as an officer, in the engine-room, or before the mast; but I am sorry to say that for many reasons there is a danger of the best type not being attracted in the future to the Mercantile Marine, or of those who are in it leaving at the first opportunity and taking up some other employment. One difficulty, of course, is that there is a great lack of training establishments and training ships, especially for lads of poor parents. It is extremely difficult in most parts of the country for a poor lad, whose parents cannot afford to pay fees to apprentice him, to enter the Mercantile Marine and, while there are excellent training facilities for future officers—the "Worcester," the "Conway" and the "Pangbourne" turn out splendid seamen—there are not nearly enough facilities for those who cannot afford the fees which those excellent training establishments are bound to charge.

For many years the National Union of Seamen have been pressing the Board of Trade to provide greater facilities for the training of suitable youths for service at sea. I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on that subject. We have, of course, certain training facilities. In Hull, we have Trinity House, which has turned out some of the finest seamen of this or or any other age, and there is an excellent technical college at Cardiff which also does splendid work in this direction. But far too few vacancies exist for the required number of young men and boys to be trained as seamen. I believe the "Port Jackson" training ship has been paid off, and, if that is so, there is not one seagoing training ship at present engaged in training officers or boys for the Mercantile Marine under sail or under steam. In view of our immense Mercantile Marine, our immense responsibilities, and our absolute dependence on the sea for our whole prosperity and life, that is an extraordinary state of affairs. So far this matter has been left almost entirely to private persons, to the benevolent public-spirited men who provide the money, for example, for commissioning the "Port Jackson" and the great benefactors who founded our establishment at Hull. I think the time has come when the Board of Trade should take a more active interest in the mutter.

One excuse put forward for the employment of foreign seamen in such large numbers is that there are not sufficient trained British seamen. A question was put to-day with regard to the employment of Chinese. I believe there are at present 11,000 European foreigners in our ships and over 52,000 Asiatics, of whom I admit many are British subjects. Lascars are good seamen. They did splendid service in the War, and I make no kind of attack on them. They are, nevertheless, employed in very large numbers, and, I think, in certain trades which should be reserved for British seamen. The reason really is that the Lascar gets 30s. a month, and the white able seaman £9 a month. Furthermore, only very modest sums are extracted from the shipowners by the Government of India in workmen's compensation in case of an accident to Lascars. I believe the payments are not on Dearly so large a scale as for a white seaman, and therefore Lascars are employed in enormous numbers. With regard to the Chinese, there has been a great improvement from the British point of view. I believe the numbers have gone down from 14,000 to 2,000, but even that is a very great number. Of course they all claim to be British subjects. They all say they come from Hong Kong or Singapore. Although they cannot speak the local dialect of Hong Kong, they are always British subjects.

I have nothing to say against the Chinese seaman. He is an excellent seaman, reliable, and that kind of thing, but we have enormous unemployment amongst British seamen, and the Board of Trade should discourage in every possible way the employment of foreigners on all British ships, especially on the home trade. I know it is a difficult question, and it cannot be done all at once, and it is necessary to employ a certain number of non-British seamen, but I see very few signs of activity by the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of such importance. While the Chinese have decreased, there has been an increase in employment of Arabs, and they all claim to come from either Aden or India. There are more Arab seamen employed in British ships claiming to come from Aden than the whole population of Aden, men, women and children. The answer that is made, that the Englishman cannot stand the climate, is absolute nonsense. As a matter of fact, an Englishman in good health can stand extremes of hot and cold better than the Asiatic. It is an extraordinary thing, but actual statistics show in favour of the British seaman in two cases of sickness to three for the Asiatic under similar conditions. I believe the number of Arabs, who are nearly all firemen, is about 9,000, of whom about 25 per cent. can show War service. I would not suggest that they should be debarred from employment, but I think some reservation should be made to prevent an increasing number of Arabs being employed in ships trading to British ports regularly. There are certain social results of an undesirable character from these Arabs being in large quantities in British ports. Cases have occurred at Cardiff which have been published in the papers, and it is a well-known trouble.

I want now to touch on another matter altogether. I know the pay of the seamen and officers is outside the direct jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, and I am not pretending that the right hon. Gentleman should intervene in this matter directly, but in view of the low pay—I say it advisedly—the uncertainty of employment and the many disadvantages suffered by both seamen and officers, the Board of Trade, where it can, should see that their lot is made as humane and as healthy as possible. The Board of Trade cannot directly interfere at present with wages, but it can insist on proper accommodation, and it could do a great deal in regard to the hours of labour. The standard pay of an able seaman is £9 a month, a boatswain, a man who must have had years of service and must be experienced, £10 to £10 10s. a month, and a fireman, £9 10s. Some owners pay more, a few pay less. Now we come to officers. There are hundreds of officers serving as chief, second and third officers who have been holding their master's certificate for years. They have had an extensive professional training and years of service at very low pay as apprentices and junior officers. They pass a stiff examination for their certificates, and they have great responsibility and very hard work. When I mention the rates of pay, it must be remembered that the average employment on pay of the average officer in a British line is only round about seven months in the year. Any accident to a ship, the ship paid off or laid up, and he is off pay at once. The pay of a third mate is £11 10s. to about £12 10s. a month—a little more on certain lines. The pay of second mates, the majority of whom are qualified for their master's certificates, and most have them, is £14 10s. to £16 10s., and chief officers, £17 to £20 a month, with some rare cases up to £24. I know a case of a chief officer of a 7,500-ton cargo steamer who gets £19 a month.

Imagine the lot of this man. He has to keep up an appearance, he has to meet passengers, and to be well-dressed. His wife has to keep up a certain appearance, and he has to pay for his own laundry and all sorts of other expenses. Such a man has tremendous responsibilities. So much is expected of him in case of disaster. He must stay at his post and he does. He has high professional attainments and has a commission in the Royal Naval Reserve. He performed valuable services in the War, and he received only £19 a month when at sea. He is a man of the highest character and attainment. He is not entitled to any pension or superannuation and the moment that his ship is paid off he is on the labour market. He has no security of tenure. Is it to be wondered at that many of our finest seamen amongst the officers of the Royal Mercantile Marine are seeking any kind of employment on shore in order to get out of it?

What can the Board of Trade do here? The Board of Trade can do and should do—it should have done it long ago—what the officers, through their own organisation, have been asking for for years and what the majority of the best shipping lines are prepared to do, namely, introduce a general pension or superannuation scheme for the officers, and for the men too for that matter. The mortality and sickness among seamen is high. The seaman is very often past work at an earlier age than his brother on shore. As I have said, the majority of the good lines would welcome such a scheme. It would be contributory on the part of the officers, the shipping lines and His Majesty's Government. But so far the Board of Trade has been adamant. A regulation has been brought out by the Admiralty enabling lieutenant commanders to retire at 40 on a fair pension, but their brothers in the mercantile service still await some such scheme. The Board of Trade has funds which should have been applied to this purpose. I am informed that there is in the right hon. Gentleman's coffers, or has been—I do not know whether they have been raided—a very large sum, something like £1,000,000 from the old shipping fees which every officer had to pay on signing on and on being paid off. That was the custom years ago and very large sums were accumulated. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any information about these sums. Who have had them? [An HON. MEMBER: "What are these sums?"] They are large sums of money accumulated from the old shipping fees. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter and if he can give me information about them, not necessarily in this Debate, but later on, I shall be very much obliged to him. These funds would be a nucleus for such a scheme as I have mentioned.

I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman at once. I am quite sure that I have no funds in the coffers.

Where have they gone? I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman has this money stored away about his person. I would very soon search him if I thought so. What has happened to the accumulated funds from the old shipping fees? Another way in which the Government can help very much is by the instructions which they give to their representatives at the Maritime Conventions called by the International Labour Office. There is to be a meeting in October of this year, and one of the matters to be discussed from the international point of view is superannuation schemes. If this can be done internationally, the great argument of the bad shipowners who stand in the way because they say they cannot face the competition of the Greeks or of the Portuguese—and there are not many great nations now which are not ahead of us in regard to the pay and conditions of the personnel of their mercantile fleets—will be cut away from them. If the representatives of His Majesty's Government on this Convention to be held in October are sympathetic, the other nations will certainly follow our lead. They follow us in all these matters. We always take the lead in any discussion of a nautical nature, and our prestige is very great. If the right hon. Gentleman's representatives would adopt a sympathetic attitude in this matter at the next meeting, I believe that something could be done internationally. It would be one of the greatest reforms for the benefit of that very fine body of officers and men. Up to now the discussions on this matter have been confined to officers but a superannuation scheme for men of the Mercantile Marine is badly needed. The right hon. Gentleman will say: "These questions are settled by the Maritime Board." But the findings of the Maritime Board are not statutory. They can be avoided, and in some cases, I am afraid, they have been avoided.

I come to another question which is of very great importance not only to the men who man our ships but to those who send their goods in our ships and who travel in our ships. It is the question of overloading. There have been some recent cases—the "Eastway" and others—where the right hon. Gentleman has taken action. I am not making any complaint against what he does in this country. I believe that on the whole the inspection for the prevention of overloading is admirable in this country. I am not making any general attack on the Board of Trade officials, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will understand the position, but it is notorious that there is a great deal of overloading. I have been assured on this point by a great many officers at sea and by others who have left the sea. It is, I am afraid, far too common a practice. Here again it is the black sheep amongst the shipowners, and when they are black they are of the very deepest black.

The suggestions that I wish to make to the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with this matter—and the evil is mostly in foreign ports where we have no control-are: First, the present regulations of the Board of Trade should be tightened and the penalty for infringement should be increased. Secondly, all deck officers, all bridge officers and all navigating officers should be responsible for the loading of the vessel. Thirdly, the Board of Trade should issue through the press, through the official log books and in the notices to mariners, a re-statement of their intention to prosecute any person who infringes these regulations, and that any person who causes such cases to be brought to the notice of the Board of Trade shall be protected from victimisation. There we have the crux of the whole thing. There is so much unemployment amongst officers of the Mercantile Marine—and I am assured by gentlemen of the highest integrity and character that this is what happens—that when the stevedores at a foreign port want to overload a ship the officers dare not complain. They are not openly victimised, but the next time the ship lays off, their billet is filled by another. It is very important that the Consuls at the foreign ports—they come under the right hon. Gentleman's jurisdiction through the Department of Overseas Trade—should be told to take more interest in official log books and in the tank sounding books. If there is a suspicion of overloading, His Majesty's Consuls abroad should have instructions to report to the Board of Trade in this country.

4.0 p.m.

Next I must deal with the question of accommodation. The statutory accommodation for seamen is still 120 cubic feet, which is far less than for the inmates of common lodging-houses, prisons, workhouses, etc. Many shipowners have, of course, exceeded that allowance and have provided very good accommodation for their seamen. During the War the standard ships had very good accommodation indeed. They had the cubicle system in the forecastle, and it was much appreciated by the men. We have gone back since then, and new ships are being built without the cubicle system. But quite a number of foreign countries have adopted the system. The accommodation in Norwegian, Swedish and Danish ships is better than that in ours, and Spanish and Belgian ships are ahead of us. The three Scandinavian countries are very fierce competitors of ours, but they can make their ships pay, while providing decent living accommodation for the men. It is high time that the Merchant Shipping Act was amended. It has not been amended since 1906, except by certain Orders in Council. I believe that the predecessor of the present President of the Board of Trade prepared a Bill, which has been lying since in the pigeonholes of the Board of Trade. It contained many improvements of the original Act. It is a great pity that the present President of the Board did not energise a little and bring forward that Bill or one of his own.

The next item is with reference to the food scales. There is plenty of food supplied to the seaman to-day. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will get up and say that things are far better than they were 100 years ago. That, no doubt, is true. In the same way the President of the Board of Education could say that education to-day is much better than that of a hundred years ago, and the statement would be greated with loud cheers. It is high time that things were made better than they were even in 1906. There is sufficient food supplied to seamen, but there is not enough variety. Now I come to what is of the greatest importance of all, and that is the health of the seamen. The President of the Board of Trade has at his disposal few, if any, qualified medical men. If the health of the seamen is to be properly looked after, this health duty must be placed on the shoulders of the Minister of Health, who has the necessary medical officers. This is anon-non-party question. All who have a knowledge of the facts will bear me out when I say how very desirable it is that properly qualified medical men should be at the disposal of the Government to give advice in these matters.

Let me revert to the question of the men. I wonder whether the House will be surprised at the statement that I am about to make. Apart from the officers, the only person on a British liner or a cargo steamer who must have a certificate is the cook. You could send the "Mauretania" to sea to-day, under the right hon. Gentleman's regime, with two certificated officers on the bridge—only two—and no able seamen. All she would be obliged to have would be 10 efficient seamen—a very wide term. The cook would be the only other certificated person, according to the law. Hon. Members may say that it would not be done, but that is how the law stands. You can send the largest liner to sea to-day with two certificated officers only on the bridge, and the rest of the crew, apart from the engineers and the cook, could be farmers or soldiers or costermongers or lawyers. That is how the law stands. I mention this fact to show that the law certainly needs amending. I know that there have been certain Orders in Council to improve matters, but we do need a certificate for able seamen, after a proper examination, and the able seaman should be a recognised person, qualified as such. At present he gets qualified after three years' service at sea, I believe. Although many lines do insist on a very high standard amongst their seamen, that is how the law stands to-day. There was an Order in Council in 1911 fixing the men in the effective watch. That has been a slight improvement, but the Merchant Shipping Act is as I have stated—a most extraordinary state of affairs.

Another matter in which the right hon. Gentleman can help is with regard to the hours of work. I believe it was the intention of the Peace Treaty that the 48-hours week should be applied to seamen. It is high time that the 48-hours week, with payment for overtime, was insisted upon, if possible by international agreement. If the officials or representatives of the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, would give a lead in the matter at the next Convention, I believe we could get something done. There is competition now for British seamen. The Americans are going to make an attempt to build up a Mercantile Marine, and they are competing for British seamen. What do they offer? They offer 50 per cent. higher pay, better food and accommodation than is provided in British ships, and special facilities for naturalisation. If we are to continue to attract the best type of young Englishman and Scotsman and Welshman and Irishman into our Mercantile Marine, the conditions must be improved. We cannot expect a boy to leave a good home on shore, with the higher standard of living of the last 20 or 30 years, unless the conditions on a ship and the nature of the employment are such as to allow reasonable comfort.

Secondly, there must be a career for the able, intelligent and industrious young lad who goes to sea. When his talents have earned him promotion he must be assured not only of the status that he has now, which is high, but must have reasonable remuneration, some security of employment, and, above all, in old age or failing health something to prevent him and his family falling into poverty. That is the least that we should offer to the right type of young Englishman. I am certain that a contented and an efficient service, manned by the flower of the race, as it should be, would in the long run not be an extravagance but a national economy, and from the point of view of the duty of this House to our seamen and from the point of view of our national defence, I invite the President of the Board of Trade to direct the attention of his advisers to the matter and to the other matters that I have mentioned.

I could not help feeling, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking, how different is the real picture of the mercantile marine, both of shipowners and of seamen, from the picture which he painted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has travelled over a very wide field. I did not know what points he was going to raise, but I think I can deal with most of them. He painted the picture of a ship, one of our greatest liners, going to sea with two certificated officers on the bridge, and, apart from them, only the cook certificated, and he asked: "Why do you not legislate to prevent that sort of thing?" The whole of the Labour party might enter for the Grand National to-morrow. There is nothing in the British law to stop it. They probably would not win the race, and I do not know how many would get over the first fence. We do not think it necessary to pass legislation to prevent interesting spectacles like that taking place. In a great common-sense country and in a great service which has run itself for the last 100 years or more, things of that kind do not happen; you do not get great British liners going to sea manned by an entirely incompetent set of officers and men. On the contrary, what you do get is a magnificent ship going to sea with the most competent officers and the best set of men that sail the seas. You get that, not by Act of Parliament, but because we are a great maritime country, and because it is in our interest to send our ships to sea in the most efficient condition.

Of course I did not for a moment suggest that the things I mentioned would happen, but as the law stands they could happen. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Mercantile Marine has run itself for 100 years. Has he never read his own Merchant Shipping Act and other legislation on these points?

A certain number of things in the Act are to-day very largely obsolete. They were passed at a time when a ship went to sea and was out of touch with this country for 12 months at a time. We do not legislate about everything in the whole world. We do not prescribe the ordinary conduct of people in their business, more than is strictly necessary. The object of legislation—until we have "Socialism in our time"—is not to prescribe exactly how everyone is to do his daily work, but either to give assistance or to exercise such restraint as may be needed. What is really the position? The position is that you have a very efficient body of shipowners and an amazingly efficient lot of seamen. No Debate of this kind would be complete without a reference to that grand old man who has just died, Mr. Havelock Wilson. No man ever did more for those whom he represented. He did more than anyone in his day for the whole of the British Mercantile Marine, not only for the men, but for the service as a whole. While he was a great fighter for everything that concerned the best interests of his men, he always conducted negotiations in a fair and conciliatory manner, with a real appreciation of what was the issue in the long run, realising that this great service had to compete with the Mercantile Marine of other countries.

It is perfectly easy to say, "Why do you not lay down a large number of conditions under which everything will be absolutely perfect; in which the standard of every single ship comes up to the standard of comfort and convenience of the very highest type of vessel." It would be quite possible to do that, but what would be the result unless every other country in the world made similar regulations? At once it would put out of commission a large number of our ships and would put out of employment a very large number of men. Some years ago I went to Liverpool—I was invited to do so—and saw a large number of ships without warning of my visit. I visited all manner of vessels, from the latest liner, perfect in every detail, down to the worst tramp that one could see. The men on this particular tramp said to me: "The conditions on this particular ship are not very satisfactory, are they?" I said, "No. It would be perfectly easy within the law for me to make a regulation to-morrow morning—I do not think I should have to lay it before the House—which would put that ship out of commission, but would it be wise to do that? What would be the result? The ship would go out of commission and the trade would go to another flag." Is it not wiser to try to get the highest standard possible but to confine our regulations to what is necessary and reasonable, having regard to the standards which other countries adopt?

I do not believe that anyone who occupied the position of President of the Board of Trade, faced with the responsibility, not of making general speeches but by his action assisting or restricting the activities of the British Mercantile Marine, would adopt the wholesale policy of regulations of the hundred and one kinds which the hon. and gallant Member has put forward. He asks: "Why do you not bring in the admirable Bill that has been left for you by your predecessor?" I have not seen it; it does not exist. I have considered different amendments of the law, some of which have been made in our administration, and we are considering amendments from time to time. The hon. and gallant Member is entirely wrong if he suggests that his chiefs when they were in office completely recast the law governing merchant shipping, and left behind them general proposals for amending the Merchant Shipping Acts. They were far too responsible administrators to do any such thing. No one will deny that the standard which we set in safety, comfort and convenience is higher than is set by any other mercantile country in the world.