rose "to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis and to that of the Select Committee on the Tuberculosis Compensation Bill, 1904, and to the recent notification by the Meat Traders' Federation, that on and after 2nd November next they will require a warranty from every vendor of stock that animals purchased by butchers are free from disease; and to inquire whether, in view of the fact that tuberculosis is a disease which cannot be accurately diagnosed prior to slaughter, His Majesty's Government will take steps to comply with the views of the above-community, that compensation for cattle slaughtered in the interests of the public health ought to be paid for out of public funds." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is one which has been exercising the minds of the agricultural community for the past few months. It arises, I imagine, out of two causes—first, the fact that inspectors, especially in the large towns, have been more energetic lately in their condemnation of meat which, in their opinion, is unfit for human food owing to its being found to be tuberculous; and, secondly the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, in the course of which he said that the only way in which a butcher could protect himself from the consequences of the sale of such meat would be by obtaining a warranty from the vendor—namely, the farmer—that the animal in question was sound and free from tuberculosis. In consequence, the Meat Traders' Federation gave notice some time ago that on and after Monday last they would refuse to buy any meat unless they received with the carcase of the animal a warranty that it was free from tuberculosis. That was thought by farmers to be a condition to which they could not assent, and meetings have been held in all parts of the country at which it was determined to resist this demand on the part of the Meat Traders' Federation. A few days ago my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture succeeded, I believe, in getting the Federation to go so far as to say that they would postpone the demand for a warranty until 1st January, and that they would meet in conference the Central Chamber of Argiculture. But, my Lords, I do not think that a mere postponment of this demand would in any way meet the point. Farmers feel that this is a threat to which they ought not to be subject, and that they could not go into any conference unless the Meat Traders' Federation had agreed to withdraw the demand altogether, and I am glad to be able to say that at a meeting to-day it was decided that the demand for a warranty should be withdrawn, and that a Conference should be held in the hope that some arrangement might be come to. I have much sympathy with the meat traders, who for a long time have suffered under these disabilities from which they are quite unable to protect themselves. It is impossible, as your Lordships possibly know, to tell from the appearance of an animal when it is alive whether it is tuberculous or not; it is only after the animal has been slaughtered and a veterinary examination has taken place that it is possible to say whether or not the animal is fit for human food. But while I have this sympathy with the meat traders, I cannot see on what principle of justice or equity the cost of sacrifice of the carcase can be expected to fall entirely on the farmer. This is not a new question. A Tuberculosis Compention Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1904 and was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee gave a most attentive consideration to the matter, and finally reported that in their opinion—for which they gave several cogent reasons, with which I need not trouble your Lordships—compensation ought to be paid to the farmers for the loss sustained, of which the larger part ought to come out of public funds. That is, I think, a very reasonable proposition. The object, of course, of condemning these carcases is to protect the public health, and if the public health is to be protected the public are the proper people to pay for that protection. There is a very interesting statement in the October number of the Journal of the Board of Agriculture showing what has been done in this respect in other countries. I find that ever since 1893, compensation has been paid by the State in Denmark; in Norway that has been so for several years; in Holland any cattle owner whose animal is found to be tuberculous receives compensation from the State; in Belgium he receives 70 per cent. of the value of the animal; and in France one-third of the value if wholly tuberculous, and three-fourths if the disease is only local. A question somewhat similar to that which I am now addressing to His Majesty's Government was put to the President of the Local Government Board in the other House, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that he did not, as at present advised, contemplate introducing a Bill to deal with the subject. That might mean one or two things—either that it was the settled determination of His Majesty's Government to have nothing to do with it, or that the Government were too fully occupied at present with other business, but might be induced some day or another to bring in a Bill to provide compensation. What I want to know is, do the Government intend to do this, or do they not? If this conference is to meet—and certainly it is most desirable it should meet—are those who attend to waste their time discussing the question of pressing upon His Majesty's Government the desirability of providing compensation when the Government have made up their minds not to do so? I really think that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has shown his desire in so many ways to help the farmers, may best help them to help themselves by telling them quite plainly what is the intention of His Majesty's Government. If the Government do not intend to grant compensation, then those whose business it is to advise the farming community in these matters will look about and see if they can find some means by which this difficulty can be got over. All I ask is that His Majesty's Government should give a plain answer to a plain question, and state whether they do or do not intend to admit the principle of compensation by the State in such cases.

My Lords, my noble friend has asked a straightforward question, and I hope I shall be able to give him a straightforward answer. The substantial question raised by the noble Earl is whether compensation is to be paid out of public funds for tuberculous carcases destroyed in the interest of public health. If I may be allowed to do so without being thought too pedantic, I might offer a remark on the form of the Question as it appears on the Paper. I would observe that cattle are not slaughtered in the interest of the public health; it is after the cattle are slaughtered and the carcases exposed for sale that the question of destruction in the interest of the public health comes in. When carcases are destroyed the loss, as the noble Earl has justly pointed out, usually falls on the owner—that is, the butcher. We have been reminded by the noble Earl that the National Federation of Meat Traders recently passed a Resolution that after 2nd November they would require a warranty from every vendor of stock that animals purchased by butchers are free from disease, the object, of course, being to divert the loss from the butcher to the farmer; whereas the farmer is naturally very anxious to receive compensation in respect of such cattle if he has to make good the loss sustained by the butcher. I am very glad to hear from the noble Earl that the Central Chamber of Agriculture has, on behalf of the farmers, agreed to meet the Meat Traders' Federation in conference on the subject. For many years it has been a debatable question whether or not compensation should be paid in respect of loss due to the destruction of tuberculous meat. The Royal Commission on Tuberculosis of 1906 reported against compensation, mainly on the ground that the purchase of tuberculous animals was an incident of trade. They thought that the risk was not great, and that it might be met in the main by a system of insurance. It is the fact, however, that in 1904 a Select Committee of the House of Commons considered a Bill on this subject, and reported in favour of some compensation being paid. They recommended, I think, that it should not extend beyond one-half of the value of the animal, and that it should be paid out of Imperial funds. The noble Earl has referred to this recommendation. He inquires whether the Government will take steps to comply with the views of this Committee and of the farming community that compensation should be paid out of public funds in such cases. That is a plain question. The late Government, of which the noble Earl was a member, did not act upon the Report of the Select Committee in 1904, and the present Government do not see their way to do so either. As your Lordships are aware, a Royal Commission, appointed in 1901, is still sitting on the subject of tuberculosis, and has not, therefore, dually reported. The Commissioners may, of course, have something to say as regards compensation, and their views will naturally receive the very careful attention of His Majesty's Government; but, as has already been pointed out, the previous Commission was not in favour of compensation. The Government, therefore, under all the circumstances, cannot hold out any expectation that they will promote legislation to provide for the payment of compensation where carcases arts destroyed in the interests of the public health. It is not admitted that in such circumstances a case for compensation arises, and it is considered that the difficulty can reasonably be met by insurance, the adoption of which system I trust the noble Earl will encourage amongst his agricultural friends.

My Lords, before my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture speaks, I should like to say a few words on this subject. Certainly my noble friend Lord Onslow has got a perfectly straight answer as regards theintentions of His Majesty's Government in the matter of the payment of compensation. It seems that the reason given by the noble Lord for not taking action is that the late Government had not done so. I do not think that is a very good reason, because in my opinion the late Government ought to have taken action in this matter. The noble Lord tells us that the Government are going to wait, as a Commission on Tuberculosis is sitting which may give them valuable information, and enable them to make up their minds more distinctly on the subject. I was rather surprised to hear that, because your Lordships know that in other cases the Government did not wait for the Reports of Royal Commissions, but went on all the same. I wish to put one or two considerations before my noble friend Lord Carrington and also before the House—considerations which are animated in me as a grazier. I come from a grazing district. I farm between 600 and 700 acres of land. I do not rear, I sell, and I sell as quickly as I can. I like the amusement of chopping and changing, and I very often take the smallest possible profit. These considerations are animated especially by my recollection of some years ago having served on a Committee on the question of the marking of foreign meat, of which my noble friend who raised this question this evening was Chairman. At that time the present Lord Burghclere, who was then Mr. Herbert Gardner, was President of the Board of Agriculture. It was my lot to do the little work that fell to the representative of the Board of Agriculture in your Lordships' House, and I was, therefore, put on this Committee as a representative of the Government. I only arrived from Yorkshire this morning, having travelled as far as Leeds with a gentleman largely interested in grazing who is also a member of that autocratic body the West Riding County Council; and, from our conversation, I can say that Lord Onslow did not in the slightest exaggerate when he said that by farmers in that part of the world this whole question of warranty is looked upon as a danger to their industry. I turn back to the Meat Marking Committee. I have not troubled to look up the Report of that Committee, but anyone who read it and has an ordinary memory will have a distinct recollection that there is a predilection in the purchasing public in favour of home-grown meat. I do not say that that predilection is entirely patriotic. I do not think it is. But people regard home grown meat as better, and if they have friends visiting them they like to draw attention to the fine Scotch or the small Welsh smoking on the mahogany. But it would become altogether another thing if the confidence of the public were shaken as to the wholesomeness of home-grown meat. We all live now in a state of morbid apprehension as to what we eat and drink. There was, I believe, an age called the Palælithic Age, and there was the Old Red Sandstone Age. I believe this age will come to be known as the age of the bacillus, the microbe, and the tubercle. After all, butchers, like other people, are endowed with the faculty of forming opinions which spring from the pocket, and I have very little doubt that if, by side issues of any sort or by any suspicion thrown on home-grown meat, it came about that the general public preferred foreign meat to home grown, they would only be too glad to indulge their fancy. Butchers would be more than human if they would not prefer to buy more cheaply what they could sell more dearly, and give their customers equal satisfaction. Therefore, it seems to me that if, by casting imputation of unwholesomeness or unsoundness on English meat, the present predilection is at all shaken, we might very likely find butchers almost entirely giving up buying home-grown stock and relying on the foreign supply. I hope that if this conference does got to work these points will not be overlooked, and I trust that the noble Earl who sits on the Bench below me (Earl Carrington), who, as Lord Onslow said, extends an aegis to all kinds of agriculture, will boar in mind a few of the considerations I have tried to put before the House. There was one thing my friend in the train pointed out; it has nothing to do with meat, though it does concern the health of the public at large—I refer to the question of milk. In country districts the rural authorities have considerable powers, given them, I think, under the last Local Government Act, but apparently for some reason or other, they are not, as my friend pointed out, very active in putting them in motion. I think something of that sort might be done. Those connected with farming no doubt resent anyone coming down and saying "This is all a mistake; you ought to have a great deal more room here, and plateglass windows there; and the man who does this sort of work ought to be dressed in suitable white ducks." Nevertheless, a little in this direction might be done with advantage; and if we do not help our small local authorities to look after these things, the tendency will be for central bodies like the West Riding County Council, largely made up of extremely capable and vigorous-minded townspeople, to get that into their hands like other things, and they will insist on sending their own men who know nothing about the practice of the country and will not take into consideration the various vicissitudes and difficulties with which small dale farmers have to contend. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further; but I put it to you, if by any side issue, such as that raised by the question of warranty, it should come about that home-grown meat was discredited and that butchers were encouraged by their customers to buy in the foreign market, it would be a very serious thing for your tenantry.

My Lords, I do not know that I have anything much to add to this interesting discussion. I can only repeat that an agreement to meet and confer with each other has been come to between the Butcher's Federation and the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the warranty question, and that we are now within measurable distance of turning a corner which appeared at one time a very awkward one to get round. My noble friend beside me was quite right in calling the attention of the House to the fact that the noble Earl's Question as it stands on the Paper is not very happily worded. Cattle are not at present slaughtered in the interest of public health but only if suffering from contagious disease to prevent that contagion spreading, and then, of course, compensation is paid. There was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Edinburgh recently, which was, happily, stamped out at a cost of £4,000. This money was paid without any grumbling. Still, I thank the noble Earl for putting this Question, because it was to a certain extent opportune, and it enabled my noble friend beside me to state perfectly clearly the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the payment of compensation for meat seized as unfit for human food. In this connection, as my noble friend said, it is pleasant to think that our negative attitude is in harmony with, that of the late Government of which the noble Earl was a distinguished Member. The late Government remained in office about eighteen months after the Select Committee referred to reported, and they took no notice of the Committee's recommendations, though the Chairman of the Committee was the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. One sentence fell from the noble Earl which I think I might ask him to explain. He said he considered that this demand for compensation was a reasonable proposition. Now, what does that mean? I should like very respectfully to ask the noble Earl whether he is himself in favour of compensation being paid out of public funds when meat, which is unfit for human food, is seized to prevent it being exposed for sale. If so, I think he is touching the fringe of a very serious question. My Department deals with other things besides meat. Are fish and eggs and vegetables to be excluded, and is compensation to be paid for meat only? As regards that, I think I might be permitted to remind the House of what Mr. Walter Long said on 16th April, 1904—three months before the Select Committee reported. Mr. Long said—

"The already heavily burdened ratepayers must be considered, and he certainly must be understood as giving no promise to support a proposal that compensation should come from the Imperial Exchequer."

There seems to be some diversity of opinion between the noble Earl and the right hon. Gentleman, both of whom have held the office of Minister for Agriculture. As regards the fears of my noble friend behind me, Lord Ribblesdale, I am sure that everything he has said will be carefully considered at the conference, and I hope that his somewhat gloomy prognostications will not be realised. Tuberculosis, after all, is not scheduled under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and there would be enormous difficulties to be faced were it included; but we are most carefully considering whether it is within the range of practical politics to deal with it in the living animal when it assumes the form of tuberculosis of the udder. If action in this direction is feasible and is attended with success, the difficulties to which Lord Ribblesdale has alluded will be considerably diminished.

My Lords, I rise to call the atention of the Government to the subject of what are termed "P.P.I." insurance policies on British merchant ships; to point out certain evils attaching to these policies; and to ask whether a committee representative of the different interests is to be appointed to consider the matter, or otherwise, whether any other steps are to be taken in regard to it. It would, perhaps, be well if at the outset I explain what "P.P.I." policies are, as it is quite likely that some of your Lordships may not have heard of them. The letters "P.P.I." mean "policy proves interest," and underwriters or insurance companies settle claims upon these policies without requiring the insurer to prove that he has any interest whatever in that which he has insured. I venture to remind your Lordships that an insurance effected by any person who has no personal interest in it beyond pure speculation is, in law, invalidated. If, for instance, anybody insures a ship in which he has no interest whatever the insurance resolves itself into a gamble on her being lost or otherwise, and a very pernicious form of gambling it is. The law is evaded by the issuing of "P.P.I." policies, otherwise they may be called "honour" policies; and in case of a ship's loss the underwriters settle the claims, even though, in law, they are not liable to do so. Recent disclosures at Board of Trade inquiries show that, amongst a certain class of the shipping community, it has become a favourite practice to pick out certain ships which, for one or several reasons, they think are likely to be lost at sea. They can get fairly big odds against it in the marine insurance market, and, consequently, take out "P.P.I." policies on these ships. Probably they know that they are old craft carrying every additional ounce of cargo permitted by the new deeper-loading Regulations. If the ships happen to meet with disaster and insurances on them of this class are subsequently re- vealed, is it not natural that grave suspicion must fall upon somebody, principally, of course, on those who command the ships? It is only human to suspect that there has been a conspiracy on the part of somebody in perpetrating a criminal act for the sake of gain. Coming to a case in point I would bring to your Lordships' notice the recent Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the steamer "Albion." I understand that it was through the underwriters—who appeared not to relish paying on the "P.P.I." polices they had issued on the ship—that the Board of Trade first became aware of the fact that complete outsiders had effected large insurances on her. The Board then set on foot a most searching and expensive investigation in procuring all available evidence for presentation at the formal Board of Trade inquiry. Every little point out of the common provided an additional source of suspicion, and all the necessary witnesses were retained and maintained for a far longer period than is usually the case with these inquiries. The inquiry was of a very protracted character, taking five days, and the expense falling upon the parties to the case in the shape of lawyers' fees far heavier than usual. The captain's anxiety was not lessened by the fact that not only his professional reputation and career might be doomed, but that an adverse decision so far as he was concerned would mean his figuring in the dock on a criminal charge of a most desperate character. Fortunately, the captain was, and had been for some years, a member of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, who spared no effort in defending his interests, with the result that there was found to be not a scintilla of evidence showing that the captain had been guilty of a criminal act or had known anything of the nefarious transactions which had been going on regarding his ship in the form of "P.P.I." policies. What is more, in acquitting the captain from blame in connection with the loss of the ship, the Court made the following important statement—

"The Court desires to express its strong disapprobation of 'P.P.I.' insurances by persons who have no insurable interest in the vessel insured, as such insurances tend to raise the premiums to be paid by ordinarily interested insurers, and also to throw suspicion on owners, captains, and officers on the ground of the vessel being over-insured. They are merely speculative gambles, and, in the opinion of the Court, they should be prohibited by legislation."

My Lords, my contention is that we must not let the matter rest where it is. We cannot allow innocent people to be placed under grave suspicion and at the same time put the country to great additional expense in connection with Board of Trade inquiries into shipping casualties merely that a few people—known chiefly as "Cardiff wreckers"—should be permitted to indulge in a most baneful form of gambling. I might quote also the case of the loss of the "Oxus," where it has been proved in evidence at the Board of Trade inquiry that a large number of "P.P.I." policies had been effected on her by people having no interest whatever in the ship, except that she should be lost. One of the witnesses said that he took out a policy for £1,000 on the steamer at £10 10s. per cent. It appears that it was not his first transaction, for he mentioned four other steamers in connection with which he had taken out similar policies. Two were lost, one was not lost but broken up, whilst the witness stated that his policy on the remaining one expired before she was lost.

I hope the noble Lord will pardon me for interrupting him, but I would remind him that the case to which he is alluding is now under consideration. I would, therefore, suggest that it is hardly proper to refer to it at the present moment.

I am only alluding to the evidence of this particular witness, and I do so because it has a very important bearing on the point which I wish to put before your Lordships. Further cross-examination elicited the fact that the witness had had speculative insurances on five vessels, four having been lost and been subject to Board of Trade inquiries. There is one point in this witness's evidence which will, perhaps, permit me to remind your Lordships of the earnest protest I entered when the new Regulations allowing the much greater immersion of British ships were promulgated by the Board of Trade. In this case of the "Oxus" the witness whose evidence I have referred to, and who is a marine surveyor, said that he specially picked out vessels which had five or six inches less freeboard than they had before the new Regulations came into force, and mentioned the names of two steamers he had specially picked because of this fact. I hope that the Board of Trade will take this significant little bit of evidence to heart. It shows to what greater peril the lives of British mariners are exposed under the new Regulations. The case of the "Oxus," as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, is still proceeding, but, whatever may be the decision, there can be no doubt as to the mischievous nature of these "P.P.I." policies. Now, my Lords, it has been contended in several quarters that it is the underwriters who can very easily solve the difficulty by declining to grant these policies. But I am sorry to say that, in my humble opinion, it is hopeless to expect anything of the sort from underwriters. There is very fierce competition amongst them, and almost all of them are very closely identified with shipowning interests. Even where they are in cordial sympathy with anything which makes for the greater safety of ships—take, for example, the Light Load Line—it is almost impossible to get them publicly to take a stand in the matter. This was so in connection with the Light Load Line, where, although I knew that underwriters were in the greatest sympathy with me, it was only in one case that I could get active public support. Therefore, we must look elsewhere than to underwriters to deal with the question of "P.P.I." policies. There is an absolute consensus of opinion amongst shipping interests that it is the Board of Trade who should take some firm action in the matter. Shortly after the case of the "Albion," Mr. Moore, the Secretary of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, addressed a strong communication to the Press pointing out the dangerous evil of these policies as casting grave suspicion on innocent men. I heard of one shipowner who, discovering that there were a number of "P.P.I." policies effected on his ship, dismissed all the crew and laid the vessel up. This shows what serious suspicions must have been aroused in him by these policies, and it also shows what hardship the captain, officers, and crew of that vessel had to suffer through them. Mr. Moore, writing on behalf of the captains and officers of merchant ships, stated that barratry amongst shipmasters at the present day was a thing unknown, and he dwelt upon the fact that their position at a Board of Trade inquiry where these "P.P.I." policies are shown to exist, was not so much the defence of their certificates, as to save themselves from gaol and the lasting humiliation and degradation of themselves and their friends. Then, my Lords, from the chief seat of the evil—Cardiff—we find that the Shipowners' Association of that port have passed the following resolution—

"That this Association strongly deprecates the gambling that is taking place in 'P.P.I.' policies, whereby insurers gamble in vessels in which they have no interest, to the detriment of shipowners and other legitimate insurers, and trusts that the Board of Trade will devise some means to counteract the evil."

This resolution was strongly endorsed by the Cardiff Incorporated Chamber of Commerce. One of the members of the Chamber stated that Cardiff had been a hot-bed of these "P.P.I." policies, and it was really time the business was put a stop to. Mr. Humphries, the President of the Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, regards it as most unsatisfactory that people without any interest, either direct or indirect, in steamships or their cargoes should be able to take out policies which are highly speculative and nothing more or less than a gamble. Mr. Humphries qualifies himself in stating that at the same time the legitimate current of insurance business should not be hampered. I quite agree with him in this. Another large shipowning organisation which supports the resolution of the Cardiff Shipowners' Association is the North of England Steamship Owners' Association, which has gone so far as to appoint a special committee of three of its members to take part in an interview with the Board of Trade and give evidence if required. I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into my case. I think I have given your Lordships ample evidence of the fact that there exists a serious amount of gambling in connection with British ships and the lives of their crews. I hope that the Board of Trade will see that the question is thoroughly threshed out. It seems to me that a committee representing all the different shipping interests would be the best procedure to adopt in order to arrive at some satisfactory decision in the matter. If such a committee be formed I hope that, whilst shipowners will be represented, our captains and officers will not be ignored. They should have the fullest representation, as their interests are affected even more than those of the shipowners in this matter. I trust to hear from my noble friend opposite that this subject is occupying the earnest attention of the Board of Trade, and that they propose to take some practical steps to eradicate what I think your Lordships will all regard as an unquestionable evil.

My Lords, I am in entire agreement with Lord Muskerry on this question. There can be no doubt that these "P.P.I." insurance policies have added to the dangers of the sea. During the last half-century we have been rapidly reducing those dangers by means of better charts and methods of navigation, by employing more light ships and by improvements in shipbuilding; but this is a new danger which ought to be checked before it attains any large dimensions. The noble Lord did not give the House the figures of the insurances effected through "P.P.I." policies in the case of the "Albion." I find, from the Board of Trade Report, that there were insurances, other than re-insurances, effected upon and in connection with the ship at the time of her loss by persons having no insurable interest in the ship, cargo, or freight, to the extent of £12,600, in amounts varying from £100 to £3,400. In the case of the "Powis," Mr. T. W. Lewis, the Judge, stated in his Report that—

"The difficulty of ascertaining the truth becomes insuperable when the witnesses deliberately mislead the Court. Misrepresentations by seafaring men of the humblest class to whom the witness box is strange, who may not be quick of apprehension, may, perhaps, be ignored; but if highly intelligent astute men of business may with impunity deliberately mislead a Wreck Inquiry Court, the great public expense of such Courts is entirely wasted and the ends of justice defeated."

The Court added—

"There are, however, other parties affected whose interests are not protected and whose lives are disregarded, viz., the officers and crew. Where a vessel is over-insured, one of the most powerful incentives for keeping her in good condition and seaworthiness is removed; and over-insurance also offers a dangerous temptation to persons, or the agents of persons, who will gain by the loss of the vessel. Whether lost through unseaworthiness or foul play the lives of the crew are imperilled. The effectual prevention of such an unnecessary peril to seafaring men is worthy of the attention of the legislature. That the evil is not a small one is shown by the fact that in this Court alone the 'Powis' is the third inquiry within two years in which each of the vessels lost has been insured for many thousands of pounds in excess of her value."

The sum of £4,125 was in "P.P.I." policies, which had been effected, according to one witness's evidence, to enable the owners to pay the liabilities and debts she had incurred in trading; the insurances as a whole exceeded the genuine value by at least £9,500. The system is nothing more nor less than gambling in human lives and should be declared illegal. When a man effects one of these insurances for a high sum all he has to do is to set about to bribe one of the crew to wreck the vessel. A scoundrelly act of that kind could be very simply done. Nothing is easier than for an engineer to lose a ship if he is a scoundrel, and these large bribes to men who are short of money should not be available. I heard of one owner who dismissed his captain and the whole of the crew because he had learned that people were playing with "P.P.I." policies on the ship, and he regarded this as the only certain way of getting rid of the person whom the "P.P.I." policy holders had got at. I have noticed that whilst there are most honourable exceptions, the ships of single ship companies are not as safe to go to sea upon as ships belonging to large companies. I have no more to say on the subject at present, but shall probably put a Question on the matter at a later period of the session.

My Lords, my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade has twice within the last few days made statements upon this subject in another place. I do not, however, for a moment complain of the action of the noble Lord opposite who has asked this Question to-day, because the subject is a deeply interesting one and the issues involved are of the greatest possible importance to the mercantile marine of this country. I agree with almost everything which has been said by the two noble Lords who have addressed the House, and I can assure them that this matter is receiving the most earnest consideration of the Board of Trade. This practice of gambling in what are known as "P.P.I." insurance policies is, undoubtedly, carried on to a certain extent at the present moment. It is difficult to find out exactly to what extent it is done, because these matters are naturally conducted under a veil of secrecy. As the noble Lord who asked the Question has pointed out, any such insurance made by a person who has no insurable interest in the ship or cargo is void in law, but in practice these "honour" policies, as they are termed, are almost invariably paid, because the underwriters are so jealous of their reputation and so anxious to avoid gaining the character of being men who dispute claims made against them that they would sooner pay, even in doubtful cases. We have heard lately that certain people frequent docks for the purpose of finding a ship which is likely to be wrecked in very much the same way as a man goes into the paddock on a racecourse with the object of "spotting a winner." This form of gambling is, of course, of a peculiarly ghoulish and horrible character, because of the grave risk to human lives involved in the wreck of a ship. But, if there were nothing else connected with it, I hardly think it would be a matter which would call for interference, much as we might deprecate its existence. Unfortunately, however, there are other considerations, because it is no doubt possible for collusion to exist between persons who have taken out this form of policy and some person connected with the ship, however distantly connected he might be—it might only be as a dockyard labourer, who might have the opportunity of causing the loss of the ship; and the stakes which can be played for in this terrible game are so enormous that there is no doubt they must offer a very grave temptation to unscrupulous people. Again, if it were simply a question of fraud being perpetrated at the expense of the underwriters who choose to deal in this class of policy, I think that would be a matter which we might regard with a certain amount of equanimity; but, as the noble Lord has said, the counters which are played for in this game are human lives, and therefore it must be regarded as being extremely serious. Investigations which have so far taken place have disclosed the fact that these policies are, occasionally, used legitimately in business for the purpose of insuring properly insurable interests, because, for certain reasons, they are sometimes more convenient; and what my right hon. friend is most anxious to do, in dealing with this matter, is to find some way of putting a stop to the illegal and dangerous use of this system, while not interfering with the course of legitimate trade. With that object in view, he is very shortly to hold a conference with the different interests involved, and when that conference has taken place I have no doubt that, if the noble Lord again asks a Question on the subject, I shall be able to give him a great deal more definite information on the matter.