The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-05-24 00:00:00

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.

I made oii

Mr. Chamberlain, in moving the second reading of
the Merchant Shipping Bill, went at length into the
history of the question,„,and of the previous legislation
and attempts at legislition. Then he gave startling
figures illustrating the increased loss of life at sea in
recent years, the chief causes of which he traced to
over-loading, undermanning, and over-insurance. The
great majority of these losses, he argued, quoting high
professionar authority, including assessors and ship-
owners, were preventable. The present law, he showed,
had entirely failed, mainly because it endeavoured
to fix a criminal responsibility on the shipowners,
which in the great majority of cases was im-
possible. Examining other methods, he laid special
stress on the prevention of over - insurance.
Over-insurance of ships, Mr. Chamberlain as-
serted, was very common, and over-insurance of
freight was almost universal, and to illustrate this
Mr., Chamberlain cited numerous cases in which sums
have been recovered for the loss of or damage to ships
far exceeding their value. So dangerous a practice
ought to be put a stop to. The true line, he insisted,
was to make it impossible for any owner to reap a
profit out of the loss of his ship, as was possible under
the present law. Explaining the bill as amended in
communication with the shipowners, he said its prin-
ciple was that the contract of insurance would be a
contract of indemnity, policies in excess of value
would be void, and valued policies would be liable to be
opened, with two qualifications—that the excess was
unreasonably above the true value, and that the appli-
cation to open should come from 50 per cent. of the
insurance value. The net freight only is to be re-
covered. There are provisions against double in-
surance, and there will be an unimpeachable con-
tract of seaworthiness, with certain exceptions. The
Employers Liability Act is to be extended to the
mercantile marine' errors of navigation being excepted;
the provisions of the Act are not extended to cargo;
trial by jury is abolished as far as marine insurance
cases are concerned, and they may be taken into the
Common Law Courts. Finally, Mr. Chamberlain inti-
mated his residiness to refer the administration of the
Shipping Department of the Board of Trade to a Royal
Commission, and concluded a speech of more than
three hours and a half in length by defending his pro-
posals against them that they would drive the shipping
trade to foreign countries, and appealing to all sections
to support a bill which embodied not all he desired to
do, but all that he found possible.
Mr. Maclver moved the rejection of the measure,
observing that he should not have taken that course if
he had seen any indication of willingness on the part of
the right hon. gentleman to accede to the demand of
the shipowners that the measure should be sent to a
Select Committee. He regarded the bill as a MOIkII-
- of the ignorance and incapacity of the Board of
Trade, and believed that it would not merely do nothing
to increase the safety of life and property at sea, but
would do actual harm.

Mr. C. Valmer also opposed the bill, and urged that
the subject, and especially the charges against the
shipowners, should be inquired into by a Select Com-
mittee or a Royal Commission.
Mr. E. Stanhope, speaking for the late Government,
sat* they would abide by all the declarations they had
made on the subject. Most of the difficulties in Mr
Chamberlain's way were the creation of his own reck-
less attacks on the shipowners and party management
of the question. Although he denied that the figures
showed an increase of preventable loss of life propor-
tional to the increase in the tonnage and the number
of seamen employed, he admitted that a case for legis-
lation had been made out. Canvassing the provisions
of the bill he doubted the expediency of extending the
Employers' Liability Act to the Mercantile Marine, and
strongly opposed the proposal to open valued policies.
But of the other proposals for preventing over-insur-
ance he generally approved. He thought the bill quite
unsuited for a Standing Committee..
Mr. Williamson hoped that the bill would be read a
second time, so that its defects might be corrected by
a committee.
Mr. Gorst cordially supported the second reading,
and blamed the Government for the long delay in
bringing the bill forward.
Mr. E. Smith also supported the second reading, in
order that the bill might be referred to a Select Com-
mittee, where the controversy started by the President
of the Board of Trade might be fully investigated.
On the motion of Mr. E. Clarke, the debate was
adjourned.
Some other business was disposed of, and the House
adiourned at a quarter to two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OP LORDS, May 20, the Secretary for
Itcotland Bill was, after a short discussion, read a
second time, and the Greek Marriages and the Public
Libraries Acts Amendment Bills passed through com-
mittee. The Great Seal Bill was also read a second
time. On the motion of the Earl f.. 4 Derby, a second
reading was given to the Colonial Prisoners Removal
Bill, by which it was proposed to remove the necessity
now existing to retain prisoners who had been sentenced
in any colony to imprisonment or penal servitude within
the limits of that colony.
Lord Stratheden and Campbell was about to move a
resolution declaring it to be undesirable to remove the
statue of the Duke of Wellington from London until
the public had had an opportunity of judging the monu-
ment by which it was to be replaced, when Earl Gran-
ville moved that the motion should not be made, on the
ground that a similar one had already been rejected by
their }-,:dships. In this the noble earl was supported
by the Lcrd Chancellor and opposed by the Earl of
Wemyss and the Earl of Carnarvon, and his proposal
was negatived by 78 to 52.
Lord Stratheden and Campbell then proposed his
resolution, but subsequently withdrew it in favour of
one by Lord De Ros, which declared that the statue
should not be removed from London.
On a division, this was carried by 66 to 44, a majority
of 22 against the Government.
Their lordships rose at half-past sever ~;'clock.

In the HOUSE OF CommoNs at the morning sitting
Mr. Gladstone assured Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett that the
proposed Conference of the Powers on Egyptian finance
was not convened at the suggestion of the Russian
Government.