This division was regarded at the time as of great political

importance. Much uncertainty and speculation had before prevailed as to

the relative state of parties upon the question in the House of Lords,

and the fate of the Administration was generally supposed to depend on

the decision as to the second reading of the Bill. The Shipowners were

in the highest degree exasperated that they should be defeated by that

which they called a pocket majority of proxies, as they had actually

a majority of the Peers present adverse to the Bill. Perhaps that

which occasioned the deepest mortification to them was that the Duke

of Wellington, who had recently called attention to the state of the

national defences, voted with the majority. With so narrow a majority

as ten against them, the Shipowners resolved to make fresh efforts to

obtain another division in committee, when, as proxies could not be

accepted, it was anticipated that the obnoxious measure would be so

altered, as to deprive it of its most objectionable features.

Accordingly Lord Stanley on the 18th May gave notice that he intended

to propose the rejection of all the repealing clauses, _i.e._ the

first and second, and, in point of fact, make the principle of the Bill

one of conditional legislation. He proposed, farther, to enable British

ships to bring the produce of Asia, Africa, and America indirectly,

and to modify in the same spirit the clauses relating to the European

trade. It should be remarked that the alarming news of an extensive

rebellion in Canada had reached England since the day of the second

reading, and a growing desire was felt that this great question of

repeal should be finally settled one way or the other.

[Sidenote: Proceedings and debate in committee.]

[Sidenote: Lord Stanley’s amendment.]

In committee on the Bill (21st May), Lord Stanley brought forward his

amendment, Lord Wharncliffe having given notice of one of the same

or nearly similar tendency. The object of Lord Wharncliffe’s[126]

amendment was that, until her Majesty should be fully satisfied that

foreign countries would grant full reciprocity and commerce to this

country, her Majesty should have no power to abrogate or repeal the

Navigation Laws, so far as they affected the ships and commerce of

those countries. Lord Stanley’s aimed at the same object. His Lordship

said the distinction between his measure and that of the Government

assumed this shape. Should we proceed to repeal, and then to re-enact

a small portion, yet a portion, of the Navigation Laws which was the

most burdensome to the British owner and the least advantageous to

British commerce? or should the repeal be made conditional, by an

enabling clause which conferred on the Queen the requisite power, when

satisfied that reciprocity was accorded to us?

[Sidenote: Rejected by 13.]

The question gave rise to a very long and animated discussion, in which

Earl Grey, the Earl of Harrowby, Earl Granville, Lord Colchester, the

Marquess of Clanricarde, Lord Brougham, Lord Fitzwilliam, and the

Marquess of Lansdowne took part; Lord Wharncliffe severing himself from

Lord Stanley, and, in fact, voting against his amendment. The division

which terminated this discussion was decisive of the fate of the Bill.

On the question of Lord Stanley’s amendment there appeared, Contents,

103; Non-contents, 116: Majority against the amendment, 13! As no

proxies in this division influenced the result, Lord Stanley at once

withdrew all opposition to the repeal of the 8 & 9 Vict. cap. 88, which

he only wished amended.

[Sidenote: Earl of Ellenborough’s amendment.]

[Sidenote: Claims of Shipowners,]

[Sidenote: and fear of competition.]

The Committee of the Lords sat again on the 24th May, when Lord

Ellenborough moved an amendment that instead of the Bill coming into

operation on the 1st January, 1850, it should come into operation on

the 1st January, 1851. This amendment was in accordance with the prayer

of a petition from the General Shipowners’ Society, urging various

reasons for delay. It was admitted, his Lordship said, that one of the

chief objects of the measure was to diminish the rates of freight; and

it was contended that the greater the competition between the shipping

of foreign States and the shipping of this country the greater would

be the diminution of the rate of freight generally; but, added his

Lordship, British Shipowners have not the means of diminishing their

expenditure at once, so as to enable them to compete with foreign

shipowners upon equal terms, before the Act came into operation. The

time allowed for preparation, he continued, was only seven months;

but, during that period, a large number of British vessels would not

have arrived from distant places abroad, and, therefore, there would

be no means of making changes in the modes of sailing and manning

them. The contemplated reduction of men required to be made by the

owners of ships to enable them to compete with the foreign owners was

held to be of great importance. It was computed that five men were

employed in every British vessel to every 100 tons; while, in foreign

vessels, only three or four men were required for the same amount of

tonnage. Assuming 230,000 as the number of seamen employed by British

shipowners, there must be a reduction of one-fifth; in other words,

47,500 British sailors must be thrown out of employment.

[Sidenote: Amendment rejected by a majority of 12.]

In mercy, therefore, exclaimed his Lordship, to all parties interested,

a sufficiently long time ought to be given for preparation. There was

not less, it was said, than 200,000 tons of American[127] shipping in

California, which might return by the port of Calcutta, and then be

brought into competition with the tonnage of this country. The effect

of the sudden competition from the Americans in the freight-market

of India on the trade of Australia would, in his opinion, be most

detrimental. Our own vessels carried out emigrants to that dependency,

and they could only find return cargoes by going to the ports of India;

but there, again, they would meet American tonnage from California,

and be disappointed of freights. Seven months was not sufficient

time to frame treaties with foreign Powers. The timber duties ought

to be taken off, and this could not be done in time. His Lordship

recapitulated many other objections to such precipitancy, but all were

unavailing. The Ministers resolutely persevered in their measure, and

opposed delay, and, indeed, every other amendment proposed. In fact,

it was believed that they were afraid, if the delay of eighteen months

were conceded, that a change of ministry or of public opinion might

defeat the measure entirely, and this was the more to be dreaded as all

parties admitted that immediate distress to the Shipowner must follow

the first passing of the Bill. However, the throwing open the trade of

the St. Lawrence was made the ostensible ground of resisting delay,

and upon a division only 40 Contents appeared for Lord Ellenborough’s

amendment; Non-contents, 56; Majority, 12.

Earl Waldegrave next moved a very long amendment,[128] the general

effect of which was to prevent foreign ships from receiving British

registration. On a division there were, Contents, 37; Non-contents, 49:

Majority, 12.

After this division Lord Stanley relinquished all further opposition

to the Bill in committee. He withdrew an amendment which had for

its object to meet the complaint of Canada, that there were greater

facilities for the transmission of their produce by the way of New

York than by the St. Lawrence, because, at New York, the Canadians

had the choice of an American or a British ship, while, from Montreal

or Quebec, they could only send their produce in a British ship.

Lord Stanley proposed to effect the object, not by enabling ships of

all countries to enter the St. Lawrence, but by enabling British or

American shipping to convey from either outlet the produce of Canada

or of the United States. His Lordship seemed to feel himself that

this was, if not an impracticable, at least a very imperfect scheme,

as it did not legislate for other colonies, and so he relinquished it

together with his general opposition. Lord Wharncliffe, finding Lord

Stanley did not support him, withdrew his amendment also, leaving

conditional legislation to the discretion of the Crown; that is,

leaving the Queen’s Government to judge of the expediency of asking for

restrictions in particular cases. The remaining clauses were agreed to.

[Sidenote: Bill read a third time.]

All effectual opposition to the Bill was now hopeless. But, on the

third reading, Lord Ellenborough took the opportunity of observing

that he could not refrain from touching upon the measures which it

would be absolutely necessary to adopt for the security of British

shipping under the new system. It was only fair that the Shipowner,

among various other burdens which he named, should be relieved from

all duties on timber. Government should promptly introduce measures

for the examination of masters and mates before their appointments,

and for their trial upon the loss of ships; also for the establishment

of a fund for the support of worn-out seamen, similar in principle

though not in extent to that existing for the seamen of the Royal Navy

at Greenwich Hospital; also a measure for the registry of ships, the

present system being altogether erroneous and deceptive.

[Sidenote: Timber duties, &c., admitted to be grievances.]

Earl Granville agreed with Lord Ellenborough as to the reduction of the

timber duty; and, as to the new registration, he was not prepared to

say that he saw any great objection to it. With regard to the Merchant

Seaman’s Fund, the attempt to restore it made last year, he must remind

their Lordships, was opposed and defeated by the Shipowners themselves;

the subject was, nevertheless, deserving of the best consideration. It

was intended, he added, to bring in a Bill to improve the discipline of

the mercantile navy.

Lord Winchelsea, a staunch Conservative, complained that the measure

had been carried by the votes of the bishops; and warned them of the

danger of carrying secular matters injurious to the best interests

of the country by their votes, as in that case England would wish to

see Convocation restored, and the bishops represented by a few of

their body. Lord Stanley and Lord Brougham satisfied themselves with

saying, “Non-content,” and inveighing against the Bill to the last. The

Marquess of Lansdowne replied; and the opposition Peers now withdrew in

a body, and the Bill was read a third time.

On the question “that the Bill do now pass,” the Bishop of Oxford

proposed to add a clause by way of rider declaring that “the said

privileges” should not extend to the ships of Spain or Brazil, or to

the ships of any foreign country, until the Queen should declare by

Order in Council that such governments had given full satisfaction

as to the fulfilment of the treaties respecting the suppression of

the slave-trade. The motion was resisted by Lord Howden in a very

argumentative speech, and rejected upon a division by—Non-contents, 23;

Contents, 9.

[Sidenote: Lord Stanley’s protest.]

The various reasons urged against the Bill for the repeal of the

Navigation Laws were briefly summed up by Lord Stanley in a protest

which he entered on the Journals of the House against the third

reading.[129] In this protest the great advantages we surrendered,

without any equivalent, were fully recited; and a dissent expressed,

because the Royal Navy was mainly dependent for its efficiency upon

the commercial marine, and the classes of the community connected

therewith. This Bill, he urged, by discouraging the employment of

British shipbuilders, ships, and seamen, tended directly to the

reduction of the commercial marine, and, thereby, to the diminution of

that naval strength which was the main foundation of the greatness of

this country, and the surest defence of its independence.

[Sidenote: Royal assent given June 26.]

But all remonstrances, denunciations, petitions, and protests were

disregarded. The Bill passed the House of Lords on the 12th June; and,

although a petition from the Shipowners[130] was presented to the Queen

by Sir George Grey praying her Majesty to withhold her approval of the

Bill, the Royal assent was given on the 26th of that month, and thus

the Navigation Laws of Great Britain, which had endured practically

unchallenged during two centuries, were almost utterly abrogated.

[Sidenote: Coasting trade thrown open, 1854.]

It may be convenient here to dispose of the question of the Coasting

clauses, which it will be remembered were withdrawn from the Bill of

1849. Notwithstanding the opposition brought to bear against this

portion of the measure, and the continued reluctance of foreign Powers

to reciprocate, the Coasting trade of the kingdom was, in 1854,

unconditionally thrown open to vessels of all nations without any

opposition from our Shipowners, indeed, some of them then expressed

deep regret that this trade had not been opened to foreign shipping in

1849.

[Sidenote: Americans, Oct. 1849, throw open all but their coasting

trade.]

The actual repeal of the Navigation Laws having, in the summer of

1849, become an accomplished fact, the consternation among all classes

connected with British shipping was almost universal, mingled with

feelings of curiosity and doubt as to the course which the Americans

would now adopt. These doubts were, however, soon removed by a prompt

notification of the Government of the United States,[131] issued on

the 15th October, 1849, honestly and boldly putting the law of 1828 in

motion, but _retaining the coasting trade of that country in all its

integrity_; and, to this day they decline, on alleged constitutional

grounds, to consider the voyage from New York to California as in any

respect different from the voyage between New York and Baltimore, or

as in any way resembling the trade between London and the Cape of Good

Hope or Australia, though, in both cases alike, the voyage can only be

made by passing the coasts of foreign nations!

FOOTNOTES:

[120] A much more likely reason has been already assigned for English

hostility to the Dutch in and about 1652; and that is, their perceiving

that the Dutch were gradually engrossing all the foreign trade,

especially that on the other side the line.

[121] The speech was published by Ridgway. Our space allows but a brief

epitome of it.

[122] I have referred to these in numberless places in the second

volume of this work.

[123] The particular quotation may not be strictly exact; but the

ambition of Napoleon to possess ships, colonies, and commerce, cannot

be for a moment doubted after the able exposition of M. Thiers.

[124] This speech was also published by Ridgway.

[125] The late (1875) Earl of Derby had been called up to the House of

Peers during his father’s life, and sat as Lord Stanley. His speech was

also published by Ridgway.

[126] It occupies a whole column of ‘Hansard.’

[127] The discovery of large quantities of gold in California had

attracted the enormous quantity of tonnage to that region.

[128] _Vide_ ‘Hansard,’ vol. cv. pp. 883-5. It occupies two

closely printed columns.

[129] See ‘Hansard,’ vol. cvi. p. 48.

[130] The Petition at length will be found in the ‘Shipping Gazette,’

13th June, 1849.

[131] See Hertslet’s ‘Treaties,’ &c., vol. viii. p. 968.

CHAPTER XI.

Despondency of many shipowners after the repeal of the Navigation

Laws—Advantage naturally taken by foreigners, and especially by

the Americans—Jardine and Co. build vessels to compete with the

Americans—Aberdeen “clippers”—Shipowners demand the enforcement

on foreign nations of reciprocity—Return of prosperity to the

Shipowners—Act of 1850 for the improvement of the condition of

seamen—Valuable services of Mr. T. H. Farrer—Chief conditions of

the Act of 1850—Certificates of examination—Appointment of local

marine boards, and their duties—Further provisions of the Act

of 1850—Institution of Naval Courts abroad—Special inspectors

to be appointed by the Board of Trade, if need be—Act of 1851,

regulating Merchant Seaman’s Fund, &c.—Merchant Shipping Act,

1854—New measurement of ships—Registration of ships—The “Rule

of the Sea”—Pilots and pilotage—Existing Mercantile Marine

Fund—Wrecks—Limitation of the liability of Shipowners—Various

miscellaneous provisions—Act of 1855.

[Sidenote: Despondency of many shipowners after the repeal of the

Navigation Laws.]

Considering the violent opposition offered by the great majority of

shipowners to the repeal of the Navigation Laws, it is not surprising

that their despondency, when the Act came into operation, knew no

bounds. Many of them resolved—and a few acted upon the resolution—to

dispose of their ships at whatever price they would fetch, others

determined to register them under a foreign flag; but few, if any,

carried out their determination in this respect. On the other hand, as

might have been expected, foreign nations, and especially the United

States, made extraordinary efforts to secure for their shipowners the

more valuable portion of the trade thrown open by the repeal of these

laws. Hitherto the vessels of that country had more than rivalled

British ships in the China trade; and, ever since the first Chinese

war in 1842, when great expectations were entertained of an enormous

increase of trade with that country, the Americans had made very

considerable efforts to secure the larger proportion of it. To meet

these efforts we had, before we were roused from our apathy by the

repeal of the Navigation Laws, built various vessels of an improved

description, such as the _Alexander Baring_, _John o’Gaunt_,

_Euphrates_, _Monarch_, and _Foam_, which were equal to any American

vessels then engaged in the trade with China. But, in 1845, various

vessels were despatched from New York and Boston to Wampoa, of a novel

form, which surpassed ours in speed, having low hulls, great beam, very

fine lines, and with yards so square as to spread a far larger amount

of canvas in proportion to their tonnage than any vessels hitherto

afloat. To rival these we, in 1846, first directed our attention to

the construction of “clipper vessels,” and as a test of these, Messrs.

Alexander Hall and Co. of Aberdeen, sent forth a schooner named the

_Torrington_, to compete with the Americans then engaged in the

coasting trade of China, and in the still more lucrative opium trade.

As this vessel proved a success, others of greater dimensions soon

followed.

But in 1848, the Americans had found out a trade exclusively their

own, which led to the construction of larger and still faster vessels

than any they had hitherto employed in the trade with China. The

discovery of the gold mines in California gave an impetus to their

shipbuilding hitherto unknown; and, for that trade, they brought

out a class of ships such as the world had then never seen; their

dimensions in tonnage being as great as the largest of our old East

Indiamen, with a capacity for cargo far greater, and with lines as

sharp and fine as almost any Baltimore clipper. The voyage of the first

of these celebrated vessels was limited to San Francisco, from which

she returned in ballast to New York, having earned sufficient freight

on her outward passage alone to amply remunerate her enterprising

owners. The others, however, which followed, continued their voyage

from California to China, and having the peculiar advantage of their

own “coasting trade,” from which the vessels of all other nations were

excluded, they obtained an immense advantage over all competitors.

Freights from New York to California, which, at first, were

exorbitantly high, still averaged somewhere about 5_l._ per

ton: thence, these ships proceeded to China, and there, were able to

load cargoes of tea and other produce direct for London or New York,

thus securing on the round voyage from 8_l._ to 10_l._ per

ton freight, while our ships, engaged in the direct trade between

London and China, a voyage nearly as long, could only earn out and

home little more than half that rate per ton. It was not therefore,

surprising, that loud complaints were made by British Shipowners of the

disadvantage in which their vessels were placed, when competing with

those of the United States.

[Sidenote: Advantage naturally taken by foreigners, and especially by

the Americans.]

Encouraged by this special advantage, the Americans constructed for

the California and China trades, vessels of still greater dimensions,

and of a still finer description, in which, for a time, they

practically monopolised not merely the trade between New York and San

Francisco, but also that between China and Great Britain. Attributing

the depression from which they were suffering to the repeal of the

Navigation Laws, as every branch of trade was then greatly depressed,

our Shipowners naturally viewed, with great alarm, the rapid strides

made by American shipping. Nor were their fears allayed by a reference

to the Board of Trade returns; wherein it appeared that, while the

increase of British shipping had, in the year previously to the repeal

been 393,955 tons, there had been a decrease in the year after the

repeal of 180,576 tons; while, concurrently with the falling off of

British shipping, it was also shown that foreign vessels, entering

inwards from foreign ports, had increased from 75,278 tons to 364,587

tons. Our position appeared, therefore, critical; and, had it not been

for the resources we held within ourselves, and the indomitable energy

of our people, foreign shipping might then have gained an ascendency

which might not afterwards have been easily overcome.

American shipping, above that of all other nations, had, hitherto,

been moving onward with such rapid strides that though, in 1815, at

the close of the war, the tonnage of the United States was not more

than one-half that of Great Britain, it had risen by 1850 to 3,535,454

tons (including river and lake steamers), against 4,232,960 tons of

British shipping, and bade fair, with the special advantages they now

possessed, to surpass it in amount ere many years had elapsed. Under

such circumstances, unusual efforts were necessary to maintain our

position as the first of maritime nations.[132] We had, however, one

advantage which our great American competitors did not possess. We had

iron in abundance; and, about this period, we were specially directing

our attention to the construction of iron ships to be propelled by the

screw.

Various of these vessels, to which I shall hereafter fully refer,

were launched about the year 1850, and placed in competition with the

American liners, which had long, all but monopolised the trade between

the United States and Europe. Even if we could not build wooden ships,

as was then feared, at as low a cost as the Americans, we had the

advantage in labour, in the cost of equipment, and in being able to

produce a superior class of vessels suited for the China and other

distant trades, from our English oak.[133]

[Sidenote: Jardine and Co. build vessels to compete with the

Americans.]

[Sidenote: Aberdeen “clippers.”]

There is, however, no doubt that at this period there were few ships

afloat which could rival in speed the _Oriental_, _Challenge_, _Sea

Witch_, _Flying Cloud_, and various similar vessels the Americans had

sent forth to compete with us in the trade from China, for, at that

time, iron ships propelled by steam could not be profitably employed

in so distant a trade. It seemed almost hopeless[134] to expect that

we could construct sailing vessels which would enable us to cope

successfully with these celebrated ships. But, though great in speed,

it was soon discovered that they were inferior in strength; and, as

some of them had landed their cargoes in a damaged state, the shippers

of tea and other valuable produce from China encouraged the building of

vessels of superior strength, hoping, at the same time, to obtain by

improved models an increased speed, even if this speed did not surpass

that of these famous American vessels. Accordingly, Messrs. Jardine,

Matheson and Co. commissioned Messrs. Hall and Co., of Aberdeen,

to construct for them a ship, with lines as sharp as those of any

American, but of superior strength. The _Stornoway_, commanded by

Captain Robinson, formerly of the _John of Gaunt_, was the first of the

“Aberdeen clippers.” The _Chrysolite_, commanded by Captain Enright,

followed. But, though these vessels proved very fast for their size,

they were still no match for the Americans, which were double their

dimensions. However, the _Cairngorm_, also built by Hall for Messrs.

Jardine, proved equal in speed to any of her foreign competitors, and,

by delivering her cargo in superior order, obtained a preference.

It was not, however, until 1856, when the _Lord of the Isles_,

built by Scott, of Greenock, and commanded by Captain Maxton, in

a celebrated race for the first delivery of the new teas from

Foo-choo-foo in London, beat two of the fastest American clippers,

though of nearly double her tonnage, delivering her cargo without one

spot of damage, that British ships regained their ascendency in a trade

which their American rivals bade fair to monopolise. From that time,

British sailing ships, as I shall hereafter show, gradually gained a

complete ascendency over the Americans in the China trade, and carried

all before them, until they, in turn, were supplanted by British

screw-steamers.

In the meantime, however, our Shipowners were suffering heavy losses

in the ordinary branches of commerce, with little prospect of any

permanent improvement. It was, therefore, not surprising that many of

them contemplated abandoning the business in which they, as well as

their forefathers for many generations, had been engaged. To obtain

a restoration of Protection was out of the question; while any

remission of burdens, or abrogation of restrictions, in the power of

the Legislature to grant, would not, they felt, enable them to compete

successfully with their foreign rivals. To these burdens I shall

hereafter refer.

[Sidenote: Shipowners demand the enforcement on foreign nations of

reciprocity.]

As regarded non-reciprocity on the part of foreign nations, they had

little expectation that any relief could be obtained. Every State

that had anything worth acceptance in the way of reciprocation had,

they were convinced, determined on adhering to a Protective policy;

and, though the retaliatory clause in the Navigation Act might afford

some power of compulsion, the Shipowners saw from the discussions

in Parliament that it was vain to hope that such powers would ever

actually be put in force. Nevertheless, under such gloomy political

prospects, every effort was made by the central body of the Shipowners’

Association in London to impress their views upon the representatives

of the maritime towns in Parliament. The outports were urged to secure

the return of members who would support a policy opposed to that of

the indiscriminate abolition of all Protective laws. The feeling thus

provoked exercised its influence during many succeeding years. They

who had the moral courage to advocate more enlightened principles were

made the victims of the exasperated Shipowners, and a good many members

lost their seats at the general election of 1852 because they could

not, conscientiously, support any measure restoring Protection to the

Shipowners, even in the modified form they now desired, the general

enforcement of the reciprocity on other nations.

[Sidenote: Return of prosperity to the Shipowners.]

Happily, however, for the Shipowners, the demand for their vessels

soon rose; and, though some of them may have severely suffered for the

first twelve months after the repeal of the Navigation Laws, they soon

recovered their losses, and their course ever since has been, apart

from the usual fluctuations in all branches of commerce, one of almost

continued prosperity. Mr. Thomas Tooke, in his well-known work,[135]

speaking of the annual state of trade at the close of 1853, states,

that the most satisfactory accounts of the year’s business were those

connected with shipping. Indeed, 1852, as well as 1853, were years of

prosperity to every class of persons connected with ships.

The enormous emigration of the former year, and the great increase

of imports and exports in 1853—caused unquestionably by our liberal

policy—created a sudden demand for freight, far beyond the resources

of vessels really available. British ships of the highest class rose

in price from 15_l._ to 21_l._ and 22_l._ per ton, and colonial from

6_l._ 10_s._ to 11_l._ per ton; freights, in many instances, advanced

more than 100 per cent.; and it was soon discovered that, though the

carrying trade of England had been opened to vessels of all nations,

English merchants could not find sufficient tonnage to supply the

orders pouring in on them from every part of the world: thus, while

the demand for Australia was still on the increase, new branches of

commerce were opening out also in other quarters. Freights from Odessa

rose from 65_s._ to 120_s._ per ton; the rates to and from the west

coast of South America, Brazil, and the West Indies were nearly

doubled; from America, both in timber and grain, freights advanced

in like proportion, as well as in the Baltic; and, even, in the coal

trade between Newcastle and London, the usual standard rate of 6_s._

per ton was more than doubled. The grain trade, beyond all others,

was characterised by extraordinary activity, the result of events it

was impossible to foresee; while the practical closing of some of the

most important granaries during the subsequent war between Russia and

Turkey, greatly enhanced the price of corn, and gave rise to large

importations of bread-stuffs from the United States and other more

distant parts of the world, necessitating, at the same time, a large

amount of tonnage for their transport. The surprising prosperity,

which had so suddenly succeeded a period of depression and adversity,

silenced for a time, though it did not extinguish, the complaints

of the already “old school” Shipowners against the repeal of the

Navigation Laws.

[Sidenote: Act of 1850, for the improvement of the condition of seamen.]

But, as British ships were now subjected to the competition of the

vessels of all nations, Government considered it their duty to afford

every facility as far as regards education and the means of obtaining

it to the men by whom they were manned, holding that they were bound

to secure for them every advantage in this respect possessed by those

of foreign nations. We have seen, by the reports from the various

Consuls abroad and from other sources, that, in the training of our

seamen for the work they have to do, we were far behind our foreign

competitors. Consequently, among the earliest measures of 1850, an Act

was passed which had for its object the improvement of the existing

condition of our seafaring population, especially as regards commanders

and officers, and for affording to Shipowners greater facilities than

they had hitherto possessed for engaging and regulating the conduct

of the crews of their ships. Hitherto, though our ships had been, by

some people, pompously, styled the “harbingers of peace, Christianity,

and civilisation,” they had more frequently carried with them to other

lands vices previously unknown there.

[Sidenote: Valuable services of Mr. T. H. Farrer.]

In point of fact, all other nations, except England, had a code of laws

to regulate the conduct and test the competency of those who navigated

their merchant ships; life and property with us being placed under

the charge of men without any security for their conduct, integrity,

or ability. Avaricious Shipowners, too, often bought labour in the

cheapest, and rarely, therefore, in the best market; while others,

with sons and brothers to provide for, placed them in charge of their

ships, or in other responsible positions, for which they were often

altogether incompetent. The seamen, themselves, were neglected, and, in

many instances, were, to a great extent, under the control of a class

of nefarious persons known as “crimps,” who procured them employment,

discounted their advance notes at usurious rates, and, too frequently,

plundered them of all they possessed at the termination of the voyage.

It, therefore, became the duty of Government to do what in them lay to

remedy these glaring evils. Happily there had just been appointed, as

Secretary to the new Marine Department of the Board of Trade, a young

gentleman of rare abilities, who had devoted considerable attention to

the state of our mercantile marine, and had accepted this office with

a fixed determination to remedy, as far as legislation could do, the

existing evils. To Mr. T. H. Farrer the country is greatly indebted for

most of the measures which have since been passed in connection with

our mercantile marine.[136]

[Sidenote: Chief conditions of the Act of 1850.]

[Sidenote: Certificates of examination.]

The first of these reform Acts, entitled, “An Act for Improving the

Condition of Masters, Mates, and Seamen, and Maintaining Discipline in

the Merchant Service,” received the Royal assent on the 14th August,

1850, and came into operation on the 1st January of the following year.

This Act contains 124 clauses, and places under the Board of Trade the

general superintendence of matters relating to the British mercantile

marine, with power to carry the Act into execution in all its details.

This valuable measure provides for the establishment of local marine

boards at the principal seaports in the kingdom. These boards

consist of from six to twelve members, comprised of the Mayor or the

stipendiary magistrate resident in the district, of two to four members

nominated by the Board of Trade, the remainder being elected by the

shipowners resident in the place. Two superior officers with various

subordinates were appointed to carry out the duties of the marine board

under the direction of its members. The first and most important of

these duties consisted in the examination of persons intending to

become masters or mates of foreign-going ships, who are now required to

give satisfactory evidence of their sobriety, experience, ability, and

general good conduct, before they are entitled to receive a certificate

of their competency.

[Sidenote: Appointment of local marine boards,]

[Sidenote: and their duties.]

Those persons who had previously been in command of ships, or who had

served as mates, were not required to undergo an examination, but

received a certificate of service, enabling them to accept appointments

similar to those they had held previously to the Act coming into

operation; so that, in this respect, the law was not retrospective, but

only required such persons to undergo examination who had not before

acted in the above capacities; power was, at the same time, given to

the board to cancel their certificates of service, or of competency,

provided those who held them were guilty of misconduct, or otherwise

found to be unfit for their duties. Penalties were inflicted for false

representations, for forging, or altering, or fraudulently using their

certificates. The local marine boards were required to establish

shipping offices, where all seamen are engaged; and to appoint, subject

to the approval of the Board of Trade, shipping-masters, whose duties

were to ascertain that engagements were made in proper form, to issue

the advance notes of the seamen, and to see that they joined the ships

for which they had engaged at the time fixed for departure. Their

duties, likewise, extended to the settlement of the seamen’s wages at

the termination of the voyage, and to the seeing that while the men

were justly dealt with, they received, also, a proper discharge. They

were, moreover, bound to keep a register of the names and character of

the seamen and apprentices, and to perform such duties, in relation to

the indentures of the latter, as had previously been performed by the

officers of Customs. All agreements were to be in a specified form, and

to state, as far as practicable, the nature and length of the voyage

on which the ship is to be employed, the time when each seaman was

to commence duty, the capacity in which he was engaged to serve, the

amount of wages he was to receive, the scale of the provisions to be

supplied, with such further regulations as might be necessary for his

conduct on board, and to inflict fines, short allowance of provisions,

or other lawful punishments for misconduct. These agreements the

shipping master is required to read over to the seamen, who, if they

approve, then sign them in his presence. No alterations are allowed to

be made, unless with the consent of all parties; and these agreements

must be produced by the master, before a clearance of the ship can be

obtained at the Customs. Similar agreements are required for vessels

engaged in the coasting trade; but, in this case, they need only be

entered into once in six months, and may be signed either on board

the vessel or at the shipping office. Penalties are inflicted on

masters for taking seamen to sea without such agreement, or for its

non-production if required by the British Consul abroad, or by the

shipping master, or Collector of Customs in the ports of Great Britain.

The masters and officers are examined in seamanship in its varied

branches, as well as in navigation; and the course of examination

very much resembles what, as I have already described, has long been

adopted in various foreign countries. It is of two grades—first and

second class—and has produced the most marked effect in the moral,

social, and intellectual improvement of the persons in charge of

the vessels of our now gigantic mercantile marine. However much our

ships have improved, in all respects, since the Navigation Laws were

repealed, and this improvement has been very remarkable, it is not

greater than what has taken place in the case of the men by whom they

are commanded and navigated.

Throughout the whole of this Act every consideration seems to have

been given to the wants of the seamen, with the exception of their

education, provision being made for the proper payment of their wages

and advance notes, and further facilities afforded for their more

prompt recovery.

[Sidenote: Further provisions of the Act of 1850.]

This Act further provides, that, in every ship, nine superficial feet

of space, measured upon the deck, is to be appropriated to each seaman,

either in the forecastle or in a suitable house on deck; such space

to be kept entirely free of stores of every kind, to be securely and

properly constructed, and to be well ventilated. The owner is also

bound to provide, for the use of all on board, a supply of medicines,

in accordance with a scale sanctioned by Government; with lime-juice in

certain cases, and fresh vegetables whenever they can be conveniently

obtained: the masters, also, of all ships are bound to keep weights

and measures on board, so that the seaman may be satisfied that he

has his full allowance of provision agreeably with the Act; while

heavy penalties are inflicted on owners who do not conform to these

conditions.

In the case of desertion, the masters or owners are authorized by this

Act to give or take in charge, without warrant, any seaman who had left

his ship without “leave,” or any seaman or apprentice who neglects

or refuses to join a ship in which he has engaged to serve. Though

this clause has since been frequently condemned, and might be limited

with advantage to within a certain time before the ship sails, it was

absolutely necessary to deal with such cases promptly, for deserting

seamen, more especially when in debt to the ship, readily found

employment, and would, in many cases, have sailed in other vessels

before it was possible to have obtained a formal warrant for their

apprehension.

Any misconduct endangering the ship, or life or limb, is considered

a misdemeanour; as also any wilful breach of duty, by reason of

drunkenness or any other cause, which might tend to the immediate loss,

destruction, or serious damage of the ship, or of the life or limbs of

any persons, engaged in her. Certain offences may be summarily punished

on arrival in port, such as wilfully damaging the ship, or embezzling

or wilfully damaging any of her stores or cargo, assaulting the master

or mate, wilful disobedience to lawful commands, or combining with any

other or others of the crew to disobey these commands, neglect duty, or

with impeding the navigation of the ship or the progress of the voyage.

All such matters may be summarily dealt with, by inflicting punishment

of from one to three months’ confinement with or without hard labour.

[Sidenote: Institution of Naval Courts abroad.]

Naval Courts are also instituted abroad, for hearing complaints with

regard to either seamen or masters, and for dealing with them in a

summary manner. These courts are constituted of from three to five

members, and consist of officers of her Majesty’s Navy, of rank not

below that of lieutenant, of a consular officer, and of the master of

a British ship; but, if there should happen to be no ships-of-war in

the harbour, the Consul has power to nominate any other disinterested

master or merchant to act as a member of such court.

Among the more important sections of the Act, I must not omit that

referring to the clause enjoining masters of ships to keep a log-book

of a prescribed form, known as the “official log.” In this book the

master is ordered to enter, not merely the daily course and position of

the ship, but all occurrences on board as to the conduct of the crew;

any disobedience of orders or neglect of duty; an entry is further

required to be made of the death, injury, or illness of any seaman

and of the time when he left the ship, should he have done so without

leave. This official log the master has to deliver, on his return to

port, to the Collector of Customs before an entry of his ship can be

obtained; and in the case of any ship being sold abroad, the master

or transferrer thereof must deliver or transmit it, duly made up to

the time of transfer, to the shipping master or Collector of Customs,

at the port to which the ship previously belonged. Penalties of from

5_l._ to 20_l._ are inflicted upon the master or owner for

not keeping the log in proper form, or for neglecting to make the

necessary entries.

When a seaman is discharged from a vessel by mutual consent, either

abroad or at the termination of the voyage, the master must give him a

certificate of character, in a form sanctioned by the Board of Trade,

specifying his qualifications; but in cases where the seaman has proved

incompetent or negligent in his duty, the master may decline to give

him this certificate, so far as regards his character.[137]

[Sidenote: Special inspectors to be appointed by the Board of Trade, if

need be.]

Power is further taken by the Board of Trade to institute a special

investigation, wherever there is reason to apprehend that any serious

accident, occasioning loss of life or property, has been sustained, or

that any of the provisions of the Act, or of any other Act relating

to merchant shipping or merchant sailors, has been grossly neglected

or disobeyed; and, for that purpose, to appoint local inspectors or

any other competent persons, to inquire into and report thereupon.

These inspectors have power to go on board and examine the ship and

any papers relating to the voyage, and may call for the production

of evidence; and penalties are inflicted for obstructing any of

them in the execution of this duty. Various other clauses, for the

protection alike of the owner, master, and seamen, are to be found in

the Act, which extends to all British possessions at home or abroad,

including India. A schedule is attached, regulating the scale of fees

to be charged for the examination of masters and mates, and for the

engagement and discharge of crews.[138]

[Sidenote: Act of 1851, regulating Merchant Seaman’s Fund, &c.]

I have frequently, in the course of this work, had occasion to refer

to the Merchant Seaman’s Fund, established by 20 Geo. II., cap. 38,

as also by 4 & 5 Will. IV., cap. 52, and by 6 Will. IV., cap. 15.

As this fund had been grossly mismanaged, an Act was passed in 1851

(8th August) to provide for the winding it up, and for its better

management in future. Consequently all the previous Acts relating to

it, together with various amending Acts, were swept away, and the

general supervision of the business of winding-up the fund was placed

in the hands of the Board of Trade, or of such persons as that Board

might appoint. By the previous Act all masters and mates of ships were

required to subscribe from 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._, and all seamen 1_s._

per month toward the fund, of which 6_d._ went to Greenwich Hospital.

But the Act of 1851 rendered it no longer obligatory on their part

to do so. Those persons, however, who voluntarily continued their

subscriptions were to be entitled to pensions in old age, or when

otherwise rendered unfit for their duties; and provision was, likewise,

made for the widows and children of such persons. These subscriptions

the shipping masters appointed under the Mercantile Marine Act of 1850

are authorized to receive, and all moneys and properties forming part

of, or belonging to, the Merchant Seaman’s Fund are transferred to the

Board of Trade. No master or seaman who had not contributed to the fund

before the passing of this Act is allowed to contribute thereto, or to

establish any claim for pension or other relief for himself, or for

his wife or children; so that the benefits to be derived are confined,

exclusively, to those who had hitherto subscribed, and who voluntarily

continued their subscriptions after the passing of the Act of 1851;

the Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury are further authorized to

pay, out of the Consolidated Fund, such sums as may be necessary, in

addition to the voluntary subscriptions, for the necessary expenditure,

and to make good the deficiency; they are also to pay to this fund the

unclaimed wages and effects of deceased seamen; and all fines levied

for neglect of duty or otherwise are appropriated for the same purpose.

The Board of Trade is authorized to determine and regulate the

principles and conditions on which relief is to be granted under the

Act, and to make such regulations and by-laws as may be necessary

for the receipt and distribution of the fund. The Board has also

to render annually to Parliament an account of the receipts and

disbursements of the previous year, under several heads; the amount of

money in hand, and any sums which may be outstanding; the number of

pensioners—distinguishing between men, women, and children, and between

different scales of pensions, and the total amount of pensions in each

class, together with that of the salaries and expenses of management.

But, beyond these Acts, a great deal more was necessary for the proper

government of the merchant service. The vast multitude of Acts of

Parliament suspending, repealing, and altering parts of other Acts

had involved our commercial maritime law in almost inextricable

confusion, and had become most injurious to the public interest. No

persons but those well conversant with the subject can imagine to what

extent this abuse had sometimes been carried. When the Navigation Laws

were repealed no less than forty-eight separate and distinct Acts of

Parliament were in force relating directly to maritime affairs; some

of them, now before me, are in black-letter type of a very ancient

date. It, therefore, became necessary to deal with these Acts; and, for

that and other still more important objects, a Bill was introduced in

1854, which dealt in the most comprehensive manner with all questions

relating to merchant ships and their crews. In this great measure, the

two Acts to which I have just referred were embodied.

[Sidenote: Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.]

The Merchant Shipping Act of 1854[139] contains no less than five

hundred and forty-eight clauses, divided into eleven separate and

distinct parts or sections.

The first lays down the general functions of the Board of Trade; the

second relates to the ownership, registration, and measurement of

British ships; and the third is confined, exclusively, to matters

referring to the conduct and duties of masters and seamen, and embraces

the whole of the conditions of the Act of 1850, with various additions

and amendments.

[Sidenote: New measurement of ships.]

The measurement of ships embodied in part second of this Act is a great

improvement on all former modes of ascertaining the tonnage of a ship,

as it takes capacity for its basis; and thus, while proportioning

the dues payable by ships to their capabilities of carrying freight,

affords free scope to Shipowners to construct such vessels as are

best adapted to the trade in which they are to be employed.[140]

This admirable mode of admeasurement was also adopted, at a recent

congress, as the basis for ascertaining the tonnage on which ships of

any nation were to pay dues on passing through the Suez Canal.

[Sidenote: Registration of ships.]

In dealing with the question of registration, the second portion of the

Act of 1854, which contains ninety-one clauses, while it specifies in

detail what persons are qualified to become owners of British merchant

ships, likewise points out in what proportion of ownership the vessel

may be held, inflicts penalties for non-attendance to these rules,

and on builders for issuing false certificates. It also requires all

change of owners or masters to be endorsed on the register; specifies

the condition on which new certificates may be issued, and how they

are to be disposed of in the event of shipwreck; the mode of transfer

in case of sale, death, or bankruptcy is likewise clearly defined; as

also the registration of all mortgages in their priority of claim, the

mortgagee having power of sale without being held liable for any of the

responsibilities of ownership.[141]

[Sidenote: The “Rule of the Sea.”]

The fourth part of the Act is almost as important as the third, which

deals, as we have seen, with the qualifications and duties of masters,

officers, and seamen. It refers to the safety and prevention of

accidents, a subject which has created much controversy of late, and

to which reference will be made more fully hereafter. This important

section of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 requires all sea-going

vessels to be provided with a certain number of boats in proportion to

their tonnage and the trade in which they are engaged. It lays down

rules as to the meeting and passing of ships at sea, and the use of

lights and fog-signals—a regulation of daily increasing importance and

more completely carried out in 1863, from the vast number of vessels

now traversing the ocean, and especially the English and other great

channels of commerce.

Various necessary and excellent regulations are embodied for the

construction and equipment of steam-ships, without interfering with

their form, leaving their owners and builders every possible scope

for improvement, and compelling the fulfilment of certain conditions

necessary to insure safety without relieving their owners from their

just responsibility to the public. Vessels built of iron must be

separated into water-tight compartments, which has since been repealed,

and, in the case of steamers, the engine-room must be kept entirely

distinct from the hold and cabins; passenger ships (of which further

notice will hereafter be taken) are under special regulations with

regard to surveys and signals, the use of fire-engines, and the shelter

of all persons conveyed on deck.

[Sidenote: Pilots and pilotage.]

In the fifth part, the powers and general jurisdiction of pilots and

pilotage authorities are defined. Power is also given by this Act to

dispense with the use of pilots which had been enforced at certain

places, by the Acts of 1849 and 1853, and was subsequently extended to

all ports in the United Kingdom except London, Liverpool, and Bristol,

so as to permit “the master or mate of any ship” who “may, upon giving

due notice, and consenting to pay the usual expenses, apply to any

pilotage authority to be examined as to his capacity to pilot the ship

of which he is master or mate, or any one or more ships belonging

to the same owners,” and, if found qualified, to receive a pilotage

certificate.

The sixth part of the Act refers to the management of

lighthouses,[142] buoys, and beacons, whether under the immediate

control of the Ancient Trinity House of Deptford Strond, of the

“Commissioners of the Northern Lighthouses,” or of the Dublin “Ballast

Board.”[143] These separate authorities (subject to the control of

the Board of Trade) are hereby authorized to appoint persons to

inspect the lighthouses and levy dues for their maintenance (but with

revision by her Majesty in Council), and to regulate and alter such

dues. Accordingly, each of them may see the following works carried

out within its jurisdiction:—(1) Erect, remove, alter, or repair

lighthouses, with all other requisite works in connection with them;

(2) construct, place, or alter any buoys or beacons; (3) purchase

any land necessary either for the lighthouse or its approaches, with

residences for the light-keepers; and (4) vary the character of any

lighthouse or the mode of exhibiting any lights therein.

[Sidenote: Existing Mercantile Marine Fund.]

The seventh part deals with the existing Mercantile Marine Fund, which,

in some respects, but only to the very limited extent I have named,

supplies the place of the Merchant Seaman’s Fund, and directs the

Board of Trade to carry to this fund all fees and other sums received

under the provisions of the third and fourth sections of this Act;

all surplus light dues, when not appropriated to the reduction of the

charge levied on ships, all rates and moneys received by the Trinity

House under the Local Act (7 Vict., cap. 57) for the regulation of

lastage and ballastage in the River Thames, and various other fees.

It directs these funds to be applied to the cost of the examinations,

and of the shipping offices provided under the third part, and of

the survey of steam ships under the fourth part of this Act. The

remaining portions of this fund not required for the maintenance of

the lighthouses, &c., &c., is used for the purpose of establishing and

maintaining on the coast of the United Kingdom proper life-boats,[144]

and for rewarding the preservation of life in such cases as the Board

of Trade may direct, and for remunerating persons in connection with

wrecks, casualties, and salvage with which the eighth portion of the

Act specially deals.

[Sidenote: Wrecks.]

The inquiry into wrecks, though still requiring amendment, is not

the least important part of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. It

has proved of immense value to the State, and combined with the new

law of admeasurement, and, of course, with that wholesome rivalry

free navigation has created, has done much to improve the quality and

equipment of the merchant vessels of Great Britain, and has, at the

same time, tended to the safety of life and property at sea. This part

of the Act provides, that whenever any ship is lost, abandoned, or

materially damaged, especially in cases where life has been sacrificed,

the Board of Trade _may_[145] institute an inquiry (I object to

the mode in which this is now carried out) into the cause of such

misfortune, and, for this purpose, appoint suitable persons to form a

court, able and competent to deal with all such questions.

Under the eighth part of the Act, the Board of Trade has intrusted

to it the general superintendence of all matters relating to wrecks

cast on shore, together with the appointment of receivers, who have

authority to summon all persons, promiscuously, to their aid, to

whatever number may be deemed necessary for the saving from plunder

or otherwise the property thus stranded, and to “demand the use of

any waggon, cart, or horses that may be near at hand;” “all persons

refusing, without reasonable cause, to comply with this summons are

liable to a penalty not exceeding 100_l._” The receiver can also

use force to suppress plunder, and “if any person is killed, maimed, or

otherwise hurt by reason of his resisting the receiver in the execution

of his duties, this officer is indemnified against all prosecutions

for such acts”—a power somewhat approaching the rigour of the ancient

laws, but still not too stringent to suppress the lawlessness even

now prevailing when wrecks take place on remote parts of our coasts.

Certain rules are laid down to be observed by persons finding or taking

possession of a wreck; for instance, he must give notice of it as soon

as possible to the receiver of the district, and, if he fails to do

so, is, thereby, subject to penalties for his neglect, as well as to

the loss of all salvage. Salvage is awarded to persons saving life or

property from the perils of the sea, and is regulated in amount by the

risk incurred and the extent of services rendered, the saving of life

having priority over all other claims.

Provision is, generously and very properly, now made, that no claim for

the use of any of her Majesty’s ships in saving life or property shall

be valid, and that no person on board of such ships shall be permitted

to make any demand on this behalf without the formal consent of the

Admiralty, the mode of procedure in all such cases, previously in many

ways objectionable, is now clearly established and defined. Nor does

the Act omit to deal, and with great propriety, with dealers in marine

stores and manufacturers of anchors. Subsequently, but on much more

debateable grounds,[146] an act was passed which dealt with the makers

of chain cables.

[Sidenote: Limitation of the liability of shipowners.]

The ninth part of the Merchant Shipping Act defines or limits the

liability of shipowners under certain circumstances; that is to say,

shipowners are not liable, so far as regards fire, loss of life or

personal injury, or loss of goods or merchandise, unless they have

rendered themselves personally responsible, “to an extent beyond

the value of their ship, and the freight due or to grow due in

respect of such ship during the voyage.” This liability was further

limited in 1862 by Mr. Milner Gibson when President of the Board of

Trade.[147] The mode of procedure is laid down at length and with great

perspicuity; but nothing in the Act is “to lessen or take away any

liability to which any master or seaman, being also owner or part owner

of the ship to which he belongs, is subject in his capacity of master

or seaman.”

[Sidenote: Various miscellaneous provisions.]

The tenth part of the Act refers to the mode of legal procedure

“in all cases where no particular country is mentioned within her

Majesty’s dominions;” while the eleventh and last part deals with

a few miscellaneous subjects, such as granting power to masters or

owners of ships to enter into contracts, under certain circumstances,

with Lascars or other natives of India for voyages to Great Britain,

Australia, or other parts of her Majesty’s dominions: to corporations

for the granting of sites for the erection of sailors’ homes: to the

legislative authority of any British possession for the repeal,

alteration or amendment of any provisions of the Act “relating to ships

registered in such possession:” and to the Commissioners of Customs to

recover from the Consolidated Fund, or from the Mercantile Marine Fund,

all expenses incurred by them in the conduct of suits or prosecutions

raised under the Act.

Such are the leading provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854,

one of the greatest, most useful, and salutary measures ever passed,

the repeal of the Navigation Laws excepted, in connection with the

mercantile marine of Great Britain.[148]

[Sidenote: Act of 1855.]

In the following year (1855) an Act, which may be taken as part of

the great Act of 1854, was passed to facilitate the erection and

maintenance of colonial lighthouses; to amend some of the clauses

referring to light dues; to specify more distinctly the conditions of

ownership and the nature of mortgages; and to exempt the owners of

pleasure yachts from having their names and the port to which they

belong painted on the stern, as in the case of merchant vessels.

Additional powers were also given by this Act to naval courts abroad,

in the case of misconduct of the master or crew: for the relief of

destitute Lascars, and for other matters of minor importance.

FOOTNOTES:

[132] At that moment our prospects were certainly very gloomy, and it

was not surprising that many of our shipowners were disposing of their

property. On the other hand, as most of our shipbuilders were idle, it

was a favourable moment to contract for the construction of ships. I,

therefore, embraced the opportunity, and contracted in one week for

six ships of an improved description, of about 1000 tons each. Two of

these I built at Sunderland, two at Maryport, one in Dundee, and one

in Jersey. Most of the old school of shipowners thought I had lost my

senses, and prophesied “ruin;” but others thought there was “method in

my madness,” and were thus encouraged to follow my example. Many of

my readers may remember the jeering paragraphs which appeared in the

Free-trade journals of the period, headed “Lindsay and more ruin,” “Not

so bad as they seem,” and so forth. But the fact had an astonishing

effect in rousing our shipowners from their dreams of despair, and I

never had any reason to regret my “daring speculation.”

[133] Mr. T. C. Cowper, of Aberdeen, himself a member of a well-known

shipbuilding firm in Aberdeen, who had spent some time in China at the

period to which I now refer, and to whom I am indebted for much of

the information connected with our struggles to maintain our position

in that trade, gives the following graphic description of his voyage

home in the _Ganges_, Captain Deas, belonging to Leith, one of

the vessels we had sent forth soon after the repeal of our Navigation

Laws, to compete with the Americans in that trade. “We landed,” he

says, “new teas at Wampoa, and sailed on the 1st September, 1851.

Two of the fastest American clippers, the _Flying Cloud_ and

_Bald Eagle_, sailed two or three days after us. A great deal of

excitement existed in China about the race, the American ships being

the favourites. The South-west monsoon being strong, the _Ganges_

made a rather long passage to Anger, but when we arrived there we found

that neither of our rivals had been reported as having passed. We

arrived in the English Channel on the evening of the 16th of December.

On the following morning at daylight we were off Portland, well in

shore and under short sail, light winds from north-east, and weather

rather thick. About 8 A.M. the wind freshened and the haze

cleared away, which showed two large and lofty ships two or three miles

to windward of us. They proved to be our American friends, having their

stripes and stars flying for a pilot. Captain Deas at once gave orders

to hoist his signals for a pilot also, and as, by this time, several

cutters were standing out from Weymouth, the _Ganges_ being

farthest in shore got her pilot first on board. I said that I would

land in the pilot boat and go to London by rail, and would report the

ship that night or next morning at Austin Friars.” (She was consigned

to my firm.) “The breeze had considerably freshened before I got on

board the pilot cutter, when the _Ganges_ filled away on the

port tack, and, contrary to his wont, for he was a very cautious man,

crowded on all small sails. The Americans lost no time and were after

him, and I had three hours’ view of as fine an ocean race as I can wish

to see; the wind being dead ahead, the ships were making short tacks.

The _Ganges_ showed herself to be the most weatherly of the three;

and the gain on every tack in shore was obvious, neither did she seem

to carry way behind in fore reaching. She arrived off Dungeness six

hours before the other two, and was in the London Docks twenty-four

hours before the first, and thirty-six hours before the last, of her

opponents.”

[134] All our shipowners had not, however, even then given way to

despair, and Mr. Farrer reminds me of a speech which, at the time, had

a considerable effect in rousing the drooping spirits of those who

were in doubt. He says, in a note I received from him the other day:

“Shortly after I joined the Board of Trade, in 1850, I went to dine

at some large dinner in the City (a dinner, I think, for one of the

great marine charities) at which a great number of the large London

shipowners were present. They were then in a state of great irritation

at the recent repeal of the Navigation Laws. Amongst those present was

the late Mr. Richard Green, who, as is well known, was one of the very

few shipowners who supported the Government on the repeal of these

laws. After dinner the usual speeches were made, and amongst them was

one by the Secretary to the American Legation, a young gentleman who

addressed us in the flowing style not uncommon with young Transatlantic

orators. After him came Mr. Richard Green—the contrast of style was

striking. ‘We have heard,’ he said, ‘a good deal to-night about the

dismal prospects of British shipping, and we hear, too, from another

quarter, a great deal about the British Lion and the American Eagle,

and the way in which they are going to lie down together. Now, I

don’t know anything about all that, but this I do know, that we, the

British shipowners, have at last sat down to play a fair and open game

with the Americans, and by Jove we will trump them!’ The feelings

of the other shipowners present may be conceived.” And I may add he

_did_ “trump them,” for shortly afterwards he built a ship called

the _Challenger_ to match their _Challenge_, which thoroughly

eclipsed her.

[135] See Tooke’s ‘History of Prices,’ vol. v. p. 303.

[136] Mr. Farrer’s connection with the Board of Trade commenced

in 1850, when he was employed by the late Lord Taunton, then Mr.

Labouchere, to draw up a Merchant Shipping Bill; and he has ever since

had important relations with that Board, more especially on all matters

connected with the Mercantile Marine, first, as Secretary to that

department, and now as permanent Chief Secretary to the Board.

[137] Perhaps if masters of ships were more particular, and instead

of inserting in the printed certificate of discharge, as they now

almost indiscriminately do, “V. G.” (very good), they would mark the

real character of the man, with “V. G.” or “G.” as the case might be,

or when necessary substitute “N. S.” (not satisfied), it might have

some effect in improving the character of seamen; and these documents,

which are now almost worthless, would then become of some service to

shipmasters themselves. Why should we not adopt the course which we

generally (but not always) do in the case of house servants? A house

servant without a character has not much chance of employment, even

now, when the demand is very great for them. To give a true and just

character is a duty we owe, not merely to ourselves, but to society,

and shipmasters should understand that, by granting a certificate of

“V. G.” or “G.,” when the character of the seaman does not deserve

either grade, may produce far more serious consequences on board ship

than would likely be the case in our households, where we can discharge

a bad servant at once, which we have no power to do at sea. One bad

seaman may not merely contaminate the whole crew, but may be the means

of the loss of the ship on which he sails, and of all on board.

[138] This portion of the Act was somewhat hastily framed, especially

as regards the extent of inquiry and the power of depriving masters

and officers of their certificates; and, although that power was

subsequently limited by the Acts of 1854 and 1862, the clauses

referring to the mode of inquiry and the power to punish might with

advantage be still materially modified.

[139] 17 & 18 Vict., cap. 84.

[140] The rule is to measure the length of the ship in a straight line

along the deck, deducting from the length what is due to the rake of

the bow, as also to the stern timber, and to divide the length thus

taken into from four to twelve equal parts, according to the size of

the ship. At each of these divisions the breadth is taken and the depth

at each point of the division, and by making certain allowances, which

the Act specifies in minute detail, the capacity of each section or

compartment is thus accurately obtained. When the products of these

are ascertained, the register tonnage is obtained by means of an easy

mode of calculation, alike applicable, and equitably applicable, I must

add, to ships of any size and every conceivable form. Of course this

tonnage is subject to additions or deductions (which have sometimes

been the cause of much controversy) for poops, top-gallant forecastles,

houses, and other enclosed spaces on deck, which are all additions to

the tonnage, while the large spaces occupied by engines, boilers, and

coal-bunkers in steamers are deductions from it. Altogether it would

not be easy to concoct a more just and wise mode of ascertaining the

register tonnage of merchant vessels than that which Mr. Moorson, a

man of remarkable genius, after years of labour, submitted for the

consideration of Government, and which, through the instrumentality

of Mr. Farrer, was in a great measure, adopted and embodied into the

Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. I look back, as one of the pleasing

reminiscences of my public life, to the hours I spent with Mr. Moorson

in going through the details of his scheme before it was submitted to

the public; but, though I may have ventured to offer an amendment here

and there, as others may have done, the merit of the scheme belongs

to him alone. It is now adopted by nearly all maritime nations. Mr.

Moorson was the most modest of men; and I have the greatest pleasure in

adding my humble testimony to the public labours of this most excellent

and unassuming man.

[141] This Act has been a _real_ success. A perfect title to

any ship—even to the _Great Eastern_—can now be obtained at the

nominal expense of only one shilling sterling! Why cannot we apply some

such principle to the sale and transfer of land? It may be vain to ask

such a question; but the reason may be explained by an anecdote: “When

in Parliament I was frequently required to accompany deputations from

my constituents, and other persons connected with shipping to the Board

of Trade. One occasion, when Mr. Henley was President to the Board, I

well remember. The deputation was from a great seaport on the eastern

coast, and its leading spokesman was an attorney of considerable local

influence and reputation. Among the various grievances brought under

the notice of Mr. Henley was one which I did not expect to hear, and

which has, certainly, never been conscientiously raised either before

or since. It related to the law of Ship Registry as settled by the

Act of 1854. One of the leading features of that law is, that the

Register shall contain nothing but the names of those persons who can

give an _absolute_ title to the ship, omitting altogether the

trusts and ramifying interests which make the transfer of a title

to land such a complicated and expensive matter. The attorney in

question, however, attempted to make out the omission to be a great

grievance, arguing that all sorts of complicated interests could not

be placed on the Register. Mr. Henley, whose shrewdness has now become

proverbial (for I do not remember any man in the House of Commons

who more readily discovered the flaws in Bills introduced for its

consideration), in reply, after dealing with other grievances, in his

usual pointed and clear manner, quietly remarked, ‘And now we come to

another grievance—that you cannot put trusts on the Register. Now, it

seems to me,’ he continued, ‘that we have been tolerably successful

in doing for ships what all the wise men are trying _in vain_

to do for land—that is, to save them from a long lawyer’s bill—there

_may_ be a grievance—I dare say _some one_ (looking hard

at the attorney) _has a grievance_, but I don’t think it is the

_shipowner_!’”

[142] In the Exhibition of 1851 the French exhibited some beautiful

specimens of coast-lights, in which they then excelled, but, since

then, (see papers read by Sir William Thompson and Mr. J. Hopkinson

before the British Association at Bristol) we have made remarkable

improvements in the forms of our lighthouse apparatus, and now produce

lights more powerful and brilliant than any other country. These are,

chiefly, manufactured by Messrs. Chance Brothers of Birmingham, and,

for the mode of arranging the glass reflectors, we are greatly indebted

to the genius of the late Professor Faraday and Sir William Thompson.

Lights are now constructed, which on a clear night can be seen at

a distance of twenty-five miles, perhaps more. But still greater

improvements have, since then, been made by arranging the colours, or

rather the variation, of lights along a line of coast, so that the

navigator may be able, at once, to distinguish one light from the

other. For instance, some are fixed, single or double, white, red, or

flash lights, or are revolving, displaying alternately these or other

colours. But it has been found that red glass absorbs nearly two-thirds

of the power of the light, and thus is to a very large extent deprived

of its usefulness. Indeed, it has been found that colour of any kind

used to distinguish one light from another materially lessens its

power. Consequently, we are now adopting other means to distinguish

one light from another on any given line of coast. That is, we make

eclipses of opaque shades revolving round the usual lighting apparatus,

and these we can vary so as to show 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 seconds of

darkness with similar or greater intervals of bright light. We may

thus use altogether white or bright lights, which have the greatest

power to work in such a manner that one can be easily distinguished

from another. I may add that _electric_ light, instead of that

produced by oil or gas, has been tried within the last few years. One

of these lights was fixed in 1871 on Souter Point, coast of Durham.

The flashes were of 5 seconds’ duration, with dark intervals of 25

seconds. The apparatus producing this effect consisted of a dioptric of

the third order for fixed lights, around which there was an octagonal

drum of glass, consisting of panels of eight vertical lenses; by these

the divergent and continuous sheet of light from the fixed portion

of the apparatus was gathered up so as to form distinct beams which

successively reach the observer as the panels pass in succession before

him. The electricity for the production of the spark was generated

by one of Professor Holmes’ magnetic-electric machines, worked by a

steam-engine of four or five horse-power.

[143] It is to be regretted that the management of all the lights,

buoys, and beacons of the kingdom have not been placed under one head,

with a view to greater efficiency and economy.

[144] Apart from the aid thus rendered, there is a noble institution

for the saving of life from shipwreck on the coasts of the United

Kingdom, established in 1824, and maintained entirely by voluntary

subscriptions. It is not merely well known in this country, but

throughout the world, for no other nation of either ancient or modern

times has produced such a truly philanthropic society as the “Royal

National Lifeboat Institution of Great Britain.” It has now upwards

of 250 life-boats stationed on different parts of our coast. Since its

establishment it has expended on life-boats, and other means for saving

life from shipwreck, upwards of 356,000_l._; it has awarded 91

gold and 863 silver medals, and 45,200_l._ in coin to brave men as

rewards for saving life; while those who manage its affairs and provide

the necessary means, have for _their_ reward the inestimable

satisfaction of knowing, that the Institution has been the means

of extricating from a watery grave and restoring to their friends,

during the last half century, no less than 22,660 human beings, of

every kindred and of every tongue. How insignificant are the honours

conferred by monarchs compared with those which such labours of mercy

as these bestow! Its boats, as I have said, are stationed on every part

of the coast; and where the rocks are most rugged and the quicksands

most deceptive, there these noble craft are to be found with their

voluntary crews, the bravest of the brave, daring the rudest storms to

save the lives of their fellow-men, and too frequently placing their

own lives in the greatest peril. The boats are built expressly for

the purpose of encountering heavy storms. The medium, or thirty-feet

boat, to pull ten oars double-banked, is probably the best adapted for

the general purposes of a life-boat; but, on the Norfolk and Suffolk

coasts, and other places, some of the boats actually in use are from

forty to forty-five feet in length, weighing from four to five tons,

and fitted with lug-sails. These boats put to sea on their grand

mission of mercy during the most tempestuous weather.

I remember, a quarter of a century ago, attending, in conjunction

with its generous-hearted Chairman, the late Mr. Thomas Wilson, and

its present excellent Chief Secretary, Mr. Richard Lewis, and other

gentlemen, a meeting which had for its object the renovation of this

noble and truly national institution. Its annual income was then only

150_l._; its income is now upwards of 40,000_l._ per annum!

But it is only due to the foresight of Lord Cardwell to state that,

seeing, when President of the Board of Trade, in 1854, the value

that such an institution was likely to prove, he recommended a small

Government subsidy to aid it during its struggle for existence. His

approval, more than the money voted, was then of great advantage, and

he must now look back with no ordinary satisfaction to his thoughtful

and generous recommendation. Nor must I withhold from Government the

credit due to it for establishing that almost equally valuable and

useful contrivance, the Rocket Apparatus, managed by the Coast Guard,

under the directions of the Board of Trade, and supported from the

Mercantile Marine Fund.

[145] I have frequently thought it would be desirable to institute an

inquiry into _all_ losses at sea, where reliable evidence can be

obtained. I should have every loss recorded, with a brief notice of the

cause of loss, and this record should either be open to the inspection

of the public, or published annually by order of Parliament. It would

be instructive and valuable, and would, I think, tend to materially

lessen disasters at sea, by distinguishing those which arose from

unavoidable accidents and those which might have been avoided. Indeed,

so strong are my convictions on this subject that, if spared for a few

years longer (which I can hardly hope to be, as I am physically myself

a wreck), I hope to write another book, to be entitled the ‘Annals of

the Sea,’ giving an account of all disastrous shipwrecks, and calling

attention to those which would not have happened had ordinary prudence

been exercised.

[146] This Bill was introduced by Sir J. D. Elphinstone and Mr. Laird.

I opposed it on principle, as I felt that it was an unnecessary

interference with the duty of shipowners; and that, if chain cables

were to be tested by Government inspectors, we should be obliged to

appoint inspectors to examine and report on every article of a ship’s

equipment, thus as a matter of fact relieving shipowners from their

responsibility to the public. Besides, by subjecting chain cables to an

enormous and an unnecessary strain, the fibre of the iron was likely to

be destroyed or rendered more brittle, and, hence, less to be depended

on. All legislation in this direction should be narrowly watched, and

the line carefully drawn, as, in too many instances, it is likely to

do more harm than good. Indeed, I cannot too strongly impress upon the

minds of persons who have to deal with such questions the impolicy of

every measure which has for its object the performance by Government

officials of duties belonging to the shipowner, as every such measure

necessarily tends to relieve him from his responsibility to the public.

[147] 25 & 26 Vict., chap. 63. This Act altered the law of 1854 by

making the limit a sum dependent on the tonnage for 15_l._ per ton

in case of damage for loss of life, and 8_l._ per ton for loss of

goods. It was found that the law of 1854, by making the value of the

ship and freight in all cases the limit of damages, gave a premium to

bad, cheap, and ill-found ships, since the owner of the cheap ships

could recover against the owner of the valuable ship up to a large

limit, while the owner of the valuable ship could only recover against

the other a very small amount. It also encouraged the conveyance of

passengers in ships of an inferior description.

[148] I look back with great pleasure to the part I took, however

humble, in connection with this great measure. Though it was the Act

of Lord Aberdeen’s Government, its credit is mainly due to Mr. (now

Lord) Cardwell, then President of the Board of Trade, to Mr. (now Sir

Henry) Thring, by whom it was drawn with great ability and care, and to

Mr. T. H. Farrer, then Secretary of the Marine Department, whose clear

head, sound judgment, thorough knowledge of maritime law, and unwearied

exertions, were of the greatest value to the able minister under whom

he acted. Perhaps, in the whole history of Parliament, no Bill at all

approaching its dimensions and the multiplicity of subjects with which

it dealt, was ever carried through the House of Commons with so much

unanimity, and in so short a space of time, as the Merchant Shipping

Act of 1854; and, as the manner in which this was done may be useful to

the legislators of to-day and of the future, I shall endeavour to state

the mode of procedure. Mr. Cardwell, having made himself thoroughly

master of the subject by a careful study of the existing mercantile

marine laws of our own and other countries in all their details,

invited to the Board of Trade the representatives of all the leading

seaports in the kingdom, and having furnished them with an outline of

his views, wisely sought their aid in the construction of his great

measure. He courted discussion in every form, and, in no instance,

declined to receive a deputation from shipowners, sailors, and other

persons who could furnish him with useful information on the subject.

By such means he was able, not, however, without much labour, though

it was unseen and unknown, to complete and perfect a most difficult

and valuable legislative measure, the whole of the clauses of which

he carried through the House of Commons in one day’s sitting between

the hours of 12.30 and 5.45! No such legislative feat has ever been

performed before or since. Nor was it, indeed, a less perfect measure

than various others of one quarter its size, which had occupied the

attention of Parliament for as many days as the hours appropriated by

the House to its discussion.

CHAPTER XII.

Parliamentary inquiry, 1854-5, on Passenger ships—Heavy

losses at sea previously, and especially in 1854—Emigration

system—Frauds practised on emigrants—Runners and crimps—Remedies

proposed—Average price, then, of passages—Emigration

officer—Medical inspection—American emigration law—Dietary, then,

required—Disgraceful state of emigrant ships at that time—Act of

1852—Resolution of New York Legislature, 1854—Evidence as to iron

cargoes—Various attempts at improvement—Legislation in the United

States, 1855—Uniformity of action impossible—English Passenger

Act, 1855—Attempt to check issue of fraudulent tickets—General

improvements—Merchant Shipping Act discussed—Extent of owner’s

liability—Unnecessary outcry of the Shipowners—Question of

limited liability—Value of life—Powers given to the Board of

Trade—Mode of procedure in inquiries about loss of life—Further

complaints of the Shipowners, who think too much discretion has

been given to the Emigration officer—Though slightly modified

since, the principle of the Passenger Act remains the same—The

“Rule of the road at sea”—Examination now required for engineers

as well as masters of steam vessels—Injurious action of the

crimps—Savings-banks for seamen instituted, and, somewhat later,

money-order offices.

[Sidenote: Parliamentary inquiry, 1854-5, on Passenger ships.]

Although by the Act of 1854,[149] as well as by previous Acts,[150] all

Passenger ships were to be surveyed, the impulse given to emigration

by the gold discoveries in Australia, and the increased demand for

labour in America, combined with other causes, induced Parliament, in

1854, to appoint another Committee of the House of Commons, besides the

one which sat in 1851, to inquire into this now important subject, and

to pass an Act, in the following year which is the chief Act now in

force (18 & 19 Vict. c. 119) exclusively directed to the conveyance of

passengers by sea, more especially of that class of persons known as

emigrants.

Between 1815 and 1854, inclusive, 4,116,958 passengers left the United

Kingdom, being upon an average 102,923 persons annually. But of this

vast number 2,446,802, or nearly three-fifths, emigrated during the

eight years previous to 1854, and 1,358,096 of them in the previous

four years. So great had the rage for emigration become, that in 1854,

no less a sum than 1,730,000_l._ was remitted by settlers in North

America to their relations and friends in the United Kingdom for the

express purpose of enabling those who had been left at home to join

them in their adopted country.[151]

[Sidenote: Heavy losses at sea previously, and especially in 1854.]

Yet these acts of generosity and self-denial, altogether unparalleled

in the history of the world (we have no record of any such acts in the

great tides of emigration from the East, and in those which peopled

Carthage from Phœœnicia), had been performed during many previous

years, the sums remitted for this purpose having varied from about

half a million sterling to more than a million and a half annually.

This rush for emigration having induced Shipowners, eager to reap

so rich a harvest, to place vessels in the trade, many of which

were altogether unsuited for it, with other causes, compelled the

Legislature to investigate the whole subject; the result being the

comprehensive Passenger Act of 1855, which was passed not one day too

soon. During the _seven_ years ending December 1853, no fewer than

_sixty-one_ ships were lost in this trade, with the further

lamentable loss of 1567 lives. In 1854, alone, _nine_ emigrant

ships were wrecked. Five of these were from Liverpool, including the

_Tayleur_, stranded on Lundy Island, when 330 persons perished,

and the _City of Glasgow_, having on board 430 souls, who, with

the ship, were never afterwards heard of. The _Black Hawk_

and _Winchester_ foundered at sea in the great storm of the

15th and 17th of April; the _City of Philadelphia_ steamer was

wrecked on Cape Race, Newfoundland, in August, as well as the ship

_Tottenham_, from Cork to Quebec, on Cape Breton, but, happily, in

these instances no lives were lost.

Such were the disastrous total losses of British ships in 1854;

and, although few or any of these losses can be attributed to

unseaworthiness, the loss of life was so appalling, that the

Legislature was led to bestow more than usual attention to the

subject. But besides these, several ships were so seriously injured

that they were compelled to return for repairs. One loss, that of the

_Powhattan_, was a singularly melancholy one. This vessel sailed

from Liverpool with German emigrants on board, and, after sustaining

much other damage, was, afterwards, wrecked at Barnagat, off the coast

by New Jersey, during the gale of the 16th April: although stranded

within eighty yards of low-water mark, and so near, indeed, that the

unfortunate people on board could hear and reply to the suggestions

made to them by persons on the land, not a single individual reached

the shore, though the vessel did not break up for twenty-four hours

after she struck.

[Sidenote: Emigration system.]

But other causes had long been at work to render necessary a revision

of the laws relating to passenger ships. The rate of passage being

generally higher from Ireland than from Liverpool, on account of the

difficulty of procuring cargo, most of the Irish emigrants were shipped

on the decks of the coasting steamers to that port; thence, they

either secured their passage through the Irish agents of the Liverpool

brokers, or they found their way to that port at their own expense, and

procured tickets for themselves. Others again, for they were nearly

all of the very poorest class of persons, many of them having no means

whatever after their passage and their little outfit were paid, acted

on orders sent home from New York, their passage-money having been

prepaid by their friends or relations in America.

[Sidenote: Frauds practised on emigrants.]

In the first case, instances occurred where emigrants had paid their

passage-money, or a part of it, to unauthorized or insolvent parties,

and, on arriving at Liverpool, found no ship, nor any broker liable

for the passage. In the case of orders remitted from America, the

emigrant was of course liable to a similar fraud, with the additional

aggravation that, the offence having been committed in a foreign

country, there was no chance of obtaining redress for the sufferer

or of punishment to the offender. When, however, Irish emigration

became so important, and such large sums were remitted from settlers

in America, the business became more systematic and fell into more

respectable hands.

[Sidenote: Runners and crimps.]

The moment, however, the emigrant set foot on the quay at Liverpool

he was beset by a crowd of runners and crimps, one of whom seized his

baggage and carried it to the lodging-house in the interest of which

he was acting. This runner, besides plundering the emigrant to the

extent, at least, of exorbitant charges for lodgings, received 7½ per

cent. on the passage-money from the passenger broker; and, indeed, at

one time, obtained this without any communication with the passenger.

Although a clause in a previous Act[152] had been inserted to check

so great an extortion, the system proved stronger than the law;

and, notwithstanding further steps were taken to remedy this evil,

the percentage was still demanded and paid, though the service was

performed without authority. The passenger broker reimbursed himself

for this tax by charging the exorbitant commission of 12½ per cent.

against the charterer or shipowner; the charge ultimately falling upon

the emigrant in the shape of an increased rate of passage.

The emigrant was further persuaded by the runner that it was necessary

to lay in a stock of provisions for the voyage, together with other

purchases, on all which the runner got a percentage. Great frauds were

also perpetrated in “dollaring,” that is, in exchanging money, in which

the emigrant was robbed at least 20 per cent.

[Sidenote: Remedies proposed.]

[Sidenote: Average price, then, of passages.]

Although various plans were suggested to the committee, with a view

of putting an end to the evils complained of, it is only necessary to

refer to that part of the question which affects the actual shipping

and conveyance of the passenger to his destination. It was generally

agreed that the existing regulations were not stringent enough, the

great object of the previous Acts having been to give as much security

as possible to the passengers; but it was found impossible to obtain

this without increasing the price of passage, which had fallen from

5_l._ in 1842 to 3_l._ 10_s._ in 1851, from Liverpool to

New York, and about 5_s._ less to Quebec, including provisions.

It is further to be noted that, though in 1842 the charge was higher,

there was less given for it, as the Shipowners supplied only two-thirds

of the amount of provisions provided at the latter period. While the

law, in fact, had obliged the Shipowner to supply a larger quantity

of provisions, restrictions as to the extent of the provisions added,

together with a superior dietary scale, the money price of the passage

had been materially diminished.

[Sidenote: Emigration officer.]

In 1864, the inspection of passenger ships and provisions was carried

on at Liverpool, for example, by an Emigration officer, and two

assistants who were lieutenants in the Royal Navy. The Emigration

officer had to satisfy himself of the seaworthiness of every ship

which came under the Act; to see that no greater number of passengers

were carried than her measured space would allow according to law;

that her boats were sufficient, and that she had the necessary stock

of provisions and water for the number of passengers to be carried,

and that they were of good quality. He had further to attend to the

complaints of the emigrants, and to procure redress for them where

necessary. The provisions were tested by the arbitrary selection of

some barrels of flour or oatmeal, which were bored through with an

auger, so that a fair sample might be brought up and tasted. Whenever

any suspicion existed, the inspection was more minute, and the duty of

tasting became very irksome.

[Sidenote: Medical inspection.]

The medical inspection of emigrants took place at Liverpool, not on

board the ship, but in an office adjoining the dock. The emigrant,

taking with him his contract ticket, proceeded to the medical office,

which he entered at one door, and, if approved on the inspection,

had his ticket stamped, and passed out at another. He was compelled

to produce his ticket on embarking. A system such as this naturally

opened a door to fraud and personation, while, not unfrequently, after

personal examination the emigrant contracted an infectious disorder,

the infection spreading before the diseased person could be removed

from the ship.

[Sidenote: American emigration law.]

By the United States Statute of the 22nd February, 1847, it was

provided that the space to be allowed to passengers should be fourteen

clear superficial feet of deck for each passenger, if such vessel did

not pass within the Tropics. By an Act of 1848 this was so far altered,

that when “the height between the decks is less than six feet, and more

than five feet, each passenger shall be allowed sixteen superficial

feet; but if the height between decks be less than five feet, then

twenty-two superficial feet; and for every passenger on the orlop

deck, thirty feet.” Under our Act, no ship could clear out that had not

six feet between the decks. In some cases the law of the United States

was but loosely observed; while other cases, doubtless, occurred where

English vessels sailed from Liverpool to New Orleans with a number

greatly exceeding what they could legitimately carry, but which they

had reason to expect would not be noticed on their arrival. Owing,

however, to some change of persons at the Custom House at New Orleans

an inspection was instituted; two vessels were heavily fined, and one

was confiscated. But it was found more difficult to provide against

the frauds practised by the Shipowners in supplying bad or unwholesome

provisions.

[Sidenote: Dietary, then, required.]

The amount of provision by the Parliamentary scale to each adult

passenger per week was, viz., water, 21 quarts; biscuit, 2½ lbs.;

wheaten flour, 1 lb.; oatmeal, 5 lbs.; rice, 2 lbs.; molasses, 2 lbs.,

to be issued in advance, at the interval of twice a week. Potatoes

might be given in lieu of oatmeal or rice, in the proportion of 5 lbs.

of potatoes for 1 lb. of oatmeal or rice; and, in vessels sailing from

Liverpool, or from Scotch or Irish ports, oatmeal might be substituted

in equal quantities for rice. The dietary was afterwards altered by

the Act of 1851, an alternative scale being promulgated, with the

substitution of beef or pork, preserved meat, salt fish, split peas,

&c., &c., for bread-stuffs. This more expensive scale was adopted in

the ports, whence English emigrants usually sailed; but, besides the

legal supply, nearly every emigrant took with him some additional

provision, such as bacon, eggs, &c., &c.

[Sidenote: Disgraceful state of emigrant ships at that time.]

The filthy state of these ships during the passage was, at that period,

worse than anything that could be imagined. It was scarcely possible

to induce the passengers to sweep the decks after their meals, or to

be decent with respect to the common wants of nature; in many cases,

in bad weather, they could not go on deck, their health suffered so

much that their strength was gone, and they had not the power to help

themselves.[153] Hence, “between decks” was like a loathsome dungeon.

When the hatchways were opened under which the people were stowed, the

steam rose, and the stench was like that from a pen of pigs. The few

beds they had were in a dreadful state, for the straw, once wet with

sea-water, soon rotted; besides which, they used the between decks for

all sorts of filthy purposes. Whenever vessels put back from distress,

all these miseries and sufferings were exhibited in the most aggravated

form. In one case, it appeared that the vessel, having experienced

rough weather, the people were unable to go on deck and cook their

provisions; the strongest maintained the upper hand over the weakest;

and it was even said that there were women, who died of starvation. The

passengers were then expected to cook for themselves (they no longer do

so), and, from being unable to do this, the greatest suffering arose.

It was at the commencement of the voyage, that this system, naturally,

produced its worst effects. The first days were those in which the

people suffered most from sea-sickness, and, under the prostration of

body thereby induced, were wholly incapacitated from cooking; the

absence of food, if it does not aggravate, at any rate preventing

recovery from sickness: and thus, even though the provisions might be

honestly and liberally issued—casks in some cases being opened and

placed on deck for every one to help himself—yet the passengers would

be half-starved. It was time that a system, so barbarous and withal so

unnecessary, should be altered.

[Sidenote: Act of 1852.]

[Sidenote: Resolution of New York Legislature, 1854.]

In 1852, various recommendations made were carried into effect by a

bill brought in by Mr. Frederick Peel; and, in 1855, the whole law was

consolidated and greatly improved by the Passengers Act of that year.

In fact, it cannot be denied that whatever improvements had taken place

through the operation of the laws of 1849 and 1852, the passengers

on board emigrant ships were still, as a rule, great sufferers. The

United States Legislatures bear convincing testimony on this point,

as, on the 6th January, 1854, that of the State of New York passed a

series of resolutions, calling the attention of Congress to the great

and increasing mortality on board vessels engaged in the business of

carrying emigrants _during the previous twelve months_, bringing

forward undoubted evidence that such suffering and death resulted

from insufficient ventilation, &c. The Senate, agreeing with the

prayer of these resolutions, concurred, also, in the propriety of

inquiry and further legislation. All intelligent, independent parties

admitted, indeed, the expediency of concerting an effective system

of co-operation between the two governments, so as to prevent an

infraction of the regulations mutually agreed upon.

[Sidenote: Evidence as to iron cargoes.]

In conformity with the evidence adduced, frequent disasters to

emigrant vessels were ascribed to the effects produced by cargoes of

iron; while the inconsiderate manner in which some owners, charterers,

or brokers, even against the remonstrances of the commanders and

officers, persisted in thus loading their vessels, was alleged to be

a fruitful source of disaster.[154] It is likely that the mortality

at sea was increased by such cargoes, as they made the ship labour

heavily, causing her at the same time to ship a great quantity of

water, with the further probability of producing leaks. The people,

too, had then to work at the pumps, were hard fagged and badly

fed. But the owners or charterers for a time resisted Government

intervention, asserting that the Legislature ought not to fetter

mercantile enterprise; and, further, that, if ships were restricted as

to cargo, the price of the passage must be raised. On the other hand,

it was proposed to give a larger discretionary power to the Emigration

officer, so as to prevent improper and dangerous stowage. The

insufficiency of existing measures of precautions for the preservation

of health; the dietaries, the quality of the ships taken up for

passengers, the runners, lodging, detention, &c., of emigrants, all

became subjects of consideration, and, especially, the number of boats

necessary to be carried.

[Sidenote: Various attempts at improvement.]

Accordingly, it appeared absolutely necessary that the authority of the

Emigration officers to control the stowage of heavy cargo should be

placed beyond doubt; that the number of passengers for whom a surgeon

should be required should be reduced from 500 to 300; that the Queen in

Council should have authority to make special regulations, in excess

of the law, for the prevention of sickness on board ship during the

prevalence of epidemics; that the space allowed under the existing

Act should be increased; that it should be obligatory to provide

water-closets in the “between decks” for women and children; that a

more ample dietary should be prescribed; that no ship should carry more

than 500 passengers; that the number of passengers necessary to bring

a ship under the Act should be reduced from one to twenty-five to one

to fifty tons; that the exemption of ships carrying mails should be

clearly defined; that runners should be required to wear badges; and,

finally, that the subsistence-money in case of detention should be

increased.

[Sidenote: Legislation in the United States, 1855.]

Concurrently with the proceedings taken on this side of the Atlantic,

the Senate of the United States also took the matter up, but they

relied, chiefly, on the answers given to a series of questions

framed and addressed to parties competent to give information. Their

recommendations, therefore, well deserve notice. Thus, they urged that

a space should be reserved on the upper deck for exercise in proportion

to the number carried; that a ship’s capacity should be limited by

tonnage as well as space; that, during the winter months, the number

allowed in proportion to tonnage should be reduced; that no passengers

should be carried on an orlop deck; that the number of privies should

be increased, with separate accommodation for females; that provisions

should be issued cooked; that rules should be established for the

maintenance of discipline; and, lastly, that the ship should be

made responsible to the extent of the passage-money in the case of

passengers dying at sea.[155]

The first Bill proposed in the United States did not pass. But, in

1855, a Passenger Act to regulate the carriage of passengers in

steam-ships and other vessels, was introduced and became law. This

latter Bill, though much less stringent than the Bill originally

proposed, and in respect to space even less so than the previously

existing law, introduced several new provisions of considerable value,

the chief of which was a more ample dietary scale, and a provision that

the master should, on his arrival, report every death on the voyage,

and pay on account of such death a fine of 10 dollars. The fines so

paid were made applicable to the care and protection of sick, indigent,

or destitute emigrants; and the object in imposing the fine was to

give the master of the ship a pecuniary interest in the health of his

passengers. It was thought by some, that if this could be effected, a

great step would be made towards improving their treatment on board.

There was, however, a risk that masters would, by insurance, neutralise

this interest, as was once attempted as respects the second moiety of

passage-money in the case of emigrants sent to Australia.

[Sidenote: Uniformity of action impossible.]

Of course it was in the highest degree desirable that the laws of the

United States and those of England with regard to passenger ships

should be assimilated.[156] Indeed, various committees of the House of

Commons and many eminent philanthropists had urged this assimilation,

the main protection for passengers being to be secured by an inquiry

as to their treatment by officers appointed at the place of arrival.

There can be no doubt that, with a view to a perfect system, the laws

on both sides the Atlantic ought to be identical; but the United

States government, apart from the necessary diversity of regulations

in various States of the Union, is placed in this further difficulty.

The United Kingdom is not the only, nor will it be, hereafter, the

principal source from which emigrants reach the United States. Large

multitudes depart from German, Belgian, and French ports, and in 1853

and 1854, many emigrants sailed from ports in Norway. The passenger

laws in each of these countries differ from each other, and even more

from the law of the United States. There was, therefore, an insuperable

difficulty in framing, on the other side of the Atlantic, a law so

general as to embrace the provisions of the several European laws,

without making it so vague as to be practically worthless.

[Sidenote: English Passenger Act, 1855.]

But our Passengers’ Amendment Act of 1855, which came into operation

on the 1st October of that year, made some important advances towards

the law of the United States. The principal alterations introduced by

this Act, beyond the regulations of 1852, were, that the number of

passengers was limited; the age of a “statute adult” reduced from

fourteen to twelve years; a distinction was made between the upper and

lower passenger deck; increase of space was allowed to passengers; mail

steamers were exempted under special rules; the dietary scale improved;

the amount of detention-money increased; and the emigrant runners

placed under more efficient control.

One chief provision of the Passengers’ Act required that an abstract

thereof and of the Orders in Council should be posted up in each

emigrant ship.[157] The Emigration Commissioners, in their report of

1857, give an opinion that the Act has worked satisfactorily; that the

changes introduced have tended, materially, to add to the comfort and

promote the health of emigrants, the returns of mortality in ships to

the United States attesting the same result.[158] On the other hand,

the reduction in the number a ship might carry, and the increase in

the dietary, necessarily added to the expenses of the passage, and,

to a certain extent, diminished for a time the amount of emigration.

Further, the Commissioners stated that the runners, at the ports of

departure, have been brought more effectually under control, so as to

prevent many of the abuses formerly prevalent.

[Sidenote: Attempt to check issue of fraudulent tickets.]

In the United States, also, and especially at New York, efforts have

been made to stop the frauds heretofore committed by this class on

emigrants. In that city, an establishment, under the control of the

Commissioners for Emigration, has been set on foot at Castle Garden, to

protect emigrants from runners, and from those who sell them fraudulent

or false inland passage-tickets. In consequence of a representation

from the United States Government, whereby it appeared that, the

suppression in the States, of frauds connected with the sale of inland

tickets had led to a system of selling the same description of tickets

in Europe or on board emigrant ships, an official notice of this

fact was given to emigrants, cautioning them that the safest course

was not to purchase an inland ticket in England, but to defer making

arrangements for the passage up the country, till their arrival at the

port of debarkation. This notice, however, applied to the United States

only; and it was stated, explicitly, that the through tickets given

by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada to emigrants proceeding to the

St. Lawrence were not open to suspicion, and were, besides, of great

benefit to the emigrant.

[Sidenote: General improvements.]

Among the improvements in ships carried out by the Emigration

Commissioners, we should mention that they have introduced, of late

years, a more suitable dietary for young children, with the making

of fresh bread, two or three times a week, for the passengers. This

change has been also authorized in private ships. Several new systems

of ventilation have, also, been tried. In a sailing passenger ship,

especially during the calms which prevail on the Line, their proper

ventilation will always prove a matter of greater difficulty than is

the case with a steamer, whose own motion is sufficient to create

a current of air. Further experience on this point is, however,

necessary, though very considerable improvements have recently been

made.

[Sidenote: Merchant Shipping Act discussed.]

As great fault was found by the central committee of the General

Shipowners’ Society with the 504th section of the Merchant Shipping Act

(Part IX.), which lays down the measure of the owners’ liability, it

may be desirable to state the nature of the complaints. This section of

the Act provides:—

[Sidenote: Extent of owners’ liability.]

1st. Where any loss of life or personal injury is caused to any person

being carried in such ship:

2nd. Where any damage or loss is caused to any goods, merchandise, or

other things whatsoever on board any such ship:

3rd. Where any loss of life or personal injury is, by reason of the

improper navigation of such sea-going ship as aforesaid, caused to any

person carried in any other ship or boat:

4th. Where any loss or damage is, by reason of any such improper

navigation of such sea-going ships as aforesaid, caused by any other

ship or boat, or to any goods, merchandise, or other things whatsoever

on board any other ship or boat: No owner shall, in such cases where

the events occur without his knowledge or privity, be answerable in

damages to an extent beyond the value of his ship and the freight due,

or to grow due, in respect of such ship during the voyage which, at the

time of the happening of such event, as aforesaid, is in prosecution

or contracted for, subject to the following proviso, that is to say:

that, in no case, where any liability, as aforesaid, is incurred in

respect of loss of life or personal injury to the passenger, shall the

value of such ship and the freight thereof be taken to be less than

15_l._ per registered ton.

[Sidenote: Unnecessary outcry of the Shipowners.]

[Sidenote: Question of limited liability.]

The central body of Shipowners, while protesting[159] against the

injustice of this Act, forgot that, in point of fact, the limitation

of their liability was thereby secured, which it was not under the

common law of England. They further contended that the 511th clause

of the Merchant Shipping Act was inconsistent with the 504th clause,

as the former enacts that parties seeking compensation may refuse to

accept the indemnity awarded by the authorities constituted by the

Act,[160] and may bring an action against the Shipowner for damages, by

which he might be rendered liable to an amount in many cases involving

the whole of his capital. But the clause providing that any person

who is dissatisfied with the amount of statutory damages (30_l._

each person) may bring an action on his own account, enacts expressly

“that any damages recoverable by such person shall be payable only

out of the residue, _if any_, of the aggregate amount for which

the owner is liable, after deducting all sums paid to her Majesty’s

Paymaster-General in manner aforesaid; and, if the damages recovered

in such action do not exceed _double_ the statutory amount, such

person is liable to pay all the costs as between attorney and client.”

[Sidenote: Value of life.]

On the other hand, if, as was observed by way of illustration in the

course of discussion, a bishop were to fall a victim to an accident,

it might be considered that an assessment of 30_l._ would not

compensate the surviving members of the bishop’s family for such

loss. There can be no doubt that the framers of the present law, when

repealing the old laws, endeavoured to deal substantial justice.

They must have felt that, to exempt Shipowners from liability beyond

the value of the ship and freight would, in too many instances, be

an encouragement for unscrupulous persons to employ worn-out and

inadequately-manned vessels in the conveyance of passengers and

emigrants: and on the other hand, that to subject Shipowners, guilty of

no fault or default, to unlimited liability for such calamities would

induce men of property and character to withdraw their fortunes from so

great a hazard.

[Sidenote: Powers given to the Board of Trade.]

To prevent as far as possible either of these evils, and to insure

compensation for personal injury, or injury consequent from loss of

life, was one great object of the existing Acts; and fully to carry it

into effect, the Board of Trade has now power to require the sheriff to

summon a jury for the purpose of ascertaining the number, names, and

descriptions of all persons killed or injured by reason of any wrongful

act, neglect, or default.[161]

[Sidenote: Mode of procedure in inquiries about loss of life.]

At such an inquiry the Board of Trade is plaintiff, and the Shipowner

liable for the occurrence the defendant.[162] A special jury may be

called, and the usual precautions as to costs are adopted. The Board

of Trade may make any compromise it thinks fit as to damages, which

are, in each case of death or injury, to be assessed at the statutory

30_l._, and are made the first charge on the aggregate amount

for which the owner is liable. The Act regulates the proceedings, and

confers extensive powers on the Board of Trade in the distribution

of the funds. With regard to any dissatisfied person claiming more,

he is liable, if he does not recover damages to double the statutory

amount, to pay costs to the defendant Shipowner; and, even if he

obtains a verdict, the damages recoverable are still to be payable

out of the residue, if any, of the aggregate amount for which the

Shipowner is liable, after deducting all sums paid to Her Majesty’s

Paymaster-General. In cases, where several claims are made or

apprehended, against the Shipowner for loss of life, personal injury,

or loss or damage to ships, boats, or goods, he may appeal to the Court

of Chancery to determine the amount of his liability; the question of

liability or non-liability being left to another jurisdiction. But it

has been held that a Shipowner, who applies to a court of Equity in

order to obtain its assistance, must admit that he has incurred some

liability. Of course, all costs in relation to these matters may be

brought into account among the part-owners of the same ship, in the

same manner as any other moneys disbursed for the use thereof.

[Sidenote: Further complaints of the Shipowners,]

Some of the Shipowners complained of the reintroduction of a liability

nearly unlimited as set forth in the 511th clause,[163] urging that

foreign shipowners could not be rendered liable to its operation,

and that Shipowners are expressly exempted from liability for damage

caused by the negligence or misconduct of licensed pilots, on the

very ground that their competency has been tested and approved by

public authorities. This last argument is, however, wholly untenable,

unless a perfect immunity is to be accorded to every ship-master who

may have obtained a certificate of qualification. The municipal law

of one State can only bind those subjects who owe allegiance thereto;

but all civilised States frame regulations for the protection of life

and property. It would be very difficult to suggest any improvement in

the law. The provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act were the result

of profound consideration, and ought to be deemed to have effected

as reasonable an adjustment as is possible, between the owners of

sea-going ships and persons sustaining damage.

[Sidenote: who think too much discretion has been given to the

Emigration officer.]

With regard to the Passenger Act, the central body of Shipowners

further complained of the discretionary power exercised by the

Emigration officer; and, in recent reports, have called attention

to those provisions which “while they harass the Shipowner, do

not in the least tend to the advantage, comfort, or safety of the

passengers;” the consequence of so much being left to the discretion

of the Emigration officer leading, as they thought, to this, that the

mode of fitting out emigrant vessels depends mainly on his will, and

varies, therefore, with each port from which the vessel sails.[164] The

“fiend discretion,” as a well-known writer[165] has described it, is

no doubt ever abhorrent to Englishmen, who watch, with Constitutional

jealousy, the rights of property and of the subject. But it is, indeed,

the cardinal difficulty of administration. A hard and fast law stops

improvement, and reduces everything to a dead level. Discretion may

be tyranny. The experience, however, of the frauds, oppression, and

cruelties, practised in former years on the unprotected emigrant, will,

I doubt not, continue to operate on the Legislature, and will prevent

them from relaxing many portions of the present rigorous system, which

has at least produced various salutary improvements.

[Sidenote: Though slightly since modified, principle of Passenger Act

remains the same.]

Though modifications and alterations have been made in the Passenger

Act of 1855, the most important of which has been the transfer of its

management from the Emigration Commissioners to the Board of Trade,

its leading principles are still unchanged, and these, in their main

features, have now been adopted by nearly all other countries. The

changes most worthy of note are to be found (Clause 35, &c.) in the

Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Act of 1862, which gives the owner

or master of any passenger ship power to reject, as a passenger, any

“drunken or disorderly” person; or to land such person, or others, as

“molest or continue to molest any passenger,” at any convenient port

in the United Kingdom. Power is also given in this Act to inflict a

penalty, not exceeding 20_l_., on any passenger who interferes

with the crew in the execution of their duty; or “who wilfully does, or

causes to be done, anything in such a manner as to obstruct or injure

any part of the machinery or tackle of such steamer.”

[Sidenote: The “rule of the road at sea.”]

The Act of 1862 also laid down more clear and distinct sailing rules;

and as these are of great importance, I furnish them at length in a

footnote.[166] For these rules the country is greatly indebted to the

exertions of Mr. Milner Gibson, when President of the Board of Trade,

without whose practical knowledge of the subject (as a first-class

yachtsman and navigator), and his patience and temper, the nautical

men connected with the Board of Trade and Trinity House, as well as

various naval officers, in office and out of doors, would never have

consented to them. Even now we frequently read in the daily press

letters opposed to these rules, just as we find writers on finance

who have their currency hobbies, and who are not, and never will be,

satisfied with Sir Robert Peel’s Bank Charter Act of 1844.

[Sidenote: Examination now required for engineers as well as masters of

steam-ships.]

By the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, the master and chief mate of

all sea-going vessels, whether sailing ships or steamers, are, as I

have already explained, required to possess a certificate of previous

servitude or of competency. The Act of 1862 extended, and to great

advantage, the principle of examination, also, to engineers engaged in

sea-going steamers, who, since then, have been required to undergo an

examination, and produce certificates of good conduct and sobriety.

Their certificates of competency are of two grades—first class and

second class. Any sea-going home-trade _passenger_ steamer, or any

foreign-going steam-ship of more than one hundred horse-power nominal,

must, therefore, now carry, at least, one engineer who possesses a

certificate of competency; and all steamers of greater power must

have, at least, two such engineers, one of whom may be of the second

class. But all engineers who had served as such in sea-going vessels,

previously to the 1st April, 1862, were entitled to a certificate of

service, and were not required to undergo an examination.

Though many owners of steam-ships were strongly opposed to any

legislative interference with the engineers whom they employed,

alleging, among other reasons, that they were thus frequently prevented

from promoting men in their service who had served them well and

faithfully—as for instance, those in an inferior capacity, such as the

head stoker—there can be no doubt that the effect of the law, enforcing

these examinations, has been as salutary in the case of engineers as it

has proved in the case of masters and mates. There may be exceptions to

the rule, but, on the whole, the requirements of the Act have tended,

materially, to improve the class of men now employed as engineers on

our merchant steamers, and have, as such, been generally accepted by

the men themselves.

[Sidenote: Injurious action of the crimps.]

But, before closing my remarks on the mercantile marine legislation

of the twelve years subsequent to the repeal of the Navigation Laws,

there is one measure, apparently trivial in itself, which has been a

great boon to our seamen. Before any of these Acts came into operation,

they, as I have endeavoured to show, were to a great extent under the

control of a class of men familiarly known as “crimps,” who were the

“sailor’s agents.”[167] They found him a ship, discounted his advance

note at usurious rates, assisted him to receive his wages at the end of

the voyage,[168] and _taught him how to spend them_. Previously

to the Act of 1850, seamen, on the termination of a voyage, were either

paid their wages on board ship, or at the office of the Shipowner or

his agents. In either case, the crimps, most of whom were keepers of

low lodging-houses or beer-shops, were in attendance upon the sailors,

and he, who had to receive the largest amount of pay, was attended by

the most numerous and obsequious of these vultures, each ready to prey

upon him. Suspecting no wrong, Jack was too frequently induced, after

he had received his wages, to partake, on the invitation of the crimps,

of a glass of grog or a pint of beer at the nearest public-house, and

this, apparently, friendly intercourse too often produced the most

lamentable results.

[Sidenote: Savings-banks for seamen instituted;]

To obviate, or rather to mitigate if possible, these evils, the

Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt were empowered,

by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, to establish Savings-Banks

for seamen; and, by the Seamen’s Savings-Bank Act of 1856, these

banks were placed under the control of the Board of Trade, which was

authorized to open “a central office in London, together with branch

savings-banks at such ports and places in the United Kingdom as they

may think expedient,” where “seamen, or the wives, widows and children

of seamen,” might make deposits, not exceeding at one time 200_l._

[Sidenote: and, somewhat later, money-order offices.]

Under this Act, the Board of Trade has opened at all the shipping

offices throughout the United Kingdom a department where the sailor,

on his discharge, may deposit the whole or any portion of his wages;

or may, by means of a money-order office, since added, remit them

to his relations or friends. The effect has been salutary, inasmuch

as the sailor is thus, to some extent (less than I could wish),

prevented from being plundered by depraved persons, whose chief

occupation consists in getting what they can out of him. Although Jack

may still desire to retain from his wages enough for the proverbial

“spree” or jollification after a long sea-voyage, too large a portion

of his earnings still go to crimps and other depraved persons; but

as a considerable amount is now either deposited at the savings-bank

or remitted home, the crimp has less inducement to offer his very

questionable services to the sailor than he had before this excellent

Act came into operation.[169]

FOOTNOTES: