m
 
 "L I E> RAFLY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N I VLR5ITY 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 V 
 
 3 
 
 ALLEGED OVERLOADING OF SHIPS. 
 
 MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S SPEECH 
 
 11 
 
 TO THE 
 
 DEPUTATION OF SHIPOWNERS, 
 
 ON THE 8th MAEOH, 1883, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 EESULTING THEREFROM, 
 
 WITH OTHER MATTER BEARING ON THE SUBJECT. 
 
 Printed for the Liverpool Shipowners Association, 
 May, 1883.
 
 Mr. Chamberlain's Speech to the Deputation of 
 . Shipowners on the %th March, 1883. 
 
 Extract frofu the " Times " 0/ the gth March, 1883. 
 
 Yesterday, at the Offices of the Board of Trade, Mr. Cham- 
 berlain made an important speech to a deputation from the 
 Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdon, who had waited 
 upon him to propose alterations in the existing law. The 
 deputation, introduced by Mr. Tennant, M.P., was from all parts 
 of the United Kingdom, and various local Chambers were repre- 
 sented by leading Shipowners and the Members of Parliament of the 
 boroughs and towns, and among others there were present Lord 
 Claud Hamilton, M.P., Mr. Norwood, M.P., Mr. Whitley, M.P., 
 Mr. Gourley, M.P., Mr. H. Corry, M.P., Mr. Alderman Lawrence, 
 M.P., Mr. S. Williamson, M.P., &c. 
 
 Mr. Laing, President of the Chamber of Shipping of the 
 United Kingdom, stated that at the last Meeting of the Chamber 
 resolutions were passed concerning the right of appeal from the 
 decisions of Courts of Inquiry, the desertion of seamen, the 
 advance note question, and the load-line question. Mr. Laing 
 expressed his hearty concurrence with the words spoken by the 
 President the night before at the Mansion House, as to the great 
 progress of trade achieved with very little aid from the State, and 
 with very little assistance from any Government, and also the 
 President's remarks upon the beneficial results of " the free play 
 allowed in this country to individual effort and private enterprise." 
 Mr. Raybourne, of Glasgow, then addressed the President on the
 
 subject of appeals being allowed from Courts of Survey and Courts 
 of Inquiry, and Mr. Kennedy, of Liverpool, on the subjects of 
 the desertion of seamen and advance notes, adducing as an 
 instance of the trouble caused to Shipowners the case of the 
 Cunard ship " Bothnia," from which 1 7 men deserted a few days 
 ago. Colonel Hill, Mr. Hall, Mr, Kennedy, and Mr. Glover also 
 spoke on the various subjects in which Shipowners are interested, 
 such as desertion, powers of arrest, and the load-line tables. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain commenced his reply by stating that he 
 was very glad to have the advantage of conferring with the depu- 
 tation, whose representative character he thoroughly recognised, 
 and he hoped that Mr. Glover did not stand alone in saying that 
 such meetings were useful, and were calculated to have a good 
 result. For his part he was most anxious to have the freest 
 communication on all matters which came under the administration 
 of the Board over which he had the honour to preside, and if there 
 should be any difference of opinion it would only be after both 
 sides had been heard, and after there had been a complete dis- 
 cussion of all points. The gentlemen who had spoken had been 
 very frank in their comments upon the administration of the Board 
 of Trade over shipping, and in their relation of their complaints 
 and grievances. Before he sat down they, on their part, would 
 find that he reciprocated their outspokenness, and they should have 
 no fault to find with him on the score of frank and free speaking. 
 As to the questions generally which they had brought before him, 
 he might point out that his position in regard to these questions 
 was one of great impartiality. He might state that a greater mistake 
 could not be made than to suppose that the Board of Trade was 
 prejudiced against any class of questions, and if the Board had any 
 feeling it would naturally be in the way of saving trouble — it would 
 certainly not be in the direction, unnecessarily, to raise questions 
 which would have the effect of drawing forth the opposition of a 
 very powerful and organised interest. The tendency of a depart- 
 ment of the State was rather to avoid evils than to press their 
 remedy upon those to whom they were due ; and he could assure 
 the deputation that they were upon all occasions certain to be 
 
 ^ 
 
 UIUC J
 
 impartially received by the Department, and to have their repre- 
 sentations impartially considered. Now, with regard to the right 
 of appeal the deputation had asked for. Mr. Raymond seemed to 
 confuse two cases — the appeal in the Court of Survey, and the 
 appeal against the Wreck Commissioner's decisions, so far as these 
 decisions affect the Shipowner. It had been pointed out that the 
 Officers of a ship had the right of appeal from the Wreck Com- 
 missioner's decision, but the Owners had not, and he was quite 
 ready to give the right of appeal from a decision in the Court of 
 Inquiry. But it was a very different thing when they sought to 
 have the right of appeal from the Court of Survey decision, and to 
 grant that would be to make almost futile the powers vested in the 
 Board of Trade in regard to stopping ships. Then Mr. Kennedy 
 and Mr. Glover had demurred to the approximate tables of free- 
 board, and Mr. Glover had suggested that the Board should adopt 
 Lloyd's Tables. 
 
 Mr. Glover, interrupting, said that he suggested that no ships 
 which had been loaded according to Lloyd's Tables should be 
 stopped. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain. — I do not see any practical difference be- 
 tween Mr. Glover's requirements and my view, that not to stop ships 
 loaded according to Lloyd's Tables would be to substitute Lloyd's 
 Tables for those in use by the Board of Trade. In the present state 
 of information of the Department I am not prepared to go so far. 
 I agree that there are points to be considered ; and at present it is 
 impossible to lay down an absolutely satisfactory and definite load- 
 line which shall be compulsory in all cases. I am very grateful to 
 Lloyd's for what they have done, and I believe that after a little 
 more experience their work will be extremely useful and suggestive; 
 but I look upon Lloyd's Tables as I look upon ours — as approximate 
 tables, but not to be accepted as rules which cannot, under any 
 circumstances, be departed from. With regard to abolition of 
 advance notes. On coming into office I found a Bill drawn which 
 was strongly approved by my predecessor and by the various 
 representative organizations of Shipowners, and not merely by 
 philanthropists, and therefore I felt no hesitation in recommending
 
 6 
 
 it to the House of Commons, but if it has not proved satisfactory, 
 I am ready when opportunity offers to reconsider the question of 
 the experience which has been subsequently gained. With respect 
 to the desertion of seamen, I understand that there is only one change 
 which can be satisfactory to you, and that is that the anomalous 
 power which was once possessed by Shipowners alone of all 
 employers of labour — that of arbitrary arrest without warrant — 
 should be re-enacted. All I can say is, it will not be re-enacted by 
 me, and I will have no part in restoring legislation which I believe 
 cannot by any possibility be justified. I know that the repeal of this 
 law has caused much inconvenience, but do not let us exaggerate. 
 We have to remember that all new laws work with friction at first ; 
 but let us look to the facts. Taking Cardiff", I find that during the 
 year 37,000 seamen were shipped from that port, and the desertions, 
 which were 5.13 per cent, in 1881, were reduced to 2.43 in 1882. 
 I do not see why in the future these figures should not be further 
 reduced. Then in Poplar, London, out of 18,000 men, only 68 
 failed to join, and in another important port the failures to join were 
 only 2.33 per cent. In some of the places as many as 5 and 6 per 
 per cent, failed to join — as in Liverpool and Greenock. Now, in 
 no other trade is there so large a percentage of workmen who break 
 their contracts, and the fact that this occurs in the shipping trade 
 must arise from one of two causes ; either the contracts are not 
 satisfactory, and produce discontent, or the class of men engaged as 
 seamen in the mercantile marine must be the worst class of ordinary 
 English workmen. If it is the latter, then we have to look for im- 
 provement, and I am rejoiced to think that we have in our hands 
 the signs that the desired improvement is showing itself This 
 Department is making efforts, as you know, to promote thrift and 
 providence among the seamen of the mercantile marine, and I may 
 mention that in 1882 no less a sum than ;^65 1,000 from seamen 
 passed through our hands, and ;^3 76,000 was remitted in the 
 Board of Trade warrants to the families of seamen. I can under- 
 stand that you think this so far satisfactory ; but that you ask, What 
 are we to do while the improvement is being brought about ? Well, 
 I would, in reply, urge you to see what can be done with the powers
 
 you have, before you ask for the re-enactment of exceptional powers 
 against which you will have all the strength of the working classes. 
 You Shipowners have, as it is, very great exceptional and extra- 
 ordinary powers now — powers which give you a right to convey a 
 man forcibly on board the ship when he has signed to work. No 
 employers in any other trade have any powers in regard to their 
 servants which at all resemble these. It is true that seamen may 
 appeal to a Court ; but the Court can order him to be conveyed on 
 board, and can also order that the costs of his prosecution shall be 
 a charge upon him. Then, too, a master, when a man has joined 
 his ship, can make the man forfeit his kit, and in neglect of duty a 
 man may be brought before a Court and imprisoned. These powers 
 appear to me sufficient to make an example of the worst cases — if 
 the powers are exercised. Mention is made of the "Bothnia" 
 desertion at Liverpool, when 17 seamen deserted in a body. But 
 these men were allowed to leave the ship with their kits, go on the 
 tender, and so go on shore. If owners and masters will allow men 
 to act thus and will not take the means in their power, it is ridiculous 
 for them to come here and ask to have further exceptional powers. 
 No law will help those who will not help themselves.- At Cardiff, 
 men have been brought before the Courts for not carrying out their 
 engagements, and the convictions have had the results of lessening 
 the desertions to the extent to which I have called your attention. 
 I am now going on to the question of general principles, which 
 probably are of the greater public interest. Mr. Laing, in reference 
 to these general principles, quoted some words I used last night with 
 reference to the desirability of limiting as far as possible the inter- 
 ference of the State, and I think the gentlemen I see before me are 
 a little under the impression that they are unduly harassed by this 
 interference, and that they would like to see an end of it, and be 
 free of control and supervision, which, in many cases, they found to 
 be extremely irritating. But the State has a right to take care that 
 proper precautions are taken for the due security of the lives and 
 property which are in your charge. I might point out that the 
 interference of which you complain has at all events not hitherto 
 seriously affected your prosperity. Of all trades the shipping trade
 
 is the most prosperous. In the last ten years over 4,000,000 tons 
 of shipping have been built, and the shipping is increasing in an 
 advancing ratio, for in 1881 there was built an additional tonnage 
 of 561,651 tons. I do not think that this, therefore, can be an 
 unprofitable trade when capital is thus freely pouring into it. But 
 I am sorry to say I must also tell you, that interference has not 
 produced the result it was intended to produce in the security of the 
 lives, for which you and we are in some degree responsible. I have 
 had the loss of life at sea taken out for the last six years, and I am 
 sorry to say it is an increasing quantity. I have excluded loss of 
 life from stranding and collision, because owners cannot be blamed 
 for that, but from other causes of all kinds I find that the average 
 during the five years from 1877 to 1881 was 368 vessels totally lost 
 and 1,551 lives per annum. But in the last year — 1882 — that 
 number increased, for it was 548 ships and 2,883 lives ; and if I add 
 the lives lost in vessels which were not totally cast away, namely, 
 235 ships, I get a grand total of 3,1 18 lives lost at sea from founder- 
 ing, casualties in the ships, defective machinery, explosions, 
 overloading, and so on, in a single twelvemonth. Or, to put 
 it in another way, of the total number of seamen employed, 
 one in 60 met their death last year by drowning. Now, 
 are you gentlemen here present — gentlemen of knowledge and 
 experience — going to tell me that in all these cases, I would 
 myself say in a large proportion of these cases — these terrible 
 disasters — are the act of God, for which no human being is 
 responsible? I do not believe it. In 1882 there were 65 
 cases of missing and foundered vessels inquired into before 
 the Wreck Courts. In many, of course, there was no record, as 
 they had gone to the bottom with all hands — nobody knows how 
 or why ; but in half the cases brought before the Wreck Commis- 
 sioners it was shown that the ships were either altogether overladen 
 or, at all events, dangerously laden; and I am morally certain, 
 after conferring with men of practical experience, and after 
 communicating with the Wreck Commissioner, that in a con- 
 siderable proportion of these cases the owners are directly 
 responsible for the loss, inasmuch as, with a view to carrying
 
 more freight or of saving the expense of repairs, they have sent 
 the ships to sea or allowed them to go in an utterly unseaworthy 
 condition ; and the result has been that, while they themselves 
 are insure4 against all loss, under the present Act they are able 
 to escape all criminal liability for the men in their employ who 
 have been drowned, and whose families have been ruined and 
 reduced to misery and destitution. That is a serious state of 
 things, gentlemen, and it is a state of things which cannot be 
 allowed to go on. There is no man who occupies my position 
 who would feel it to be tolerable that this, as I beheve, preventable 
 loss of life should continue, unless, at all events, he has the 
 satisfaction of knowing that he has exhausted every possible 
 means of reducing it, and of putting an end to the preventable 
 causes of such disasters. And now comes in a point to which 
 I desire particularly to draw your attention — of all these cases 
 of lost ships no owner has been made amenable to justice ! 
 Owners have been condemned to pay small sums, as costs, but 
 nothing further has resulted. I have had every case brought 
 before me, and I have ordered prosecution in every case which 
 presented a chance of conviction. In most cases I have been 
 told that there is no chance of a conviction, and in no shape 
 has an owner been brought to justice. It is proved that in 
 some cases the ships had gone to sea in an unseaworthy condition ; 
 that the owners had not satisfied themselves as to the condition 
 of the ships, but had appointed men to look after the ships who 
 knew nothing about their business — all this was proved ; but no 
 verdicts have been obtained. If the Wreck Commissioner imposes 
 a penalty upon a Shipowner who is brought to the bar of criminal 
 justice, it is said that the man is being punished twice over if he 
 should be convicted, and so he gets off, while if the Commissioner 
 imposes no money penalty, this is taken as a proof that the case is 
 not one in which there should be a conviction. This is a most 
 unsatisfactory state of things, and a stigma rests upon the trade 
 through the action of the worst men in it. You ask me to render 
 nugatory the power the Board possesses of stopping ships going to 
 sea ; but if this power had not been exercised I am convinced
 
 10 
 
 there would have been an enormous increase in the loss of life. 
 I admit that there is a certain amount of unreason and hardship 
 in the stopping of ships as they are going, when a hint beforehand 
 might have stopped the necessity of the action. The cause of this 
 has been the fear that the responsibility might have been shifted 
 from the owners to the Department ; but I have ordered a circular 
 to be issued requiring the Board of Trade officers to give a hint 
 where they can see that a ship is likely to be overladen. I hope 
 that this will work well, and do away with all sense of injustice. I 
 desire to point out that, with a view to legislation on these 
 questions, I urged upon the gentlemen interested that a " Shipping 
 Council " should be established, representing all the Shipowners 
 generally, representing also the Underwriters, and representing the 
 Department. This Council might be a Court of Appeal in difficult 
 questions and a Court to give advice to the Board of Trade upon 
 such questions, for instance, to the load-line, leading to some final 
 conclusion upon that question. I had no idea of framing an indict- 
 ment against the whole of the respectable shipping trade ; but I 
 wanted all the respectable and worthy men in the trade to assist in 
 dealing with what is unworthy and disreputable, and when I asked 
 your advice I looked to have your cordial and hearty support. 
 But I cannot say that I have received what I looked for. I made 
 this proposition to you, gentlemen, and I have here an abstract of 
 the replies, which were mostly criticisms. Liverpool objected to 
 any legislation. The Clyde objected to the proposed Council ; 
 another objected to any load-line whatever, and asked the Board to 
 abolish the load-line; while the Chamber of Shipping of the 
 United Kingdom see " no adequate necessity " for any action. 
 No adequate necessity ! No adequate necessity, when 3,118 lives 
 were sacrificed last year to preventable causes ! I am ready now, 
 I state again, to receive suggestions, and I will receive them with 
 an open and impartial mind. But something must be done, for if the 
 public mind is directed to the existing state of things, it will not rest 
 satisfied until such changes are made as will enable us to deal with 
 this deplorable condition of things. I propose now to repeat my 
 suggestion for a Council of Shipping, and I am disposed to amend
 
 11 
 
 it in any practical way. We have received practical suggestions, 
 and I shall have to consider, among other things, how far the 
 Shipowner should be made liable to the families of seamen, where 
 the deaths of seamen are shown to be due to the negligence or 
 otherwise of the Shipowner. Then something must be done with 
 regard to the question of insurance; for I hold it to be a 
 discreditable state of things where men may lose Hfe and property 
 and make a profit out of it. Before I make proposals on these 
 subjects in the House of Commons, I will again appeal to you for 
 your advice and counsel. But do not answer me with non possujnus. 
 I urge you to consider the serious nature of the circumstances and 
 to give me your assistance — it is as much in your interest as in 
 mine — to remedy what is defective. I hope and believe that I 
 shall have your assistance, but I shall not have discharged my 
 responsibility, unless I make some proposals to deal with these 
 subjects to the Legislature. 
 
 Mr. Laing, in thanking Mr. Chamberlain for his courteous 
 reception, said he was sure the Chamber of Shipping would assist 
 the Department in the direction indicated ; and the 4eputation 
 withdrew.
 
 Extract from the Speech of the Chairman (Mr. 
 Donald Kennedy) of the Liverpool Ship- 
 owners Association, at the Annual Meeting 
 of the Association^ held on the \th April^ 1883. 
 
 " I am glad to be able to congratulate you on the increased 
 interest which is being taken in all shipping matters by Shipowners 
 here and throughout the country. I think they are becoming alive 
 to the fact (and not an hour too soon) that, if they desire to have 
 fair play, and that consideration which is due to such an important 
 interest, they themselves must in the first place see to it, and, next, 
 take care that their representatives in Parliament are fully informed 
 regarding all shipping matters, and that at least those Members 
 who represent maritime constituencies shall take an active and 
 leading part in all legislation that affects shipping interests. You 
 have, no doubt, observed that, at the last deputation to the Board 
 of Trade, referred to in the Report, the President, Mr. Chamberlain, 
 then made a speech which has been the cause of considerable 
 remark ; and as I had the honour to be one of your representatives 
 on that occasion, you may, perhaps, expect me to say something 
 about it. I confess I was rather startled by some of the statements 
 in the speech, and astonished at the conclusions founded on such 
 statements ; and I thought a reply was required. Acting upon that 
 impression, I almost at once applied through Mr. Samuel Smith, 
 one of our City Members, who, with Mr. Whitley, Lord Claud 
 Hamilton, and other Members of Parliament, accompanied the 
 deputation, to Mr. Chamberlain for the data on which he had 
 founded his conclusions. The right honourable gentleman was 
 good enough to direct that certain figures should be supplied to me 
 by the Board of Trade, and I have placed them before your Committee 
 for consideration. In the meantime, intimation had been conveyed
 
 13 
 
 to me as a Member of the Council of the Chamber of Shipping, to 
 which this Association is affiHated, that the Chamber intended to 
 reply to Mr. Chamberlain as soon as they could get certain 
 information now in the hands of the Government printers, which, 
 for the present at least, obviates the necessity of my dealing with 
 the speech in detail ; but I think it my duty to you to say that, 
 even granted the correctness of the figures suppHed, I am sure I 
 only express the unanimous voice of Shipowners throughout the 
 Kingdom in protesting against Mr. Chamberlain's implied assertion, 
 that nearly all the seamen drowned at sea under our flag are 
 drowned through preventable causes, and his insinuations that 
 the Shipowners are responsible for nearly all such causes. — 
 (Applause.) There is also a special reference to Liverpool in 
 the speech of the right honourable gentleman that I should 
 like to notice, and it is this — he complained of the coldness 
 which his proposal last year of a Shipping Council met from 
 all the large ports, ours included, and that we added to our 
 reply that we did not think further shipping legislation necessary. 
 Now, gentlemen, when I tell you that prior to the Merchant 
 Shipping Act of 1854, there were 19 statutes on the subject, and 
 that in and since 1854 we have had 46 Merchant Shipping Acts for 
 our regulation, which have most of them been worse than useless 
 for the purpose for which they were intended, you will allow me 
 respectfully to remark that I think the right honourable gentleman, 
 who I hope knew all about these 46 acts, need not have been very 
 much astonished at our reply. — (Hear, hear !) I was very glad to 
 hear Mr. Chamberlain say in his speech ' that there could be no 
 greater mistake than to suppose that the Board of Trade was 
 opposed to the shipping interest, and that he himself always looked 
 at the questions connected with a quite impartial view.' That is as 
 it ought to be ; but I regret very much to have to say, and to say 
 it distinctly, that there is a feeling becoming very general with all 
 Shipowners that it is perfectly useless going for a redress of any 
 grievance to the Board of Trade, or to hope to get a change of any 
 policy once initiated there. — (Hear, hear!) In saying this, I hope 
 I may not be misunderstood. It Jias been my duty, in your
 
 14 
 
 interests, to wait on the present President of the Board of Trade 
 here, and in London. I have always been received most courteously, 
 and I have been favourably impressed with the desire not only to 
 secure information, but also the evident wish not to press too 
 hardly on the shipping while protecting the public interest; but 
 there, unfortunately, the matter seemed to end. It had been 
 merely an audience of the Minister, and generally nothing more 
 came of it. Now, I have a sort of idea that the President of the 
 Board of Trade has himself come to the conclusion that these 46 
 Shipping Acts I have alluded to have not been very successful in 
 their results, and that, if there is to be any more shipping legislation, 
 it must be on very different lines, and that, at least, the adminis- 
 tration of it must be guided and directed by those whose practical 
 experience of the subjects they have to deal with would make their 
 decisions and judgments respected. — (Hear, hear !) If that is so, 
 then a Shipping Council would be an improvement on the present 
 most unsatisfactory state of affairs ; but to be really useful it must 
 be a Council — or Councils rather — that would command the 
 confidence of Shipowners as well as the rest of the public. — (Hear, 
 hear !) One would be required in each shipping centre, here and 
 elsewhere, having full powers to deal with all shipping matters, and 
 not overweighted with officials in the members composing the 
 Council. Mr. Chamberlain has asked that his next proposal for a 
 Council should not be received as the last one was, with '' non 
 possumus.^ I confess I rather sympathise with the awkward position 
 in which the right honourable gentleman is at present placed. I 
 think, and liave long thought, that it is most desirable in the interest 
 of the Shipowners who desire to do right, and who form the great 
 majority, that there should be some reasonable settlement of the 
 load-line question, and I think I may promise, gentlemen, on your 
 behalf, that when the amended proposals for a Shipping Council are 
 placed before us they will have a fair and respectful consideration ; 
 and if on examination they are found to be such as will give 
 reasonable grounds of working satisfactorily, and the prospect of 
 helping to reduce the loss of life at sea, they will have our cordial 
 support." — (Hear, hear !)
 
 Correspondence between the President of the Board 
 OF Trade and the President of the Chamber 
 OF Shipping. 
 
 Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, 
 12, St. Michael's Alley, Cornhill, 
 
 London, E.G., April 2'jth, i88j. 
 
 The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P., 
 
 President of the Board of Trade, 6^c., dr'c. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 As President of this Chamber, I am desired by the 
 Executive Council to address you upon the subject of the statistics 
 of loss of life in Merchant Ships at sea, which you quoted to the 
 Deputation from this Chamber which waited upon you at the 
 Board of Trade upon the 8th March last. • 
 
 I must begin by expressing the regret of the Executive Council 
 that so long a time has elapsed between the date of the Deputation 
 in question and that of this letter. The delay has, however, arisen 
 from the fact that, until the Wreck Register for the year 1 88 1-2 
 was in the hands of the Executive Council, it was impossible for 
 them to in any way test or analyse the sweeping statements as to 
 the losses of life at sea which you made to that Deputation. 
 
 You then stated, amongst other things, that last year 3,118 
 lives (excluding lives lost by strandings and collisions) were 
 sacrificed at sea, and you emphatically expressed your beHef 
 that for many of these, British Shipowners were responsible, in 
 consequence of their vessels having been sent to sea " overladen, 
 or, at all events, dangerously laden." If this charge were true, it 
 would be a serious one. Happily, it is disproved by the official 
 figures issued this month by the department over which you preside. 
 
 The Executive Council find from those figures that the total
 
 16 
 
 number of lives lost at sea during 1881-2 was 3,978; 857 of 
 these lives were, however, lost from strandings and collisions, 
 which, being deducted, leaves 3,121 lives lost, or practically the 
 same total (3,118) which you stated to the Deputation. 
 
 I cannot, however, sufficiently express to you the surprise of 
 the Executive Council when they found, upon examination of the 
 official returns contained in the Wreck Register for 188 1-2, that 
 you had, in order to make out the heavy indictment which you 
 laid to the charge of British Shipowners, included in the 3,118 
 lives lost, firstly, 592 lives lost in fishing boats, which is a class 
 of property with which " Shipowners," as the term is ordinarily 
 understood in this country, have nothing whatever to do. Not 
 only so, but you have, the Executive Council further find, included 
 in the 3,118 lives lost, no fewer than 701 lives lost in vessels 
 registered in Indian and Colonial ports. For the loss of these 701 
 lives, as also for the 592 lives lost in fishing boats in 188 1-2, the 
 Executive Council have no hesitation in saying that British Ship- 
 owners were no more responsible than you yourself were. Deducting, 
 however, as I am fully entitled to do, these figures of 701 and 592 
 respectively from the total of 3,121 lives lost in 188 1-2, I find 
 that the total loss of life, which by any possibility could be laid to 
 the charge of British Shipowners, such as those whom you addressed 
 with so much severity upon the 8th March, was not 3,1 18, but 1,828. 
 And of this number 235 lives were lost in vessels partially wrecked, 
 thus virtually reducing the number of lives to 1,593. 
 
 To anyone, however, who is practically acquainted with shipping 
 matters, it is at once obvious that a large proportion of even these 
 1,593 lives must have been lost by causes over which no Shipowner 
 could possibly have any control. What light do the tables, which 
 have been this month issued from your department, throw upon 
 the causes of the disasters which befell British ships in 188 1-2? 
 
 Permit me, in answer, to refer you to one of them — i.e.^ to 
 Table 27 of the Wreck Register for 188 1-2. That table shows 
 that out of 761 total losses of British vessels (excluding collisions) 
 abroad, 34 losses arose from " defects in ship's equipments," 
 220 from "unknown causes," and 6 from "overloading," or, in
 
 17 
 
 all, 260 vessels (out of 761) were lost by causes for which a Ship- 
 owner might possibly be held responsible. You will observe that 
 (for the sake of my argument) I am taking the worst possible case 
 which could be made out against Shipowners, by assuming that 
 the 220 vessels which were lost from " unknown causes," were — 
 an incredible supposition — lost, in every instance, from causes 
 which a Shipowner could have controlled. But what does Table 
 27 show, as to the causes of the loss of the remainder of the 701 
 vessels referred to in it ? It shows that the loss of 300 of that 
 number occurred through stress of weather; 107 from "causes 
 connected with navigation and seamanship" (or in other words 
 from " mistakes " of officers or crew) ; 28 from " inevitable 
 accident;" 27 from "contact with ice;" 4 from "striking upon 
 floating or sunken vessels;" i from "want of pilot;" 3 from 
 "want of lights or buoys on coasts and shoals;" 16 from 
 " spontaneous combustion " of coal or other cargoes ; i from 
 "scuttling;" 12 from "fires;" and 2 from "explosions." In 
 other words, 501 total losses out of 761 occurred from causes 
 which it was impossible for any Shipowner to control. 
 
 You will also not fail to remark in the above category that the 
 weather is held responsible for the loss of no fewer than 300 out of 
 the 761 vessels (referred to in Table 27 as being totally lost), 
 which fact leads me to observe that, if the loss of life in 188 1-2 
 was exceptionally heavy, it was the exceptional severity of the 
 weather, and not the overloading of ships, which was responsible 
 for it. It is notorious, indeed, that the weather in the latter end 
 of 1881, and the beginning of 1882, was of exceptional severity. 
 Indeed, the returns in the Wreck Register under review conclusively 
 establish this. Allow me, as an illustration of this fact, to direct 
 your attention to the loss of life in fishing boats in the five years 
 from 1877-8 to 1881-2. In 1877-8, 93 fisherman lost their lives 
 at sea; in 1878-9, 96; in 1879-80, 79; in 1880-1, 334; whilst in 
 1 88 1-2, as I have already had occasion to point out to you, no 
 fewer than 592 fishermen were lost at sea. No more conclusive 
 proof of the exceptional severity of the weather in 188 1-2 can, I 
 submit, possibly be afforded than is to be found in the fact that in
 
 18 
 
 the year 1879-80, only 79 fishermen lost their lives at sea, as 
 compared with 592 in the year 1881-2. 
 
 I need not say how deeply Shipowners regret that there should 
 be any loss of life at sea ; but, seeing the magnitude of our national 
 maritime enterprise, and the perils to which it is necessarily exposed, 
 a large annual loss of life is, I fear, inevitable from carrying on that 
 business, just as a large loss of life is inevitable on railways, in 
 mines, and in manufacturing operations generally. 
 
 Having now, I trust, disposed of the serious allegations which you 
 brought against British Shipowners in your speech to the Deputation 
 upon the 8th March, I have next to express to you the regret with 
 which the Executive Council then heard your refusal to grant the 
 very moderate request which the Deputation made to you, viz. : — 
 That you should direct the Surveyors of the Board of Trade not to 
 stop vessels from proceeding to sea which were loaded within the 
 limits of Lloyd's Tables of freeboard. 
 
 Had you consented to accept the suggestion upon this matter, 
 which this Chamber then tendered to you, the effect of your doing 
 so would have been to strike at once — by the direct and indirect 
 effects of the measure — at all dangerous loading. It was, moreover, 
 a remedy which you could have applied at once ; which you could 
 also at any time have at once discontinued, if you found upon trial 
 that it did not work well ; it was a remedy which did not require to 
 be sanctioned by Act of Parliament — indeed a simple circular to the 
 Board of Trade Surveyors was all that was needed to give it practical 
 effect. Upon the other hand your refusal to accept the suggestion 
 means, very probably, a relegation of the settlement of the load-line 
 question to some possibly distant date. It means also practically 
 the refusal by you of the assistance of such a body as Lloyd's 
 Register — a body which enjoys to no ordinary extent the confidence 
 of Shipowners, Merchants, and Underwriters — as well as of the 
 proffered help of this Chamber in effecting a settlement of the vexed 
 question of the load-line. Your refusal to act upon the suggestion 
 upon this matter which the Deputation made to you is, the Executive 
 Council desire me to state, somewhat hard to reconcile with the 
 statements which you have more than once both publicly and
 
 19 
 
 privately made, to the effect that you were most anxious to secure 
 the co-operation of Shipowners in settling the difficult question of the 
 load-line, as also other important matters affecting the Shipping 
 interest. 
 
 In conclusion, I am desired by the Executive Council to express 
 to you the satisfaction with which the Deputation learned from you 
 that you were, " on the first opportunity," quite ready to propose an 
 alteration in the present state of the law, so as to give to Shipowners 
 a right of appeal from the decisions of the Wreck Commissioners' 
 Court ; also that the question of the abolition of advance notes to 
 seamen should be "reconsidered" by you; and, finally, that you 
 were prepared to issue a circular to the officers of the Board of 
 Trade, informing them that they might, in future, "hint to owners 
 of vessels, in cases where vessels are likely to be overladen, that the 
 Board of Trade will interfere," instead of, as heretofore, permitting 
 such vessels to be fully loaded and make ready for sea before any 
 intimation is given to the Shipowner that his vessel would be 
 stopped. 
 
 These undertakings upon your part will, the Executive Council 
 earnestly trust, be carried into effect by you et the earliest 
 possible period. 
 
 I have the honour to be, Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient Servant, 
 
 James Laing, President. 
 
 "Board of Trade, S.W., April 30, 1883. 
 
 "Sir, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 the 27th instant relative to the statistics of the loss of life at sea 
 which I quoted when addressing the deputation from the Chamber 
 of Shipping of the United Kingdom, at the Board of Trade, upon 
 the 8th March last. I do not propose to comment on the tone 
 which you have seen fit to adopt in your communication. The 
 subject is of so much importance that I am willing to dismiss all
 
 20 
 
 personal considerations, and, without further observation, I come at 
 once to the main point. Your letter assumes that I charged British 
 shipowners with causing the loss by overloading of a large 
 proportion of the 3,118 lives lost at sea in 1882, and your reply 
 consists in showing that the large majority of these losses was due 
 to other causes. You have misapprehended altogether the bearing 
 of the facts which I laid before the deputation, and your answer 
 does not impeach the accuracy of my statements, nor does it in any 
 way qualify the inferences which are to be drawn from them. I 
 desired in the first place to call your attention to the magnitude of 
 the disasters which it has been my painful duty to chronicle during 
 the past twelve months. I pointed out that the total loss (excluding 
 strandings and collisions), which had averaged 1,531 lives from 1877 
 to 1 88 1, had risen to 2,883 i^ 1882. I included the loss in fishing 
 vessels in this total ; but if I had excluded them the proportion 
 would have been nearly the same, as the respective figures in this 
 case would have been 1,256 for the five years 187 7-1 881, and 2,195 
 for the year 1882. I went on to ask the deputation — all shipowners 
 and men of large practical experience — whether ' in all these cases 
 — I would almost say in a large proportion of these cases — these 
 terrible disasters were the act of God, for which no human being is 
 responsible.' Your committee have had seven weeks to consider 
 this question. Why have they not answered it ? You inform me 
 that 235 lives were lost in vessels partially wrecked, but this is only 
 a repetition of my statement to the deputation, and you do not 
 venture to say that none of these 235 deaths were due to preventable 
 causes. You say that the Wreck Register shows that of 701 ship- 
 wrecks 300 were due to ' stress of weather,' but you do not pretend 
 that if all ships were well found, well manned, and properly laden, • 
 bad weather would cause anything approaching to the number of 
 casualties which have now, unfortunately, to be ascribed to this 
 cause. Of the other headings, under which loss of ships and 
 crews is registered, I have also to point out that spontaneous 
 combustion, explosions, and fires may be, and often are, due to the 
 neglect of proper precaution. In my remarks to the deputation 
 from your Chamber I pointed out that the Inquiries in the Wreck
 
 21 
 
 Court showed that out of 65 cases investigated half were cases of 
 ships either overladen or dangerously laden. If this is the pro- 
 portion in regard to one preventable cause, it may be feared 
 that a similar ratio prevails in other instances ; and I am therefore 
 compelled, after the fullest reflection, to repeat the statement 
 which I made to the deputation after conference with the Wreck 
 Commissioner, viz., 'That in a considerable proportion of these 
 cases the owners are directly responsible for the loss, inasmuch as 
 with a view to earning more freight or to save the expense of 
 repairs, they have sent their ships to sea, or they have allowed them 
 to go to sea, in an utterly unseaworthy condition.' When I couple 
 this state of things with the fact that the loss of life and property 
 to which I have found it my duty to call attention may be, and in a 
 majority of cases actually is, attended with profit to the individual 
 owners concerned, who frequently gain more by the insurance than 
 they could earn by a safe and prosperous voyage ; and when I call 
 to mind that no compensation is provided for the families of the 
 seamen whose lives have been sacrificed in the reckless pursuit of 
 an unholy gain, I am confirmed in the determination which I 
 expressed to your deputation to do all that lies in rfly power to call 
 the attention of the country and the Legislature to the necessity 
 for such changes in the law as will adequately meet the urgent 
 requirements of the case. I am glad to say that since the interview 
 of the 8th of March, and the full report of it which appeared in 
 the papers, I have received many communications from some of 
 the largest and most respectable shipowners of the kingdom, 
 confirming from their personal experience the statements which I 
 made on that occasion, and tendering their support to any efi'orts 
 to remove the stigma which now lies on one of the most important 
 of British industries ; and in assuring you of my intention to carry 
 into effect the pledges which I gave to the deputation, and to which 
 you refer in your letter, I beg also to confirm my intention 
 to prepare a Bill to carry out those other changes of the law 
 which seems to me absolutely necessary to diminish the preventable 
 causes of loss of life at sea. Before closing this letter, there 
 is one other point in your reply to which I must advert. You are
 
 22 
 
 pleased to express regret at my ' refusal to grant the very moderate 
 request which the deputation made, viz., that I should direct the 
 surveyors of the Board of Trade not to stop vessels loaded within 
 the limits of Lloyd's Tables of freeboard.' I have in the first place 
 to refer you to the verbatim report of the proceedings, from which 
 you will see that Mr. Glover, speaking for your Chamber, distinctly 
 disclaimed the suggestion that the Board of Trade should, for 
 practical purposes, adopt the tables published by Lloyd's. I have 
 further to say that, while I am ready to acknowledge the service 
 performed by Lloyd's in attempting to fix a load-line — a feat which 
 until recently, your own Chamber and many shipowners have declared 
 to be impossible — I am not prepared to say that the rules they have 
 laid down sufficiently guarantee the safety of all ships. I have, 
 however, decided, with a view to obtaining further information, and 
 for purposes of comparison, to establish a register of all ships, which 
 will show the actual load-line adopted by the owner, the load-line 
 as assigned by Lloyd's Tables, and the load-line as assigned by the 
 Board of Trade Tables. As soon as the register is advanced towards 
 completion we shall have a mass of information of the most 
 instructive character, which will, I believe, enable us with some 
 confidence to estimate the value of what has already been done and 
 the necessity for further regulations. The information obtained will 
 be at all times accessible to your Chamber, and to any other persons 
 interested in the solution of this difficult question. 
 
 " I am, sir, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 (Signed) "J. Chamberlain." 
 
 "James Laing, Esq., 
 
 President of the Chamber of Shipping 
 of the United Kingdom."
 
 23 
 
 Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, 
 12, St. Michael's Alley, Cornhill, 
 
 London, E.G., May loth, 1883. 
 
 The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P., 
 
 President of the Board of Trade, ^c, iSr'c. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 letter of the 30th April in reply to mine to you of the 27th of 
 that month. 
 
 In my letter to you of the 27 th ult. I drew your attention to 
 two important points. I showed you that when you told the 
 deputation from this Chamber, which waited upon you on the 
 8th March last, that 3,118 lives (excluding those by strandings and 
 collisions) were last year lost at sea, you had included in that total 
 592 lives lost in fishing boats, and 701 lives lost in vessels registered 
 in India and Colonial ports. You now admit my first statement, 
 viz., that you had included the 592 lives lost in fishing boats in this 
 total of 3,118 lives lost; and my second statement, that you had 
 also included in that total 701 lives lost in Indian and Colonial 
 registered vessels, you pass over in silence. 
 
 You refer to the seven weeks' delay which elapsed between the 
 date of the deputation (8th March) and that of my reply. I must 
 remind you that the Executive Council applied to you by letter on 
 the 15th March for the full da^a upon which your statements were 
 based. After a good deal of correspondence, the Executive Council 
 were eventually informed by the Marine Department of the Board 
 of Trade that the figures which you had quoted of loss of life during 
 1881-82, would be found in the forthcoming volume of the Wreck 
 Register. As a matter of fact, the Wreck Register for 1881-82 did 
 not appear until the 6th April. The figures contained in it of course 
 required careful examination before I could address you ; hence the 
 delay in my reply. You also remark upon the Executive Council 
 not having answered your inquiry as to whether a large proportion 
 of the disasters which occurred to British ships during the year
 
 24 
 
 i88i-82, were not such as those "for which no human being is 
 responsible ? " My answer was (and is) that the great majority of 
 the exceptional losses which unfortunately occurred during 1881-82 
 were caused by the extraordinary severity of the weather in 1881-82. 
 No stronger proof of the correctness of my statement upon this 
 matter is, as I remarked to you in my last letter, to be found than 
 by comparing the loss of life at sea in fishing boats in the two years, 
 1879-80, and 1881-82. In the year 1879-80 only 79 fishermen were 
 drowned at sea; in the year 1881-82 that number rose to no fewer 
 than 592. 
 
 As regards your statement to the deputation (to which you 
 refer in your letter of the 30th April), that "the Inquiries in the 
 Wreck Court showed that out of 65 cases investigated half were 
 cases of ships either overladen or dangerously laden," I have to 
 remark that, if this be the case, how came it that, with the powers 
 which the Board of Trade already possess of stopping vessels 
 " overladen or dangerously laden," these vessels were nevertheless 
 permitted to go to sea ? With respect also to your remark, that 
 losses caused by " spontaneous combustion, explosions, and fires 
 may be, and often are, due to the neglect of proper precautions," 
 I have to draw your attention to the fact that the Board of Trade 
 have laid down rules with a view of preventing such accidents, and 
 which are enforced on board of all ships under the British flag. If, 
 therefore, these explosions, &c., do unfortunately happen, it would 
 certainly seem that Shipowners (having complied with the Board of 
 Trade regulations) may fairly claim to have used all reasonable 
 means to prevent their occurrence. 
 
 The " official returns " from your department do not show that 
 many vessels are lost through overloading, but to whatever extent 
 overloading may exist, I beg to assure you that it is so prejudicial 
 to the interests of Shipowners generally, that in self-defence they are 
 strongly opposed to it — no better proof of which could be given 
 than the practical suggestion with regard to Lloyd's Tables of 
 Freeboard which the deputation tendered to you upon the 8th 
 March last, and which you rejected. 
 
 In your-letter of the 30th ult. you refer to the " tone " which I
 
 25 
 
 had " seen fit to adopt " in my letter to you of the 27th ult. Permit 
 me to say that my only desire in addressing you was to elucidate 
 facts and to deal with the subject in such a manner as its importance 
 deserved. 
 
 In closing the correspondence which I have had the honour of 
 holding with you upon the subject of your speech to the deputation, 
 on the 8th March last, I must add that the Executive Council regret 
 that you should have seen fit to use in your letter of the 30th ult. 
 such a phrase as "the reckless pursuit of unholy gain" as applied 
 to such a body as the Shipowners of the United Kingdom. 
 
 I have the honour to be, Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient Servant, 
 
 James Laing, President.
 
 Extract from '^Shipping and Mercantile Gazette/' 
 
 of ^th May, 1883. 
 
 On the 9th of March last Mr. Chamberlain, in his reply to 
 the deputation from the Chamber of Shipping of the United 
 Kingdom, startled the shipping community by the assertion that 
 3,118 lives were lost at sea last year through causes which, in the 
 large proportion of cases, are preventable. He emphatically 
 accused the general body of Shipowners with being directly 
 responsible for much of this loss of life in consequence of their 
 vessels having been sent, or allowed to go, to sea "overladen, or, at 
 all events, dangerously laden," and " in an utterly unseaworthy 
 condition." "Are you going to tell me," said Mr. Chamberlain, 
 " that a large proportion of these cases — these terrible disasters — 
 are the act of God, for which no human being is responsible ? I 
 do not believe it." The motive for which he charged Shipowners 
 with acting in this criminal manner was the desire of " earning more 
 freight, or of saving the expense of repairs, or," as Mr. Chamberlain 
 has since put it, "the reckless pursuit of an unholy gain." This is 
 a serious and dreadful charge to make against any class of men, 
 and would not, we should have thought, have been made lightly, or 
 without some justification, by one in Mr. Chamberlain's position. 
 The first question which naturally arises with reference to it is 
 whether it call possibly be true. Mr. James Laing, the President 
 of the Chamber of Shipping, in his letter to Mr. Chamberlain of the 
 27th ult., stoutly denies the truth of the charges, and states that they 
 are disproved by the official figures issued last month by the Board of 
 Trade. We also pointed out, on the 21st April, that a careful and
 
 27 
 
 unbiassed analysis of these figures absolutely contravenes the sweep- 
 ing assertion that a large number of the lives lost at sea had been 
 sacrificed in overladen vessels. Mr. Chamberlain stated that 548 
 British ships were totally lost last year, excluding cases of stranding 
 and collision, and 2,883 li'^^s in them. A further number of 235 
 lives were lost in ships not totally wrecked. Mr. Laing points out 
 that 701 out of the 2,883 lives were lost in vessels registered in 
 Indian and Colonial ports, and an additional 592 in fishing boats, 
 making a deduction of 1,293 ^^^ losses for which it is clear British 
 Shipowners are no more responsible than Mr. Chamberlain himself. 
 The number of lives lost in British vessels, which are not mere 
 fishing boats, is thus reduced at once by nearly one-half. Mr. Laing 
 goes on to say that it is obvious to any one practically acquainted 
 with shipping matters, that a large proportion even of the remaining 
 1,600 lives — using round numbers — must have been lost by causes 
 over which no Shipowner could possibly have any control ; and the 
 tables issued by the Board of Trade show clearly that this is the 
 case. Out of 444 British ships totally lost on the coasts of the 
 United Kingdom in 1881-82, from all causes except collision, 276 
 are recorded to have been due to stress of weather, 55 to causes 
 connected with navigation and seamanshi]), 55 to errors of master or 
 crew, 14 to inevitable accident, and 4 only to overloading. There 
 were 761 total losses of British vessels abroad during the same year, 
 not including collisions, and 300 of these are officially attributed to 
 causes connected with the weather, 107 to bad navigation or 
 seamanship, 28 to inevitable accident, 27 to contact with ice, and 
 220 to unknown causes. Only six are attributed to overloading. 
 The tables show that a large proportion of the foundered and 
 missing vessels were in ballast, or laden with cargoes of a light nature 
 that could not have immersed them deeply, so that no suspicion of 
 overloading could rest upon many of the losses referred to. The 
 general cause of loss, whether it was the act of God, as Mr. 
 Chamberlain disbelieves, or the " unholy " act of man, as he asserts, 
 seems to have operated quite impartially upon ships in the most 
 dissimilar conditions of lading. Whether as regards vessels carrying 
 heavy or light cargoes, or in ballast, the year 1881-82 was exceptionally
 
 28 
 
 fatal to life and property at sea, and this brings us to Mr. 
 Chamberlain's question as to the reason why the large number of 
 548 ships and 2,883 lives were totally lost last year, when the average 
 of the preceding five years only amounted to a total loss of 368 
 ships and 1,531 lives. No one would imagine, even if the Board 
 of Trade returns did not conclusively show how few losses could be 
 attributed to overloading, that the practice of it could have suddenly 
 increased in this particular year so as to account for the greater 
 number of losses. It will be remembered that the year 1881-2 was 
 remarkable not only for numerous and heavy losses at sea, but for 
 weather such as had scarcely ever been known before. Our coasts 
 and seas were ravaged by extraordinary storms at various times, and 
 particularly during the autumn. Seventy-eight vessels, with crews 
 making an aggregate of 660 lives, which sailed at the end of 
 September, or beginning of October, 1881 — dates which would bring 
 them within the fatal influence of one of the most fearful hurricanes 
 that has been known in these latitudes for half a century — were 
 never afterwards heard of A large proportion of these vessels were 
 in ballast. This alone will show how the exceptional character of 
 the weather influenced the returns for the year 188 1-2, and that it 
 applies to ships in all conditions of lading and even in ballast. It 
 is impossible to attribute the increase of loss to overloading. The 
 Board of Trade returns show it to be entirely independent of how the 
 ships were loaded, but to be directly connected with abnormal 
 severity of weather. Mr. Chamberlain, in his speech to the 
 deputation from the Chamber of Shipping, and again in his reply to 
 Mr. Laing's letter, emphasises his accusations of general overloading 
 by the statement that, after consultation with the Wreck Com- 
 missioner, he is satisfied that out of 65 cases investigated, half were 
 cases of ships either overladen or dangerously laden. It is impossible 
 to appreciate the value of this statement, seeing that the rulings of 
 the Wreck Courts, which, it is to be persumed, were based upon the 
 evidence taken, do not bear it out. If the Wreck Commissioner 
 has sufficient grounds for this opinion, it is difficult to understand 
 why he did not give effect to it in his rulings ; and if the grounds 
 were not good enough to entitle him to do this, it is still more
 
 29 
 
 difficult to see how it can justify a sweeping and vague denunciation 
 of Shipowners. Thirty-nine Inquiries in all were held before the 
 Wreck Commissioner in 1881-82 respecting casualties not connected 
 with stranding or collisions, and he only ruled five as having been 
 probably due to overloading or bad stowage. Forty-nine similar 
 Inquiries were held before magistrates at home, and only six 
 casualities were attributed to overloading or bad stowage ; and out 
 of twenty-eight held abroad in British Possessions and Naval Courts, 
 not one was found to be a case of overloading. Where, then, is 
 the justification to be found, even in the official figures, for the 
 statement that half the cases investigated by the Wreck Courts are 
 instances of overloading, or dangerous loading ? We must refer, 
 however, to the general character of Mr. Chamberlain's reply to 
 Mr. Laing. Mr. Laing, in his letter, which is a very natural, proper 
 and spirited defence of his order, pointed out clearly that the figures 
 adduced by Mr. Chamberlain do not bear the interpretation he put 
 upon them. He also reminded him that the suggestion of the 
 Chamber of Shipping, not to stop vessels from proceeding to sea 
 which were loaded within the limits of Lloyd's Tables of freeboard, 
 had not been accepted, and that had it been, " the effect of doing so 
 would have been to strike at once, by the direct and indirect effects 
 of the measure, at all dangerous loading." Mr. Laing pointedly 
 adds — " Your refusal to act upon the suggestion upon this matter 
 which the deputation made to you is, the Executive Council desire 
 me to state, somewhat hard to reconcile with the statements you 
 have more than once, both publicly and privately, made to the effect 
 that you were most anxious to secure the co-operation of Shipowners 
 in settling the difficult question of the load-line, as also other 
 important matters affecting the shipping interest." Mr. Chamberlain's 
 reply is not calculated to win for him the confidence or respect of 
 Shipowners. We see in it no indication of a desire to secure their 
 co-operation, nor of the open and impartial mind with which he 
 promised to receive any suggestions they might make to him. It 
 appears rather to be dictated by error, prejudice, and ill-feeling. 
 Mr. Chamberlain reflects upon the tone of Mr. Laing's letter, as
 
 80 
 
 though Shipowners have no right to defend themselves against 
 undeserved and cruel charges when he is the person through whom 
 they are made. His own reply is not creditable, either in manner 
 or matter, to the office he holds. He says that Mr. Laing has 
 misapprehended altogether the bearing of the facts he laid before 
 the deputation, as is shown by Mr. Laing's assumption that he charged 
 British Shipowners with causing the loss, by overloading, of a large 
 proportion of the 3,118 lives lost at sea in 1882. At the same time 
 Mr. Chamberlain states — " your answer does not impeach the 
 accuracy of my statements, nor does it in any way qualify the 
 inferences which are to be drawn from them." He goes on to say : — 
 " In my remarks to the deputation from your Chamber I pointed 
 out that the Inquiries in the Wreck Courts showed that out of 
 sixty-five cases investigated, half were cases of ships either overladen 
 or dangerously laden. If this is the proportion in regard 
 to one preventable cause, it may be feared that a similar 
 ratio prevails in other instances." Mr. Chamberlain adds that 
 he is compelled, after the fullest reflection, to repeat this statement. 
 This being so, we fail to see where Mr. Laing is wrong in his views 
 of the charges Mr. Chamberlain made. This unwarrantable 
 assumption — directly opposed to the figures in the Board of Trade 
 returns — that half the cases investigated by the Wreck Courts are 
 cases of overloading, and, therefore, preventable ; and the inference 
 that therefore half the losses from other causes are also preventable, 
 is an instance of the kind of reasoning which is thought good 
 enough to justify a wholesale condemnation of Shipowners. There 
 are two points in Mr. Chamberlain's letter which clearly indicate 
 the spirit in which he approaches this subject, and it is not what 
 would be expected from an " open and impartial mind." He says 
 that he asked the deputation from the Chamber of Shipping, on 
 the 8th March last, whether a large proportion of the terrible 
 disasters referred to were the act of God, for which no human 
 being is responsible ; and indignantly exclaims, " Your Committee 
 has had seven weeks to consider this question. Why have they 
 not answered if?" Mr. Chamberlain knew all the time, or the 
 officials who advise him knew, that the Board of Trade figures,
 
 31 
 
 which alone enable his statements to be analysed and tested, could 
 not be obtained until last month ; and if he did not have cognisance 
 of this fact in any other way, he saw by Mr. Laing's letter that it 
 was this circumstance which prevented the Chamber of Shipping 
 from dealing with the matter earlier. Another statement is, that 
 Mr. Glover, in speaking for the Chamber, "distinctly disclaimed 
 the suggestion that the Board of Trade should, for practical 
 purposes, adopt the tables published by Lloyd's." Mr. Glover's 
 suggestion was one which Mr. Chamberlain himself told 
 the deputation would have no other result than the adoption 
 for all practical purposes of Lloyd's Tables. Mr. Chamberlain 
 sneers at Shipowners for consenting to adopt Lloyd's load-line on 
 the ground that the fixing of a load-line is " a feat which until 
 recently your own Chamber and many Shipowners have declared 
 to be impossible." Does he think it worthy of his office, in the 
 interests of the safety of life at sea, or conducive to the promotion 
 of a good understanding with Shipowners, which he has professed 
 to desire, thus to treat the first opportunity which has ever occurred 
 of settling the load-line question ? It is not only undignified and 
 impolitic, but most unfair. The load-line question has* formed the 
 peculiar care of the Board of Trade. Parliament has made it 
 their duty to deal with it, and given them the fullest powers 
 for doing so. Mr. Thomas Gray told the Royal Commission on 
 Unseaworthy Ships that their powers were so ample as to admit of 
 no increase with advantage to the shipping of the country. Ship- 
 owners have found, by a long course of practical experience, that 
 the Board were unable to deal with the matter, and from this 
 experience they naturally drew the inference that the fixing of a fair 
 load-line was an impossible feat. Not only so, but the Board of 
 Trade, and Mr. Chamberlain himself, have repeatedly and 
 emphatically assured them, in words we have often quoted, that 
 the feat was scientifically and practically impossible. Shipowners 
 have now discovered, however, that Lloyd's Freeboard Tables, which 
 are really based upon the safe practice of the country, is a fair 
 solution of the problem, and a better one than they ever expected 
 to see. Is it logical or fair, or in the interest of the safety of life.
 
 32 
 
 to rebuke their willingness to adopt this standard of loading by the 
 charge that they have, until recently, declared that the fixing a load- 
 line was an impossible feat. We regret to see the spirit in which 
 Mr. Chamberlain has dealt with this important matter, and fear 
 that it is of bad omen for the future. The worst traditions of the 
 Board of Trade are at present to the fore ; and the one object of 
 the officials appears to be the securing of despotic power for the 
 purpose of enforcing their own obsolete and erroneous ideas. 
 Statistics are employed to unfairly excite public feeling against 
 Shipowners as one means of doing this. We expected more 
 reasonable and unprejudiced treatment from Mr. Chamberlain. 
 Shipowners must look after themselves, and take care that public 
 opinion is not improperly raised against them ; and must be 
 prepared to vindicate themselves by proving what is the real 
 state of things. 
 
 Lee and Nightingale, Printers, 15, North John Street, Liverpool.
 
 ■^;.--^ 
 
 ■fc-^^^ 
 
 .'*S' 
 
 w:.«S 
 
 Si'; r* 
 
 ■^■:k 
 
 i^.m%r 
 
 .^^.^^'-..in^S^. 
 
 tsi^i 
 
 
 ::-m 
 
 >-^ 
 
 ht^-H 
 
 M 
 
 ':fl* 
 
 .■*^* 
 
 
 ^'-.^v-;;:^ 
 
 '^^^'^ 
 
 •*.• 
 
 ^A-^-':;# 
 
 f,5^l^^'■ 
 
 1 
 
 .%. ;f 
 
 ^'':4i. 
 
 in 
 
 •"^ 
 
 
 
 f ^ ■■ 
 
 ll#i