REPORT COMMISSION ON UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS. CHAPTER IV. THE scheme suggested for the training of boys, by the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, should not be hastily put aside. It presents the views of men of no common abilities and of great experience, legislative and practical, who, having examined numerous witnesses, favour, after mature consideration, the recommendation that "all vessels above 100 tons register, whether propelled by sail or steam, should be required to carry apprentices in proportion to their tonnage." These words contain the essence of their Report, so far as regards the question of manning; and they involve a great principle, which, I think, has not yet been sufficiently scrutinised in all its bearings. The Commissioners offer no opinion as to the number of boys to be carried by each ship, wisely preferring that that point should be fully considered by the shipowners themselves before any legislative measures are passed; no doubt they adopt this course with the conviction that all legislation when opposed to the interests of the parties concerned must be futile, except in cases where class interests ought to be rendered subservient to the public good-such, for instance, as the welfare and happiness of the people, the extension of commerce, the prosperity, safety, and defence of the nation, and, of course, the suppression of crime. As regards the defence of the nation, the shipowners say, "We are prepared to take our part, and bear our share in that defence as subjects of the realm; but we protest against being called upon to do more, and if it can be shown that the training of apprentices is not for our own good, but is made compulsory, so that the nation may have a reserve of seamen in the hour of need, we decline to pay even the small tax the Commissioners proposed should be levied on those of us who do not consider it for our interests to take apprentices." Such arguments as these are unanswerable. Previously to 1850, the shipowners were obliged by law to carry one apprentice to every 100 tons, but they did not then consider the obligation a hardship, because they derived, or rather were supposed to derive, by the operation of the Navigation Laws, which were abolished in that year, a special advantage conferred upon no other class of the community. The protection of their interests by law, has since proved a delusion, and there are, I dare say, very few amongst their number who would now desire to see these laws re-enacted. However depressed the shipping interest may be at present, its enormous increase proves that our shipowners are in a better position than they were previously to 1850, and consequently more able to bear any loss, if loss there be, likely to be sustained by taking apprentices. If such be the case, the question arises, why should they object to carry apprentices now, as they did not do so before? They answer, "Things have changed, and it is not for our interest to engage them." But may not the fact of having been suddenly relieved from the obligation have something to do with the change in preferring "boys" and "ordinary" seamen to take the place of apprentices, for although no class of the community is now compelled by law to engage apprentices, every class finds it for its interest to do so. There is not a master tradesman in the kingdom-be he shipbuilder, engineer, joiner, or blacksmith-who does not take apprentices, not for the interests of the nation, E but for his own. He knows that he is training a class of young men upon whom he can depend, not merely during the term of their apprenticeship, but whose knowledge thus attained will afterwards be the chief, if not the only means of enabling him to compete successfully with other manufacturers, especially with those of foreign nations. Trades' unions, in their desire to monopolise labour to trained men—that is, to themselves—stoutly oppose an increase of apprentices beyond a certain limit, because they interfere with their monopoly, and tend to reduce the price of their labour; they do so for no other reason (except when they are required to train them without being paid for it), and that reason is diametrically opposed, not merely to the interests of their employers, but to the interests of the nation, which consist in having the largest amount of skilled labour at a fair cost, not enhanced by a monopoly. The question, however, of apprenticeship is one with which the Legislature in no way interferes, leaving every shipbuilder, joiner, or engineer, to engage, for a certain number of years, as many youths as he pleases, only taking care to provide by civil law an easy remedy for masters and apprentices alike who vitiate their indentures or agreements. Beyond that, Government has really no right to interfere with the shipowners or with any other class of the community. Indeed it would be a monstrous injustice, I say nothing about its impolicy, to compel by law the employer of labour to engage more persons of any description than are necessary for his wants. If it does not suit shipowners to engage apprentices, they will not engage them; and it would be wrong to compel them for the purposes of the State, or for any other purposes purposes whatever beyond their own wants, to take more at their own cost than they require. When these requirements are ascertained, we may then be enabled to settle equitably a question which of late years has been one of much controversy, and where not a few, somewhat wild and erroneous, opinions have been expressed. Here it may be alike interesting and instructive to remark that in 1845, when the amount of British tonnage was not one-half of what it is now, there were no less than 15,704 apprentices enrolled in that year, but in 1850, when the Act repealing the Navigation Laws came into operation, and when shipowners were no longer required by law to carry apprentices, the number enrolled fell to 5,055. The publication of the Board of Trade returns, from which I obtain this information, has been continued, and the latest issued* furnishes the following information : 17,092 15,815 On the 31st December, 1870, there were 18,303 indentures in existence On the 31st December, 1871 On the 31st December, 1872 On the 31st December, 1873 On the 31st December, 1874 As shipowners, however, since the apprenticeship law was abolished, have not been required to provide any return of the number of apprentices they carried, or produce their indentures to the superintendent when clearing for sea, I thought the above return must include boys as well as apprentices, and as it did not furnish me with the information I required, I wrote to the Registrar-General of Seamen, who, with his usual promptitude and courtesy, replied: : "On the 31st December, 1872, there were on the books 16,359 enrolled apprentices. "In the year 1872 there is good reason to believe that there were at sea *Tables showing the progress of British Merchant Shipping, ordered to be printed on the motion of Mr. Edward Stanhope, 8th February, 1876. This shows a difference between the apprentices on the books and those employed of 7,045, some part of whom may be found in the fishing boats, of which we have no returns. The remainder are probably 'deserters' or 'dead,' of whom we have had no report. "Of 300 vessels employed in 1876, taken at random (50 of each of the following tonnages), the result is not very different from the foregoing, viz. :— "Taking, then, the figures of 1872 as accurate, we have in ships of more than 100 tons burden 10,595 apprentices and boys at sea, and the adoption of either of the tables enclosed herewith as a basis for legislation would add materially to their numbers, and would not, probably, be unduly irksome to the shipowner. "Greatly as I desire to see a system of training-ships worked out for a supply of seamen for the Mercantile Marine no less than for the Royal Navy, I feel convinced all systems will fail unless combined in some form with apprenticeship, and to carry out the latter successfully it will be necessary that the owner, master and boy should have an interest in the arrangement. |