A.—sa

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX B.

Memorandum submitted by Sir William Lyne in reply to the Shipowners' Memorandum.

With reference to the statements made by the ship-, owners' representatives, the following remarks may be made : —■ The fact remains that whilst in the year 1893 the number of British seamen employed upon British ships was 186,628; yet in the year 1905 (the latest available) that number had decreased to 180,492. When it is remembered that the tonnage of British shipping has increased in the _ame period by 2,056,373 tons, it is clear the proportionate decrease is much greater. In the year 1893 the total British tonnage was 8,541,388 tons, and the number of British seamen employed 186,628, whilst in 1905, the tonnage being 10,597,761 tons, the British seamen numbered 180,492. Whilst it is no doubt correct to say that since 1900 the number of British seamen has been increased by 6,000, yet the tonnage since that year has also largely increased, and the fact is still patent that as against 180,492 British persons employed in our Mercantile Marine (1905), there are 83,194 of other nationalities employed, or, excluding Asiatics, 39,711 foreigners. I contend that under proper conditions there is no reason why British men should not be substituted for these. In regard to statements in shipowners' memorandum Nos. 2 and 4, it is contended that under such conditions as ought to prevail the attractions to sea life would be increased, and that there would be no difficulty in securing the necessary supply of British sailors. Australia desires to build up a mercantile navy, and with that view to so improve the conditions of seafaring life that Australian youths will be attracted to it equally with land pursuits. The remarks of the shipowners' representatives as to the general principles which should regulate the conduct of seaborne trade are no doubt in the abstract eminently correct, and it cannot of course be disputed for a moment that such trade should be free from all unnecessary rules and regulations; but the whole case depends upon whether such regulations as a matter of fact are unnecessary. I contend they are not. I agree with the view that anything which places British vessels at a disadvantage with foreign, is to be avoided ; but our Bill provides that no distinction shall be permitted. I maintain that so long as no difference is made between the two classes of vessels, the British ship is not placed at a disadvantage, and I do not hold with the representatives that the "same disabilities" cannot be imposed on the foreigner. The general question of policy is one for Australia herself to consider. She has to take the risk of what ihe effect of her legislation may be; but from her point of view the advantages to be gained outweigh the possible disadvantages. As to the remarks in regard to the coastal trade, a question of policy to be determined only by Australia herself again arises. It is alleged that the scale of earnings of the Australian coasters is greater than that of the oversea boats. This is hardly the fact in the case of passengers, and probably not in regard to cargo.

I do not consider that it by any means follows that if oversea ships are excluded from coastal traffic, the result will he higher chaiges for oversea traffic. In the memorandum under remark, it is observed that "it is not possible for any country to establish the conditions under which alone it will engage in trade with "the rest of the world." This is an assertion which is hardly the fact. A country can do this if it so determines, and it is for it alone to decide whether it will do so. It is maintained that it is quite open to any country to say that when certain contracts are brought before its Courts to be interpreted or enforced, they shall be read in a certain way. As to the liability of shipowners, Australia has in operation a Sea Carriage Act, which serves her purpose, and which will be maintained. It is desired only that shippers shall be protected from attempts by shipowners to contract themselves out of their liability. One point deserving consideration, which from an Australian point of view is of considerable weight, has not been taken into account by the shipowners; that is, the great desire of Australia to give the British owner a preference as against his foreign competitor. The oversea trade of Australia is now 112 millions per annum. I desire that all that trade shall be carried in British ships. This view was recently given effect to by an Act which imposed in many cases much higher duties upon goods imported from foreign countries, or in foreign ships. As regards Australian trade, this is a great consideration. Such an enactment practically gives the trade to British ships, and if we adapted the shipowners' own arguments, will lead to increase in charges for freight, which will be to their advantage. Shortly, the Australian views are as follows :—• (1) The requirements proposed are necessary and desirable; (2) Foreign ships must be subject to all the requirements of British ships; (3) The latter, in the carriage of goods, shall have the preference over, and De protected against, the foreigner; (4) The proportion of British seamen can, and should be, increased, until the foreign element is reduced or eliminated : (5) The Australian coasting trade shall be restricted to such vessels as comply with Australian conditions, and in such trade preference to be given to British ships as far as practicable; (6) The requirements and laws relating to shipping should be uniform throughout the Empire, but we consider the lines of New Zealand legislation and Australian should be generally followed as the basis of a uniform law ; (7) That in all sea trade each British Colony should give a preference to British vessels.

171