QUESTION. (Hansard, 9 May 1873)

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

I am not surprised, Sir, that some hon. Member should ask me for some explanation of this circular, which has been widely distributed, especially, I believe, among religious congregations throughout the country. I have taken pains to ascertain accurately what are the facts, and the general answer I have to give to the Question is that the statement quoted from the circular is absolutely without foundation. The Board of Trade have never refused any information to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), for the simple reason that he has never asked them for any, in spite of repeated invitations on my part that he should do so. The circular reverts to the circumstance which I explained fully in the House some weeks ago—namely, that an agent of the hon. Member had applied to the Collector of Customs at Cardiff for voluminous information relating to ships sailing from Cardiff for the last three years. The 1715 answer was given without any directions from the Board of Trade and without their knowledge, but I think it was a proper one under the circumstances—namely, that it was not usual to allow the public to inspect the official books and documents, but that all their information was open to the Royal Commission or the Government. I may add that a large part of the information asked for could not have been given by the Customs, and what is more to the purpose of the present Question, the Reports of the draught of water of vessels leaving port were not asked for by the agent at all. These are what the hon. Member has photographed and published; and, as their very object is publicity and the exposure of cases of overloading, I find no fault at all with his photographs—the more public these things are the better. These are Reports, not from Cardiff merely, but from a large number of ports, showing the draught of water of vessels leaving port—a new thing, provided for by the Act of 1871. But the circular states that what was sternly refused to a Member of the House of Commons "seeking to save human life has been supplied to a Secretary of Underwriters from the Board of Trade itself in London, in order to aid them in making their investments," and supplied to the hon. Member for Derby by the Secretary of a Company of Underwriters. Now, this Secretary is Mr. Stephenson, the well-known Secretary of Lloyd's, who has protested against these Board of Trade Reports, which he had lent to the hon. Member for Derby, being used for the purpose of attacking the Board of Trade. The facts are as follows:—The Reports of draught of water are made daily, and are sent up daily to the Board of Trade. They are there, by an arrangement with Lloyd's, abstracted into a form which is at once sent to Lloyd's, and which is there posted and made known to the whole of the persons interested in shipping who have access to that public and well-known place of resort. Further, these Returns at the Board of Trade are open to anyone who chooses to inspect or apply for them, and would have been given freely to Mr. Plimsoll or his solicitor, had either so applied. As a general rule, short of paying for them as advertisements, there is no means of publishing information connected with 1716 shipping so effectually as by sending it to Lloyd's. In these Returns the words "deep" or "very deep" are of frequent occurrence. Sometimes these words are a comment added by the official reporter to his Report of the actual draught of water; but in general they are expressions only of the impression of the reporter where, from defective marking of the scale of feet upon the ship, or for other reasons, the actual draught of water cannot be given. I am happy to be able to add that careful inquiry has been made at Lloyd's into every one of the cases mentioned in the Returns heliotyped by the hon. Member for Derby in which the words "deep" or "very deep" have been added; and it has been found that every one of those vessels has made the voyage on which it was bound when the Report was made in perfect safety. The circular goes on to say that there is also a separate and worse list, specially reported to the Receiver of Wrecks, and that the hon. Member for Derby cannot obtain access to it. The fact is there is no such separate list made, or kept either by the Surveyors of Wreck or by any other officer of the Board of Trade; and I must repeat that the Reports on draught of water made to the Board of Trade are open to the examination of any one, and are invariably sent to Lloyd's. The only explanation of the circular I have been able to arrive at is, that there are a few exceptional cases in which the Secretary at Lloyd's exercises his discretion in not posting up every remark that may be made upon avessel in the Returns of the surveyors furnished by the Board of Trade. That is the case, I am informed, in very few instances: and, at all events, the Board of Trade have nothing to say to it, because every Return received is sent to Lloyd's for purposes of publicity. This is not the occasion to speak of the value of these Reports, though I am assured by high authorities that they are found already to have a very useful effect in checking the practice of overloading; but, at all events, their utility will be fully tested by the Royal Commission, because the Secretary of the Board of Trade has handed them in to the Royal Commission, and has given full explanations with respect to them. The notion that the Board of Trade wishes to keep these Returns back from the hon. Member for Derby, or from any one 1717 else, is really absurd, and I can only regret that the hon. Member did not think it right to obtain such information from the Board of Trade as would have made it impossible for him to publish the unfounded statements of the circular.