HC Deb 06 March 1873 vol 214 cc1394-5
MR. HAMBRO

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that fifteen seamen belonging to the late steamship "Peru" are now undergoing in Dorchester Castle a sentence of twelve weeks' imprisonment with hard labour for refusing to go to sea in that ship; whether it is a fact that that ship foundered at sea two days after leaving Portland Harbour; and, if the facts are as alleged, he will take the proper means for relieving these men from any further punishment in consequence of the sentence inflicted on them?

MR. BRUCE,

in reply, said, it was true that 15 sailors were sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment for not fulfilling their contract to go to sea in the ship Peru, but it was not true that she foundered two days after she left Portland Harbour. The facts were these—the Peruwas not a steamer, but a sailing vessel, American built. She went to Cardiff for the purpose of getting a cargo of coals, and while there she was put into the graving dock and thoroughly overhauled; she was, in the words of the owners of the ship, "stripped of old metal, thoroughly caulked, and put in perfect seagoing condition." They had further informed him that her cargo consisted of 2,060 tons of coals, and was less than the tonnage she was entitled to carry. The vessel left Cardiff with 29 hands on the 4th of December. She met with very adverse winds, which occasionally rose to a hurricane, and she lost several of her sails, and put into Portland Harbour to be refitted. While she was in Portland Harbour, where she remained till the 29th, these men refused to continue to work. He had carefully read the depositions, and he found that although two or three of these men asserted that the ship was unseaworthy, the evidence at the trial went to prove that the sailors found fault not with the ship, but with the mate. Under these circumstances the magistrates were satisfied that the men were not justified in refusing to work in the ship, and they committed them to prison. The vessel was refitted, new sails having been sent from Liverpool, and she started on her voyage on the 29th December. When two days from Portland Roads, a ship called the Empire crossed her bows, there was a slight collision, but the captain was of opinion that the vessel was not materially damaged, and accordingly she proceeded on her voyage. In the Bay of Biscay she met again very adverse winds, which constantly rose to a hurricane—so that the captain, an experienced seaman, said that for a period of 19 years he had never known such continuous bad weather. On the 18th of January, when about 50 miles from the coast of Spain, the crew were obliged to take to the pumps. On the 22nd they left the ship, and were all saved except three, who persisted in continuing in a boat which had taken on board the other sailors, and was towed by the ship. There was no other loss of life than that. From the facts, he was not satisfied that the men believed in the plea they put forward as to the vessel being unseaworthy. He thought that that was a dishonest plea, and that the circumstances under which the loss took place might have caused a similar disaster to any ship. It did not appear to him from these facts that the magistrates were wrong in their decision, and consequently he did not intend to interfere with it.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

inquired whether it was known if any of these men who were in prison refused to go to sea upon the ground that the amount of cargo in her was excessive?

MR. BRUCE

There was no statement of the sort, nor could he gather from the cross-examination of the witnesses that that had been put forward.

MR. HAMBRO

said, he found by Lloyd's List that the ship was in collision between Cardiff and Portland?

MR. BRUCE

said, that was not so; the collision took place two days after leaving Portland.