§ MR. KAVANAGHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any inquiry has been held, or, if not, whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry, as to the alleged truth of the circumstances attending the loss of the schooner "Charles" of Wexford, with all hands, in the month of January last, when, according to the report in the public journals, it appeared that while lying in a disabled and sinking condition, from injuries supposed to have been received by striking on the Arklow Bank, she was approached by the steamer "Countess" on her voyage from London to Dublin, which vessel remained by her for about three hours, but ultimately steamed away upon her course without rendering any assistance, leaving the crew of the ill-fated schooner, who were at that time clinging to the rigging, to perish; and, if such inquiry has been held, whether the above statement is in accordance with facts?
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEin reply, said, that an inquiry had been ordered by the Board of Trade into this case. He might say that the Solicitors of the Board of Trade thought it very doubtful whether there was sufficient 103 ground to justify an inquiry; but he thought it better to be on the safe side, and allow the inquiry to proceed.
§ MR. R. W. DUFFasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will cause an immediate investigation into the seaworthy condition of the brig "Maggie," now lying in the Frith of Forth, four of the crew of which have been sentenced to a month's imprisonment in Edinburgh Gaol for refusing to proceed to sea, alleging the vessel would not steer, was overloaded, undermanned, and leaky?
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, the Board of Trade had at present no power of its own accord to survey ships under the circumstances occupied by the Maggie. It appeared hat the seamen referred to had been sent to gaol for refusing to proceed on their voyage, and the Board of Trade were in communication with the Home Office on the subject. These seamen need not have been sent to gaol if a survey of the ship had been made by the order of a magistrate and she had been found to be unseaworthy. With respect to any further proceedings on the part of the Board of Trade, if the hon. Member would make a complaint in writing, giving the information required by the Act, the Board would then be in a position to say whether the ship should be surveyed. If a primâ facie case could be made out against the owners steps could then be taken in the matter.
§ MR. HAMBROasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the result of a survey made at Falmouth of the ship "Sir Robert MacDonnell" by the Surveyor to the Board of Trade has not been to prove that the ship is unseaworthy; and, Whether he intends to proceed against the owners of the "Ceres" under Section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1871, which, by the Report of the inquiry held at Glasgow in February last, appears to have been unseaworthy when sent to sea?
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEin reply, said, that the Board of Trade had made a preliminary survey of the ship Sir Robert McDonnell, and the result showed she was in a leaky state. The Surveyors could not pronounce her to be seaworthy. In this case there was no resistance on the part of the owners to the power of detaining and 104 examining the vessel as given by the recent Act. They were about to have the cargo taken out, in order that a proper examination might take place. With respect to the Ceres, he saw by the report of a Scotch paper which had been handed to him that a survey ordered by the Sheriff showed as far as it went that the men in this case had no good reason for refusing to proceed upon their voyage. But he had ordered the evidence to be referred to the professional and legal advisers of the Board of Trade with a view to see whether it was a case in which further proceedings ought to be taken.
§ MR. HAMBROasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will take into consideration the case of certain seamen who are confined in Usk Gaol, undergoing a sentence of six weeks' hard labour for refusing to go to sea in the ship "Sir Robert MacDonnell," which left Newport last month for Monte Video, and which afterwards put into Falmouth, whore she has since been surveyed by the Surveyor to the Board of Trade and pronounced unseaworthy?
MR. BRUCEin reply, said, that on reading the hon. Gentleman's Question he telegraphed at once to the magistrates at Newport to obtain the information on which they committed the men to prison. Upon receiving their answer he would act with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and the Report of the Board of Trade.
§ Afterwards—
§ MR. LIDDELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the event of the facts adduced bringing home, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, culpability in sending a ship to sea, they have the legal power to enforce an ulterior charge against the owners?
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,said, in reply, he believed that under the recent Act the Board of Trade would have power of proceeding against the owners for misdemeanour for having sent a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state.