§ MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the "Marquis of Lorne" sailed from Glasgow recently so loaded that she had only 2 feet 2½ inches of side her depth of hold being 17 feet 2-tenths, although she had the dangers of the Bay of Biscay to encounter; to the case of the "Arthur," also from Glasgow, having a depth of hold of 17 feet 3 inches with a freeboard of only 2 feet 6 inches on the port side, and 2 feet 1 inch on the starboard, she also having to cross the Bay of Biscay; and to the case of the "Dania," which sailed from Shields for Malta with a depth of hold of 16 feet 3 inches, and a clear side of 14 inches only on the port side, and of 3 feet 1 inch on the starboard; and, whether any steps were taken by the Board of Trade to 27 prevent the sailing of these ships in this condition?
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYSir, the freeboard of the Marquis of Lorne was as stated in the Question; but the length of the poop and forecastle added so materially to the buoyancy of the ship that it was not considered right to stop her. The draught of water as shown by these Returns, which are communicated to the hon. Member, taken alone, is a very imperfect and misleading test of seaworthy loading. To stop a ship on that test alone would be unjust, mischievous, and leading to costly reversal. The principal surveyors of the Board of Trade are at this moment on a circuit with a view of establishing a practice on which the Board of Trade may satisfactorily act in this difficult question of overloading. In the case of the Arthur the ship was stopped by the Board of Trade and lightened of 130 tons of cargo. In the ease of the Dania the information arrived by telegram on a Saturday night, and was received too late to be acted upon, even if desirable. The question is one of list; the mean of the two freeboards would be sufficient, if after starting the ship was trimmed.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether a case has recently come to his knowledge in which a shipowner discharged a captain of a ship for refusing to take her to sea without some means were adopted to prevent her cargo from shifting, on the ground that she would inevitably founder if he did, she being loaded in bulk with Indian corn; whether the owner did not thereupon engage another captain, and insist upon sending the ship to sea, which subsequently foundered with all hands; and, whether he will order a prosecution of the shipowner under section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1873?
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYSir, I gather from the Question that I know the case referred to, though it is not named; and, if I am right, the case has been under investigation at Greenwich, and the result is to disprove the rumour as stated in the Question. The ship capsized, as is known from the captain and other survivors, and the Report of the inquiry will be published shortly.