§ MR. E. J. REEDasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he would state whether one-half of the ships detained (by Board of Trade officers) as unseaworthy were ships classed at Lloyds; if he has observed that several of the ships classed at Lloyds were detained for "overloading," for which Lloyds were not responsible; and, whether the Parliamentary Returns will in future be so prepared as to enable the House to distinguish between ships arrested when under repair, or in port for purpose of repair, and ships otherwise arrested?
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYSir, my statement that one-half of the ships detained for defective hulls and equipments by Board of Trade officers are ships classed at Lloyds, is taken from a Return of vessels detained during the three months of November, December, and January, since the Act of last year came into force. The following are the details: — Fifty ships were detained during those three months after the Act of last year came into force in November. Of these, 22 were classed. Twelve were detained for defective hulls and equipments, of which six were classed at Lloyds. No ships are detained under the Act of last year while under repair, or in port for repair; but only when proceeding to go to sea.
§ MR. E. J. REEDgave Notice that on the Vote for the Board of Trade Surveyors he would call attention to the subject.