§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the treatment by the British Consul at New York of George Tinmouth, second engineer, August Walter, second mate, George Temple, Henrick Miller, Henry Bain, and Alfred Anderson of the ss. Godolphin, 96,653, of London; if he is aware that these men joined the Godolphin at South Shields on 9th January, 1891, their agreement being for twelve months, to terminate in the United Kingdom, and that on 12th January, 1892, the time of their agreement having expired in New York, the captain endeavoured to discharge them in New York without paying them compensation for the voyage home, and that on application by these men to the British Consul he said he would "wash his hands" of them, because they refused to take their money up to the time the ship arrived in New York; if his attention has been directed to a letter which appeared in the International Seamen's Gazette of last week from the British Consul at New York denying the statement of the men; and if anything can be done to recoup the men for the expense that they are put to in suing the owners of the ss. Godolphin for the balance of the wages, they not having arrived in the United Kingdom until 6th February?
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.I have been in communication with the Consul General at New York with regard to the case of the Godolphin, but I have not seen the letter in the International Seamen's Gazette to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that the master of the steamer did object to pay wages beyond the date of the discharge at New York, but as the agreement provided for discharge at a port in the United Kingdom, the Consul General decided that the men were entitled to additional wages for the probable time it would take them to reach home, and he reports distinctly that they were paid accordingly, but he does not state 1656 up to what date. If the seamen take proceedings to recover any amount to which they are advised they are still entitled, the question of their costs will no doubt be considered by the Court, but the Board of Trade have no power to recoup them the expenses they are put to in suing.
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI have read the agreement, and I wish to ask whether, if the agreement expressly said that the men should be paid in the United Kingdom, the Consul was right in forcing them to accept payment in New York?
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe agreement provided for a discharge in a port of the United Kingdom. The Consul decided there must be additional payment for the probable time occupied in reaching that port.
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMHas the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the wages accounts, and that that does not confirm the statement of the Consul that the men have been paid?
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI have no reason to doubt the statement of the Consul.
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI do not question the veracity of the Consul, but if the wages accounts do not show the payment, does not that indicate that the Consul was misinformed?
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI do not know that it does.