§ MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the chief officer and second officer of the s.s. Cambay were compelled to leave the bridge of that vessel during their watch on deck, in order to attend to the steam winch, they having to drive it and also attend to the runner for heaving up coals; whether he is aware that during the time the men were absent from the bridge no proper look out was kept, and that the only man left on the bridge was the man at the wheel; whether he intends to take any steps to prevent ships' officers leaving the bridges of steamers during their watch on deck; and, whether he has sufficient power under the Merchant Shipping Act to 531 prevent such neglect of duty; if not, whether he will take steps, at an early date, to introduce a Bill into the House which will prevent such a dangerous practice?
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,) CroydonI have been in communication with the owners, who inform me that the chief and second officers were not compelled to leave the bridge in order to attend the steam winch; but that, on the suggestion of the chief officer himself (who wished to get the ship cleaned up as soon as possible), the master did sanction the attendance of the officers at the winch during afternoon watches for six days in fine clear weather, out of 28 days' passage in the Indian Ocean, between the Cape of Good Hope and Colombo, and when there was no risk of collision or stranding. The master further states that he himself was about at the time, so that the safety of the steamer and crow was not in any way endangered. The master further states that the ship is well manned, and there is never any need for an officer to leave the bridge. I cannot be responsible for everything that goes on on board every vessel in the Mercantile Marine; but Section 220 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which provides that an officer or seaman who, by wilful breach or neglect of duty, endangers life or ship, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, appears to me to provide for the contingency which the hon. Member supposes occurred in this case—if, as a matter of fact, it had occurred.
§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after the admission had been made that the bridge was neglected, he intended to hold any inquiry into the circumstances on the return of the ship to the United Kingdom?
§ MR. RITCHIENo, Sir, I see no necessity for an inquiry.
§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSONasked whether it was not a breach of the law for officers to leave the bridge of a ship when on the high seas?
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid he had already stated to the hon. Member that, in the circumstances referred to, the law provided for officers being prosecuted and punished if found guilty.
§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to enforce the law in this particular case, seeing that it had been admitted that the bridge was neglected by the officers of the ship in question.
§ MR. RITCHIEreplied that, so far as his information went, he saw no reason for moving in the matter. If the hon. Member received any further information, and communicated with him, he would consider it.
§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he would again call attention to the matter.