§ * Mr. J. C. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether he is aware that 255 passengers on board the Seaford steamship, which was run down by the Lyon steamship in a collision in the English Channel on the 20th instant, would all have probably perished but for the prompt action of Captain Sharp of the Seaford, who reassured the passengers by at once distributing life belts to every one of them; and (2) whether, in view of this fact, he will inquire whether the crowded steamers on the River Thames running to Margate, Clacton, and other places are similarly provided with a full complement of life belts ready at hand for a similar emergency?
§ MR. W. WOODALL (Hanley)asked whether the Board of Trade was satisfied that the boats of these Channel steamers like the Seaford were adequate for the rescue of the very large number of passengers they carried?
§ * MR. RITCHIEI have seen some newspaper accounts of the circumstances of the collision to which my hon. Friend refers, but, as a formal inquiry will probably be held, I am sure he will not expect me to express any opinion whatever as to the facts of the case. In reply to the second paragraph of the question, the steamers referred to are required to hold Board of Trade passenger certificates, and those certificates are not issued until the surveyors are satisfied that boats, lifebelts, and other life-saving appliances are provided in accordance with law and are in good condition. I am sure that I am in accord with the general feeling in the country in expressing great satisfaction at the prompt and efficient action taken by the captain of the Seaford, and also of the Lyon after the collision, which probably was the means of preventing a deplorable loss of life. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ * MR. MACDONAasked if it was within the province of the Board of Trade to officially recognise the conduct of Captain Sharp?
§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSONasked if it was not the fact that the Seaford was kept afloat owing to her bulkheads, and whether the right hon. Gentleman intended in the next Session to bring in a Bill to compel all ships to have bulkheads in order to give greater security?
§ * MR. RITCHIEI suppose the hon. Member refers to the Lyon, which was kept afloat by that means; the Seaford sank.
§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he understood that the Seaford was kept afloat some 45 minutes because she had bulkheads.
* MR, RITCHIEI understand that the collision was in such a vital part of the Seaford as to put any chance of saving the ship out of the question. The ship had watertight compartments undoubtedly.
§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSONagain asked if the right hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill making bulkheads compulsory?
§ * MR. RITCHIEI am afraid I cannot promise any legislation for next Session; but if the hon. Member desires any further information on the subject I will have further inquiries made. I cannot say whether the Board of Trade can officially recognise the conduct of Captain Sharp, of the Seaford, but I will consider the matter.
§ * MR. MACDONAasked whether, in view of the fact that the Thames river steamers were abnormally crowded at this season of the year, the right hon. Gentleman would cause special inquiry to be made as to the provision for saving life?
§ * MR. RITCHIEsaid it was the duty of the inspectors of the Board of Trade from time to time to see that the appliances were kept in good order. If the hon. Member desired him to make special inquiry into a particular case he would certainly do so.