§ Mr. HAVELOCK WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the reason why the crew of the "Kenilworth" was engaged on board that vessel on 26th March, 1909, at South Shields instead of at the mercantile marine office; what steps the deputy-superintendent took to ascertain that the four men engaged as sailors were efficient seamen, and whether the deputy-superintendent has any nautical knowledge to enable him to satisfy himself that men who cannot produce satisfactory evidence as to being A.B.'s are efficient seamen; whether he is aware that the Board of Trade recently sent a letter to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade stating that their usual practice in such cases was to direct the detaining officer to examine such deck hands, who had failed to produce evidence of their efficiency, with a view to determine whether they were qualified or not; and why such action was not taken in this case?
The Hon. MEMBERfurther asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he can state the reason why the crew of the "Thoraby" was engaged on board that vessel on the 24th March, 1909, at North shields instead of at the mercantile marine office; what steps the deputy-superintendent took to ascertain that the three men engaged as sailors were efficient seamen; whether the deputy-superintendent has any nautical knowledge to enable him to satisfy himself that men who cannot produce satisfactory evidence as to being A.B.'s are efficient seamen; whether he is aware that the Board of Trade recently sent a letter to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade stating that their usual practice in such cases was to direct the detaining officer to examine such deck hands, who had failed to produce evidence of their efficiency, with a view to determine whether they were qualified or not; and why such action was not taken in this case?
(2) If he can state the reason why the crew of the "Mohawk" was engaged on board that vessel on 27th March, 1909, at South Shields, instead of at the mercantile marine office; what steps the deputy - superintendent took to ascertain that the three men engaged as sailors were efficient seamen; whether the deputy - superintendent has any nautical knowledge to enable him to satisfy himself that men who cannot pro- 1512 duce satisfactory evidence as to being A.B.'s are efficient seamen; whether he is aware that the Board of Trade recently sent a letter to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade stating that their usual practice in such cases was to direct the detaining officer to examine such deck hands, who had failed to produce evidence of their efficiency, with a view to determine whether they were qualified or not; and why such action was not taken in this case?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI will answer these three questions together: The crews of the "Mohawk," "Kenilworth," and "Thoraby" were engaged on board ship at the Master's request, and the engagement was allowed by the superintendent in the exercise of his discretion, and subject to the usual conditions. As I have already informed my hon. Friend in answer to previous questions, the deputy-superintendent who witnessed the engagements was satisfied, after inspecting the sailors' certificates of discharge, that they were efficient deck hands as required by the recent instructions, and accordingly he did not refer the matter to the detaining officer. The practice of the Board in these cases is not correctly described in the questions. The letter of the 13th October, 1908, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, stated that if there is any doubt the men are examined on board by one of the nautical surveyors. In the present cases no doubt arose.
§ Mr. HAVELOCK WILSONCan the right hon. Gentleman say how the superintendent arrived at the conclusion that the men, who failed to produce any evidence that they were qualified seamen, were qualified seamen?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have already said it was in the exercise of his discretion.
§ Mr. HAVELOCK WILSONI would like to know whether this deputy-superintendent had any knowledge whatever as to whether these men were qualified or not, and whether he had any previous experience of the sea himself?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAll the deputy-superintendents, so far as possible, are men capable of forming a judgment upon the question of the fitness of sailors to serve. As to the particular qualifications of this superintendent, I have no reason to believe that there is any difference.