§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESI desire to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty an urgent question, of which I have given him private notice. Is it a fact that Captain Amson, the King's harbour master at Portland, has required the steamship "Persia" to remove forthwith from Portland harbour, and has stated that unless he hears by noon to-morrow (8th April) that this will be done, he will take forcible possession of the ship and forcibly remove her; has he considered that the law suit between the owners of the "Persia" and the Admiralty is still pending, and the appeal thereon still undecided; and does he nevertheless propose forcibly to do-that which may possibly be held to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal. Assuming that the "Persia" is removed by force, does he propose to leave her derelict on the high seas, to treat her as a 609 capture, and submit her to a prize court, or, if not, what else does he propose to do with her; and does he propose to refer to His Majesty the King for instructions before using His Majesty's forces against His Majesty's subjects?
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, the facts are these: The owners of the "Persia" applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the King's harbour master from removing the ship from Portland Harbour. The Court of King's Bench decided the case in favour of the King's harbour master; but in spite of this, as it was understood that the decision would be appealed against, the Admiralty consented to allow the "Persia" to remain at Portland pending the appeal on condition that the owners of the "Persia" put no more coal on board the ship. This arrangement was agreed to in court by the parties to the action. The owners of the "Persia" have now broken that agreement, and have put more coal on board the ship, and the King's harbour master has proceeded to put in force the powers conferred on him by Act of Parliament as interpreted by the High Court of Justice.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESWill the right hon. Gentleman not leave the ship there at any rate until the Court of Appeal decides?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir; that was the exact point which was the subject of arrangement between the parties when the Court of King's Bench gave its judgment, and the other parties to that arrangement having broken it the Board of Admiralty have no alternative but to forcibly remove the ship.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other parties to the action entirely deny the agreement?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir. I have read the correspondence, and so far from denying it there was a distinct admission of it.