HC Deb 13 June 1911 vol 26 cc1449-50
Mr. BOWERMAN

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give any information as to the general powers of the Treasury which authorise the Lords Commissioners to order the refunding of any fine imposed by a naval court on the master of a British ship, seeing that Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, provides the remedy for a person who may consider himself aggrieved by an order of a naval court?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I may refer the hon. Member to the Act 22 Vic., cap. 32. The right of appeal given by Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, to an aggrieved person does not in any way diminish the power of remission possessed by the Crown.

Mr. BOWERMAN

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, provides the remedy for a person who may consider himself aggrieved by a decision of a naval court; if he can state why the general manager of the Shipping Federation, Limited, was not referred to this section when an application was made for a remission of a portion of the fines imposed by a naval court on the master of the British ship "Earl of Dunmore," for having wilfully and wrongfully left behind at Caleto Coloso four seamen from the same vessel; and if he can state the grounds upon which the Board of Trade made a recommendation to the Treasury for the repayment of a portion of the fines in this case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant)

Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, does not provide for an appeal against the decision of a Naval Court when such a Court imposes a fine. The fines referred to in that Section are fines imposed by the ship's agreement as regards which a seaman may make complaint to the Court under Section 480 (1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The Board of Trade considered very carefully the report of the proceedings of the Court and they came to the conclusion that that part of the Order of the Court which imposed fines for alleged offences under Section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1891, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.