§ 9. Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the finding and order of a Naval Court held at the British Consulate-General, Alexandria, on the 21st December, 1921, to investigate the circumstances attending the abandonment of the British steamer "Hornsee," of the Port of London, which finding was to the effect that the circumstances of the vessel's loss were highly suspicious, that the ship was prematurely abandoned, and that no attempts appear to have been made to save her; that the facts that the ship was so much out of her course on the voyage from Syracuse to Alexandria, that a false position was given in her wireless telegram for assistance, and that her policy of insurance expired two days later, gave rise to grave suspicion; that the master was worthy of censure for the way in which his evidence was given and the manner in which he performed his duties as master of a ship, and that, the ship being British, the only Englishman on board was the wireless operator, this adding considerably to the difficulty of examining the case; whether the Board of Trade are satisfied that the "Horn-see" was a vessel employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom, under Section 6 (1) of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919; whether the master and officers, being aliens, held British certificates; and whether he will consider the advisability of so amending the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, as to prevent the occurrence of cases of this kind?
§ Mr. BALDWINMy attention has been drawn to the finding and order of the Naval Court held at the Consulate-General, Alexandria, on 21st December, 1921, to investigate the circumstances attending the abandonment of the s.s. "Hornsee." This vessel was employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom, and neither the master nor any of the officers was the holder of a British certificate. I do not think there is sufficient case for proposing an amendment of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, as regards officers of British ships trading abroad.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERHas the right hon. Gentleman read the finding referred to? Is it correctly stated in the question? 10 Does he not think it sufficiently serious to warrant careful consideration of further legislation?
§ Mr. BALDWINI would remind my hon. and learned Friend that this matter was discussed at some length in 1919, when the Act in question was passed, and I am not aware of anything that has arisen since then which would lead the House to alter legislation which was before it so recently.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERIs there any way in which the disastrous result that has occurred in this case can be averted in future?