MANNING OF MERCHANT VESSELS— THE LOSS OF THE "PRIMROSE HILL." (Hansard, 22 February 1901)

LORD MUSKERRY

My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Board of Trade inquiry, as ordered, into the loss in December last of the ship "Primrose Hill," of Liverpool, has been deferred owing to pending libel actions between private individuals; whether in view of this vessel sailing without a certificated second officer, and certain other allegations as to her manning, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to proceed with this inquiry; and also whether, as these inquiries are held in the public interest, the Board of Trade will consider the advisability of discontinuing their practice of their being subordinated to cases of purely private concern. For the information of your Lordships, I may say that this ship was over 2,300 tons register, and that she carried a crew of thirty-five. Amongst that crew I am told there were thirteen apprentices, six of whom had never been to sea before. Your Lordships will remember that in December last the ship was lost, and that, with the exception of one man, all hands were drowned.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (the EARL of DUDLEY)

My Lords, it is quite true that the inquiry into the loss of the "Primrose Hill" was, according to the usual custom, deferred while the libel action between the owners of the vessel and the proprietors of the Liverpool Courier newspaper awaited hearing. That action, however, has now been disposed of, and has resulted in a verdict for the owners with £100 damages. The Board of Trade inquiry will now take place in the usual way. To that inquiry will naturally be referred questions of manning such as those to which my noble friend has called attention, and it is, therefore, perhaps unnecessary for me to refer to them at this time. As regards the last past of the question, I regret that I cannot make any promise that the Board of Trade will depart from the course that it has hitherto followed in cases of this kind. The custom of deferring the inquiry into the circumstances of any particular casualty while a civil action in connection with it is pending either in the High Court or the Admiralty Court seems to me to be based on sound and equitable principles. To act otherwise might have the effect of seriously prejudicing the position of the various litigants, and I do not think therefore that under these circumstances my noble friend will wish to press his suggestion.