DECK CARGOES—BOARD OF TRADE REGULATIONS. (Hansard, 17 June 1901)

LORD MUSKERRY

My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that although British vessels are subjected to heavy penalties for carrying deck cargoes to ports in the United Kingdom during the winter months, it is a common practice for the regulations to be evaded by the carriage of deck cargoes during the prohibited season to ports on the Continent; whether the s.s. "Mobile" proceeding in December last with a deck cargo from a United States port to Bremerhaven has been lost with all hands; whether certain written statements made before leaving by the second officer have been 525 placed in the hands of the Board of Trade; and whether it is their intention to hold that inquiry which in the interests of safety of life at sea is imperative? The written statements of the second officer are contained in a letter to his father on 25th December, 1900— We are loading a very big deck cargo of timber. We should not be allowed to have more than 3 ft. if we were coming to England. And in a letter to his sister, in which he says— We are loading a very big deck cargo of timber, as we are going to Bremerhaven. We should not be allowed to carry such a cargo if we were coming to England. I understand that this cargo was taken on board before the bunker coal was put into the vessel, which would immerse her a great deal more in the water.

§ THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I do not quite understand what my noble friend means by the beginning of his question. He asks whether His Majesty's Government are aware that although British vessels are subjected to heavy penalties for carrying deck cargoes to ports in the United Kingdom during the winter months, it is a common practice for the regulations to be evaded by the carriage of deck cargoes during the prohibited season to parts on the Continent. It is undoubtedly true that British vessels carrying deck cargo over a certain height during the winter months are liable to a fine, but the regulations are not evaded by the carrying of deck cargo from one foreign port to another. Obviously we have no jurisdiction over a vessel, such as the "Mobile," which trades between a port in the United States and a port in Germany; and, what is more, if she had been driven in here through stress of weather there would be no power to touch her either. As to the latter part of the question it is, unfortunately, quite true that the "Mobile" was lost at sea with all hands. Two statements made by the second officer just before the vessel left the United States have been sent for and forwarded to the solicitor who is at present getting together the evidence for the inquiry which will take place at the end of the month. The inquiry was decided on as far back as March, but my noble friend will realise 526 that in a case of this kind, when a vessel has gone down with all hands, it is extremely hard to get the evidence necessary for the inquiry.