Lords Sitting of 23 March 1906

The Lord Ponsonby (E. Bessborough) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Sheffield Assay Office Bill [H. L.] Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.] Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, the Copyhold Act, 1894, the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900, the Drainage and Improvement of Land Acts, the Universities and College Estates Acts, 1858 to 1898, the Glebe Lands Act, 1888, and certain other Acts, for the year 1905. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE STRANDING OF THE "ORDOVICIAN.'
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether, at the recent formal investigation into the stranding of the steamer "Ordovician," the Court declared that at the time of the occurrence a Greek who could speak no English was at the wheel and a Greek who could speak no English was on the look-out, and that
  734
  bad steering conduced to the disaster; and, if so, whether in view of the circumstances they will quash the suspension of the certificate of the chief officer of the "Ordovician." I hold in my hand the official Report of the formal investigation held at Cardiff into the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of this steamship. The Report of the Court was as follows—
  "The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the Annex hereto, that the stranding and loss of the vessel were caused by bad steering by the foreign seamen and the negligent supervision of the officer of the watch. The Court finds the chief officer, Mr. William John Jones, in default, and suspends his certificate for three months."
  With your Lordships' permission I will read one or two extracts from the Annex which will show, I think, in a startling manner the way matters are now carried on on board some of our British merchant ships. It is stated in the Annex that in this vessel there was only one certificated deck officer besides the master, who, therefore, had to take necessary rest when the first mate, who held a master's certificate, was in charge. Your Lordships will therefore see that there was only one officer in addition to the captain in this fairly large vessel. In setting forth what the cause of the stranding was, the Court states—
  "The stranding and loss of the vessel were caused by the bad steering of the two Greek sailors who were at the wheel during the one and a half hours preceding the stranding, and by the negligent supervision by the officer of the watch."
  Further on in the Annex it is stated that—
  "The Court is therefore of opinion that the vessel was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care, and that her loss was due, not to any wrongful act or default of the master, but to the bad steering of the Greek A.B.s and the negligent supervision of the chief officer, who is found in default, and his certificate is suspended for three months. It is not within the province of this Court to express an opinion as to the policy, expedience, or necessity of employing foreign seamen on British vessels, nor to institute any comparison between British and foreign seamen. But the Court deems it a duty to direct attention to the fact that this is the third wreck inquiry held here within a month in which the deck hands have been chiefly foreign seamen with no knowledge of the English language.

  735
  The Court points out that in the recent "Rowtor" inquiry it was proved that a Spaniard who could neither speak nor understand English was at the wheel when the vessel stranded; and that in the inquiry into the loss of the "Bavaria"—which involved the sacrifice of many lives—the only deck hands that gave evidence were Russians who were entirely ignorant of the English language, and the Court was satisfied that they made a false imputation on the reputation of the master, who had lost his life in trying to save his vessel. And the Court concludes—
  "The only inference within the province of this Court to draw from the above facts is that special and unremitting vigilance and supervision must be exercised by officers when seamen unable to understand or speak English are at the wheel or on the look-out."
  If that were carried out it would mean that each vessel carrying seamen who were ignorant of the English language should ship extra officers. It is absolutely impossible to expect one man to do two men's work, or to be in two places at the same time. How is it conceivable that an officer on the look-out could leave the front of the bridge and go back to the man at the wheel and constantly supervise what he is doing? I would point out to your Lordships that the suspension of the certificate of an officer is a much more serious thing than appears at first sight, because, when an officer whose certificate has been suspended goes to seek employment, he is refused another berth. So far as I understand, the unfortunate officer who is punished in this manner has no Court of Appeal, that is to say, there is no Court of experts to whom he can appeal to go over the evidence and judge whether the decision of the formal Court of Inquiry was correct or not. What was the evidence given in this case? Who were the witnesses? The two Greeks were the only witnesses, for they were the only men on deck besides the officer, and they did not understand one word of English. I have very carefully read the Report of the formal investigation into the loss of this ship, and before coming to your Lordships' House I submitted it to a very eminent naval
  736
  officer, and asked his opinion it; and his view was that, judging by the facts set out in the Report, there was no justification for suspending the certificate of the officer in question.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I must offer my noble friend my sincere congratulations on the able manner in which he has attempted to make a good case out of very indifferent material. If any of your Lordships to save his vessel. And the Court con- I have read the Report of the proceedings at the Court of Inquiry on the loss of the "Ordovician," I think you will have been struck by the leniency of that Court towards the officer in question. What happened, roughly, was this. The master of the ship went down below at 1.10 o'clock on the morning of the 6th January, having given distinct orders to the officer he left on deck to call him in the event of the ship running into bad weather or into a fog. At 2.15 o'clock of the same morning the vessel ran into a thick fog, and at 2.35 she struck the rocks and was lost. The chief officer took no steps whatever to carry out the orders of the captain. He also failed to notice that the ship had deviated considerably from her course, although this must have been very obvious from the bearings of the lights. The vessel deviated, I think, five miles to the east of her course in an hour and a half. With regard to the finding of the Court, the Court did not find that the seamen's ignorance of the English language had anything to do with the casualty. The loss of the vessel was attributed, not only to bad steering, but also to the negligent supervision of the chief officer. In these circumstances it is quite impossible for the Board of Trade to reverse the decision they have already come to. The Question has been twice put in the House of Commons, and the President of the Board of Trade has on both occasions replied in the negative. I do not think there is anything more to be said on the subject.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.