327. Was it not the end of August,? However, are you aware that there was also a large mass of ice in the Atlantic in September ?-Yes, there is always that. You are never free from it. 328. Then tell us why you assume that the "Horn Head" was lost by a derelict that you do not know existed and not by a large mass of ice that you do know existed?-It may be sentiment. It may be because I saw these things. It may be because I struck one 20 years ago. 329. Now you will agree with me that any action that is taken that involves money to the country in any way must be justified?—Yes. 330. And that it can only be justified by its being proved that there is a serious amount of danger to life and property by the existence of these derelicts. You will agree with that ?-Yes. 331. Then can you give us any idea of what you suppose to be the per-centage of collisions and loss of vessels afloat that you think would justify the Govern ment in spending a large amount of money on it. I would just put an extreme case to you, supposing there was one collision in the year, and that the vessel did not go down, would you then consider that we ought to do anything?--Yes, considering that there is such a very large passenger traffic. 332. Although J. put it to you that there is no case of loss of life at all known, do you still think the Government should spend money in removing objects that are not proved to have done any injury ?-I should consider it judicious. 333. Let me take another case, you are aware that objects are sometimes placed upon the railways?-Yes. 334. Would you consider that one of these cases which may mean great loss of life would justify the placing of policemen the whole way round all the lines of England in order to prevent people putting them there and to take them away if placed there ?-They do so for Her Majesty the Queen. 335. We are not all in that position. One life is more valuable than another?-You put the question and you will excuse my answer. 336. Then there must be some proportion of danger which would justify it, and the object of this Committee is to get at, not the number of collisions that there are and the number of vessels that are reported, but the actual damage that is done and the per-centage of that damage, taking into account the enormous number of vessels that are at sea, because otherwise you are taking steps as absurd as those I have put to you just now. If you are to spend an enormous sum of money in order to remove a very small danger why should you not spend money to remove a very much larger danger, that is to say, the danger by which a larger number of lives are lost per annum ?--If Mr. Macdona's Bill is passed you would have more data to go on, I should think. It is for the reporting of derelicts-making it compulsory. 337. I am not speaking of derelicts, but collisions and actual injury ?-You know perfectly well that the insurance to New York is fromto per cent. I suppose specie is insured on the White Star and Cunard Lines at per cent. 338. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) What would be the insurance against collision with derelict?-Very much smaller. 339. Would it be th per cent. ?--I know they insure all sorts of things at Lloyd's, but the proportion is small. If my Lord will allow me to repeat it to Sir Courtenay Boyle, the Board of Trade has put the mercantile marine to rather heavy expenses in regard to what we call additional life-saving apparatns. Up to the present, so far as I know, the advantages accruing to British sailors and captains have been sentimental. 340. That is stating a negative, really?-Expense has been put on, and everybody has been only too glad to put that expense on his boats; but what advantage has been derived is only a speculative advantagethere has been greater safety obtained in regard to accidents. 341. Is your argument that, because one sentimental advantage has been achieved you should have another sentimental advantage ?-Yes, because if at any time there should be a large passenger boat lost through a derelict it would throw considerable responsibility 342. (Captain Wharton.) On whom? (Mr. Trevor.) Who would the responsibility be on ?— On those gentlemen who could not see their way to fall in with suggestions made. 343. One more question; would there be no responsibility on the master of the ship that was lost?—No, it is a matter of accident. 344. Accident?-Yes. 345. No look-out perhaps?--No, in the day time there would be no accident, the real danger is at night. 346. (Captain Wharton.) May I take it that you consider the loss of one passenger vessel would justify any expense that might be necessary ?-Not any expense. The expense would not be so great. 347. Are you aware of what is the average time that vessels that are reported as abandoned ships, float PThe Hydrographer of the United States says 30 days. 348. 20 to 30 days it is I am told?—Yes. 349. Let us take it at 20 to 30 days; now will you consider for one moment what that means. A vessel is seen and a vessel is reported. When the vessel that sees her arrives at port it reports her; but supposing a vessel starts off immediately a great part of that 20 or 30 days would be gone, and the derelict would have drifted great distances; and with all due respect to you we do not know as much about the currents as you seem to think we do. You cannot tell which way a vessel will go?-It depends. 350. I have several times endeavoured in the notices we issue to mariners to forecast the direction in which they go, and I am sorry to say that these notices have invariably been wrong with all the information I have at hand, and I put it to you, is it not extremely improbable that that vessel will be able to find that ship before it sinks to the bottom?-Certainly. 351. And yet you think it worth the experiment?— I would consider it worth the experiment. 352. Then I may take it that the mercantile marine would be ready to stand a very considerable tax for the purpose, because if the Government took it up they could not do it in a half-hearted way, it would have to be done properly?--The mercantile marine does not all use the North Atlantic. 353. Let us take the North Atlantic trade ?--I would not like to say that that would be just the thing, because they would have no control over it. It certainly rests with Parliament to supervise it, but if you want to tax a particular property and those particular people have got no control over it, it is different. 354. But would the trade accept it joyfully ?-No. 355. You do not think they would?—No. 356. They do not think the danger sufficient ?—No, that I cannot : ay. 357. Then why will they not accept it ?-There are anomalies in the Board of Trade already, and as to the lighting of the coast, I believe in Barrow there is quite an agitation about a certain lighthouse there. 358. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) We must not go into individual cases ?-But you would only increase those anomalies. Supposing you did ask me the question I would say, No. certainly not. 359. (Captain Wharton.) Then I understand you think the trade would not stand any tax that would be put upon them for the purpose of searching the seas for derelic's ?-No, because it would not be an even tax. It is not that they do not wish to pay for it, but because it cannot be levied in accordance with the value of the property protected, or in accordance with the vessels that are protected or presumed to be protected. I will go further than that, and say presumed to be protected. 360. I do not understand what is the difference between the rate of tonnage for lights and the rate of tonnage for destroying these dangerous derelicts P-[ am not speaking as an expert now on the the lights of Great Britain. 361. But that is an analogous sort of thing?-The commercial community at large would hardly be satisfied with being taxed in that way. Take, for instance, the light which we should like to have in the Belfast, Lough, on the Black Head. 362. (Mr. Trevor.) That is local-it is not a general light? It is a Scotch light as well, being used by Scotch trade. Mr. O. Jaffe. 20 April 1894. Mr. O. Jaffe. 20 April 1894. FLOATING DERELICTS COMMITTEE: 363. No, it is an Irish light, it is at the entrance to the Belfast Lough? It would protect all the people there. Whenever a captain gets out of his way and he wants to go to Liverpool, for instance, and supposing ne takes the north passage and is in a fog, he would be benefited by it, and you would not ask the Belfast community to put a curtain over the light. I do not consider it fair, because as a general principle merchant shippers do not consider the taxation of light to be on a rational basis to-day, and if you ask me whether it should be done, I should say no, because it would increase what we consider not to be on a rational basis already. 364. (Captain Wharton.) Then I do not understand you to say that you wish the Government to take this matter in hand? Yes. 365. The taxation is to be put on the general public? -Yes. 366. Then you will admit that the Government must 367. Have you any idea of the difficulty of finding a 368. The Atlantic is a large place, and when you say 369. You are interested in the Atlantic trade ?--I am a shipowner more or less, and I have travelled very often. 370. If that particular area was traversed why should not shipowners trading to the Mediterranean have their routes traversed ?—I would not object to it. 371. Then we cannot look at it as a small matter, it is a very large matter?-It is a large matter and a matter of principle I perfectly agree, and I accept the responsibility I have taken in starting the matter, and I should be very sorry to think I have started a subject that cannot be carried out. 372. Not at all, it is for the Government to settle that. You start the subject and the Government set it aside or not as they think necessary ?-But I should be sorry if I, in the eyes of the Government or this Committee, should be thought to have done anything of that kind. 373. But before anything is done, you admit, although you may take the sentimental side of it, that it is the duty of the Government to consider the amount of labour and money that would be involved?—Yes. 374. Assume for a moment that in the Atlantic itself there are eleven million square miles, and that there are derelicts all over it ?-Hardly, do you mean all over the Atlantic ? 375. Yes, not many, but 20 or 30 ?-But there are certain parts of the Atlantic where there is no traffic. As soon as a derelict goes north it would hardly come in. 376. It is a question of chances. Supposing your vessel was going north of the line of trades and she happened to come across a derelict there ?-She would not go there. 377. Take it further south into the trade limit, rather to the east, near to the Azores, say ?-If the United States charts are correct, they are very apt to come down this way again (pointing on the chart). I have met a gentleman from Trinidad who has steamers on the coast, and he says so, but what I would like to see is that the derelicts if possible should be cleared off on this part, where the passenger traffic is. 378. And if once cleared off they would have to be cleared off again next week?—Yes; at least not next week. 379. But you must remember they only last for 20 or 30 days ?--They only last 30 days. 380. They would have to be cleared off periodically. Your argument was that an iron vessel if up side down would be a worse danger than anything else ?—Yes. 381. Then if they are once cleared off that would suit you?-No. 382. Then what do you want-will it go on for ever? -No, not for ever, circumstances change. 383. As long as your life lasts ?-When it comes to "for ever" it is a very long expression. 384. Have you any knowledge of these cases of vessels in search for derelicts ?-No. 385. Do you know that from time to time when a derelict has been reported in a dangerous position not very far from land that the Admiralty send a ship to look for her ?—Yes. 386. And do you know that they have never found one ?--No, I did not know that. 387. Does not that show better, it being actual evidence of what has happened in practice, how difficult it is to find derelicts ?-Yes. 388. Then do not you think your two or three ships would be perfectly useless over such a vast expense of ocean if you can only see four miles on either side and only for 12 hours a day ?-Not even that. I would not consider the horizon in the case of looking out for derelicts to be four miles, taking storms and cloudy days and foggy weather into account, you would not always see four miles. 389. Then I put it to you again that with the vast area of the Atlantic and the small distance you can see and the very small number of derelicts there are, do you think that two or three vessels would reduce the proportion of derelicts in any appreciable degree whatever? It would remove no doubt partly the danger and certainly give more confidence to the parties who are responsible as captains. 390. Before you took this matter up was there any agitation amongst seamen, who, after all, are most concerned, because their lives are concerned. Did you ever hear any seaman speak about the great danger which these derelicts presented. You may have met a man who, like yourself, saw one, but because you saw one it does not mean that your life was in danger, any more than because a stone falls off a house the whole of London would be in danger. Did you ever hear any agitation amongst seamen about it ?-I have never met a captain who was not in favour of trying to remove them. 391. After you had asked him ?---No answer. 392. When you took this matter up were you taking it up in response to a feeling amongst seamen ?-No. 393. Or was it your own sentimental f eling ?-My own sentimental feeling. 394. Then you would not be astonished, probably, to hear that the Cunard steamers which have traversed the Atlantic for longer than any other Line can give us no evidence whatever practically about it. You will hear what they say. I will just read the letter which has been sent to us: "The writer," that is the General Manager, "has been watching the various ships' reports "for the last decade, for any derelicts reported on the North Atlantic route, and though any information of "such is usually exchanged between the principals of "the various Lines, he does not remember more than two or three derelicts in the whole of that time; "and is of opinion that none of our masters, even those "that have been crossing for 30 years, have seen more "than half a dozen in the whole course of their ex 66 66 66 66 perience. It would therefore seem purposeless sending a representative to say so little "P-How many years is that? 395. 30 years; all the Cunard captains in 30 years, have not seen more than that. Do you know of any vessel of your own knowledge, that has sustained serious damage by striking a derelict. I am not speaking of the United States reports, but of your own knowledge as a shipowner, and of a case that would be interesting to your brother shipowners-have you ever known a ship strike a derelict and get seriously damaged?—The Cragside." They are not certain if that was derelict or a rock. 66 a 396. The "6 Cragside" casualty is shown plainly to have been caused either by a rock or a wreck on the bottom. She was close to the shore?-She was rather close. 397. She had no business to be where she was. Is that your only case ?-That is a case in which I am a shareholder. 398. Put that aside for a moment this is a much bigger business than that have you got a case of any serious injury ?-I wrote the " White Star" Line before starting this subject as to whether they had a record of the state of the bottom of the "Celtic " when she was It was docked, and they wrote me that they had not. 20 years ago, and they said they had not; but there, we felt convinced we struck a derelict. It may be that was one chance out of a thousand. 399. (Mr. Trevor.) But did you see her?-I was on board of her. 400. But did you see the derelict ?-It was at night when we struck her. 401. But you say the blade of the propeller was broken?-Not only the blade but the boss. 402. (Captain Wharton.) Then you are no doubt sailor enough for this: will you explain how, if a derelict strikes the hull of a vessel, it can ever strike the boss of the screw ?-It might be only some yards or spars that were still tied together. 403. But we are not talking of spars ?-She e may have struck a dereliet and gone just over her. 404. But if so she could not have broken the boss of her screw ?-She might. 405. Have you ever been on board a ship that has lost her screw through striking anything at all?No. 406. You may take it from me it is extremely difficult to tell what has happened. There is such a jerk and shake throughout the whole ship that it is extremely difficult to tell whether it is the screw flying off or what?--Possibly. 407. What we want to get at is direct evidence, not an idea as to what may be and what possibly is, and so on, but the facts. Then if it had not been for the United States Pilot Wreck Chart you probably would not have said anything of this at all?-No. If I had not seen a statement of the United States soliciting the co-operation of the Government I would never have said a word about it. 408. You are aware that was entirely false at the time; that up to this time the United States have never solicited anything of the sort ?-You may not have it officially before your Department or the Navy. 409. Do you mean the Hydrographer's Department in the United States wish to have it done?—I believe the President of the United States has not intimated the wish, but you will know a great deal better than I would, because it would not come to my ears, but it would be the desire of the Department, and that could come to my ears. I have got here the annual report of the Hydrographer. 410. I have seen it. I do not mind confessing that I, as another Hydrographer, am entirely opposed to his views. That is my opinion. Are you aware how long the United States have been doing anything in this matter?-Since 1887, I believe. 411. On what do you found that ?-At least they have been publishing during five years. 412. No, I am speaking of destroying derelicts, not reporting?-Not much. 66 413. Do you know that it is not even a year P-Yes, and I know that they have sent out the Vesuvius that has a dynamite gun on board, but it has a fracture in the hull, and I do not see how they can fire it. 414. (Sir George Nares.) The "Vesuvius" only destroys vessels that are wrecked on shore?--Yes. 415. (Captain Wharton.) And are you aware that in this country, by Act of Parliament, it has been done for many many years ?-The removal of wrecks ? 416. Wrecks round the coast, and derelicts if there are any off the coast-Yes. 417. Therefore the British Government is not behind hand by any means ?---No, I never said so. 418. No, you have not; but it has been said in the course of this inquiry?—I am not responsible for that. 419. Certainly not?--I always try to guard my words to the best of my ability, and have always tried to be on the very best terms with any Government. 420. (Chairman.) I want to ask you this. You advocate taking these exceptional measures in the routes between England and the United States of America ?--And Newfoundland. 421. And you advance as a reason for that that the passenger traffic is so exceptionally large there ?--Yes. 422. Of course these passengers are carried in very large ships, and supposing the "Teutonic," for instance, comes across a capsized derelict laden with timber, what do you suppose will happen to the "Teutonic." Do you think she would be any the worse?--It is difficult to say. Her Majesty's Hydrographer will perhaps remember the case of the "City of Berlin," or was it the " City of Brussels," that 25 years ago struck Pier No. 1 in New York, the stone wharf or stone jetty, that is. When they began on the North River to build stone jetties by some accident or other one of the Inman Line of steamers ran-I will not say full speed, but at all events considerable speed-straight on to the jetty and dislocated stones weighing several tons, and yet did not do herself auy harm. 423. Then I take it from your answer that we may assume that a vessel of the sort I have mentioned would go over most derelicts without knowing it?-No, my Lord, do not, please, take that as an assumption, I am stating a fact and I could get it looked up, or could look up the exact details. Really, the steamer went, I will not say full speed, but a considerable speed against the stone pier, and dislocated stones that weighed tons without doing herself damage. 424. But it is a fact, you will admit, that vessels that are lost by collision are, 99 times out of 100, sunk as the result of a blow on the broadside?--Yes. 425. Now, do you think it possible that a ship can be struck on the broadside by a derelict?-Her side might be ripped up. 426. But the chances are against it ?--Yes, and particularly with twin screws she would float longer if she really gets ripped up on one side it would not be so bad. 427. But I mean, do you think it is at all likely that a ship would be struck on the broadside by a floating derelict-not a collision as we call it between two vessels under way, for in this case one of them is stationary ?-No answer. 428. (Captain Wharton.) About this marking of derelicts on the chart, do you think that is useful?-For navigating purposes? 429. For sailors P-No. (Sir George Nares.) I may say as to the difficulty of finding a derelict after it is reported even when it is close to our own coasts, and the Trinity House are able to send to it immediately, they have dealt with 59 cases within the last five years, and out of those 59 they were able to say that by either their own vessels or others they towed in 12; but in 39 cases the vessels were earched for and nothing found-they could not find them. We have only got the paper in to-day, but that is the result of their working with vessels reported and sent to immediately. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) And that is in the narrow seas? (Sir George Nares.) That is in the narrow seas and close to the coast, and they were able to intercept them judging by the current or the wind in that one day. The witness withdrew. Adjourned to Tuesday next at 12 o'clock. Mr. O. Jaffe. 20 April 1894. C FLOATING DERELICTS COMMITTEE: SECOND DAY At the Office of the Board of Trade, Friday, 27th April 1894. 430. (Chairman.) I believe you are secretary to the 27 April 1894. Trinity House ?—Yes. their 431. (Sir George Nares.) Have you analysed the return forwarded by the Trinity House to the Board of Trade on the 18th instant. I mean the return of wrecks and wreckage dealt with by the Trinity House during the five years ended 31st March 1894 ?*—No. (Sir George Nares) At the Board of Trade I have analysed the list so far as it is connected with derelict vessels and floating wreckage, and it appears that in the five years there have been 103 cases of derelict vessels or floating wreckage reported to the Trinity House as having been sighted near coasts. 86 of these were derelict vessels, and 17 were wreckage. Of the derelicts, 27 were outside the Trinity House jurisdiction, but notice was given by advertisement-or direct to Lloyd's and the Admiralty and others of the 11 which were nearest the coast. Of the remaining 59, 39 were searched for but not found, although the searching vessel was sometimes sent out more than once; 20 were found, 5 of which were destroyed at sea, 3 after grounding in shallow water, and 12 were towed into port. Of the 17 cases of wreckage, 14 were found and removed, and 3 were searched for and not found.† 432. (Chairman.) Would you tell the Committee what is the course followed by the Trinity House with regard to the removal or destruction of floating derelicts?— Directly we receive a report of a derelict or floating wreck, we instruct the district superintendent to proceed and examine, and he acts without further instruction if it is a case of urgency. If there is time to receive them, and if the case admits of his applying for detailed instructions, he does so, and receives them from bead quarters. 433. Will you say how you get your information. Have you any organised system?-No, we get it in a variety of ways. We get a great many reports from collectors of customs at the different ports, and we get information from the Board of Trade and Lloyd's. We get it direct sometimes from masters of ships and pilots. 434. Is it part of the business of the Trinity House to remove derelicts and obstructions, and if so, are there any limits within which they have jurisdiction ?—There is the limit fixed by the Removal of Wrecks Act, 1877: Where any vessel is sunk, stranded, or abandoned in any fair way or on the seashore in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. or any of the adjacent seas or islands, and there is no harbour or conservancy authority," then it becomes the duty of the Trinity House or the other general lighthouse authority for that part of the United Kingdom, to deal with the wreck or obstruction. We also deal with wrecks which are dangerous to lifeboats engaged in lifeboat service under the Removal of Wrecks Act, 1877, Amendment Act, 1889. 66 66 435. As a matter of fact, at what sort of distance from the coast have you been in the habit of dealing with them?-We have dealt as a rule with cases which are within the area fixed by the position of our own lightships, or this side of an imaginary line running down * See Appendix C, No. 1, p. 74. ↑ See Appendix D, No. 1, p. 87. mid Channel. If the wreck is on the other side of this imaginary line running down the Channel we apprise the Government on the other side. 436. (Mr. Trevor.) Do you mean a line running down the centre of the Channel ?-Running down the centre of the Channel. 437. You refer to the English Channel ?-The English Channel. 438. What do you do in the North Sea ?-We act as far as we can on the same principle there. 439. Bisecting the water ?-Bisecting the water; but I think I ought to explain that probably the greatest distance that we have sent out after a wreck is something over 100 miles. That was on the north-east coast: about 120 miles is the extreme range. 440. (Chairman.) Is it fair to ask who defrays the expenses ?-The Mercantile Marine Fund. 441. Then what vessels do you use?-We use our own lighthouse vessels; we never have had any other vessels, except occasionally a hired tug. After these Acts of Parliament were passed we had no addition to our craft at all. In fact, I may say, the vessels sent after these wrecks are taken off lighthouse duty for the purpose. 442. Are they well adapted for the service?-Very well adapted indeed. windlasses, and they carry explosives. They have very powerful 443. How long do they keep the sea without returning in harbour - About 10 days' easy steaming. 444. Can you give us any idea of what the expense of this service alone is to the Trinity House through the year?-Since the passing of the Removal of Wrecks Act, 1877, the net expense to the Mercantile Marine Fund of dealing with wrecks has been 54,2471., or an average of 3,6161. per annum. 445. That includes sunken wrecks as well? That includes sunken wrecks, and also wrecks dangerous to lifeboats engaged in lifeboat service dealt with under the Act of 1839. 446. Can you tell us what has been spent on floating derelicts elne, and floating wreckage?-Not at the moment. 447. (Mr. Trevor.) Can you get it out do you think-Yes, I think we can get that out. 418. (Chairman.) Does that include the wages of the crew, and the whole of the expenses for coaling and so on -It includes the proportion of their time wreck service is charged with a proportion; for The instance, a screw steamer is charged 121. for 24 hours, and 61. under six hours. There is a different rate for a paddle steamer, but we have only got one paddle steamer left now in the service. 449. Has your work been all round the coasts of the United Kingdom ?-No, the Trinity House is only the general lighthouse authority for England and Wales. The general lighthouse authorities for Scotland and Ireland are the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. 450. They look after their own places ?--They look after Scotland and Ireland. 451. Can you tell us of any authenticated cases of actual loss of life or property that has actually occurred through striking floating derelicts?-I do not remember a case at the moment. I do not remember receiving any report. 66 66 452. (Sir George Nares.) Are there any special instructions to the masters of vessels when they are sent out to remove or recover a derelict ?-The instructions are really addressed to the district superintendent under whom the masters of the steam vessels act. This is the instruction:-" On receiving report of any wrecked vessel in the navigable waters appertaining "to his district, the superintendent is to cause it to "be marked as soon as possible with a wreck buoy, "and if necessary by a light at night, showing the "regulation lights by night, and balls by day, and he "is to report to the Trinity House without delay the exact position of the wreck, stating whether it is, or "is likely to become, a danger to navigation. The report should also include, wherever practicable, the name and nationality of the wrecked vessel, and the name and address of the owner." Then:- As respects removal.-If the wreckage be not too large "for handling by the vessel in attendance, the officer "in charge is authorised to endeavour to remove such "obstructive portions as he may be able to remove; "but if the work need special appliances, he should at once report such to be the case, and await instructions, which will be given on each occasion as it arises." 66 66 66 64 66 453. Is there anything about destruction of derelicts? -Those would be special instructions, according to the case. 454. Then we shall have to get information from the officer who has actually destroyed a vessel in any special case ?-Yes, Mr. Thorp is such an officer. 455. Is there any additional pay to the crew when they are employed in this work?-Where a case is reported to be one of a very arduous nature, and prolonged, then the men get extra pay, but the officer in charge does not. 456. When they tow a derelict into harbour do they get any salvage-In a recent case it was allowed where the service was one that was essentially a salvage service. With the sanction of the Board of Trade a payment was made to the crew, but we have had very few such cases. 457. Does any payment come to the Trinity House or to the Mercantile Marine Fund P-Yes, a proportion is sometimes paid into the Mercantile Marine Fund account. In fact, what the owners would get in cases other than ours goes into the Mercantile Marine Fund. 458. How many cases have you had in the last five years?—I think we may almost say this last case I have referred to is the only case in the last five years. 459. Then as regards the 12 vessels that have been towed into harbour, those have been towed not only by your own vessels, but by men-of-war, and pilot boats, and others?-Do you mean they have assisted? 460. They may have assisted, but it does not follow that those 12 cases of derelicts that have been towed into harbour have all been towed into harbour by Trinity House vessels. Is that so?-Yes. 461. They are in your reports, but some have been towed in by men-of-war and some by pilot boats ?— Yes, that may be so probably. 462. So that you practically can only say that you have had one case where a Trinity House vessel has actually got salvage for towing a vessel in?-Yes. There are two modes of dealing with a wreck. You either proceed under the Removal of Wrecks Act or under the Merchant Shipping Act. 463. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) Who would appraise the salvage-That would be according to the usual scale, according to what the derelict is sold for; the usual rate. 464. (Sir George Nares.) In this Return of Wrecks and Wreckage that have been brought to the notice of the Trinity House during the last five years, there are 423 cases altogether; may we say that the shores under the jurisdiction of the Trinity House are practically clear of all such dangers to navigation ?—I think that may safely be said. 465. Except what you are now removing; late cases? -Yes, at the moment. I think the work in hand at the present mon.ent consists of life-boat wreck cases only-dangers to life-boats. As far as general navigation is concerned I believe the coast may be said to be clear. If any wrecks have not actually been dealt with, they are being dealt with at the moment. There is one wreck in course of dispersion, the "Serica," over in St. Mary's Sound, Scilly. The return Sir George Nares was first furnished with embraced a period of five years only, and included all wrecks reported to the Trinity House from the 1st April 1889 up to the end of March 1894. Taking the period 1877-93 (included in the second return) the number of wrecks dealt with under the Removal of Wrecks Acts was 548. 466. (Mr. Trevor.) That is, including wrecks dangerous to life-boats engaged in life-boat service ?-Including wrecks dangerous to life-boats. 467. (Sir George Nares.) That goes further back than this return that has been sent in ?-Yes, that goes back really to the passing of the Removal of Wrecks Act, 1877. 468. (Mr. Trevor.) You mentioned the coasts under the control of the Trinity House. How far out do you consider the adjacent seas and islands extend as defined in the Removal of Wrecks Act ?-We havo been obliged to limit our ideas very much through the want of vessels to do the work, but if there is anything as I say within the line of our light-ships, or farther out, and the danger is very great, we make an effort and send after it, but the greatest distance we have sent is, as I say, 120 miles from the coast. 469. In fact, for the purposes of removing wrecks, you annex, so to speak, parts of the ocean which possibly may not, from an international law point of view, belong to Great Britain, you annex it for the purpose?We annex it. Some of our own light-ships may be said to be outside British waters. For instance, the Leman and Ower is over 30 miles from land, and I suppose legally not in British waters. 470. No complaint has ever been made of your action in those waters, has there, that you are aware of?-I think people are only too glad to get us to act. 471. As to the case that you put of 120 miles off the coast, can you tell me what the nationality of that vessel was?—No, this was an unknown wreck, N.E. half N., 106 miles from the Leman and Ower lightvessel. 472. Have any of the cases that you have removed within, say, 50 miles of the coast been foreign vessels? -Yes. One of the most expensive wrecks that we had to deal with was the Ville de Calais," which had been sunk on the other side of the Channel, and was towed over to this side and dropped here. All the cases in which the heaviest expenditure has been incurred are shown in a statement which I now submit.* 473. It was dropped where-within territorial waters? -Yes, near Margate. 474. But not brought over by your vessel?-No, by the salvors. 475. Therefore your action in the case of the "Ville de Calais was within the territorial waters of this country?--Yes. 476. My object in asking the last question or two has been to try and ascertain the nationality of the vessels dealt with outside our territorial waters ?-We take the wording of the Act: "any vessel," to mean that we must deal with any vessel whatever her nationality might be. As a matter of fact, in the North Sea they are mostly Norwegians and Swedes. 477. But not many British ?-I should say very few. 478. You kindly gave us some figures tending to show the cost of the removal of wrecks generally, but I think you said that that included both sunken wrecks and floating wrecks ?-Yes, both. 479. Are you able to get out for us, and distinguish from that list of amounts, the cost of removing or searching for floating derelicts only-approximately, I mean? The cost of dealing with floating wreckage and derelicts I think we can, but we can hardly include the cost of searching, because where a wreck is not found the expense of sending the vessel is not charged to the wreck account. If she does not find the wreck there is no charge made as against it, and you will find a great many cases of searching for wrecks and nothing being found. + * See Appendix E, No. 1, p. 91. The account referred to in question 479 has since been made out and submitted. See Appendix E, No. 2, p. 91. Mr. 27 April 1894. |