769. Then, of course, that comes back to the question that Sir George Nares asked you, that possibly one derelict in three years might be found?-Yes.

770. You would not advocate the, burning of a derelict; it would be difficult, would it not ?-I would burn the derelict if it were possible to do so. I should burn that one, for instance; as much as would consume of her.

771. With petroleum ?-Having a ship that has nothing to do, it would be a nice experiment to see how far it would burn.

772. Do you think burning would be easy P-It would not be very easy.

773. A derelict ship when moistened does not burn quickly? There is a large part of the upper portion of this ship (pointing to the sketch) that would consume very quickly.

774. The derelict standing well out of the water and her masts in, is not so dangerous as a submerged one? -No, the danger of that ship is at night. Of course you cannot possibly see craft at night. A steamer going at a rate of 21 miles an hour would be over that thing in a dirty night.

775. Now, as to the probability of sighting those derelicts; is the track of the White Star Line different from that of the Cunard ships?- No, we all take the same tracks by mutual agreement; it is on the chart.

776. Is it the same track; do all the ships take the same route? The leading Lines have all adopted the same track (pointing to the chart).

777. Then the probability is that you, in your ship, would be likely to see the same number of derelicts, you starting on a Wednesday, as the Cunard ship starting two days afterwards? Yes, it frequently occurs that we see the very same things on the passage; they are reported by the ships.

778. Is that derelict which is reported by you, and by the Cunard captain, and possibly by others, entered as three or four separate derelicts, or as the same one? -It is entered, as far as I am concerned, as the same derelict as would be reported by the captain of the 'Campania" or the "Lucania.”

66

779. I think you misunderstand my question; what I am trying to arrive at is, is the derelict A, which is seen by you and the Cunard captain, and somebody else, entered as one ship, or three separate ships ?One ship only, as a rule; following, as we do, the same tracks, the great probability is that it is.

780. Has a derelict got a name to it; how can it be distinguished?-It is very seldom that you can make out the name; you cannot always. It may be too far off, or the name is submerged; in many cases the name of the ship is on the bow.

781. If the name is indistinguishable, how is it that it is supposed to be the same ship by three different observers at different times ?-There is a description of the vessel which is in many instances as good as the name, because it is very improbable that there will be two bearing a striking resemblance to a derelict on the ocean, and we can generally determine from the description given-my description as it compares with that of any other commander-whether it is the same ship or not, and especially when they take the locality into consideration.

782. Then you think, in the published reports, say, of this American chart, that there is no fear or probability of the same derelict being treated as three different derelicts?-No, I do not think there is the slightest chance of that.

783. You told us that any obstacle seen, when reported at New York, was cabled over to this country at the Company's expense?-Yes.

784. And that is very useful to you?-It is very useful to us.

785. How soon after sighting a derelict do you get to New York, say; three days-About the third day as a rule; sometimes less and sometimes more.

786. And then when it gets to this country it is pretty well on for four days -When it gets to this country it will be about the fourth day. Of course if it is sighted west of 50, it may be here on the third day.

787. And then it is posted at Liverpool, possibly the same day?-It is posted immediately.

788. Is it easy for a man going out from Liverpool on the fourth or fifth day after you have seen a derelict, when he gets tolerably near the site of your report to calculate where that derelict eight days afterwards has gone too ?-To that question I should answer that the proper station for a vessel told off on that duty would be either Halifax or Newfoundland, and be subject to orders by telegram.

789. But my question was addressed to the difficulty or the probability of a seaman starting from Liverpool after having seen 'this information posted there; of a seaman starting from Liverpool, say, on the fifth day after you had seen the derelict, and gone to New York, and cabled it home for him, when he got to the site of it, to know where and how to avoid it; say he starts five days after the actual sighting, he must take two or perhaps three days to get to the neighbourhood of the ocean where it was originally seen. Is it easy for him then to look for it? How far has the derelict gone, and in what direction, during those eight days ?--The charts, of course, would show its probable drift, but it is impossible for a navigator absolutely to depend upon them, as much depends upon the weather, and many other circumstances that may affect the position of the wreck. It would be almost impossible for a man to go purposely to steer clear of it, because it would depend entirely upon the prevailing direction of the wind, and of a certain quantity of the Gulf Stream, if it got there.

790. That of course points, does it not, to the great difficulty of finding a derelict ?-Weli, with one single observation, with one single report, there would be very great difficulty, but I am assuming that a derelict would be reported two or three times, and that would give a pretty good idea where she was, and how she was drifting.

791. (Captain Wharton.) When did you first get any idea of a serious danger from derelicts in the Atlantic. You say you have been in the Atlantic trade 20 years. Did you have the game ideas 20 years ago?—I have a very distinct and vivid recollection of always, during that 20 years, feeling that there was certainly some danger in the ocean that we had never thoroughly explained, at least so dangerous that it resulted in casualties for which there was no explanation, and I have always felt that it would be well if we had some steps taken to remove those dangers that may possibly be lying in the way of a ship.

792. When was it borne in upon you that derelicts caused the danger. You say that you have noticed in the course of your service at sea that a ship is reported as missing? Yes.

793. And you felt that there is some reason for its being lost. When did it strike you, or dawn upon you, that it was caused by derelicts?—That would be very difficult for me to say, but I know that the possibility of a derelict causing such a thing has always been, in my estimation, a probable factor.

794. Naturally, if you run into a thing, you may come to grief?-A very probable factor.

795. Was it before the publication of the United States Pilot Chart, or was it in consequence of the United States Pilot Chart ?-That is one of those questions that it is impossible to answer. I believe it was prior to the publication of those charts; I firmly believe

it was.

796. You have seen a lot of them before those charts ? --Yes, I have been at sea nearly half a century.

797. And those charts were only published 10 years ago?-I have been at sea since 1844, and have been all over the world I think pretty much.

798. But you have a fixed idea in your mind that vessels in the Atlantic are lost by collision with derelicts; is that so ?-I have not the fixed idea that they are lost, because it is one of those things that you cannot tell, but I have a fixed idea that derelicts may,

more than probably, tend to the loss of ships, or cause the loss of ships.

799. How many cases of collisions with derelicts have you heard of more or less, yourself, in the Atlantic trade ?—I have never been in collision with a derelict myself; I have never heard of one.

800. Then do you assume, or do you think it likely that if a vessel struck a derelict, she would certainly be lost, or would a certain proportion be merely injured, and get off, or perhaps not be injured at all ?-She might go off without injury; she might escape without injury; she might be partially damaged, or destroyed entirely.

801. Do not you think that the probability is, that the number of vessels lost by striking derelicts is very small, seeing that the reports of the vessels striking derelicts and coming off scot free are so very rare that you have hardly ever heard of it. The whole question is a question of frequency, is it not ?—Yes.

802. If one vessel is lost in a century, it would not be worth while for the Government to search for derelicts, when you are not exposed to much greater danger than that. There is greater danger in going, along the streets here than going across the Atlantic. You will admit that, as a sailor ?-I do not know.

803. Have you been a sailor for 50 years, and you do not admit that the sea is safer than the land ?-I admit that; I admit that I am infinitely safer on salt water than I am on shore. That is what I always tell my passengers.

804. Do not you think that if any considerable number of vessels had been lost by collision with derelicts, we should hear of a great many more cases of reported collisions with derelicts where the ships have been merely injured; you yourself have never heard of such a case in all your experience ?-I think that you are perfectly right that it is most probable.

805. Then the danger is really not very great ?-At the same time you are dealing with one of those questions where it seems impossible to get much data, and as the sea is always dreadfully mysterious, it is one of those things that might happen to be worth while inquiring into,

806. That we admit, but we do not want speculation, we want facts; and if we agree that there must be a larger number of collisions with merely little damage, than collisions with total loss, the chance of loss of life appears to be very small, as the reports of collision with damage only are so very few. Do you agree with me?-1 quite agree with you there. The very fact of the small amount of loss of life in the entire Atlantic trade is sufficient to prove that. You see the loss of life percentage in proportion to the numbers carried, I suppose, is as small in the Atlantic as it is anywhere, if not smaller.

897. Can you give us any special ships that you believe to be lost by derelicts? You have referred once or twice in your evidence to casualties that have occurred at sea; are there any particular ships that you have remembered whose loss you put down to collision with derelicts?-I have never put the loss of any ship down to a derelict, as I said two or three times. I merely suppose that a derelict may have been a probable factor in the cause of a loss, because it is impossible to say what is the cause of the loss of a thing when we know nothing about it. There is the fact of the loss, and no vestige of her remains, and the question is, What is the cause of the loss of that ship?

808. That is mere speculation?-We know very well that as far as the ship is concerned, that she is staunch and strong, that she is provided with every appliance that modern ingenuity for safety can produce, and still she disappears, and why?

809. As sailors we all know there are many ways; there are such things as rocks, for instance; there are. such things as collisions with other vessels, and both vessels foundering in a very few minutes?-Would you think it possible for a very large vessel to disappear and not even a vestige of her has been found from that day to this. Now I think of another, an American steamer, which also disappeared, and not a 'single" vestige of that ship has been found."

"

810. Would not that be caused by collision with ice, which you have admitted is as great a danger as dere licts? It is possible, but in this particular instance. I mention specially, there was no ice. It is not in the season when ice is about.

811. Is it not within your own knowledge that ice has been seen in the Atlantic at all months of the year? -There are some years when icebergs are to be seen at all seasons of the year, but at the seasons, say, in November or October or September the ice is so soft that I think the iceberg would get the worst of it, as a rule.

812. If it were 100 yards through; of course that is a very small bank of ice ?-It is pretty soft in that season of the year; it would melt away in a very few hours.

813. Would you like to run the "Majestic" into 100 yards of ice going 20 knots an hour ?-Not knowingly, but the thing that we have to take notice of is that there is nothing seen afterwards whatever.

814. Would that not be caused by her striking upon a rock?-If she had struck a rock you would have the splinters, and you would pick up some of them.

815. Why? If she sinks into deep water, why leave more than if she struck a derelict ?-There would be an attempt to get a boat out and some life-buoys would be found in the case of striking a rock.

816. The derelict would cause a more sudden destruction than striking a rock ?-I do think so.

817. If you run the "Majestic" over a rock in 20 feet of water at 20 knots, then she would not go to the bottom so fast as if she struck a derelict ?-When a ship is in the neighbourhood of rocks as a rule the navigators are looking out knowing they are in the vicinity of the danger. There are no unknown rocks in the Atlantic. The great probability that brings forcibly to your notice that it may be a derelict and what intensifies the probability is this: That the derelict would be lying away insidiously on a dark night, the ship would be, running along, and the passengers would be lulled into a sense of security by the knowledge that they were in mid ocean, and there was danger. But ordinary experience has told us that it is more than probable that a ship would, under such circumstances, disappear, and perhaps the only probable way is that it would thus disappear without leaving a single vestige.

no

818. That is your opinion ?-That is my opinion. 819. You know of a rock called the Lamb rock being found a few years ago?-Where?

820. About 20 miles south of Cape Race?—Yes.

821. Did not that astonish you very much ?—That astonished me very much.

822. May not a vessel have been lost upon that ?-A vessel may have been lost on that.

823. Your argument assumes that we know all the rocks that are in the way, and that rock is clean in the way to Cabot Strait ?-This vessel that I speak of was not lost on that route.

824. I am not supposing that all the ships are lost on the Lamb rock, but I am quoting that as an instance, only recently discovered, of a very dangerous rock. There is a good deal of water on the rock, but we know that a ship hitches with a heavy sea?-We have discovered a rock close to Port Lynas.

825. As sailors we all know that a great many rocks are discovered every year?-Yes.

826. Will you tell me a little more however about the United States Pilot Chart as regards derelicts. Have you turned the "Majestic" one inch out of her way because a derelict was marked on the chart?--No, I am sure I have not.

827. Do you think that any captain would turn an inch out of his way on account of what was on those charts PI do not believe that they would.

828. Will you tell me again what use you make of it? The use we make of it is that it puts us on our guard; it tells us that the derelict is there.

829. But you say that you cannot take a better look, out: We cannot.

830. How would it increase your safety ?-It forewarns us, so to speak, that it may possibly be there. It is one of those things better for knowing that the derelict is on that chart. and I feel that it is better for knowing that it is there because I think in the responsible position in which we are all placed in navigating these steamers we cannot know too much.

831. But you never have made practical use of the chart in the way of turning one inch out of the way,

and you cannot increase the look out ?--I have never altered the course of the "Majestic"; and I do not believe that anybody else has deviated from their course on account of the chart.

832. You mentioned this just now, that a good ship does not become a derelict. In saying that did you mean to say that she did not become a derelict--that a good ship is never abandoned ?-A good ship is never abandoned because she has the requisite strength and requisite equipment to carry her to her destination to make her voyage safely.

833. Supposing she is dismasted?-If she is dismasted, unless she is making water or is entirely out of provisions I do not think that any sailor is justified in abandoning her merely for being dismasted.

834. Take the case of a vessel on fire ?-Then the probability is that she will not become a floating derelict. She would consume to the water's edge.

835. Will that vessel float for very long ?-No.

836. Then you did not assume that every vessel that is reported and placed upon the United States charts is likely to last for very long?-I do not assume that they will last for any very great length of time.

837. Do you know what estimate the United States Hydrographer fixed as to the average time in which a derelict floats?—No, I do not.

838. It is from 20 to 30 days; that is rather important. That is simply their opinion; but it has rather an important bearing upon the question of being able to destroy vessels if a vessel lasts 20 to 30 days. Do you think there would be very much chance of finding her taking into consideration the time that would elapse before the report was made and the time that would elapse before she would get to the spot, and then there would be the limit for her?-I would think, considering the time that it would take to find her and the very great improbability that nothing would touch her in the few remaining days, that it is scarcely worth going after her if this experience of the American Government is correct that she only lasts 20 to 30 days.

839. That is the written statement by the Hydrographer's Office,- who you say, has devoted a great deal of time to this question-that the average time is from 20 to 30 days. We all agree that it is very rare that they float for a long time, say perhaps three or four in the year: what do you think?-I do not think that many of them would last beyond two or three storms of the Atlantic; they cannot last for very long.

840. You are an experienced sailor. You stated just now that it is easy to find a derelict. Do you really, after thinking the matter over, think it is; especially when the most dangerous derelict of course is the capsized derelict that has got imprisoned air, or has got imprisoned logs of timber or cotton on board that would keep her afloat for a long time; do you think that it is an easy thing to find that? How far would you see on either side in the sea in the ordinary way ?-From our bridge our full range of vision would be a fraction over eight miles; the height of our bridge is 45 feet from the water.

841. Do you think if you searched eight miles on either side of you that you would be certain that you had not passed a submerged derelict. Would you be able to trust to your men to that extent ?—I do not think that they could see anything like eight miles. That is the absolute limit of our vision; the majority of times I should think especially of a vessel on a wash not more than five or six miles.

842. Have you ever put down upon a chart the sort of track that a vessel would have to follow and the length that it would be, in order to make you feel any way certain that the derelict she was locking for had disappeared?-With regard to the finding of the derelict the vessel is not out in search of her alone, but would be depending in a great measure upon the passing vessels who may have seen her and signalled as to her position. Were it known that a derelict was on a certain track it would be the duty of the ship looking for her to keep on that track and signal vessels passing as to whether they had seen her, and she would be employed as much as possible in getting information from the entire fleet that were crossing.

843. And you think that is practical without a very large fleet of searching vessels P-Yes, without a large fleet of searching vessels, I think.

844. Do you think that one vessel detailed to that duty would reduce the per-centage of vessels in the Atlantic to any appreciable extent ?-I do not think that a solitary vessel told off on that duty would be of much service.

845. Do you think it would take a considerable number of ships in order to give satisfaction ?--A great deal would depend upon the energy of the man in charge of her.

846. This duty, if it was undertaken, would continue for ever; it could never be stopped. Do you agree with that ?-It would have to be continued.

847. Because you would agree that even supposing that you had swept the path that is generally followed by one particular line of steamers that you are talking about now, the Atlantic trade, you would not prevent a fresh derelict P-Allow me to correct my statement. Supposing that it were tried, and there is no harm in trying anything, there is a very great probability it might be of service. Certainly there is a strong presumption that there ought to be, consistent with our legislation for the preservation of life and property at sea, every means used, and if by actual experience (it being a subject that is so uncertain in its data, and everything connected with it,) it was found to be of no use you would discontinue it.

848. Do you know of many successful cases in which men-of-war have been sent to look for reported derelicts not very far from the coast of England. You are saying now that if it was found to be of no use, that you do not think you would be justified in going on. I suppose you have no knowledge of men-of-war being sent out to look after the reported derelicts P-No, I have no knowledge of that.

849. In fact, you may take it that although men-ofwar have been sent out from time to time to find derelicts with masts standing and derelicts capsized they have never been able to find them. Only last month a vessel was sent from Plymouth, and she was searching for five days to the north-west of Scilly in a crowded track for a vessel that was two or three times reported with her lower mast standing, and she could not find her-There is one thing, I think; the cause of derelicts seems to be principally these old worn-out and especially soft wood ships-they are the things that become derelicts. The practice of partial deck-loading is a very great source of danger. We will suppose that a ship with a partial deck-load gets a certain amount of water on deck and probably there is no possibility of the water getting from the deck, and the deck-load begins to float; the injury would have the effect of carrying away the staunchions and might split her covering-board, and although the vessel was otherwise sound it would cause her to make a very large quantity of water, more than her pumps could free from her.

850. That would seem as if more might be done to reduce the number of derelicts by legislation as to loading them rather than by letting them become derelicts and then destroying them ?-Certainly, that is a very important matter.

851. Do you think that vessels would stop and attempt to destroy a derelict if any bounty were given for it. I am not speaking of mail steamers for you are always in such a hurry. If you knew of such a vessel you would not stop to destroy it just for the sake of the bounty, but ordinary vessels that tramp the seas might. Do you think that would be so?-I would like to correct that impression; I do not think that the mail steamers are in such a hurry as is generally supposed.

852. You are always trying to beat the last record? -There is nothing that gives me less concern than beating the record. There is nothing that I care less for than making a passage; and I am sure there is nothing that our managing directors care for less than a quick passage. In the 23 odd years, nearly a quarter of a century, that I have been in the service of the White Star Line, I have never heard a word of encouragement for making a quick passage or a word of blame for making a long one. I have never heard a word one way or the other. On the contrary they try to impress upon you that as much as possible you must attend to safety.

853. You said just now that you thought the North Atlantic was the most important place, and certainly that there was no necessity to take very much trouble about the track from the British Channel, to the Straits of Gibraltar because it was near the land. As a matter

of fact the only case which has been reported to the Board of Trade during the last ten years in which any loss of life has occurred from striking a derelict was exactly off that coast eight miles from the shore at Cape Boca, so that the facts are rather against that idea of yours. There is no known case of any loss of life in the Atlantic and there is one on the coast of Portugal. I think it is right that that should go down after what you have said. That is a fact ?-Eight miles from Cape Roca ?

854. Yes P-That is what I imagine should be seen from the shore.

855. It might be. If she had just drifted in from the Atlantic it would not be seen ?-Then the vessel that was lost-which way was she bound?

856. She ran upon her and sunk ?-Had she any right to be struck within eight miles of the coast.

857. Yes, it is the regulation line-inside the Burlings. But you do not know that ?-Yes, I have been inside the Burlings in navigating that coast.

858. (Chairman.) You said that you thought it was the duty of the Government to make experiments to see whether steps should not be taken to remove floating derelicts. Do not you think that the Government ought to have something certain to go upon before they impose the taxation which would be necessary to carry out the search for derelicts to any considerable extent ?-Yes, they should have something to go upon. but it seems to be a subject upon which very little, if any, reliable data can be gleaned to make it actually patent, and I think it is our duty to do so.

859. Ought not the Government to have certain knowledge that a great amount of property is lost, and life is lost owing to floating derelicts before they em bark on any large scheme of this sort that you suggest? —I think it is absolutely necessary that they should have knowledge that it is so before spending public

money.

860. We have it in evidence that one of the big steamers on the North Atlantic lines had experience of running into a derelict-she ran into a ship bottom up, and not only did she get no harm, but it simply stopped her; she reversed engines, and did not receive any damage at all. Let us suppose if this happens to one it might happen to another-running into a derelict does not necessarily mean danger?--From the very fact of running into a derelict bottom up there would be nothing but the sliding surface of the ship's bottom; there would be none of those projections which might be in a derelict; there might be her anchor stocks, there might be stauchions and lots of dangerous things that would make her a perfect gridiron to the ship's bottom. If you strike a derelict bottom up that alters the case. I think that it is very likely that something of that kind might happen that you mention.

861. You think that the damage from the derelicts is more likely to arise from the masts and things sticking up in the ship?—Yes.

862. But these injuries would be above water ?—Yes. I have seen one derelict bottom up, and the probability is that the ship would smash her up in running into her. If she had any drift she might run over her because the fore foot is cut away 30 much with us. We begin to round the fore foot at 16 feet, and we have quite a curve of 80 feet.

863. (Sir George Nares.) As to the relative importance of clearing any particular route may not we take it that you argue that in the North Atlantic route vessels are running with the usual line of drift of the derelicts, whereas in the route along the Portuguese coast vessels are running across the usual line of route of the dere. licts? Yes, that is so; we are for the greater part of the route running along the line of drift.

864. But on the run to the Mediterranean it would be more crossing the line of drift ?-Yes. We are running at right angles to it.

865. (Chairman.) You are the nautical inspector of the Peninsular and Oriental Company ?-Yes.

866. We have asked you to come here to-day to give us any evidence that you can with regard to the object for which we are met; that is with reference to the danger to navigation through floating derelicts ?— Quite so.

867. You have no doubt yourself had great experience of ocean navigation P-Yes, 1 have had an experience of 45 years with the P. and O. Company, and 22 years out of that I have been in active command.

868. And you have, no doubt, navigated in all parts of the world?-All except the Atlantic.

859. Can you give us any instances of derelicts which have come to your knowledge ?--No, they do not come

our way, I cannot trace any record. There is a tradition of one of our vessels passing close to a derelict on the coast of Portugal, and of course from time to time when we have seen notices of derelicts in the Bay of Biscay, or the coast of Portugal, within 20 or 30 miles of the coast, it has made us a little anxious; but we have no instances of our own that I can trace.

England to China?-England to China, and England 870. And your navigation extends all the way from to Australia, by the Suez Canal.

of

871. You cannot say that you regard the presence floating derelicts as any distinct danger on the rouce which your steamers navigate ?-With the exception of the Bay of Biscay, and the coast of Portugal.

872. Do you think they are a danger there ?-I think, as they have drifted, that they are a source of danger.

and a source of anxiety, particularly when they have been reported.

573. Is your information good with regard to derelicts that have been seen ?-Do you mean as far as our ships are concerned.

874. Yes ?-I have only one recollection, and that is only a tradition; there is no record of it.

875. How do you hear of derelicts, or of their existence ?-Well, we rather watch the press notices, and Lloyd's notices-nothing beyond that. Of course, if anything was seen it would be reported immediately from the nearest point of call-the nearest agency that we had.

876. As a practical seaman, supposing you received notice of a derelict, say off the coast of Portugal, probably that information could not reach you until some days had elapsed P-Yes.

877. Do you think that the whereabouts, if well identified at the time, would be any practical guide to you as to where she was at the time that a vessel might be in the neighbourhood some eight days afterwards? -I think so, to a certain extent.

878. To what extent would information be useful to you, that a derelict was seen in a certain place eight days previously. I suppose it is a hundred to one if she is there still ?-Quite so.

879. Therefore, the information, thongh interesting, is no certain guide-It is no certain guide, but an approximate guide, taking into account the locality, and the winds, and the season, and the currents, as far as they are known.

880. Of course the winds vary much, especially on the Portuguese coast ?-They do; you could only style it an approximation; you could not put the word "certainty" to it.

881. (Sir George Nares.) With your experience, do you think it would be practicable to have a vessel, or two vessels, patrolling in one route; we will take the North Atlantic trade to New York, for instance. Would it be practicable to keep a vessel constantly searching that route, with a view to picking up derelicts ?- I am rather doubtful of it.

882. With the limited range of vision that one could see a derelict from the ship, even if there were twenty on the route, you would have to take several voyages up and down before you would be likely to find one ?— Probably so.

883. Supposing we did find a derelict, yon cannot give us any experience as to the possibility of boarding her with the weather prevailing in the Atlantic ?—We really could not give any experience at the office at all, because we have not had any.

884. Now, we have a return from the Board of Trade of the British vessels that have struck derelicts or floating timber during the last three years. It appears that eight casualties occurred to British vessels in the North Atlantic, and five on the Western European track, which would be followed by your ships; therefore, if the Government have to undertake to clear, or to search at all events, one track, they must also undertake others; there would be a claim for others to have their track cleared?--Yes, I suppose so.

885. We could not leave the Portuguese coast alone, for instance?--Except that the vessels on the Portuguese coast drift in from the Atlantic; our class of vessels do not become derelicts, but vessels coming in from the Atlantic do.

go

886. They are crossing your track, and they would ashore quicker. They would get out of the way quicker, that is, the ones on the American coast?You mean they would wreck themselves quicker.

887. They would wreck themselves quicker and so get out of the way ?--Yes, if they were on the line of the coast, and drifting into the coast they naturally would.

888. Then we find that we have had six casualties in the Mediterranean itself?--Within what time?

889. In the three years, as a comparison with the eight on the American coast. So that the Mediterranean trade will also ask for their tracks to be cleared? -I was not aware there were so many casualties as that in the Mediterranean. Last year, I think it was, there was a vessel floating about Malta and Pentelaria.

890. I will show you how to confirm that. Out of those 103 casualties, there have been only seven in which

the derelict vessel has actually caused the casualty; all the rest were only floating logs of timber?-Yes.

891. That will agree practically with your experience ?-I think so.

892. As to the difficulty of finding a derelict, the Trinity House have given us a return of what they have been doing with derelicts and floating timber for the last five years; by that return it appears that out of 59 cases of derelicts close to our coast, within one or two days notice from the man who has sighted them, they have sent out a vessel to look for them, and have failed to find 39 of those vessels ?--Yes.

893. Would that not point to a much greater difficulty in finding a vessel in any particular ocean track?-Do not you think that derelicts, as a rule, found near the English coast, arc vessels that would sink, whereas vessels in the Atlantic are, as a rule, timber ships, and do not sink.

894. What about the North Sea, there is a large timber trade there ?--There is a large timber trade there.

895. Out of these vessels that we are talking about, in the North Sea alone, without counting the ones near the coast, there were 16 other derelicts or logs?-Yes.

896. (Mr. Trevor.) You told us, I think, that you were 22 years in active command out of the 45 years of experience that you have had ?—Yes.

897. Was that in ships going to Australia, Calcutta, and China?-On all the P. and O. lines.

898. And during those 22 years you have never scen a derelict yourself?--I have never seen one. 899. Not on the coast of Portugal ?--No. 900. Nor in the Red Sea ?-No. 901. Nor in the Indian Ocean ?-No. 902. Nor in the Bay of Bengal ?—No 903. (Chairman.) Nor in China ?-Perhaps I might check myself. I have seen a deserted junk or two. 904. (Mr. Trevor.) But at any rate not a derelict that would be very dangerous ?-No.

905. (Captain Wharton.) We may take it, from what you have said, that you agree that there would be great difficulty in finding a vessel, and especially a capsized vessel ?-I think so. It is like looking for a needle in a bottle of hay.

906. (Chairman.) The Committee may assume that, as far as your experience of the P. and O. Company is concerned, which covers a very large part of the ocean, there is no call for any heroic legislation for the purpose of removing derelicts?- So far as their route is concerned; but of course we give no opinion on the Atlantic route.

907. I am only asking you about your own routes of navigation-No, I can say, speaking for the Company, that there is no urgent necessity on our routes.

908. (Mr. Trevor.) And your Company would not be inclined to go to any expense in providing for, or contributing towards, the removal or dispersion of derelicts?-No, decidedly not.

909. (Sir George Nares.) Have you ever had any accident such as the blade of your screw breaking. I ask you that because in so many of those returns they suppose that they have struck something, and afterwards they find that the blade of the screw is gone; but they have seen nothing. What I am aiming at is, would not the breaking of a screw, or the breaking of the blade of the screw, shake the ship very much and race the engines so that they might not have touched a baulk of timber or piece of wreckage, but that the screw breaking would have given the shake to the ship?— I would know if it was striking anything, certainly striking a log.

910. But there would be an enormous shake, would there not?-You can always tell when a blade goes, because the engines will race away, but I do not know that you can lay down anything like a rule for it.

911. In passing a log can you give us any experience about its moving away from the run of the ship or moving into the run of the ship?-It would be rather inclined to draw into the screw.

912. On both sides, according to the fling of the screw?-No, more on one side than the other.