913. As far as at present we have got the evidence, it shows that, as a rule, planks and things after passing the midship section are inclined more to go out than to come in ?-That would not be my idea, but I would not say from experience, because I have been equally lucky with logs as with derelicts, and I am not aware that I have hit a log.

914. Might the fracture of the blade of the screw be mistaken for and attributed to the striking of a derelict? Not the striking of a derelict, the striking of a piece of spar.

915. But striking a derelict, you would strike it on the bows and there would be no doubt about it ?-There

would be no doubt about it, whereas you may hit the log with the screw and not touch it forward at all. But as a rule you would hit the log forward too, but still it would be perfectly possible that the log might be drawn in by the blade of the screw, and not by the bow, although that would be the exception.

916. When a person says that because he has lost a screw he struck a piece of timber, we need not take it for granted that he is right ?-Because he rather favours the engineers. They do not like to acknowledge that the blade of a screw would go without hitting something outside of it.

918. What line does she belong to ?-The Lund line of steamers to Australia is my present service.

919. Where do you run to?-London to Australia, Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney via the Cape.

920. Have you ever had experience of North Sea navigation ?—Not North Sea but North Atlantic.

921. In what capacity?—As an officer.

922. In the same line of steamers?-Not the same line of steamers, but in Messrs. John Fenwick and Sons' steamers on the North Atlantic trade.

923. Will you give us any experience you have had with regard to floating derelicts. Have you seen them or come across them?-In October 1888, I was chief officer on 66 a steamer called the Nerissa,' John Fenwick and Sons, 57, Gracechurch Street; we were homeward bound, Philadelphia to Rotterdam, with a cargo of wheat, in latitude 51° north and about longitude 2010 west; one night at 10 o'clock-I was below myself at the time-we ran into a derelict vessel. She was called the "India," timber laden from Quebec to Liverpool. This was on October 30th, 1888, about 10 or 11 o'clock at night.

924. Will you just say how she was floating, whether she was submerged or upside down?-She was floating with her decks level with the water. She had her masts and yards standing, even to her royal yards, her lower masts were out of the water.

925. What was the effect on your ship?-It tore our bow plates right away from where we touched her in the upper deck right down to the turn of the stem. Above, I suppose, they were torn away for about the length of two frames from the stem, below it was less. It went down in a sort of triangular cut to nothing about the turn of the stem. Of course the collision compartment filled up at once. Our first attempt was really to get some sails over the bows to see if we could stop the water coming in in that way, but that was very soon given up.

926. Did it bring your ship up? -Yes, sho rebounded; she was going against a heavy easterly sea at the time about 6 knots.

66

927. Do you know what happened to the derelict ?-Yes, I have some record of her. She was picked up by another steamer, the Massachusetts," about three days afterwards. She towed her 130 miles and then left her again, and she reported that she had evidently been struck by some vessel, which was ours, and she was cut down right away to her bilge. Ten days after that another steamer reported her, when she supposed to be breaking up; she appeared to be breaking up then.

was

928. Have you any other instance of submerged vessels ?-I have never sighted a derelict in any other

case.

929. How many years have you been navigating ?— I have been at sea since 1866, that is 28 years.

930. (Mr. Trevor.) As a responsible officer ?-As a responsible officer or in command. The first four years was as an apprentice.

931. (Chairman.) That answer covers your experience on the Australian route?-Yes, as far as collision with derelicts is concerned.

932. You have neither seen nor struck a derelict PI have seen floating timber on the route from Finisterre to Ushant and vice versa.

933. Supposing you had struck a baulk of timber with your stem, do you think that the same sort of accident would have happened?-No, I do not think so.

934. You would have simply gone over it ?-Put it on one side, but there would have been a danger of its coming alongside and fouling the propeller.

935. Do you agree with what the last witness said, that the screw is apt to draw in floating spars ?-When I have passed them I thought they drew in towards the counter. I generally found that the wash of the bow would drive it away, but I have always had an idea that it came in towards the counter.

936. You have never found that it has done so sufficiently to hurt you?-No, I have never felt it myself on the blade.

937. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) You have not had anything to do with this movement in favour of taking some action?-No, I was asked to come here by the secretary of the Ship Masters' Society to give my experience.

938. So that you have not considered the difficulties of removing vessels? Of course I cannot say that I have not considered the difficulties because I have. 939. And you consider they are great ?—Yes, I do. 940. (Chairman.) In removing them ?—Yes.

941. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) You consider if vessels were told off to search for derelicts that they would not find many in the course of a year?—I am afraid they would not.

942. What distance do you consider that they could search with any effect ?-From a small vessel's deck or masthead?

943. Yes ?-The derelict floating low, it might be one or two or three miles off.

944. (Sir George Nares.) A search vessel in the Atlantic would have to be full-powered ?-Yes, and be a good sea-boat.

945. When you were in Fenwick's line, going to New York, was that in a cargo boat f-It was a cargo

steamer.

946. What would be your steam against a good westerly gale?-Supposing I was bound to the westwards myself?

947. Yes?-Four knots against a westerly gale.

948. We must have better boats than that to patrol in searching for derelicts?-Yes.

949. (Chairman.) When you were working the Atlantic routes, did you ever come across ice?-Yes, I have seen icebergs.

950. I need not ask you if you ran into one ?—No; I have not run into one.

951. Have you heard captains of vessels speak as if they had run into ice, or have you known of cases of that kind?-I have heard of cases in the usual way of ships running into icebergs, that is from the papers, but I never met anyone who had had that experience.

952. Have you never seen small bits of ice ?--Yes, I have, in the neighbourhood of larger ones.

960. (Chairman.) With reference to the subject of losing the blade of a screw, this has occurred to me in my own experience in H.M.S. "Emerald," 50 gun frigate, when trying her screw over the measured mile at Stokes Bay. A blade or two blades-I think it was two blades-of a six (?) blade screw which was being tried came off. I was below at the time in the wardroom, and the impression that I formed was that the ship had run up on the beach and was going to pieces. She shook tremendously, and from the sound every beam seemed to be splitting.

961. (Mr. Trevor.) May I ask whether the impression that the ship was running up on the beach was an impression that the ship had struck forward or aft?

962. (Chairman.) Well, I assumed that it was forward, because I knew that we could not have struck anything else.

963. (Mr. Trevor.) Would that favour an idea that if the blade had been lost it might have given the

feeling that you were striking a floating derelict with the stem?

961. (Chairman.) Certainly, my first impression was that we had run into something, and that the blade had come off never occurred to me until we knew of it afterwards. I should like to say with reference to another subject that I went to sea in 1853 and have had a good deal of service at sea in most parts of the world, and the only two derelicts that I can recall having seen during that period was one in the Bay of Biscay and another one off the coast of Sicily.

965. (Mr. Trevor.) And you did not strike either?

966. (Chairman.) We did not strike either; one we towed into harbour and the other we left, not knowing what to do with it. I mean we could not sink it; we examined her, and finding it impracticable to sink her we left it where it was with its masts standing.

Mr.

S. Bullock.

967. (Chairman.) You are chief of the Wreck Register and Shipping Casualties Branch of the Marine Department? Yes.

968. You have prepared a statement, have you not, with regard to the shipping casualties P-Yes, I have.

969. Do you put that in formally ?—I will do it later on, if your Lordship will allow me.

970. Have you read a statement at pago 23 of the Report of the Commissioner of Navigation of the United States of America for the year ended 30th June 1893, as to wrecks and derelicts ?—Yes, it is stated that 2,172 vessels and their cargoes, worth, in the aggregate 20 millions of pounds, are annually lost in the commerce of the world. With regard to that statement, I have to say that, according to official returns for 1890, the number of British vessels lost was 688, and the tonnage 249,257; and of nine of the principal maritime foreign nations, 1,198 vessels and 298,023 tons. That makes a total for the world, so far as known, of 1886 vessels and 547,280 tons. Allowing 101. per ton all round, the total value of the hulls would be about 5 millions, and, remembering that many of the cargoes were saved, and that many of the vessels were in ballast or laden with bulk cargoes of comparatively low value, such as coal and timber, I do not think the value of the cargoes lost would be worth anything like the difference between 5 and 20 million pounds. I have taken the year 1890 in order to include figures for as many foreign nations as possible. According to returns published by Lloyd's Register, excluding vessels under 100 tons, the vessels and tonnage of the world. lost in 1892 were 810 vessels and 440,469 tons net.

971. Then as regards the loss of life, what do you say?-It is stated in the American report that 12,000 lives are annually lost in the commerce of the world. If it is meant that 12,000 lives are lost by wreck, the estimate is, I think, very excessive. The average loss of life in British ships of all kinds is about 2,500, and in four of the largest foreign merchant navies it was altogether, in 1891, 1,234, making a total for one year of 3,734, including 283 lives lost in American lakes and rivers. It is difficult to see how the difference, 8,266, between 12,000 and 3,734 is made up. That 8,266 is quite unaccounted for. The figures for France for 1891 not being available I have taken those for 1890. I should not have noticed the figures in the American report if they had not been given and quoted in connection with a question about derelicts. If they have any bearing on the subject at all, they only serve to show

how small a proportion of the wrecks and loss of life which occur are due to derelicts. It is stated in the American report that 38 collisions with derelicts have occurred in five years, but it is not stated that any lives were lost by such collisions. I have had the records for 10 years searched, and find that only one life has been lost in that time through a British ship striking a wreck or wreckage. That was in the case of the "Florence Richards," which struck some obstruction off Cape Roca, Portugal, on the 10th April 1890. I will put in a copy of the report of the inquiry into the "Florence Richards." The Court of Inquiry was not prepared to say on what the vessel struck. It may have been a sunken piece of wreck or log of wood.

972. Have you seen the list of vessels on the Pilot Chart, said to have been lost by striking dereiicts ?Yes. The January 1894 Pilot Chart contains a list of nine vessels said to have been totally lost by striking derelicts in the last seven years. I have only been able to identify two as British, namely, the " Cragside" and "Glenrath." I have looked up the records of those vessels and find that the " Cragside" is believed to have struck on the South-West Bull Rock, and that the "Glenrath" struck on the Bibb Shoal and not on a wreck. In the latter case the master's certificate was suspended. I put in a copy of the report of inquiry in the case of the "Glenrath."* An inquiry was held in Canada in the case of the "Cragside," but the report was not printed. It is here in manuscript.

973. Do you wish to put it in ?-It is rather long.

974. (Captain Wharton.) The case of the "Cragside " was sent over to me at the Admiralty, as all those cases are where charts are involved, for investigation, and I have not the smallest doubt in my mind that the ship had struck upon a well-known rock. There is nothing whatever to show where the ship was when she struck, except that she was very close to the rock, even by the master's own statement ?-That is so.

975. (Chairman.) Let us have the finding put in in the "Cragside" case ?-I put it in.* I am unable to investigate the alleged losses of foreign ships as Our records do not include such cases.

976. Have you seen the list of vessels damaged?— Yes. There is a list on the Pilot Chart of vessels which were damaged by striking wreck, but the majority of

See Appendix F., pp. 95-98.

years, and that seven of these struck or were supposed to have struck derelict vessels. The remainder struck or were supposed to have struck fragments of wreck or other floating substance. Of the seven cases of striking derelicts five occurred in the North Sea, one near Guernsey and one at Newcastle, New South Wales, only one of the seven vessels was over 100 tons, and no loss of life occurred in any of them.

987. What inference do you draw from these figures? -That the risk of striking derelict vessels is not great, but that the breaking up of such derelicts might multiply the risk of striking wreckage. This remark applies specially to timber-laden derelicts.

988. Can you tell us how many British timber-laden ships are lost every year?-Yes. There is a return (C-6087) which was prepared for another purpose, giving details of every British timber-laden vessel that has foundered at sea, or been reported as missing, during the last 21 years. I have had that return continued to date, and I put in a summary of that return, from which it appears that 16 British timberladen ships were lost all over the world in 1893.* I also put in a list of those 16 vessels, showing their ports of registry, voyages, &c.* It appears that

five were bound from America and two from the Baltic to the United Kingdom; seven were coasting in America, one in India, and one in Australia. Of the five bound across the Atlantic three were Canadian and two belonged to the United Kingdom. Of the latter one was laden with logwood and the other with pitch pine. During the present year only two timber-laden British vessels have been reported as foundered or missing, one of which was coasting in America, and was set on fire before being abandoned, and the other,

*See Appendix F., pp. 110, 111.

laden with English forest timber, was abandoned on an English coasting voyage.

989. Has your attention been called to the symbols on the Pilot Chart indicating derelicts?-Yes, and I have had the symbols on the chart for November last examined as far as possible. There were 46 floating wrecks marked on the Pilot Chart for November, but only 13 of them were named. I put in a list of those 13 vessels, showing their tonnage and nationality, and the date and place of their being last seen.* Of the 13 four belonged to the United States, four to Norway, two to Canada, one to Spain, one to France, and one to Germany, but not one to the United Kingdom.

990. Do you think legislation is called for in order to obtain fuller information of derelicts ?-I do not. We get some reports now, and there is no doubt of the willingness of masters to give such information. Under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, section 53, the master of every vessel arriving from ports beyond the seas is required at the time of making his report to answer all such questions relating to the ship, cargo, or voyage as may be put to him by the collector or other proper officer, under a penalty of 100l. The collector is usually the same person as the Superinten. dent of Mercantile Marine and the Receiver of Wreck, who are officers of the Board of Trade. The law and the agent for obtaining information are therefore already in existence.

991. (Mr. Trevor.) Do you think then Mr. Macdona's Bill of this session a superfinous measure ?—I think it is unnecessary, and that it is impracticable without a penalty to enforce it; but that would scarcely be popular with shipowners or shipmasters.

*See Appendix F., p. 112.

992. (Chairman.) Will you tell us how long you have been in command of the training squadron ?-A year on the 1st of June.

993. Would you tell us shortly what cruises you have made in that period ?-Since the 10th of June last year we cruised up off the west coast of Ireland and then on to Iceland; back again to Queenstown from Iceland; from Queenstown to Gibraltar; and from Gibraltar to Portsmouth, where we stayed for a month, and then we sailed for Madeira.

994. Will you tell us about what date that was ?—— We sailed for Madeira about the 20th of October, called at Madeira, Las Palmas, in the Canaries; then near to

Sierra Leone; from Sierra Leone we sailed across to Granada; cruised in the West Indies; sailed up to Bermuda, and from Bermuda back to England, arriving

last month.

995. How many ships had you with you?-Four, except a very short time, when we had three.

996. Most of the cruisers were under sail and not under steam, I suppose?—All but about 1,000 miles on the latter cruise, and 1,100 or 1,200 on the first one.

997. Will you tell us whether in the course of your cruising you have come across any floating derelicts?— No.

998. What was your course from Bermuda, was it a straight course to England ?-We took the southern passage, steering almost straight from Bermuda to Ponta Delgada near the Azores in the first instance, varied of course by shifts of wind.

999. I suppose that the look-outs were kept ?-Always men at masthead until dark.

1000. Always at masthead ?—Yes, in each ship. 1001. It may naturally be supposed that if any derelicts had been about you would have seen them ?— They would certainly have been reported.

1002. You have been a long time at sea; can you tell us whether in the whole course of your sea experience you have come across a derelict?—I have only seen one, on one occasion.

1003. Will you tell us where it was ?-From 25 to 30 miles off Bermuda.

1004. What condition was she in ?-I judged her to be a small schooner bottom up.

1005. Was any attempt made to disperse her?-No. I was carrying mails at the time for the Admiralty and I had to push on.

1006. Would you mention the date ?-I think it was in 1878.

1007. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) You are aware of the clauses in the regulations dealing with derelicts ?—I am now. I cannot say that I was in those days.

1008. That regulation is as follows: "Should any "of Her Majesty's ships fall in with any water-logged "vessel abandoned at sea and constituting a danger to

66

navigation the same should be examined, and unless "it appears that the cargo is composed of such large "baulks of timber as to bo of themselves a danger if "released to float, or unless the position of the wreck "is such as to make it probable that she may be pre"sently towed into port, every effort should be made to sink her or otherwise to destroy her." aware of that regulation ?-It is only lately I have been made aware of it.

66

Are you

1009. (Captain Wharton.) The regulation with regard to the destruction of derelicts was, I think, placed in the Admiralty instructions in 1887 or 1888?-That is so.

1010. (Chairman.) You had not been to sea since the issue of those orders until your present appointment ?-Quite so.

1011. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) An opinion has been expressed that it would be more desirable to release those baulks of timber, in fact, contrary to this regu lation. Is it your opinion that this regulation is right? I should think it entirely depended upon the size of the baulks. If I might go a little further I might say that I have seen, on the voyage home from Ponta Delgada (where we did not call) to Plymouth, several baulks of a dangerous size floating, which we passed close to.

1012. On this last voyage ?-On this last voyage.

1013. I think you were flag-captain on the China station? Yes.

10.4. You did not see any in the China Sea ?-No; I have only seen one in life. my

1015. (Sir George Nares.) WI at form of sailing was usually followed by your squadron ?-Columns of divisions in line ahead, column six cables apart, was the most usual. Being a sailing squadron, we were constantly at a distance of four or five or six miles apart during the day, but closing up at night.

1016. And each ship with a masthead-man alo't would cover a much larger space of sea for a view than an ordinary merchant vessel with no masthead lookout ?-I should say nearly double, or perhaps more than double. I reckon that we would see a ressel bottom up, four or five feet out of water, from 5 to 6 miles from the masthead distinctly on each side.

1017. You were up and down the Portuguese coast, three trips P-Yes.

1018. (Mr. Trevor.) Have you ever considered the question of the best mode of destroying derelicts, assuming for the moment that it is necessary to destroy them ?-No, beyond blowing them up with gun-cotton. I never thought more than that of it.

1019. You think explosion would be the best way of getting rid of them ?-I think so. We had some little experience in St. Lucia Harbour of an old sunken

ship. We found no trouble in putting charges of guncotton into her.

1020. She was lying in the harbour?-She was submerged in the harbour.

1021. But we have had evidence given here that it would be comparatively easy to burn a floating derelict in mid-ocean-I am afraid I can give you no information upon it; I have had no experience.

1022. You would not think so yourself?-I would not think it possible.

1023. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) Taking a floating derelict, being a timber vessel water-logged, if that vessel was blown up; in your opinion, would or would not the detachment of spars which would ensue be a greater danger than the floating vessel itself?-I think if the baulks that she was laden with were large ones it would be a very much greater danger, generally speaking; if they were small deals it would not be a danger.

1024. Do you think that the commander of any vessel told off with the duty of destroying floating derelicts would be able to ascertain that until he had blown up the vessel?-Not until he had broken the bottom open, or something of the kind.

1025. (Captain Wharton.) Have you ever seen the pilot chart issued by the United States?-No.

1026. Here is one, (handing a chart to the witness) you will see that on it they mark such derelicts as have been reported for two or three months beforehand. If you look to the north-cast of Bermuda you will see a vessel with the 29th of December marked against her? -Near Bermuda ?

1027. Yes, some distance off?-Yes, I see it.

1028. Do you think that the knowledge of the fact that a derelict was in a certain position a certain number of weeks before is of any value to the navigator? -Not the least.

1029. If you had had that chart would you have taken any steps, assuming that the vessel was marked a month before, would you be able to take any steps whatever in consequence of that knowledge?-If the wind had been suitable, probably I should have endeavoured to sail the squadron near the spot, but I should never have expected to find her.

1030. Supposing that you had been informed that a derelict had been only a short time in a certain position could you do more than endeavour to increase your vigilance on the lookout at night?—No, I should have had no fear whatever.

1031. It has been held that this information is of value, and I am asking for your opinion upon the matter?-I think it is of no value to anybody within a period of three or four days afterwards.

1032. Do you think it might tend to produce unnecessary alarm ?-I think it is very likely.

1033. (Chairman.) You mentioned guncotton charges. To apply those charges to the dispersion of a derelict it would be necessary to communicate by boat would it not?-Certainly.

1031. I may presume that this can only be done in fairly smooth water ?-Yes, the sea must be unusually calm for it.

1035. And with such weather as we get in the Atlantic I conclude that it might often be days together when such communication would be impossible?-I think in our late voyage we could only have done it during 12 hours in the whole cruise.

1036. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) That means 12 hours only for giving you access to a derelict ?--Yes, it would not have been safe to send a boat to a derelict on the whole cruise from Bermuda.

1037. (Chairman.) You mean on that voyage ?—Yes; on our voyage from Bermuda, by Ponta Delgada to Plymouth.

1038. How many days was that?-Very nearly 28 days; all but two or three hours.

1039. You served for some time, if I remember right, as flag-lieutenant to Sir Thomas Symonds when he commanded the Channel squadron ?—Yes.

1010. During that time you must have been cruising a great deal off the coast of Portugal ?-Yes, and off the Azores.