I can see no

and between Finisterre and Ushant. difficulty in picking up such derelicts. They might be reached within a few hours in some instances, and they might then be towed in to harbour. That is one suggestion made.

1262. That assumes that a derelict is readily picked up, even though some days would have elapsed between sighting and between a vessel reaching the spot?--In the particular instance that I point to the time would not be long.

1263. It must be a matter of a few days?--Not s.) long; the one I am speaking of is within 30 miles of Ushant. It is in the March or April chart.

1264. Given that the vessel is going to the port of London, two days at least would elapse before she was in a position to report it ?--Yes, going to London, but many ships go into Plymouth.

1265. Some do ?-And some into Brest.

1266. Well of course at Brest that would not concern us; we should not know probably ?--If it were known that a vessel was ready to be used for the purpose of removing them, I should think it would be made known then.

1267. Weil then, we will go further. Given that the vessel is reported; her position has been approximately stated; what would you then suggest ?--That a vessel should be sent in search.

1268. A vessel ?--A vessel.

1269. Could you suggest what sort of vessel should go?-I should suggest that some ships in the employ of Her Majesty's Government should go.

1270. That means that Her Majesty's Government would have to keep a ship always ready to go out on that particular service; they are not to be picked up whenever they are wanted ?--That I quite understand, but there are cases where such ships might be used, I venture to think. I believe that the ships of the Trinity House have been employed on such errands on more occasions than one, although by law their duties are confined to ships that obstruct, or are likely to obstruct the entrance to harbours.

1271. We have it that the Trinity House deals with all wreckages throughout the coast of England for a considerable distance, but still a vessel of Ushant would be outside their legitimate beat, would it not?--Yes, if near Ushant.

1272. Given that a man-of-war is not there, which would be frequently the case, what would you suggest then?—Then things would not be worse than they are

now.

1273. The removal of derelicts must be dependent first on their being reported, and secondly on a man-ofwar being ready?--I simply put forward that one suggestion.

1274. How would you propose to get rid of it? Have you thought that out?--By towing.

1275. You cannot tow a vessel upside down?--They may be towed, although slowly.

1276. That is, perhaps, a sailor's question, but you may take it from me that the towing of a vessel upside down is not by any means a simple process ?--I quite understand that.

1277. Given a timber vessel, would you suggest in a case of that sort, if she could not be towed into harbour, that she should be left alone?-No.

1278. What would you propose?-That she should be blown up and burst.

1279. What about the wreckage-the timber released? -It would not be so dangerous as the compact mass-the derelict itself-and if so, the wreckage might be towed into port or picked up.

1280. That again is a matter of opinion, and I do not think that it is borne out by the statistics that have been furnished?-One of our members told me of an experience in sailing through a field of deals.

1281. Deals would not hurt anybody?-Many of these timber ships are so laden-I happen to have here the report of an old shipmaster of a case where a ship was made to leak badly from striking a log, or what was believed to be a log at a rate.

1283. (Captain Wharton.) What year was that?-He does not state. 1284. (Mr. Trevor.) What month? If you will permit me I will read the report.

66

66

1285. (Chairman.) Has the captain signed it ?—The captain has signed it, and he is come-at-able. He says: "When in command of barque Oaklands," I had "with me as chief mate, a Mr. Scott, who stated that "when he was mate of a barque-I forget the name— trading to some port in the Gulf of Mexico for timber, "the vessel was going out in ballast, and after passing the Azores she one night struck something which "caused the vessel to leak badly, so that her crew had a "lot of pumping to do all the rest of the passage. On arrival at port of destination they found the wood "ends of two planks started from the stem and a triangular mark showing that a square log of timber "had hit the two planks end on." That is signed George Croot.

66

66

1285a. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) He has not seen it himself? No.

1286. (Mr. Trevor.) Does not that amount to this, that that is a report by a man on a date not given, of a conversation with some one else on his ship on a date not stated, of a hearsay possibility that the thing struck was a log - That is so.

1287. (Chairman.) That report has an advantage in this way, that it shows conclusively that a vessel struck by a baulk end on may suffer very little damage; there was no damage that occurred to that wooden ship except to make her leak?-Yes.

1288. (Mr. Trevor.) Do you attach any importance to such a report as that?-To this extent, that it shows that a log striking end on may set a ship to leak. I believe in the case of an iron ship it would have gone into her.

1289. If the person who is reported to have had a conversation with the master stated it from his own knowledge it might be admissible ?-He stated it of his own knowledge.

66

1290. It does not say so ?-If you will permit me I will read it further on: One of the able bodied seamen on the same voyage hal been in another ship on the look-out, and was startled one night to see a large log overend against the bow, some 8 feet of the log above the ship's forecastle. It was carried some distance before it eventually slipped clear. The above "incidents were narrated to me through our passing quite close to a splendid new bright spar of very large dimensions, say 80 feet long, and 2 feet 6 inches "diameter." Signed George Croot.

66

66

1291. Does it amount to more than this, that George Croot had a conversation on board his ship?-That is all that it amounts to.

1292. (Chairman.) Have you any other case that you can produce of striking wreckage or derelicts ?—I will lave this list that has been collected by me.

1293. (Mr. Trevor.) We ought to know how the list has been compiled-From the reports made in the newspapers, and upon which the notices, such as the hydrographic notices issued by the Admiralty, are made.

1294. (Chairman.) Do you receive the United States reports ?--I do.

1295. And this monthly chart ?-I receive the monthly chart; not the bulletins.

1296. Does your list include what you get from the American side?-- It does not.

1297. Your letter goes on to say that you would be ready to describe the means now used for making known the existence and position of the derelicts ?—That has been brought out before in my evidence.

1298. You have nothing more to add?-No.

1299. (Sir George Nares.) With reference to the Board of Trade notices, you say that it must necessarily be, some of it at least, a month old before a master gets it into his hands?—Yes.

1300. You know that every Admiralty notice is placarded up at each Custom house for the advantage of the captain to see. if he wishes, when he is attending at the Custom house? I know it; but I know more, that it is practically impossible for him to read them; practically speaking, it is impossible to read them.

1801. Can you suggest any improvenient whatever in the present mode of attracting the attention of captains

to notices to mariners ?--I cannot think of anything better than the mode adopted in the United States.

1302. But the United States only issues a monthly chart of one part of the world, whereas the Board of Trade issues a mouthly summary notice for the whole world ?--The United States Government have made the first issue of a chart for the North Pacific of the same sort, and they are gradually extending their operations; and in a room they call the Maritime Exchange I believe, they place very prominently the latest notices as reports are made in New York, and the other United States ports.

1303. Still the fact is, that Great Britain is issuing monthly notices relating to every change in lights, and every danger at sea, that is reported all over the world, whereas the United States is only issuing it for two parts of the world at present?-That is so.

1304. So far as drawing the captains' attention to a particular Admiralty notice within the month, can you suggest any way in which the present mode can be improved in Great Britain?-I may mention that it is the intention of the committee of the society to which I belong to set up in its rooms a notice board upon which sigus of derelicts and ice and such things will be marked up as they are received through the newspapers and other channels.

1305. Can you suggest anything for the Government or the Board of Trade to do to improve that?--I do not know of any better system.

1396. Your evidence at the beginning was rather that this was insufficient, and I want to know whether you can tell us how to improve it ?-By adopting the system of the United States.

1307. To publish charts of two parts of the world only ?-For all the world.

1308. Are we to give those charts to every captain gratuitously as we give that monthly summary when he signs at the Custom house? Do you think he would look at them more than he looks at the monthly summary?-I cannot say. I think there is room for very great improvement in the present way of publishing this information.

1309. My aim is to get a captain to take the information. Can you tell us how to do that P-Something of the sort is wanted. I cannot think of a better system than the one that obtains in the United States. I will illustrate what I am saying by reference to this chart received, I think,yesterday from the Hydrographic Office. It sets out ice in a very uncommon place. The remark of the captain of one of the mail steamers plying between New Zealand and Great Britain was that probably some ships would be picked up by that ice, and that he thought some steps should be taken to distribute the information, as it was likely to be of great service.

1310. Do you know what steps have been taken to distribute that information ?-I believe that it has been circulated in the usual way to the British Possessions, and possibly to the Consulates.

1311. You do not appear to know that it has been specially called attention to in the distribution last week, because of the importance of it?-I was not aware of that.

1312. Excuse me; you said just now that it was distributed in the ordinary mode. Do you know that last week it was distributed abroad with special attention drawn to the importance of it?-I was not aware of that.

1313. It is a fact. You think there are a great many more derelicts afloat than appear on this chart of the American Government ?--I do not know how far back those charts record derelicts. If the one chart, the chart of May, takes up the derelicts of April or not. 1314. I thought you had studied it. You may take it that it does, and the month before. They calculate in America that the life of the derelict in ordinary occasions is about three weeks?-Yes.

1315. You agree that all actual collisions with British ships are reported to the Board of Trade ?--Certainly. 1316. But you do not think that reports of derelicts sighted are reported ?--I am satisfied that they all are

rot

1317. And we may take it, I suppose, that the Board of Trade return can be depended upon to be correct?— I should think so, certainly.

1318.--The Board of Trade have had a return got out of all the casualties that have happened to British ships in the last three years from striking wrecks and derelicts ?--I was not aware of that.

1319. Ard striking timber too ?-I was not aware of that special report.

1320. Now from that we can calculate practically, or we can get an idea of, the number of derelicts and timber floating about all over the world, if we have the returns of the actual collisions, cannot we?-Scarcely; the actual collisions are a small percentage.

1821. It gives us the collisions?--The collisions.

1322. Have you any idea of how many vessels have actually struck derelict vessels in three years ?—I have

not.

1323. Would you be surprised to hear that there are only seven cases for the whole of the British shipping, all over the world?- I should be surprised at that in the face of the information which I have just now handed up.

1324. You were saying that you think that the timberladen vessels should be blown up, and the logs set adrift. Would you be surprised to know that out of the 103 cases of casualties that have occurred to British ships in these three years, there are only seven attributed to derelicts, all the rest are from fouling logs of wood and wreckage ?—I am surprised to hear that, but I have suggested that those vessels should be towed in; I especially put that forward, and failing the towing in

1325. You agree that it would be dangerous to blow up and destroy a vessel laden with heavy logs of timber? -Upon the face of that I should think so.

1327. In his 28 years of service, although there was no doubt the casualty in the "Nerissa," that is the only derelict that he had seen in the 28 years P-It is quite possible. I was in command for 27 years, and I never saw a derelict, and I was all over the world.

1328. You yourself?-Myself.

1329. We have had, from one of the White Star captains, evidence that in 20 years service he had only seen or heard of six or seven-Thay may easily be.

1330. Do you know the practice actually followed by the authorities of the British Isles, as to the clearing of our coasts of logs, and wreckage, and derelicts ?Only from the Acts of Parliament which govern the action of the Trinity House authorities.

1331. You do not know, as a fact yourself, wh is really being done in that direction ?—I do not.

1332. Do you think our shores are actually ree, or are they in a bad state in connection with w.ecks and wreckage?-I should think they are in a very good

state.

1333. Who is removing those derelicts ?--The British authorities.

1334. Yet you do not know anything about how they are doing it ?—I have not been looking in that direction at all; I know what they have to do under the Acts.

1335. But you were talking about sending out after this vessel off Ushant?-Yes.

1336. If the French would clear their shores as Great Britain clears hers, there might be fewer wrecks about, might there not ?-There might be fewer wrecks about. I pointed that one out as being near, and easily comeat-able.

1337. Do you know that we actually do clear the whole of our shores within 50 or 60 miles ?-I was not aware of that.

1338. At the present moment we have it in evidence that there is not one wreck stranded on the British coasts dangerous to navigation ?-I should think that would be the case.

1339. As to the easy way of sighting a wreck, for instance this one off Ushant, we have it from the Trinity House that within a day's notice, or two days' notice they have sent out to search for the wreckage reported passing near the coast. In the last five years there have been 59 trips, and 39 times they were unsuccessful in searching for them?—Yes.

1340. The other times they have either towed them in, or destroyed them at sea, or grounded them at shallow water ?-I was not aware of these circumstances.

1341. (Mr. Trevor.) I think you told us that, according to your knowledge, the Trinity House confined their operations of removing to, in or near harbours ?—I think I said that the Acts of Parliament confined or were considered to confine them to vessels actually obstructing, or likely to obstruct harbours.

1312. In your position as secretary of the Shipmasters' Society, would it be your duty to become familiar with the Removal of Wrecks Act of 1877 ?Not specially.

1343. Not when it seriously affects ships and shipping?-Not specially.

1344. Would you take it from me that that Act empowers harbour and conservancy authorities to remove wrecks that they think are, or are likely to become an obstruction to the navigation in that harbour or water, but that where a vessel is sunk, stranded, or abandoned in any fairway or on the seashore of the United Kingdom, or any of the adjacent seas or islands, and there is no harbour authority having power to raise, remove, or destroy the same that then the general lighthouse authority is furnished with ample powers of doing exactly in the open sea what the harbour authority is authorised to do in its own harbour? Were you aware of that?-I was not aware of that particular feature of it. 1345. Do you consider that an Act of that importance to shipping is immaterial to the officers of the Ship Masters' Society ?-I may say that it is not my special business to acquaint myself with that Act; the special business of the Society is what I have stated.

1346. Would you like to know that the Trinity House, as one of these lighthouse authorities, have removed derelicts as far off as 150 miles from England? I am glad to hear it.

1347. Any reflection upon the Trinity House or lighthouse authority that might be implied in your evidence you think is unfounded?-I have never attempted to imply any reflection upon any authorities; I am simply speaking of the dangers to navigation caused by the derelicts, some of which I have mentioned.

For

1348. They were not near the coast of this kingdom? -They were in a position likely to become near. instance, this one before me, not far from the Scilly Islands, in the January chart of 1894; and I happen to know, at first band, at any rate, that there was one very near the Coquet Islands two or three months since.

1349. You do not think that has been removed?--I do not know--a floating derelict.

1350. We are only dealing with floating derelicts; we are not asking you about anything else. I have only one further question to ask you. You refer to towing a floating derelict as being either the best way or a very good way of getting her out of the way --As being a possible way.

1351. Has it ever occurred to you as to the difficulty of the time that such towing would take?--Certainly.

1352. Assume that a derelict was met in mid-ocean, have you any idea of how long it would take to tow her either into Newfoundland or into Queenstown?—It would depend entirely upon the circumstances of the derelict. I may mention that in all human probability the new large ship the "Bahama" is still afloat; to tow her to a port would be a simple matter.

1353. If not capsized?-There is not the remotest chance of her capsizing.

1354. What sort of time would you give to a vessel to be towed? I myself have towed ships, I think, at the rate of seven or eight knots years ago.

1355. How many days would it take to come from mid-ocean into either of the two places I have named? -Perhaps 13 or 14 days, possibly 20 days.

1356. And during that time a vessel which we will assume towed off a vessel in that way would be so occupied that she would not be looking for other derelicts?Quite so.

1357. (Captain Wharton.) You have been in commaud for 27 years at sea, and during that time you never saw a derelict?—None in my recollection.

1358. I gather from your evidence that there is a very considerable actual danger existing from derelicts that

are afloat? If I may believe all that is told me by large numbers of men, there is a grave danger.

1359. What is told you by large numbers of men?— If I could refer to the memorials handed in by me, one man amongst them was in a very heavy gale, and obliged to scud because of it; he had passed within a ship's length of a derelict, the hall of which was 200 feet or upwards in length. That was in mid-day.

1360. Of course as sailors we all agree that there are derelicts, and we all agree that if a ship strikes a derelict she may be seriously damaged or disabled or even lost, but you will agree that it is the question of frequency that must be considered, before the Govern ment would be justified in expending any money in endeavouring to do away with them. Will you admit that? I admit that, certainly.

1361. During your 27 years in command did it ever strike you that you were in danger of a derelict?— Never; I never saw one.

1362. Then what first brought it to your mind that there was a danger?-Studying those charts, the United States charts, and hearing reports brought to me by men of their narrow escapes.

1363. Although you had no idea of your danger when at sea, and you never heard from your brother sailors of it before? I have heard of many from my brother sailors.

1364. You have never heard from any of your brother sailors that they were uneasy in consequence of those derelicts. It is the fact that they have been placed down on the charts and distributed, and this made you feel uneasy?—For my brother sailors.

1365. Brother sailors? Yes, certainly, by their accounts of their peril.

1366. What number of cases of damage to vessels do you actually know of yourself. I am not speaking of those reports you are speaking of; but what number of cases have you known in the whole of your experience of damage-Not one.

1367. Then do you still think that the danger is very great-I am sure of it.

1368. You agree that we should endeavour to find out what the danger is, and what the amount of danger is? -I think so.

1369. Sir George Nares has told you that three years' records show that there were only seven collisions with wrecks, in which there was no loss of life or loss of ship; supposing that that is correct, do you think that would justify the expenditure of any large amount of money by the Government?—I think it would. I would not for a moment suggest a Quixotic errand all over the ocean; but where derelicts are reported, their position being well known, I would suggest that they should be sought for and removed if possible, or destroyed.

1370. If it is worth spending money in one way it is worth spending money in another, I presume. Do the underwriters ever take any account of the danger of derelicts-I should think so.

1371. Do you think that they put on an extra percentage for it?-I think so.

1372. Why do you think so?-Because of the danger that exists in the same way that they put it on for other things.

1373. You have no knowledge on the subject?—No absolute knowledge on the subject.

1374. Do you think that the trade in general would welcome a tax like the lighthouse tax for the purpose of maintaining a squadron of vessels for searching for derelicts?—I do not think they would.

1375. Because they do not think the danger is enough, or why? Because they resist taxes always.

1376. You admit that it cannot be done without the expenditure of money ?-Certainly.

1377. Have you ever thought what it would take to diminish to any serions extent the number of derelicts that are afloat in the Atlantic ocean; have you ever thought how many miles a vessel would have to steam before she could report, even supposing a derelict had been seen; would she not have to search thousands of square miles?-Most certainly.

1378. Have you thought of that?—I have.

1379. How many vessels would it take to do it, do you think?—I would make one step by employing one vessel in search of derelicts in the places where they are found

most frequently. In the case of wrecks, such as the one I am pointing to here, the brig" Atalanta," a wreck of November the 19th, 1893, I would send a special ship in search of her.

1380. That is your idea?-We have cruising squadrons, and experimental training vessels, and ships of that kind, which might, I think, be well employed with that for an object.

1381. That is not your business?-You asked me for a suggestion.

1382. I did not think you would suggest the way in which the Government should use a man-of-war. Are you aware that the Admiralty has sent off from time to time when a vessel is in a position which is manifestly a very dangerous one and outside the reach of the Trinity House ?-I was not aware of that.

1383 You may take it from me that they have. You are not aware that that has happened, and in no case has a man-of-war succeeded in finding a derelict. Only as lately ago as last February, two months ago, a wreck was reported a little westward, 50 miles westward, of Scilly, and one of Her Majesty's ships was sent out for five days; this was a masted vessel, and nothing has been seen of her or heard of her since, and that is the universal experience?—Yes.

1384. Therefore the Government have some facts to go upon and not bare speculation; and still you think it should be easy to find them?-Yes.

1385. I also gather from your evidence that you think the United States pilot chart is, as regards the marking of derelicts, useful?-Certainly, and in many other ways.

1386. We are now confining ourselves to derelicts. How is it useful as regards derelicts?-By warning navigators to keep a special look-out.

1387. Is not it the duty of every ship to keep a special look-out?-There is a difference in look-oute, as I need not say.

1388. Quite ?-One man on a look-out is quite sufficient in an ordinary night, for instance, or in an ordinary sea, but the look-out would be doubled in foggy weather or near a derelict.

1389. Is it the universal practice of all vessels, now they have got the pilot chart and it is shown that there are frequently eight or nine derelicts the position of which is unknown, that vessels in the Atlantic trade double their look-outs?-I am afraid that would be impossible, for 80 per cent. of them cannot keep the ordinary look-out.

1390. Then for those vessels that cannot do that, of what value is the chart to them?-Very little.

1391. (Mr. Trevor.) Do you say that 80 per cent. cannot keep a look-out?-A very large percentage. I said 80; but a very large percentage are unable to keep the ordinary look-out continuously.

1392. And to them the chart is of very little use?It is of very little use.

1393. (Chairman.) That is owing to the ships being undermanned?--That is owing to the ships being undermanned. The courts of inquiry are reporting it constantly.

1394. (Captain Wharton.) But a ship that is not in itself insufficiently manned, can she make any other use of the knowledge that a derelict was seen in a certain place for a certain number of days before ?—It does not occur to me that she could.

1395. But still you think there is great value in that chart-I am sure that they do, from what they tell

me.

1396. Who told you? - Captains of ships plying regularly between this country and New York.

1397. What do they tell you?-That they value the charts.

1398. But I am trying to get out why they value it ?— For the information it contains with reference to wreckage and derelicts.

1399 I am speaking of derelicts solely. I am trying to get out what use the charts are to the ships when they can double their look-outs. Is that all that they can do ?--I simply mention the double look-outs as one means of keeping a special look-out.

1400. Give me another means?--I do not know of another.

1401. That is the sole value of the information, that they may keep a sharp look out ?-I think so; the chart tells them where they may expect to see a derelict.

1402. Do you think on the other hand that the chart may occasion unncessary anxiety in the minds of captain or passengers ?—I can scarcely think so.

1403. You do not think so?-No.

1404. You do not think that the fact of seeing these ships on a very large scale, and a chart on a very small scale causes a very exaggerated idea of the danger ?— I do not think that it affects them seriously in any other way than it should.

1405. (Sir George Nares.) Have you ever known of any loss of life from any vessel striking a derelict ?-I have not.

1406. (Captain Wharton.) We were told by one witness with respect to these derelicts, that an unseen danger that sailors cannot guard against, causes them an amount of terror which is very painful. Have you ever hear anything about that amongst your brother sailors? The instance that I mentioned was rather a notable one. Captain Hubbuck is the captain's name. who said that he was kept in mortal terror for the next 24 hours after seeing this derelict driving so furiously before a snowstorm and a high wind, and being unable to see scarcely anything.

1407. Escaping extraordinary danger of that kind it would affect him for some period probably ?-Yes, and he dreaded it till the next night was over.

1408. He did not go in mortal terror all the rest of his life?I suppose not; he had got over it when he talked to me. I carefully confine the terror to 24 hours, or 1ather I repeat what he told me.

1409. Did not you think that it is very natural that a sailor who has had a narrow escape from running against a derelict should lay perhaps, too much stress in his mind upon the danger?-Weil, he would lay very great stress upon it; whether too much I am afraid to say.

1410. Let us suppose that that was the only derelict in the whole Atlantic, and he nearly ran upon it. I daresay that he would feel in a great state of alarm, but he really would not be in any danger, because the danger of striking it again would be many millions to one?-Many millions.

1411. Do not the present numbers in the returns show that it is many millions to one that you will not meet a derelict ?-I will not venture at the numbers, but they are very large.

1412. (Sir George Nares.) Yon mentioned a derelict near the Coquet Islands, off the Northumbrian coast. Can you give me the date of that; was it January 1894 ? -I think it was January 1894.

1413. Do you know that a vessel was sent out to search for that derelict, and she could not be found ?— I was not aware of that. But the captain of one of the Glen steamers reported the circumstances to me on his arrival in London. He had seen her in coming from a port in the north to London.

1414. If we have a Retury from the Trinity House which shows that in January 1894, a floating derelict was seen off the Coquet, and a vessel was sent out and searched for her, and she could not be found, would you consider that satisfactory ?-Certainly, every effort has been made to dispose of her. But some of the derelicts float about for months.

1415. (Chairman.) You are secretary for Lloyd's, are you not ?-Yes.

1416. You make it part of your business. I understand, to collect all the information you can with regard to derelicts or other dangers that are reported or have been seen by vessels arriving in this country?—Yes.

1417. Could you tell us what steps you take for getting that information ?-As to derelicts, we issue forms to the masters of vessels asking them to report to the first Lloyd's agent they come to, any derelict they may pass; and of course if a ship strikes a derelict then the master reports it to Lloyd's agent at the first port of call-or we hope that he reports it, I am not sure that he always does report it—and that must be telegraphed by Lloyds' agent at once to London. We have regular forms that we issue to the masters of vessels asking them to report.

1418. Is this the form (handing a printed form to the witness) ?-Yes; we have got two forms in existence now; at least one is an old form, of which I have got a copy here, which was chiefly applied to speakings. It also included wrecks, and it is only since there has been considerable excitement about derelicts that we have issued a new form. That is the new form which specially points out the desirability of reporting derelicts.

1419. This is the new form that you issued lately?That is the new form that we issued within the last few months.

1420. Then is this form given to every captain ?-As far as possible; we distribute them as much as possible; the Custom house officers distribute them to vessels clearing, and we distribute them through Lloyds' agent, who has orders to put them on board, and we send them to shipowners and ship masters' societies, and also direct to captains in many cases.

1421. When you have got this information what happens? What happens is that it is notified in Lloyd's List at once for the information of all masters of vessels, and we also take special care to notify it to shipowners or masters who are going that particular voyage, and we send it to the shipowner.

1423. (Mr. Trevor.) It is amalgamated with the 'Shipping Gazette," is it not?—Yes, with the "Shipping Gazette."

1424. The newspaper is called "The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette and Lloyd's List" ?—Yes.

1425. (Chairman.) Have you any date subsequent to which you remit information of derelicts?—No, we should only report what the master reported on his voyage.

1426. And it is published once in your Gazette ?— Yes.

1427. All that a man has seen?-Yes, when the master arrives at the end of his voyage, if he carries out our request, he reports to Lloyd's agent, and Lloyd's

See Appendix I., p. 120.

agent ought to see every master who arrives and find out what has passed, and then that is telegraphed to London. If the master does not report to Lloyd's agent at the port of arrival, then he ought to post this form without prepayment, but we prefer it reported to the agent because then it comes by telegraph. Supposing on the voyage from London to Quebec he passes derelicts, he ought to go to the agent at Quebec and report the latitude and longitude, and give the date, and then the agent telegraphs it, and the next day it is notified in Lloyd's List, and the information is given to the owners of vessels on the berth clearing in that direction.

1428. Do you think that this is satisfactory, or can you suggest any means of making it satisfactory ?—I think it is satisfactory so far as it goes, but of course we have got no power to compel the masters to report. It entirely depends upon the master himself. If a master strikes a piece of wreck without doing any damage to his ship, he ought to report that, but he very likely says nothing about it.

1429. You have no doubt seen the wreck charts published by the Hydrographer of the United States ? -Yes.

1430. Do you attach much value to those charts ?—I think they are valuable. I got out roughly-I had not much time--what our reports are for the last three years. What we find is, that the average number of collisions reported with derelicts is between 10 and 20 per annum-probably nearer 10 than 20. That is, actual collisions when the master reports a collision.

1431. But were those all floating derelicts ?-They were all floating derelicts.

1432. (Mr. Trevor.) Do they include spars or deals? -Not including spars. If they come in contact with floating pieces of wreckage, such as drifting spars, I think we ought to take it at 20 a year. But this is quite rough; it is only got out at short notice. We get 250 reports annually of derelicts being passed without being touched. Then of course there is the question of missing vessels. We cannot tell how many are attributable to derelicts, and how many to ice, and how many to foundering.

1433 (Chairman.) Does the information that you have received with regard to those collisions with derelicts confine them to any special part of the ocean ?--Nearly all of them are within 300 miles of the American coast. We looked at that. There may be some further out, but as a general rule they are between 200 and 300 miles from the American coast, and that makes us believe that most of them are American coasters, probably laden with lumber, which have got water-logged.

1434. You say that, as a general rule, they are within 200 or 300 miles of the coast. That comprises all the water within that mileage, but some may be close to the coast ?-Some may be close to the coast, but as a general rule they are further out.

1435. With regard to the collisions which have been reported have they resulted in much damage to the ships ?-Some of them; but I do not think as a general rule there is very much damage done.