1724. And, therefore, it is supposed to be uninflammable ?--If you may use the terms inflammable, uninflammable, oil. At any rate not easily flashing.

1725. Then you think on the whole that burning a derelict would be easier than blowing her up? - I would leave that to be guided by the conditions under which they found that derelict, because all we want to do is to dispose of the derelict.

1726. If you leave it to the discretion of the commander of the vessel he must have, not only inflammable oil but also dynamite on board ?-I do not know that I have really thought it out as to what was the best means, but it seemed to me that fire would be beat, and, failing fire, to fire shots into her to try and sink her.

1727. You know that dynamite is not usually carried on board ordinary ships P--No.

1728. It is not allowed to be ?-It is not allowed to be.

1729. (Captain Wharton.) As far as I understand, your case rests upon, firstly, the large number of vessels reported in the United States' reports as being on the Atlantic?-Yes.

1730. Secondly, that there is very great danger if a vessel strikes a derelict ?—Yes.

1731. Those are the two great points. Have you at all analysed this list to examine it closely and check it at all in this way?-I have not checked it; I have accepted it.

1732. You have accepted it entirely ?-I generally do accept anything issued by the Government.

1733. Will you admit that the most important fact that can be brought to the notice of this Committee is not, perhaps, so much the number of derelicts afloat, but the number of collisions?—Yes.

1734. There are given a list of nine vessels totally lost, and there is one in the Appendix. Now of those 10 vessels, investigation shows that two were lost upon rocks upon the coast: the Spanish gun-boat "Paz," and the steamship "Cragside.' There is not the least shadow of a doubt that both the "Paz" and the "Cragside "struck a rock, the latter on the coast of Nova Scotia. That disposes of two of them. One vessel is given as striking a derelict that was lost on the sunken Five Fathoms Light Ship. That is not a derelict. Two vessels are given as striking a derelict off Fenwick Island, which is on the United States coast, and is a large flat of shallow water, and a very small obstruction on the bottom brings a vessel up, and there are a great many wrecks there, so that those two can be scarcely caused by derelicts. I put it to you, before basing anything upon this report, is it not our duty to consider it rather closely; do not you agree with me?Quite. Of course I have not gone into it from that point of view; I have accepted it broadly.

1735. Would you think it proper in a list of reported derelicts to insert vessels that have never been heard of since they sailed from port ?--Certainly not.

1736. As a matter of fact there are 28 included in the United States' list ?—They ought not to be included, of course; they are not derelicts, unless they are seen, and seen afloat; they may have disappeared from various causes.

1737. Is it your experience that most of the present feeling about these derelicts is based upon the reports from the United States Hydrographer ?-I think a great Ideal of it has come from there first.

1738. I must refer to your opinion expressed that derelicts are more dangerous than ice. We have had it from several of the experienced captains, who have been examined and asked the question, that their opinion is that there is no comparison between the danger from derelicts and that from ice; that danger from ice is by far the most dangerous. Would you pit your opinion as a landsman against those experienced seamen-Certainly not.

1739. You assumed in your remarks that if a vessel strikes a derelict the results will probably be serious. Will you agree that in the known cases that exist, to which we have access, of collisions with derelicts, that you would expect to find a large number that had suffered considerable damage in order to justify you in assuming that many vessels had been lost? Of course there is a list of those in the United States returns of those damaged considerably.

1740. I asked you the question about this list first of all, to show you that I do not think we can take this without examination as a very safe guide, and therefore I do not want you to answer from this publication, but to answer my question, which is a general one: Would you not expect, that if a large number of vessels are lost, you would find a very much larger number damaged P-The number that has been damaged seriously is not so great as one would have expected. I do not know whether that is an answer to your question.

1741. Not quite.-Will you kindly put it to me in such a way as I could answer it. My own feeling is that we ought to have a larger number of seriously damaged vessels through collisions with derelicts than we have had, if we are to attribute those disappearances to derelicts.

1742. That is all that I want ?-I want to get it in an intelligible shape from my point of view.

1743. Then in fact any assumption that a large proportion of missing vessels are lost by derelicts is not very directly justified by what evidence we have?—No, there may be other causes of loss, by fire for instance. The natural feeling is first that you may combat the fire, or that you may get over a collision with another ship, that either the one or the other floats, and that the one that floats rescues the crew, or tells what has become of them. But when it entirely disappears it is natural to suppose that it may have arisen from some derelict rather than from some known cause.

1744. Then you think there is justification for assuming that the derelicts are to have the first place in those unknown losses ?--I would go so far as to say that there is a justification for assuming that derelicts are answerable for a proportion of those losses; I should not say the whole of them, but a proportion of them. I know of an owner who lost a very fine ship; she was never heard of, and he concluded it must have been by fire, because she had been spoken out of the region of derelicts, and it was not in the ice region.

1745. You doubtless realise the vast size of the Atlantic. Can you also realise what an extremely small proportion of it these average number of derelicts that are supposed to exist, occupy?—I can realise that.

1746. Then I do not quite understand how one vessel that you have suggested to search for derelicts is to do very much good?-Except that she goes out for a purpose. She goes out to seek and to find, and she goes out with all the information, and knows if a derelict is reported in a certain position. Of course that position will be materially changed by the time that that vessel can reach that particular place where it was reported, but I think that the currents are pretty well known.

1747. I wish they were ?-There is a general drift of the Gulf Stream in a certain way. These derelicts, as they are marked in these charts seem to travel a certain course. That is, of course, influenced again by wind or other causes.

1748. Your opinion is merely an opinion ?--That is all.

1749. If we have some facts that show how difficult it is to find derelicts, would not that be more valuable than any opinion ?-I should like to know from whom those facts come.

In a

1750. We have it in evidence that the Trinity House search for a very large number of derelicts near the coast every year. Their information is necessarily of late date, because they only search for vessels nearest to the coast. Their vessels start out at once. very large proportion of those cases they fail to find the ship even when she is reported close to the shore. We have also the fact that Her Majesty's ships are sent out from time to time to search for derelicts that seem to be in a peculiarly dangerous position at the entrance to the English Channel, and they have never yet found them. Do not you think that the chance of finding derelicts in the Mid Atlantic would be infinitely less than those I have mentioned ?-No, for this reason, the derelicts around our coast are few and far between, as compared with those on the North Atlantic.

1751. Are you speaking, may I ask, by the book, or by your imagination ?-Simply by my impression of what I have read.

1756. Can you give us any information with regard to the insurance of vessels ?--In what way?

1757. What we wanted to ask was, whether in fixing your rates of insurance you add anything on account of the dangers that are incurred from derelicts, or whether it is calculated generally in the insurance ?—I cannot say that any definite premium is charged for the risk of derelicts, but undoubtedly the risk of collision therewith is taken into account in the ordinary premium.

1758. In the ordinary premium. You do not look on that as a greater danger than the danger that arises from a collision with something that is not a derelict PIn certain cases I should. If a steel or iron steamer came into violent collision with one of these waterlogged derelicts, I should think it would be very dangerous to her life. As an underwriter I should have thought so.

1759. We have absolutely nothing to go upon in the way of experience; is that so?-That is quite true. If we could trace some of the missing vessels I should put their disappearance down to collision with derelicts in all probability.

1760. As far as any experience we have got shows the result of collision with anything at all, even ice, it is that it does not crush the ship beyond the bulkhead. I do not know why a collision with a derelict should be more dangerous than a collision with an ordinary ship, especially as the striking must be done by the stem, which is the hardest ?-And the derelict is more or less low in the water.

1761. She is low in the water ?-Quite so.

1762. (Mr. Trevor.) And of course not travelling fast? -No.

1763. (Chairman.) Your answers to the questions seem to indicate that you do not consider that a very special danger?-I cannot say that there is any distinct additional premium charged for that risk.

1764. Is there for ice ?-At certain seasons of the year when ice is known to be in the Atlantic, the premium on an Atlantic risk probably would be rather higher.

1765. I may assume that your rates of premium_have not altered in consequence of the scare, I think I may call it, which has been got up with the apparently recent publication of the United States Hydrographer's charts ?-I cannot say that there has been any alteration in the rates.

1766. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) And they are very low? -They are indeed.

1767. Supposing the derelicts to be removed it would not alter the rates very much, would it ?-Anything which tends to reduce the risks of navigation also tends to reduce the premium; so that it would act beneficially to the underwriter and the public in that way.

1768. Has there been any strong feeling on this subject of derelicts ?-This Bill, which is promoted by Mr. Macdona, was laid before the Committee, and I certainly may say that they are anxious to see it passed, because they think that it would tend to reduce the risks of

1769. (Mr. Trevor.) May we consider that, in your opinion the danger from derelicts is an ordinary peril of the sea ?-Yes, I should say it is.

1770. Not an extraordinary peril of the sea P-I could not call it an extraordinary peril.

1771. And if Colonel Hozier, the Secretary of Lloyd's, has told us that, in his opinion, although he admitted that he knew very little about it, derelicts were an extraordinary peril of the sea, he was mistaken ?—In certain voyages from British America down to the West Indies, I should say they are more or less an extraordinary peril, because one expects to meet with many of them

1772. Notwithstanding in that particular region it is an extraordinary peril, you make no difference in your rate ?-No; I cannot say that there is an actual difference of rates charged for that risk.

1773. That is the main point?-It is included in the general risk.

1774. It is included in the general risk of the peril. Therefore I think we may take your evidence, knowing all about it as you do, to be of more value than Colonel Hozier's, who admitted that he did not know about it? -It is not for me to say.

1775. In fact I think we may tell you that it was only on account of Colonel Hozier's evidence that we ventured to invite you to come here ?-May I hear what Colonel Hozier said?

1776-1782. The questions which Colonel Hozier was asked, with his replies are as follows (Q. 1459–1465) :

"Are there any special dangers which underwriters insure against in marine assurance"?—I do not think so; but as I am not an underwriter I am afraid I cannot answer those questions.

When I say underwriters, I mean members of Lloyd's; then you cannot tell us whether the danger of derelicts is a substantial item in an insurance ?—

I fancy it is. Oh, yes, I think they may be.

"By name-is it named in the insurance policy? -Not named, I do not think. I could get you the information accurately.

66

The Committee would be very glad of that; now, for instance, is ice specially mentioned ?-No. It is considered as an ordinary peril of the sea? -Yes.

"But you think that derelicts is an extraordinary peril of the sea ?—I think that it is.

"It is very important to clear this up; you say that ice is more dangerous than derelicts, but yet now you tell us that ice is not specially insured against, and that the danger from derelicts is ?. No, because the danger from ice has always existed, while derelicts are things of later days; or rather, attention has been drawn to them in later days." 1783. Our point was this; we wanted to know whether, in the opinion of underwriters, derelicts were considered so dangerous that it was an extraordinary risk, and you tell us it is not ?-No, I must confirm that.

1784. (Chairman.) I think you are the Collector of Customs at Liverpool, are you not ?-Yes.

1785. We have not got it very clearly before us as to what is the procedure followed by captains of vessels on arrival at the ports in England; can you give us exactly

what happens?-Yes; under section 50 of the Customs Consolidation Act they are obliged to put in a report within 24 hours of arrival, and in that report they must also say whether they have fallen in with, or picked up, any wreck.

1788. That was possibly put in with a view to endeavouring to ascertain the ownership of it ?—I do not know, but we have that power to glean the information under the Act, and you will find that that schedule was quoted in section 50, and I think our power comes rather more within that section than section 53, which your secretary brought under my notice.

1789. (Chairman.) Is every captain provided with this form P-Yes, that is the form of the report with which he should come provided.

1790. These are supplied to every captain ?-Yes, I have one here; whether it is on the report or not he is asked this question, whether he has fallen in with or picked up any wreck." There is an instance (pointing to the form).

1791. Do you think that the captain quite understands that that means derelicts P-Yes.

1792. A vessel floating bottom upwards ?-Yes. 1793. The captain himself delivers this form ?Always.

1794. Whom does he see?-He sees the special clerk, called the report clerk, and in the small ports he would see the collector himself.

1795. Do you consider that the officer is a competent officer to make inquiries that would be useful?—I want to follow that up-if you would kindly ask me with regard to the suggestions later on. I want to clear up the fact that we have the power to glean the information; I think the Act is perfectly clear that the captain must report where he has fallen in with any wreck or picked it up. I should like also to explain what I believe to be the present practice with regard to those reports which we receive, and then I should like to make a suggestion on what I should do in the future.

1796. You had better follow up my first question e actly as to what takes place ? - When a captain rep rts having fallen in with a wreck of this kind, wha has happened in the past is that it is endorsed in that report (indicating one) as well as on two or three of those reports (indicating others). I am speaking now of the larger ports; and then it is, in a kind of unsatisfactory way I think, handed over to Lloyd's agent. The captain is asked "Have you " mentioned this to Lloyd's, or given information to Lloyd's," and if he says Yes," nothing more is done. We have in Liverpool an agent of Lloyd's stationed in the Custom House, he has a seat there. The captain is asked "Have you seen Lloyd's agent ? If he says that he has, that is all the notice we take of it. In other places we have sent on reports to the Board of Trade, but I cannot learn that there is a general practice of reporting those things to the Board of Trade.

66

66

1798. You go under another Act ?--In the same way that he attends to report any casualties to his own ship.

1799. Where does the Receiver of Wreck come in ?— Supposing the case of a casualty to his own ship, he is. asked questions as to the voyage, and he says, for instance, "I lost a main topmast," we then say “All right; will you proceed to the Receiver of Wreck, " and he will take a statement from you," and that is sent to the Board of Trade with all the particulars of the casualty.

66

1802. Are you prepared with any suggestions ?-My suggestion is this: That when a captain reports having fallen in with & wreck, that he should be relegated to the Receiver of Wreck, who is also often in the small ports the chief officer of the port. In my port I have a special Receiver of Wreck-I am nominally the Receiver of Wreck, and one of our chief clerks is deputy receiver. I propose when the captain reports having met with a derelict that he should go to the Receiver of Wreck, and make a statement localising that derelict as far as possible, giving the latitude and longitude, and the kind of ship which is floating.

1803. You draw the line between a casualty and sighting ?--I am speaking now of derelicts.

1804. But then there must be a casualty resulting from that, before you go to the Receiver of Wreck, there must be damage done to the ship?-I think not, the mere fact of falling in with the derelict means that there has been some damage to the same ship, that she is abandoned, and I think we have power to call for evidence with regard to any ship abandoned. Moreover, I do not think there would be any difficulty in getting the evidence from captains. "Whenever any

such loss, abandonment, damage, or casualty happens "elsewhere," those are the words under which we have power to take evidence.

1805-6. Quite, but we rather want to be quite sure of a vessel that has been seen ?—The captain reports that' he has seen a vessel; that is the initial proceeding.

1807. (Mr. Trevor.) In section 50, he is bound to include the statement in his report, that he has seen a derelict ?-Quite so.

1808. Is he bound ?-He is bound.

1809. Under a penalty ?-Yes, under a penalty of 1007.

1810. Is it a fact that derelicts are reported in that way, or does a master wait for a question to be put to him as mentioned in section 53 ?-As a matter of fact it is one of the questions which is always asked.

1811. In the printed form ?-In the printed form, and by the officer in charge of that particular seat. 1812. And your experience is that those questions are asked nearly always P-Certainly.

1813. Because we have it in evidence from the Secretary of the Ship Masters' Society, that in the ordinary way in going into the port the captain is not asked any questions except possibly in the case of collision ?--I have no hesitation in saying that he is wrong.

1814. (Chairman.) Then you think that the present procedure can be improved ?-As regards the information, we get it now; but I want to corner it when we have got it. When the captain reports having seen a derelict, I think we should take some more substantial statement than we have now, on a form similar to, Wr. 1, which is a wreck form. It might be done on that; or we might have a special form for reporting derelicts in which we might state that the captain's latitude and longitude was so and so; that he saw a derelict, and the kind of derelict; whether she had got her masts up or down, and which way she was drifting. All that would be sent as an ordinary statement to the Board of Trade; and not to an irresponsible body as far as the Government is concerned like Lloyd's. We should send it to an official department.

1815. What I want to come at now is this; supposing you have got this information, what do you do with it ? What would the Board of Trade do with it ?

1816. No, the Customs, the man comes and deposits his form?-I am afraid we do nothing beyond asking whether Lloyd's is informed; I am suggesting that we should in future send it to the Board of Trade.

1817. You propose that the fact of a derelict having been sighted, or ice having been sighted should be reported with the least possible delay to the proper quarters ?-That is what I am suggesting. I think it should be at the Board of Trade the next morning. That is always supposing that the Board of Trade would care for the information, I think that we should be prepared to supply it.

1818. (Mr. Trevor.) And you say it is not supplied by you to Lloyd's now ?-No, not by us excepting verbally.

1819. Does Lloyd's agent come into the Custom House and glean information at every port ?-Yes, in the larger ports.

1820. (Chairman.) It is possible by that means the information is circulated very rapidly ?--I do not know how far the Board of Trade would care to have this information, but what I suggest is that it is possible to send it there, and we should be prepared to assist in this respect.

1821. Can you suggest any quicker method of circulating the information ?-That is absolutely quickness itself. The Board of Trade gets this information; their powers are very great; and, as far as my experience goes, their system is very admirable in dealing with wrecks altogether.

1822. Given that the "Majestic," for instance, arrives at Liverpool at 10 o'clock in the morning, and she has passed ice, or she has passed a derelict, by the method you suggest, so far as I understand it, that information would not be in the possession of the Board of Trade for probably 24 hours ?-I do not think that it could be quicker than that.

1823. Well, by Lloyd's agent, as at present established, that information is probably posted in the rooms, wherever they may be, within an hour?-By wire.

1824. No, at Liverpool P-Yes.

1825. (Mr. Trevor.) Would it not be telegraphed from Liverpool to London and probably appear in the "Shipping Gazette and Lloyd's List" on the very same day ?-But my suggestion is apropos of dealing with the derelict itself.

1826. (Chairman.) We do not care about the derelict itself at present ?- My suggestion is not so much with regard to giving information to avoid derelicts as to dealing with derelicts themselves. My suggestion as to localising the derelict is this: Supposing two or three captains to give you the information that a derelict has been seen in a certain latitute and longitude, that localises the derelict and gives you a better opportunity of dealing with it than an ordinary verbal statement. I happen to have here, I believe, two ships reporting the same derelict.

1827. (Mr. Trevor.) On the same day ?—I think at two different ports. But what I was going to observe is that if the business were centred in the Board of Trade, they would obtain from captains arriving at every port information in cases where they had seen a derelict.

1828. (Chairman.) There are two objects in view, the one you have mentioned as to the finding her, and the other is informing everybody as widely as possible ?-I do not know that we can improve upon Lloyd's agents in the way in which they circulate their information, which is very rapidly done indeed. They have got men all over, looking out and meeting vessels which arrive.

1829. But there is no reason why the Government should not have that information. Lloyd's can get the information because they take a great deal of trouble? -Yes, because they take a great deal of trouble.

1830. (Mr. Trevor.) Many of them have a pecuniary interest in the matter ?-Yes. But our information is also rapidly acquired. The Board of Trade, for statements which are sent to them by the officers of Customs, in order to obtain their statements as quickly as possible, have given a small fee for each statement which is sent forward, so that the officers are rather keen in obtaining the statement rapidly, and it is an incentive to quickly dealing with this information. For instance, for a statement made within so many hours the officer is allowed a certain fee, for 12 hours, and 18 hours, and 24 hours, I think; the fee is increased according to the rapidity with which the statement is despatched.

1831. (Chairman.) It occurs to me that this report, which refers principally to cargo, has, as a sort of after-thought, one little line asking for wreck information; do you think that that had better be separate in future?-Have a special report, do you mean?

1832. Would that be possible P-I think my suggestion means that. When the captain says that he has met with wreck, we send up a special report to the Board of Trade as a separate statement.

1833. But this all goes up with the cargo. If the captain on arrival has a form in his hand, and immediately hands it in, as in the case of Lloyd's, information about derelicts seen, with the latitude and longitude and all the particulars, the thing is done at once. Now, you propose to get it vivâ voce 24 hours

after the arrival, and then you send the report to the Board of Trade. I cannot imagine a much slower process P-I did not say 24 hours afterwards. Most of them report within 24 hours.

1834. (Mr. Trevor.) But that report which the chair. man holds in his hands is a report made to the Customs and not to the Board of Trade ?-Yes, to the Customs.

1835. It is on the question of cargo for revenue purposes P-It is the groundwork on which we work. 1836. (Chairman.) It seems quite clear that you want to dissociate the two questions?—Yes.

1837. (Mr. Trevor.) You think you should separate the actual report from the action on the report P-I think so; it would be much more valuable in that way. The Receiver of Wreck is in the habit of asking questions, and it would get them more on a regular basis.

1838. (Chairman.) The Board of Trade do not make any direct inquiries, they depend upon the Customs?— Qua wrecks, we are Board of Trade officers really.

1839. Wrecks are not floating derelicts P-Yes, a derelict is a wreck. The definition of "wreck" is flotsam, jetsam, lagan, and derelict;" that is the definition in the Act of Parliament.

66

1840. Is that fully understood by the captains ?-I think everybody who knows anything about ships would understand it.

1841. They do not report ice ?-We report on derelicts. The reporting of a casualty by a captain has been interpreted as a casualty to his own ship. If his own ship became derelict, he would report it, but he has not been in the babit of reporting other ships as derelict; and my process is, if the Board of Trade care about it, that we might have a report and obtain it successfully by reporting derelicts sighted by other ships.

1842. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) Could you include ice under the Act ?-Not under the Act.

1843. (Capt. Wharton.) Could you include flotsam? -Yes; "falling in with wreck"; flotsam is wreck.

1844. Is not ice flotsam?-Hardly; flotsam is what floats off a ship; jetsam is what is cast off a ship; lagan is what is buoyed, or rather marked by a buoy.

1845. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) Do you keep this return? -Yes.

1846. So that it does not come to the Board of Trade at all ?-That never comes to the Board of Trade.

1847. Here they have rescued five seamen of the schooner" Drisco"?-That report would go from the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine.

1848. That would be abstracted ?-That would be done at once.

1849. You examine that last statement about wreck whenever this comes in ?-Taking either of the cases; instead of this little bit of a memorandum, and asking the captain whether he has reported this to Lloyd's, in my process we should have a form (Wr. 1 would do) in which the whole details in regard to this particular derelict would be set forth, and it would be sent to the Board of Trade for whatever it might be worth there. My duty here is to tell you what we can do, and what we are prepared to do; but not to advise you what to do when you have got the information.

1850. (Chairman.) But you are satisfied, with such a form as we have been talking about, that you could have the information concerning any derelicts or dangers of the sea in your possession within a very few hours of the arrival?-I think so, and it would be very good business to do it.

1851. (Mr. Trevor.) Referring to the mode in which the ship masters and collectors and other officers of Customs perform their duties under sections 50 and 53 of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1876, I want to read you a question and answer which was put to the secretary of the Ship Master's Society of London on the 8th May last. He was giving evidence in this room, and this question (1242) was put to him: "You "wish to imply that the captains of a good number of ships arriving in England neglect to report under the "53rd section of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, "1876 P-(4.) There is no doubt of the willingness of masters to give information if they are asked. The question is not raised except in the case of a casualty or something of that kind; but a man may see "20 derelicts and enter them in the log, but it may "not go outside the log, no one asking him for it." Now, in your experience is that an accurate statement

66

66

66

or an overdrawn statement? It is accurate within certain terms. I do not think we have been in the habit of using the word "derelict." We say, "have you fallen in with any wreck," and it is possible that captains would not interpret that as derelict coming under those terms; that is possible. If my suggestion were adopted there would be a desire on the part of all the officers to glean information with regard to derelicts themselves; and an order would be issued to ask about derelicts; and if it were to be a form as applied to derelicts, I am clear upon that, there would be an eager desire to report derelicts in the same way as the wrecks are reported at the present moment.

1852. Your suggestion is to have a separate derelict form?-Yes, you might forward a statement to the Board of Trade, always supposing that the Board of Trade would care to have the information.

1853. (Capt. Wharton.) Do we understand that you could not put ice into the form without fresh powers? -I think not.

1854. Have not the Board of Trade power to give instructions to the officers?-Undoubtedly under the Act, I think; but I feel quite certain if the Board of Trade should express a wish with regard to having ice reported that the same thing might be done.

1855. (Chairman.) You cannot fine a man 1007. for not reporting ice, in the same way that you can with regard to the wreck?-Quite so.

66

66

1856. (Capt. Wharton.) This 53rd section of the Act states: "That the master of a ship arriving at ports beyond the seas shall answer all such questions relating to the ship, cargo, crew, and voyage as shall "be put to him by the collector"; surely that includes that enormous danger from ice?-I think you might include almost anything so long as a lawyer would say that such question might be reasonable.

1857. Is not that reasonable ?-I mean reasonable with regard to the ship itself and its cargo.

1858. (Chairman.) If a new island appeared on the route he would be bound to report it ?-My experience of captains of ships is that they are very willing to answer questions of the kind, and I have no doubt if the Board of Trade expressed a wish to have such questions asked, that they would get the information from the captains, but if you ask me whether it is provided for in the Act I should say not.

1859. (Capt. Wharton.) You think that the question of a large floe of ice is not a question relating to the voyage that would be proper for him to answer?I do not think that it was a question in the minds of the framers of the Act. Perhaps I had better shelter myself by saying that you had better get a lawyer to give an opinion upon that. My own opinion is that it is not contemplated in section 53 of the Act. Indeed for that very reason I prefer dealing with the wrecks under section 50, because I think it is rather stronger in our favour.

1860. (Mr. Trevor.) Section 50 is the section which compels the master to make due report of the ship in that form No. 1, in Schedule B. to the Act; that form specifying wreck ?—Yes.

1861. May I ask one more question. Is the evidence you have given as to the general course which masters take in making these reports confined to the large and important port of which you are now collector, or does it also extend to the smaller ports in which you have served in previous years ?-În what respect. Is it in the way in which the questions are asked ?

1862. Yes ?-In the small ports they generally report direct to the collector.

1863. Exactly. Does the evidence of the secretary of the Shipmasters' Society in the answer to that one question which I read to you, and in which answer you apparently did not concar, apply as much to small ports as to larger ones?-My reply applies a fortiori to the smaller ports.

1864. For they have less to do ?-For they have less to do, and the report is made direct to the Chief Officer of Customs.

1865. And therefore they are more easily got at P-Moreover, it provides considerable emolument to those officers; the fees would amount in some instances to 1007. or 150l., and that is a tangible item to an officer who has perhaps 300l. or 400l. a year.

1866. (Chairman.) Do you ever see the ships' logs? -Yes.

1867. Have you got the power to ask a captain to produce them ?-Yes.

examined this Report with as much detail as is possible. It is a comprehensive account of all the information the United States Hydrographic Office has been able to collect with regard to derelicts and wrecks on the bottom during seven years. The part of it that is of importance, bearing on the subject of our inquiry, is that dealing with collisions with derelicts, and especially those from which total loss or serious damage has resulted. But the list of derelicts