12

18

19

20

28

1871. That is in corroboration of what you have just given us ?—Yes, that is for the figures I have just given -it is an abstract.

(b.) The list of derelicts reported but once, 350 in number, is made up in rather a remarkable manner, 29 of them are vessels stated to have been never heard from; that is, missing vessels; 18 are stated to have foundered or been lost at sea; 49 were abandoned and may be presumed to have been in a sinking state; one was seen ashore. Why these 87 vessels are classed as derelicts I do not understand, and I should reduce the list at once to 263. Of these, 117 are within 200 miles of the American coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, the other 146 being scattered all over the Atlantic.

I do not understand a discrepancy between the two parts of the report. The abstract list gives the total number of identified derelicts as 482, while the two lists I have quoted make the number 562.

(c.) Besides these it is stated that 1,146 unidentified abandoned vessels were seen on the North Atlantic. It is evident that many of these would certainly be reports of the same vessels, and that many would be already included in the list of identified derelicts given. This figure of 1,146 cannot be taken to mean 1,146 separate ships, but it is impossible to say how many there really were. Taking the figures as they are, one out of every 44 reports appears to be a ship floating for over three months.

(d.) The number of vessels given as totally lost from collision with wrecks and derelicts is 10, as follows :February 23rd, 1887, schooner "Bayliss Wood" struck wreck of steamship "Brinkburn" off Fenwick Island, and was capsized; June 13th, 1887, schooner "Joseph Baymore " struck a derelict off the coast of North Carolina, became water-logged, and was abandoned; June 8th, 1889, Spanish gunboat "Paz" struck a derelict off Tarifa and sunk; March 18th, 1890, schooner "Francis L. Godfrey" struck a derelict off Fenwick Island, stove in her bow, and filled; October 1st, 1890, steamship "Glenrath" struck a wreck off Cape Lookout and sunk; February 10th, 1891, schooner "Seagull" struck a wreck off the coast of New Jersey and sunk; December 22nd, 1891, schooner "Orrie V. Drisco struck a derelict in the Gulf of Mexico, and was wrecked on the coast of Florida; February 24th, 1892, barque "Jan Pieterzoon Koen " struck an unknown object, filled, and was abandoned in latitude 24° 10' N., longitude 69° 28′ W.; May 20th, 1893, steamship "Cragside" struck a derelict off Whitehead, Nova Scotia, and sunk; December 1st, 1893, schooner "Manitou" struck on the sunken Five Fathom Bank Lightship and sunk.

As four of these are cases of vessels having struck wrecks, that is, wrecks on the bottom, we have no concern with them, but the distinction is not at all marked in the pamphlet.

66

Of the six losses said to be due to derelicts, I find as follows:-The Spanish gunboat "La Paz" is given as striking a derelict off Tarifa. Now this vessel struck a well-known rock off Cadiz, as a court-martial found. The Cragside" is given as striking a derelict off Nova Scotia, whereas the Court of Inquiry held on her case came to the conclusion that she had probably struck the well-known Bull Rock. Another is given in the Gulf of Mexico and is outside our inquiry. Two are given as striking derelicts off the coast of North Carolina and Fenwick Island respectively, that is very near the American shores. Off Fenwick Island, a long low island forming the coast for many miles between Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, is a great flat of shallow water some eight miles wide traversed by a large local trade. A great many wrecks on the bottom have been reported in this position during the past seven years as well as cases of vessels striking on them, one of which is given as causing a fatal loss. Seeing the mistakes which have crept in, one would like to have further information as to the evidence on which these two cases rest before accepting them as collisions with derelicts.

1872. (Mr. Trevor.) Are those cases the "Joseph Baymore" and the Francis L. Godfrey " P-Yes. The analysis of this most important list, so far as the subject of our inquiry goes, shows how necessary it is to examine the statements made in this pamphlet. These 10 cases may be tabulated thus: Wrecks on the bottom, 4; cases in the Gulf of Mexico, 1; lost on the rocks, 2-total 7; leaving two cases of reported collision with derelicts close to the American shore, and one near the Bahama Islands. There are none out of American waters or in great international trade routes.

(e.) 23 vessels are given as receiving considerable damnage, as follows:-January 16th, 1887, barge "Gardner Colby" struck a derelict off Fenwick Island, causing a leak; November 29, 1888, barque "Patagonia" struck a derelict in latitude 39° 50′ N., longitude 71° W., causing a leak; May 26th, 1889, schooner " Arabella" struck a derelict off Sandy Hook, and had to be towed in, leaking; October 15th, 1889, schooner "Forest Fairy" struck and passed over a derelict in latitude 40° 59′ N., longitude 33° 40' W.; December 16th, 1889, schooner "Cornelius Hargreaves" struck a derelict off Cape Henry, put into Norfolk and discharged coal; January 1st, 1890, steamship "Seminole " struck a derelict off Charleston, and had to return to port; January 29th, 1890, schooner "W. B. Merrick' struck a derelict in latitude 34° 40′ N., longitude 71° 25′ W., and sacrificed deckload to save ship; July 18th, 1890, schooner "J. N. Harlow" struck a derelict off Fenwick Island, and was towed into Norfolk; September 13th, 190, schooner "Joseph I. Pharo struck a derelict off Fenwick Island, and was towed into Norfolk; October 15th, 1890, steamship "Grace" struck a wreck off Cape Henry, and was towed into Hampton Roads; August 30th, 1891, steamship

"Dubbeldam" struck a derelict in latitude 49° N., longitude 24 W., and put back to Plymouth for repairs; May 30th, 1891, bark San Giovanni E." struck wreckage in latitude 40° 30′ N., longitude 67 W., broke rudder gear, and came near sinking; October 28th, 1892, steamship "Empire" struck a submerged derelict off Frying Pan Shoals, and nearly listed her cargo; December 12th, 1893, steamship "Iris" struck what was believed to be a derelict in latitude 43', longitude 24°, which caused her to leak in the bows; December 18th, 1893, schooner "Max" cut through a submerged derelict off Cape Hatteras, rudder broken, leaking badly; December 31st, 1893, steamship "Managua struck wreckage in the night, latitude 28° 40', longitude 74° 44', and lost a propeller blade; December, 1893, bark "Mazatlan" struck a derelict at sea, and received extensive damage; March 4th, 1889, schooner " Wm. B. Wood" struck a sunken wreck, and had to be beached on the Delaware coast; January 7th, 1891, schooner "Helen G. King" struck a sunken wreck, near Rockland, Me., and had to put into Eastport, in a sinking condition; November 30th, 1891, steamer" St. Enoch " struck a submerged derelict in latitude 48° N., longitude 33′ W., and had to return to Queenstown with all the blades of her propeller broken; December 28th, 1891, schooner" Riviere" struck a derelict on the voyage from Dublin to Bangor, and had to be beached on arrival; October 25th, 1892, steamship "Britannia" strack a sunken wreck off Cape Sable, and had to be beached for temporary repairs; April 23rd, 1893, schooner "A. T. Coleman " struck a sunken obstruction on the voyage from Baltimore to the Bahamas, and was towed into Norfolk with a hole in her bottom.

Of these only 4 are given as wrecks on the bottom, but as 8 are quoted as occurring off various points along the American shores, not less than 3 off Fenwick Island amongst this number, it appears doubtful whether they are all derelicts. Being American vessels, however, as are five other cases further off, but still near their own coasts, they cannot be checked. There are actually five in what we may consider the open Atlantic. One British vessel 18 recognised

amongst these, the "St. Enoch." The official papers say: Supposed to have struck wreckage or large fish, lost propeller blades." The "Managua" is stated to have lost a propeller blade, that is scarcely siderable damage. The schooner "Riviere," given here as striking a derelict, was shown by the court of inquiry to have struck something on the bottom in the narrow passage into the Menai Strait, about 18 feet deep at low water, and she probably struck the bottom itself.

66

The table will stand thus :-On the bottom, 1; wrecks on bottom, 4; on American seaboard, some in shallow water, 8; in American waters, 5; in Atlantic, 5. Of these five the "Forest Fairy passed over a derelict, damage not stated. The Dubbeldam returned to Plymouth with rudder damaged. The "Iris " struck what was supposed to be a derelict and leaked in the bows. The Mazatlan" struck a derelict, neither exact date nor place being mentioned, and it is said to have received considerable damage. The "St. Enoch" lost her propeller blades, perhaps, by striking a fish.

66

In these two most important lists, therefore, it is shown that in seven years, in the open Atlantic, with which we have to do, there are no total losses from collisions with floating derelicts, and only five cases in which damage worth speaking of has resulted, and some of these are doubtful.

66

(f) Eleven vessels are stated to have received slight damage. They are as follows:-November 12th, 1887, schooner" Jacob Reed" struck a derelict in latitude 40° 12' N., longitude 73° 27′ W., and broke her centre-board; May 10th, 1889, steamship Myrtle" struck a derelict off Isle of Shoals, little damage; June 28th, 1889, schooner "John S. Davis" collided with a derelict in latitude 34 42' N., longitude 61 18′ W., damage slight. January 18th, 1890, ship Antoinette struck a derelict in latitude 32 20 N., longitude 68° 32′ W., and lost copper on forefoot; December 4th, 1890, steamship "Katy" struck a derelict in latitude 34° 37′ N., longitude 71 50' W., slightly damaged. November 17th, 1891, steamship "Cascapedia" struck a derelict in latitude 49° 45′ N., longitude 13° 15′ 15′′ W., slight damage; April 22nd, 1893, schooner " Allen Green" struck a spar attached to a wreck off Barnegat, no serious damage; April 4th, 1889, schooner "Lizzie Carr" struck a derelict or wreckage 40 miles east of Bodie Island, N.C., and received slight damage;

66

ran

(g.) There are 17 cases of collisions in which the damage is stated not to be known. They are as follows :— May 12th, 1888, bark " Virgo" passed between the masts of a derelict in latitude 38 40′ N., longitude 73 50 W; July 26th, 1888, steamship "Allentown struck a submerged wreck off Cape May; April 20th, 1889, steamship Cuban" ran into a derelict in latitude 38 10 N., longitude 66° 30′ W., penetrating 13 feet. June 1st, 1889, schooner "William A. Marbury into wreckage off Davis South Shoal; July 5th, 1889, bark" Falmouth " grounded on a submerged wreck on Nantucket Shoals, and afterwards came off; December 28th, 1890, tug "Schaubel" struck a wreck off the Delaware Capes; February 20th, 1891, bark Elba" struck a wreck near Port Royal, S.C. August 12th, 1891, schooner "Maria Pierson "struck a wreck off Hog Island, Virginia; February 14th, 1893, schooner" Two Brothers" ran into a sunken schooner off Cape Charles, Va.; May 18th, 1893, steamship Norman" carried away the spars of sunken schooner, "Booth Brothers" on Brigantine Shoals, New Jersey, but cleared the hull; September 27th, 1893, steamship "Dago" struck wreckage with propeller off the Virginia Capes; November 11th, 1893, steamship "City of Dublin in latitude 39° 30' N., longitude 53° W., struck part of a vessel's deck or deck house; June 23rd, 1889, steamship "Ville de Montevideo damaged by striking a derelict on the voyage from Rio Janeiro to Havre; May 11th, 1891, brig "Arthur" was damaged by striking a derelict on the voyage from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, to Martinique; July 25th, 1891, steamship Castlegate" was damaged by striking a wreck near Boston; December 22nd, 1893, schooner "Theodore Dean" on a coasting voyage to New York, arrived damaged by having struck a wreck; December 26th, 1893, bark" Guldreyn" was damaged by striking a derelict on the voyage from Canada to Fleetwood, England.

66

,,

was

Of these 17 collisions. 12 were on the American coast, many of them apparently on submerged wrecks on the bottom. The report of the inquiry held on the bark "Guldreyn,' stated in this list to have struck a derelict, says nothing about any derelict, but the ship struck a large fish which was afterwards seen. An examination of the inquiry into the case of the steamship "City of Dublin," said in this list to have struck part of a vessel's deck or deck house, shows that there was not even a report of striking anything; a heavy sea struck the ship and washed the boatswain overboard and the deck house was washed away, which appears to have been translated as above. These two are the only cases I have tried to check.

(h.) I may mention that the appendix containing a further table of accidents is entitled: "Additional Reports of Collision with Derelicts," but out of the 16 cases there given, seven are stated to be cases of vessels striking sunken wrecks near the shore. Such a title is therefore misleading. I have in my inquiries included both lists.

(i.) A list is given of the work done by the United States vessels in destroying wrecks and derelicts. Of the latter there are only three; two were near the land and were towed into shallow water, and one was destroyed by ramming by a vessel that accidently encountered her. The principal work was blowing up the wreck accumulated on the United States coast during many years, the work which has been systematically performed on the coast of the United Kingdom by the lighthouse authorities for a long period, and which keeps onr coast so well cleared of these obstructions. It is stated in the report that 72 derelicts were destroyed by fire, but by whom or where is not mentioned and no detail of any kind is given.

1873. (Chairman.) The number of derelicts set on fire is given as 76 P-Yes. It says: "thereby destroyed 72," and the failures to destroy are given as four.

1874. (Mr. Trevor.) It is for four years only?—Yes.

The analysis of this pamphlet, combined with my own knowledge of the groundless nature of many reports as shown by subsequent investigation, leaves on my mind the impression that very little inquiry has been made in compiling it. Taking, however, the figures given, which are shown to be excessive, the average number of derelicts afloat at any one time in what is called the North Atlantic is stated to be 19. The great majority of these are off the American coast. As to the 19, the total area of sea over which these derelicts are scattered is 11,000,000 square miles.

1875. (Chairman.) You have shown that the report describes 72 vessels to have been destroyed by fire. Are any details given as to how this was done or with what result?-No details of any kind are given* except that an attempt was made on the vessel "Fanny E Wolston" which is known to have been afloat for over two years and it failed. This vessel has been off the American coast for many months and no reference is made to any further attempt to destroy her.

* Details since received. See Appendix G., No. 2, p. 115.

1876. Do not you think that destroying a vessel by fire, as described, means that she is burnt to the water's edge, and so remains ?--It appears most probable, but no information is given. That is all one can say. As the word "derelict" is distinctly used in this report, occasionally, as meaning wrecks on the bottom, it is possible that the vessels here said to have been destroyed were some of them aground.

1877. Do you not think that a vessel burnt to the water's edge, as I have suggested, would constitute a greater danger to navigation than if she had been left intact ?-If she floats, most certainly.

1878. On the whole, the impression you have formed, after having read this pamphlet, is that the danger to navigation has been very much exaggerated, and that it has had the result of suggesting dangers which do not really exist to anything like the extent suggested ?— That is precisely the conclusion that I have come to.

1879. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) Does the report show danger from spars ?-No definition is given of the word "derelict" as used, but I understand it to mean "ship, or large part of a ship." Some of the vessels recorded struck spars. Of course a spar upright in the water on the bottom is a nasty thing to meet with.

At the close of Captain Wharton's evidence Mr. Trevor handed in a Return received by the Board of Trade from the Commissioners of Northern Light. houses, of wrecks reported to and dealt with by them during the five years ended 31st March 1894, and a

similar Return received from the Commissioners of Irish Lights.*

An analysis of these Returns, showing the floating wrecks only, was handed in by Sir G. Nares.†

See Appendix C., pp. 84-87.

+ See Appendix D., p. 90.

Sir GEORGE NARES, K.C.B., F.R.S.

| Captain W. J. L. WHARTON, R.N., F.R.S. J. WADDON MARTYN, Esq., Secretary.

1880. (Chairman.) Will you tell us what office you hold under the Board of Trade ?-Principal Examiner of Masters and Mates.

1881. Have you any other special duties ?-I take charge of the notices to mariners, and edit the Monthly Summary for the Board of Trade under Sir George Nares.

1882. You are the principal agent for distriouting information ?—Yes, and compiling it.

1883. That is information as to wrecks, derelicts, ice, and, in fact, anything that is reported-Yes.

1884. Will you tell us shortly what the procedure at present is with regard to the dissemination of information?-Prior to 1885 Notices to Mariners, published by the Admiralty, were distributed by the Hydrographic Department, Admiralty, to superintendents of shipping offices, custom houses, chart sellers and correctors, and other authorities in the United Kingdom interested in and connected with merchant shipping. In the beginning of that year (1885), at the request of the Hydrographic Department, the distribution to these offices and authorities was undertaken by the Board of Trade, the Admiralty continuing to distribute the notices to the various officials, &c., interested in naval matters. About July 1885, it having been gradually forced upon the Board of Trade that the system of distributing

notices on separate slips was defective, and that mariners rarely, if ever, got them, a committee was appointed to consider the best means of dealing with them. It was then decided to compile the notices, and publish them collectively in the form of a monthly summary, each summary to contain all the notices issued during the previous eight months, so as to insure that the summary -a copy of which is given to each foreign-going vessel before sailing-should contain all the information published subsequent to the date of the summary lying at the consulates, &c., abroad, and thus not break the continuity of information in the case of long-voyage vessels, in the event of their not having got the notices from any other source.

1885. Have you got a sample of the summary ?— Yes.

1886. We should like to see an example of the Monthly Summary This (handing in same) is one for the home trade, and this (handing in another) is one for foreigngoing ships. At present all the Admiralty slips are distributed at once, as published, to all shipping offices, custom houses, and other authorities interested in shipping in the United Kingdom.

1887. (Captain Wharton.) Is that the single ones ?--The single slips. They are also distributed to a few foreign

ports, in all about 116 addresses (but I may say that one of those addresses is the Custom House, London, and they distribute it to about 103 other Custom Houses, so that practically we have 219 addresses), those notices relating to foreign parts by the Board of Trade, and those relating to the coasts of the United Kingdom by the Trinity House (at their special request, as they wished to take part in the work). In very important and urgent cases, such as newly-discovered rocks, shoals, &c., these notices are sent abroad at once, marked "very important," to the consuls at all the principal foreign ports, and the colonial officers at the principal colonial ports, at which any out-going vessel might be affected by the danger. Formerly, all these notices were sent to the ports at which out-going vessels might be affected, but this was discontinued in February 1886, as it was deemed unnecessary and useless. Indeed, the consul at Havre wrote to the Board of Trade, imploring them not to send the Admiralty slips any more, as he was literally flooded out of his office with them, and they were quite useless, as shipmasters never looked at them, although prominently displayed. In short, he had never in the whole of his experience known a shipmaster to look at them. He suggested that the issue of the notices be confined entirely to the Board's Monthly Summary, which he commended. A committee sat on the subject, and it was decided not to send the slips to foreign ports, excepting the urgent and important ones, but to continue the distribution to the authorities in the United Kingdom.

1888. (Chairman.) With regard to that, who decides what is of sufficient importance ?-I do that. I look at them, and decide. I do that specially. Besides issuing these notices, the Board of Trade send all important and urgent notices, copies of telegrams received, &c., at once to Lloyd's and the "Shipping Gazette" for their information, who, I understand, when necessary, wire the information to their agents abroad, besides making it known at home. That is about the history of it. Shall I give the number of addresses ?

1889. I think we had better have them ?-The summary is distributed every month to the following authorities:-133 superintendents of mercantile marine offices, 100 private addresses, shipping bodies, &c., 137 colonial officers, 549 consuls abroad (British), 17 foreign hydrographers-936, total for foreign-going summaries; 103 collectors of customs, 18 private addresses-121, total for home trade summaries; 1,057 addresses in all.

1890. Is there any necessity for having the two summaries separate ?-Yes. We print the first 26 or 30 pages for the home trade, which takes in between Brest and Elbe, and therefore if we gave the coasting and home trade vessels the foreign information it would be all waste.

1891. You mean the foreign summary comprises the whole ?—Yes, it takes in the whole world. That makes a total of 1,057 addresses that we send the notices to mariners to. For foreign-going vessels we send about 2,800 copies to the superintendents of the mercantile marine offices of the United Kingdom for distribution to masters and others (all masters should receive a copy on signing articles, or at any other time on application to the superintendent).

1892. With regard to that, do they do so ?-Yes.

1893. Any vessel clearing a port receives a summary ? --Yes, at the same time as the official log-book which the superintendent has to hand over to the master, so that he must get it.

1894. That is very important ? Of course they may miss giving it out sometimes, but they ought not to do so.

1895. Is that a Government order ?—Yes.

1896. That every vessel clearing a port receives the last summary of all known dangers ?-Yes, that is the standing order.

1897. For the last eight or nine months ?—Yes, from eight to nine months it contains information for. Besides the 2,800 copies, about 550 copies are sent to the various Indian and Colonial authorities for the inspection and information of shipmasters abroad. Those are lodged in the shipping offices, and the captain can go up to the offices and inspect them.

1898. That is at the Colonial ports?-And foreign ports-all over the world.

1899. (Captain Wharton.) They are not for issue ?-No, merely for inspection.

1990. (Sir George Nares.) But any captain taking an interest in these matters could obtain a copy, I presume?--Yes, there is no doubt about that. We do not send such a large number to offices abroad as we do to offices in this country, of course.

1901. (Captain Wharton.) As a fact, your regular issue is confined to ships sailing from the United Kingdom? - Yes, that is the direct issue. Then we send 1,670 copies to our consuls and vice-consuls (generally three to each, more in some cases), about 45 to foreign hydrographers, and about 200 copies to various shipping and local bodies in the United Kingdom. Then with regard to the home trade and coasting vessels, we send inonthly about 6,000 copies of the home trade summary to the collectors of customs at the various ports in the United Kingdom for distribution to masters and others in the home and coasting trade.

1902. (Chairman.) They in the same way, I suppose, receive one of these summaries ?-Yes, at the custom houses invariably.

1903. And there is always a custom house agent, I suppose, at all the ports P-Yes, at all the ports. We made inquiries at first and we found that was the best place to distribute them. Mercantile marine offices for foreign-going ships and custom houses for home-trade ships. Altogether we distribute 11,350 foreign-going summaries and home-trade summaries during the

month.

1904. (Sir George Nares.) What notice is given to masters of this distribution, and of the facilities given them on their homeward voyage to obtain the most recent information that can be given?-On the face of every foreign-going summary we have these words :Copies of this summary, corrected monthly, will be issued at all the Mercantile Marine Offices in the "United Kingdom to masters of Foreign-going ships, "free of charge. Copies are sent to the Government

66

66

66

shipping office at each Colonial and Indian port, and "to the British Consulate at each foreign port for the inspection of mariners who may not be in pos"session of the latest summary. All the Notices to Mariners' issued subsequently to the date of publi"cation of the latest monthly summary are kept at "all the Mercantile Marine Offices and Custom Houses "in the United Kingdom for the inspection of mariners "and others interested, until they are inserted in the "next monthly summary." Then it is advertised also in the Signal Book, and several other places, and in the Official Log-book there is also a notice.

1905. Then, practically, there is no excuse for masters not being aware of the action that the Board of Trade take ?-No, no excuse whatever. They all know about it, but they do not pay so much attention as they ought

to.

1906. (Chairman.) Now, I think you had better complete your statement by telling us how you get the information ?-The summary is compiled from: (1) All Admiralty slips published by the Admiralty. (2.) All notices issued by authorities in the United Kingdom, such as the Trinity House, Irish Lights Commissioners, Northern Lighthouse Commissioners, Hull Trinity House, &c., &c. (3.) Notices received from Indian and Colonial Governments that are important to mariners. (4.) The important information in all notices in English received from foreign Governments, such as the United States, Japan, China. Batavia, &c., &c. (5.) All foreign notices in foreign languages are gone through, and any important ones translated and inserted. (I may say that I go through these and pick out any that I think sufficiently important for translation, and then they are put in the summary.) (6.) All communications from our consuls at foreign ports. (7.) Notices taken from papers such as the "Shipping Gazette," &c.

1907. You say that all information received from consuls at foreign ports. Is there any organised system of receiving information, or do the individuals having the information act on their own initiative ?-The consuls have instructions to send notices of all impedi ments to navigation, changes in lights, &c., to the Board of Trade.

1908. If any captain arrives at a port and states that he has seen a danger the consul would, as a matter of course, forward that ?-Yes, he should send it home, and post it up on the spot.

1909. It seems that a weak point is that there is nothing to insure that the captain should give information to the consul?-No, there is nothing, but I pro

pose that something should be put on the face of the summary for that. 1910. That might be a blot on an otherwise well very organised system ?—Yes.

1911. Then how long do you keep the information, or how far back do these summaries go?-Practically about nine months, and sometimes notices are in as much as two or three years, or even more when they are very important. We have what we call special notices that we put in month after month, and year after year, in fact.

1912. Then with regard to derelicts with which as a committee, we are more particularly concerned, what do you say?-They are only kept in for three months, and sunken wrecks are struck out when removed. I make a practice of writing round every month to the United Kingdom anthorities to ask if sunken wrecks have been removed.

1913. I presume that if a derelict is again reported you continue it ?—Yes, if we get a notice of it.

1914. But if a derelict is reported, and then not reported again, you strike it out at the end of three months? That is so. Besides our distribution there are local notices issued at various home and foreign ports, which are posted up at the shipping and consular offices for general information, and all masters should make themselves acquainted with the contents before leaving port. The notice re ice in South Atlantic was first inserted in the July Summary 1892, and continuously ever since.

1915. But previously to July 1892 what do you say? -We had no notice previous to July 1892.

1916. Have you formed any opinion as to the possibility of destroying derelicts? I have thought that matter over and I have jotted a few remarks down here, which, perhaps, I had better read.

1917. Yes. They had better perhaps be brought out? - Of course, if derelicts could be all sunk there could be no doubt it would be most desirable to do so, and, in addition to the action already taken by Her Majesty's vessels and by the Trinity House, masters of the mercantile marine might be requested to sink derelicts when they meet with them or whenever possible; but giving notice or a list of them, unless they are close at hand, is of little or no value. In the case of a sunken wreck, rock, cr shoal, &c., a master can shape his course to clear it, but in the case of a floating derelict it would be exactly the opposite, indeed, the only sure way of going clear of it would be to steer exactly over the spot where it was last seen, as it would then be almost sure to be miles away. Therefore endeavouring to give it a wide berth would most likely be the very way to strike it, as it would be impossible to see it at night if only just awash. Again, if it were well out of the water it would be seen just as well as a small vessel without lights by the ordinary lookout without any notice of it being given at all. When derelicts are reported as close at hand the Collector of Customs or other Department receiving the report might telegraph it to the Board of Trade, who could then send the information on to Lloyd's and the "Shipping Gazette," as is now done with other urgent notices. I have jotted a few remarks down and made a report to Sir George Nares about this matter, if you would like to hear that. It bears more particularly on derelicts.

1918. Do you mean the letter that you have written to Sir George Nares ?-Yes.

1919. You have drawn up a statement here showing the number of derelicts and sunken vessels given in the summary issued each month during the year 1893 PYes.

1920. You distinguish derelicts from sunken wrecks? -Yes.

1921. I see the derelicts are few, whereas the sunken wrecks are many ?—Yes.

1922. Will you say what you mean by a sunken wreck?-We get notice of wrecks that are sunk. We may have the masts above water, but we include in the term anything that is sunk on the bottom really

1923. A sunken wreck is not a moving danger?—No, a stationary one.

1924. And those are always in the neighbourhood of the coasts or almost invariably in shallow water ?—Yes, in shallow water. We get notices of them from different parts of the world and put them all in.

1925. Presumably, being in shallow water they are not such a great danger ?-Some of them might be dangerous.

1926. But they are out of the line of the ocean routes ?-Some of them are not altogether. There are some in the Channel and in the North Sea, pretty well out from the coast. Of course, they are not so dangerous as they would be if in the direct route.

1927. Would they be out of the line of the Atlantic routes?-Yes.

1928. To make it clear, when you refer to them in the North Sea you mean they are dangerous, but not in the line of the Atlantic routes ?-That is so.

1929. Supposing any special danger is reported, say, for instance, that a rock is suddenly discovered on the line of any special trade route, what steps would you take to report it?-We immediately send out the Admiralty slip, which would be sure to be published by the Admiralty, to all the ports abroad at which any outgoing vessel might be likely to be affected by it, and we mark on the outside, "Very important." That is our usual course.

1930. You would not telegraph, would you?-We never telegraph. I do not see how it would be possible to telegraph to all the ports; because, for instance, in the case of the ice notices we sent notices to 60 places, and that would mean 60 telegrams abroad.

1931. (Sir George Nares.) But is not it done through Lloyd's? For instance, do you remember the case of the discovery of the Avocet Rock in the Red Sea ?Yes; Lloyd's did telegraph, I think.

1932. That was telegraphed all over the world through Lloyd's? By Lloyd's and the underwriters.

1933. (Chairman) In fact they, in their own interest, undertake to communicate by telegraph any very important thing of that kind P-Yes. I send all the important news to Lloyd's and the "Shipping Gazette," and they take means to distribute it by telegraph or otherwise. Every important thing I send to Lloyd's.

1934. And the same information is embodied in your next month's summary ?-Yes, that is if it is a thing that affects the next month. It might be temporary, and then I should not.

1935. The next question I should like to ask you is— how long have you been carrying on this work ?-Since 1885-nine years.

1936. Have you any suggestions to make with regard to improving it or hastening the transmission of information?-I do not see that it could be improved at all. For instance, we send the information out to these 220 places in the United Kingdom as soon as we get the news, and we send this Monthly Summary abroad. Of course it is impossible to give the information so soon abroad.

1937. Again, I will take an instance. A rock, we will suppose, has suddenly appeared five miles west of Cape Finisterre; it is observed and reported by a vessel arriving at Liverpool three days afterwards. That, of course, would be a very important danger?— It would.

1938. What would happen then ?—They would immediately report that to the Customs, and the Customs would report it to the Board of Trade, and I should immediately send it over to the Hydrographer.

1939. What is the actual process of reporting; is the telegraph used?-No, I do not think the telegraph is used as a rule.

1940. (Sir George Nares.) But it would be in a case of that kind?-Yes, it would in such a case.

1941. (Chairman.) Would the captain, as a matter of course, immediately on arrival report that to the Custom House ?-No doubt whatever.

1942. But it is not subject to any order?-No; no order.

1943. (Sir George Nares.) I think there is a fee, payable to the receiver, to induce him to obtain such information from masters ?—I could not speak to that.

1944. (Chairman.) Having received this important information, the Board of Trade communicates it by telegraph, we will assume, but to whom?-To Lloyd's and to the "Shipping Gazette." They publish it in their paper, and they would also telegraph to the different ports.