331.82 
 
 P710 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 VTTd 
 
 J MAY ! 
 
 i n 2005 
 
 
 j XJJLI 
 
 . 
 
 v /l. r 
 
 
 
 
 ^ n t ’ (\ v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 { 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/ourseamenspeecheOOplim 
 

 
 
 rENK> 
 
 l c. 
 
 OUESEAMEN 
 
 SPEECHES AND FACTS, 
 
 SAMUEL PLIMSOLL, M.P. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Preface 
 Deck Loading: 
 
 Survey of TJnclassed Ships 
 Load Line 
 Grain Cargroes, &c. 
 Appendices 
 
 PAGE 
 
 .. 3 
 
 .. 5 
 
 .. 15 
 .. 27 
 .. 37 
 .. 41 
 
 
 PRINTED BY GEORGE KELLY AND CO., 
 
 23 , KING 8T1IBET, PARLIAMENT STREET, S.\T. 
 
Q 1 
 
 All evils existing in our Merchant Shipping cannot be 
 
 ' 
 
 7~tJured by legislation; many of them can. 
 
 We can at least make provision for the repair of all 
 such ships as need it. 
 
 We can prevent the gross overloading which prevails. 
 We can absolutely stop the great losses incurred by 
 
 t « i * • • • 
 
 '( J the shifting of grain cargoes , and we can also diminish to 
 ^ a fifth of its present amount the loss of life now caused 
 by the practice of deck loading. 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 These topics are separately dealt with in the speeches 
 delivered by me at Derby. Bath, and Liverpool, and now 
 reprinted with an Appendix, containing the evidence 
 relied on. 
 
 They would have appeared before Parliament met, 
 and would have included speeches on the “ [future Admi¬ 
 nistration of Merchant Shipping Law,*’ and on the 
 “Functions of the Board of Trade,” had not ill-health, 
 in the shape of continuous and distressing sleeplessness, 
 disabled me utterly, since the first week in February until 
 
 3 
 
 
 now. 
 
4 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 From this cause also they are now issued in a very 
 imperfect state, and with less care than I should have 
 liked to have bestowed upon them. If, however, they are 
 to aid in forming a public opinion, in any small degree 
 influential, on impending legislation, further delay is inad¬ 
 missible. 
 
 SAMUEL PLIMSOLL. 
 
 March 14 , 1876 . 
 
DECK 
 
 LOADING. 
 
 % D t« ^ '' 
 
 Derby, January 10th, 1876. 
 
 In the year 1839 public attention was called to the dreadful 
 loss of life which attended the practice of deck loading timber¬ 
 laden vessels from the North American ports. Parliament 
 appointed a Committee comprising fifteen members to inquire 
 into the subject. They sat many days, examined a great number 
 of witnesses, and inquired into the matter with exemplary dili¬ 
 gence, and reported during the session. The report disclosed 
 a state of things to which Parliament felt called upon to apply 
 an immediate remedy. A Bill was passed, 2 and 3 Vic., c. 44, 
 under the Whig Administration of Lord Melbourne, for one year, 
 prohibiting the practice from North American ports. The sub¬ 
 ject was again examined into, and debated in the following 
 year, as it had been in the year 1839, and the temporary Act was 
 re-enacted until May 1, 1842. This was 3 and 4 Vic., c. 36. 
 In 1842 this law was again extended until May, 1845, by 5 and 6 
 Vic., c. 17, by the Conservative Administration of Sir B. Peel. 
 
 The subject was again inquired into in the year 1843 by 
 another Committee consisting of fifteen members, and the con¬ 
 clusions of the former Committee were re-affirmed, and the 
 scope of the legislation based upon them was extended to other 
 ports. This was by 8 and 9 Vic., cap. 45, by a Conservative 
 Administration, which made tins law of prohibition perpetual. 
 
 The subject received further attention in 1853, when this 
 law was re-enacted and amended, 16 and 17 Vic. cap. 107, in more 
 precise terms under the coalition Ministry of Lord Aberdeen, but in 
 1862 the whole of this legislation was repealed by a simple reference 
 in figures to the clauses comprising it, and which figures were 
 inserted in the schedule of 25 and 26 Vic., cap. 63, by Mr. Milner 
 Gibson, the President of the Board of Trade. You see that the law 
 was deliberately adopted after careful and extensive inquiry, 
 
6 
 
 DECK LOADING. 
 
 and many and full debates, again repeated with tbe accompani- 
 ment of further debates, and it was reaffirmed later on, and again 
 debated. 
 
 To show how much labour had been bestowed on this ques¬ 
 tion, it is only necessary to look at the reports of the various 
 Committees, they alone consist of seven hundred and fifty-seven 
 pages. 
 
 How I know no tribunal more competent to examine the 
 merits of a question than the House of Commons, and no place 
 where misstatements or false arguments are more sure to be 
 refuted or reduced to their proper dimensions. It is, therefore,, 
 fair to assume that during these prolonged debates everything 
 was said for and against the proposals which the case admitted 
 of, and that Parliament, in enacting the temporary proposals,, 
 in subsequently making the enactment permanent, and in ra- 
 affirming the whole, had expressed its deliberate conviction and 
 that of the nation on this subject. 
 
 Under these circumstances you would naturally suppose that 
 any proposal to repeal all this legislation would have received, 
 if not equal, at least serious attention. Such, however, was not 
 the fact. I have examined the volumes of Hansard recording the 
 debates of the House for 1862, and with the exception of the 
 following words :—“ It was also proposed to repeal certain clauses- 
 in the Customs Consolidation Act prohibiting the carrying of deck 
 loads in timber ships which were found to be totally nugatory,, 
 and to interfere with the fair competition of the British with the 
 foreign shipowner,” uttered in the course of a speech, March 21,. 
 1862, by Mr. Milner Gibson, the President of the Board of 
 Trade, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill, I do not find 
 that during the whole number of nights the matter was before- 
 the House that one single word was uttered having reference 
 to this subject. Ho notice was given to the public of the inten¬ 
 tion to repeal it. The subject was only referred to in moving 
 for leave to bring in a Bill on the general subject of the Mercantile- 
 Marine and the Customs Consolidation Act, and then only in 
 the few words I have quoted, and was never afterwards referred 
 to at all. Although the Bill was before the House on the 31st 
 March. May 2, 15, and 26, June 2, 19, and 20; and in the Lords, 
 June 23, July 8,14, and 18, before it received the Boyal Assent on 
 the 29th July, yet from first to last only those words were uttered 
 on the subject. The only parallel that I can conceive to such a pro¬ 
 ceeding would be if the present Government were to re-enact 
 
DECK LOADING. 
 
 I 
 
 the Corn Laws, without a word of explanation to the House 
 or country, by simply inserting into the schedule of a Bill the 
 figures which would denote the Act, or the clauses which 
 abolished them. This is literally true. I have stated the matter, 
 in conversation, to a Conservative Member of great experience, 
 who has held office and may do so again, who has been trained 
 as a lawyer, and is an able debater in the House of Commons, 
 and he says that such a proceeding, assuming that I have 
 made no mistake,* was nothing more or less than a fraud upon 
 the nation, and he seemed glad that it could not be charged 
 upon the Conservatives. On the point of accuracy, I may 
 say that since my return home I have carefully examined 
 Hamsard’s Debates, also the series of volumes containing the 
 reports and minutes of all Committees, and likewise the series 
 comprising the statutes from the year 1801 up to the present 
 year, and if there are any circumstances which mitigate this 
 great crime, I have not seen them, and they have escaped a 
 laborious, painstaking, and conscientious search. hTow the pro¬ 
 posal to re-enact the Corn Laws which I have used to illustrate 
 this matter, could not have been attempted, or, if attempted, 
 would instantly have broken down by the indignation of the 
 public ; but you must not lose sight of this, that seamen have 
 no means of expressing their opinions, they are practically 
 without any votes, since even in the case of seamen who have 
 votes, the probability of their being at home in the port giving 
 the qualification at the time of an election, is so extremely 
 small. They have no newspaper published in their interests 
 (though I am glad that nearly all the newspapers support the 
 claims of justice), they are prevented from being newspaper 
 readers by the circumstances of their lives, and they have had 
 no one to speak for them ; so it comes to pass that a step which is 
 not one whit less important than the proposal I have referred to 
 respecting the Corn Laws—I say this on the authority of John 
 Stuart Mill—was introduced into an Act of Parliament in the 
 manner I have described, and the law which prohibited deck 
 loading was repealed. 
 
 I have already stated that no words other than those which I 
 have quoted, as used by the President of the Board of Trade, 
 were uttered for or against this proposal. I have, however, seen a 
 statement in the report of the Boyal Commission on Unseaworthy 
 Ships, 1875, to the effect that the law against deck loading had 
 
 * Look at page 41. 
 
DECK LOADING. 
 
 8 
 
 ceased to become operative, owing to evasions; that a ship would 
 load in a Canadian port according to law, and, crossing the River 
 St. Croix, which divides Canada from America, would then take 
 on board the deck cargo which was prohibited on the other side 
 of the river; also that vessels loading in the St. Lawrence and 
 the Bay of Fundy would proceed down to Eastport in the United 
 States, they having loaded in Canada in compliance with the 
 law, and then avail themselves of the second point of departure 
 to load in a manner prohibited by the law. Supposing these 
 things to be so, it will be obvious to you that if the law had 
 been amended, if in the prohibition to depart from British ports 
 in certain circumstances, the words “or enter’’ were added at 
 the end of “depart from,” this case would have been entirely 
 met. This, however, was not done, and tlie law was swept away. 
 
 I have referred to what is stated in the report made by the 
 Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, to show you that the 
 law, even whilst it was the law, had, for some time at least 
 before its repeal, ceased to be administered with much vigilance, 
 and in fact had been laxly observed. 
 
 Now, with your permission, I will show you how the law 
 while it did exist, even though laxly administered as to a portion 
 at least of the time, operated as compared with the state of 
 things which has been re-established in our commercial marine. 
 
 I have here a report to which I will call your particular atten¬ 
 tion.* It was made in 1874 by a sub-committee appointed by 
 Lloyds’ in London, and this step was taken in consequence of a 
 letter addressed to Lloyds’ by Mr. Thomas Gray, the Assistant 
 Secretary of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. 
 Please note these facts. The report was not prepared at my 
 instance ; it was not prepared by my friends ; it was prepared by 
 gentlemen connected wdth the shipping interest in the city of 
 London, at the instance of the Board of Trade, and for the 
 information of the Board of Trade, and this report, of which 
 I have recently obtained a copy, states that they, the sub¬ 
 committee, had sent to Quebec for returns to enable them more 
 faithfully and efficiently to discharge the duty imposed upon 
 them; that they had obtained Custom House reports also; not 
 merely of the number of ships, but of the number of sailings, 
 also the numbers of the crews and tonnages of all the vessels 
 clearing from Quebec. They say that their inquiry covers all the 
 voyages of no less a period than twenty years—ten years imme- 
 
 * Look at page 48. 
 

 DECK 
 
 \ 
 
 LOADING. 
 
 9 
 
 Riately preceding tlie abolition of the law prohibiting deck load¬ 
 ing and the ten years also following the removal of the prohibi¬ 
 tions, i.e ., from 1 863 to 1872 inclusive; the latter ten, as you 
 observe, being £Kose terT~cfurIng which the practice was again 
 allowed by the law, and the former ten years being the latter 
 portion of the period of twenty-three years during which the 
 practice was prohibited, and therefore that period referred to in 
 the report of the Royal Commissioners on Unseaworthy Ships, 
 which states that the law had become inoperative. In the former 
 period, from 1850 to 1859, the gentlemen who made this investi¬ 
 gation say that 3,774 ships sailed from Quebec for this country 
 with timber cargoes after the 1st of September, and in the ten 
 years following the removal of the prohibition, the number of 
 sailings was 3,068; they state that every one of these 6,842 voyages 
 has been examined, and except in two cases all their results traced 
 •out. The average number of the crews employed in each period 
 were also summed up, and they finished this part of their report 
 by saying that “we find that the deck loading.period, that is. from 
 1863 to 1872 inclusive, was marked by a loss of life nearly four 
 times as great as the ten years during which no deck loads were 
 U/lleweS. 
 
 '"They further state that “ this is the more remarkable when 
 we remember the immense increase of traffic upon the North 
 Atlantic Ocean during the latter period as compared with the 
 former.” And they illustrate this by saying that, “in 1859, 
 661 vessels are reported as having either sailed to, or arrived 
 from, New York and ports north of that place, in the months of 
 October and November, whereas in 1872, no less than 1,437 did 
 the same thing within the same time,” leading to the saving of 
 very many lives in the latter period, which would have been lost 
 in the former period, inasmuch as they were taken from sinking 
 vessels in much larger numbers than before, owing to the route 
 being more frequented. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, permit me just to re-state one or two of the 
 facts of this case for emphasis. The law prohibiting deck loading 
 is stated by the President of the Board of Trade, in 1862, in the 
 House of Commons, to have become inoperative. The number 
 •of vessels crossing that particular line of ocean previously to his 
 speaking was only one-third of what afterwards travelled by the 
 same route, which would necessarily cause a greater loss of life 
 in proportion than could afterwards occur; yet, during this 
 period of prohibition, laxly enforced, there only occurred one 
 
 
 
10 
 
 DECK LOADING. 
 
 quarter of the loss of life which has since been experienced in 
 this trade, and that these results are in proportion to the number 
 of men and ships employed. 
 
 Let me also remind you that this is stated not by me, not by 
 my friends, not on my authority, but is the information supplied 
 after most careful and laborious inquiry, by people interested in 
 ships, and in minimising legislation affecting their interests, to 
 the Board of Trade, in answer to a distinct request to be 
 furnished with the information, yet the House of Commons was 
 asked last session to resist and throw out my proposal to revert 
 to that better state of things. You must form your own impres¬ 
 sion of the circumstances. 
 
 I may add that this report, from which I have quoted, states 
 that if allowances were calculated for the differences in the cir¬ 
 cumstances of the two periods of ten years to which reference 
 has been made, the loss of life has been found to be five times as 
 great during the deck loading period to what it was before. 
 
 Hitherto my remarks on this subject have been directed to 
 the number of lives lost by this practice, I will now, still quoting 
 from authentic documents, show to you what are the circumstances 
 in which many of these poor creatures perish, by an extract or 
 two from the report of the Committee first appointed. This 
 report says :— 
 
 “ In one of those, the Lucy , after nineteen days' privation, only 
 two of the crew having been found alive. 
 
 “ In the year 1835, 15 ships are reported wrecked on the shore 
 and 34 at sea, of 17 of which no account of the crews had been 
 obtained; and of the other 17 the sufferings of the crews of six 
 had been very great; in one, the Francis Sjpaight , reduced, by 
 having been without water or provisions, to the necessity of 
 sacrificing four of their number, by lot, for the preservation of 
 the rest. 
 
 “ In 1836, 27 ships are reported wrecked on the shore, and 44 
 at sea; of 18 of which no account had been received of the 
 crews, and of the other 26 the sufferings of the crews of three 
 had been very great. In the Farl Kellie , the second mate and 
 two men are reported to have been starved to death. 
 
 “ In 1837, 7 ships are reported wrecked on the shore, and 25 at 
 sea, of 19 of which no accounts had been received of the crews, 
 and of the other six the sufferino’s of the crews of three had been 
 
 a 
 
 extreme. In one, the Caledonia , two are reported, when near 
 death, to have had their throats cut for the sake of their bloody 
 
DECK LOADING. 
 
 11 
 
 and when fallen in with by the Dry den , which saved the remainder 
 of the crew, they were abont to sacrifice a boy. 
 
 In 1838, 18 ships are reported as wrecked on the shore, and 
 48 at sea, of 27 of which there had been no account of the crews,, 
 of the remaining 21, the sufferings of the crews of two had 
 been extreme. In one, the Earl Moira , four bodies only having 
 been found under the maintop, all dead, with part of one of their 
 comrades hung up like butcher's meat in a stall; and in the 
 other, the Anna Maria , five bodies were found dead, with part 
 of the ieg of a woman bv the side of one of them, who had 
 evidently been feeding upon it.” 
 
 “ In adverting to the above evidence and returns, vour Com- 
 mittee are concerned to observe, that the instances proved each 
 year of great suffering of the crews of some ships, from their 
 having been fallen in with, with two or three only left on board 
 alive to tell the tale of their disasters, or the remains of dead 
 bodies in others, equally proving the fact, can only be con¬ 
 sidered as an index of the suffering to a like extent in all those 
 other vessels, the crews of which have never been heard of.” 
 
 Gentlemen, you have the authority of Mr. Cavendish 
 Bentinck, that 2,381 men sailed away from home in the pre¬ 
 ceding year who have never been heard of more. 
 
 You will not wonder then that the Committee conclude their 
 report by saying that:— 
 
 “ After a full consideration of the evidence received, your 
 Committee (jive it as their decided opinion that no deck-loads 
 should he suffered to he carried on any timber -laden vessels from 
 North America , and that every inducement should he given towards 
 promoting a fair and efficient survey of every ship in the merchant 
 service 
 
 And the Committee which sat in 1843 reported:— 
 
 “ Your Committee have been enabled to make a comparison ; 
 first, of the general loss of ships in the year 1841-42, with those 
 lost in 1833-34-35, in proportion to the registered tonnage; 
 and, secondly, the loss of timber ships in 1840-41-42, with those 
 lost in 1836-37-38. In both cases they have the satisfaction to 
 find that the loss has been less, more especially as regards 
 timber laden vessels and the lives of the crews employed on board 
 of them, when there has been a reduction in loss of ships in 
 each year from 56 to 23, and as near as can be calculated, a 
 saving of 200 lives of seamen. 
 
 “ And in no instance during the last period do they find in 
 
1 2 
 
 DECK LOADING. 
 
 those ships to which the Act of Parliament alone applies, any of 
 those horrible cases stated in the Report of the Committee of 
 1839, of the crews of several ships in each year having been 
 reduced to the necessity of existing on the remains of their 
 comrades. 
 
 “ Your Committee consider that no si tip can be considered sea¬ 
 worthy when her upper deck is lumbered with cargo of any kind; 
 and they strongly recommend to the consideration of Her Majesty's 
 Government a still further extension of the prohibitory clauses of the 
 Act of Parliament against the deck loading of ships.” 
 
 Nor will you wonder that Parliament was soprofoundly touched 
 that—this I have ascertained from careful reference to Hansard— 
 the tivo first Pills prohibiting this practice temporarily, passed by a 
 Whig Government, tlce temporary Bill , and that one making the 
 prohibition perpetual, passed by a Conservative Government , and 
 the B ill amending and extending the proh ibition, passed by a Coalition 
 Government, ivere one and all—to the honour of Parliament be it 
 said—passed unanimously and without any division. 
 
 Gentlemen, as these extracts are from the report of Parliamen¬ 
 tary Committees and Hansard's Reports, my strongest opponent 
 cannot speak of them at any rate as scandalous fabrications. I 
 have been anxious to sustain my case by the highest authorities, 
 and by them only, since there are some opposed to reforms who 
 do not scruple to impute direct misrepresentation to me. You 
 cannot doubt these reports. You cannot doubt that these facts 
 were as stated. I have read to you from the report of 1839 
 details which are harrowing in the extreme. 1 have read to 
 you from the report of 1843 that during the period wdnch 
 supervened, whilst this practice was prohibited, that the loss of 
 life was wonderfully reduced, and that in no case was it attended 
 with the horrors which I have described. These horrors have 
 been revived in what has been described to me a fraudulent 
 manner, and are now going on, on a scale of many times their 
 former magnitude. There is no reason that 1 can discern to 
 suppose that the circumstances under which the crews of missing 
 ships now spend their last few wretched days, or it may be 
 weeks, of their existence in this world are different from those of 
 vessels that were reported missing in the period described by the , 
 Parliamentary Committee. These horrors are taking place now 
 while I am speaking to you, in how many instances we cannot 
 tell, but we do know from even Mr. Bentinck’s speech, that 2,381 
 men in the prime of life and full of hope, like ourselves, sailed in 
 
DECK LOADING. 
 
 ships that were never heard of more in the last twelve months 
 alone preceding his speech, for which the returns were made out. 
 
 I forbear any appeal to your feelings on this matter. I could 
 not trust myself to say what I think or feel in plain English. I 
 shall therefore put my feelings into my work. And, oh ! how I 
 will work! 
 
COMPULSORY SURYEY, &C. 
 
 
 Liverpool, Jan. 28th , 1876. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 When I spoke at Derby, on the 10th instant, I limited my 
 observations to the subject of deck-loading; on this occasion I 
 propose to take for my topic the subject of the compulsory survey 
 of unclassed ships. I have chosen this topic for Liverpool, in pre¬ 
 ference to any other, because a Liverpool meeting is better able 
 to pronounce an opinion upon the matter than a Midland meeting, 
 and also because Mr. Rathbone, one of your Members, has strongly 
 endeavoured from time to time to impress the House of Commons 
 with views on this subject different to those which I shall 
 advocate. That I may not be misunderstood, I will quote you 
 a remark made by him in a speech which he delivered to the 
 House of Commons on the 8th of April last. He said:—“I 
 u think, Sir, I have shown the danger and the uselessness of 
 “ this compulsory classification/’ I think he will not complain 
 of misrepresentation if I state that he has endeavoured to show 
 on other occasions that a larger proportion of loss occurs in the 
 case of classed vessels than in the case of unclassed vessels, 
 and that what he is pleased to call the “ responsibility of 
 “ the shipowners ” is a much more trustworthy agent for 
 reform than Government interference. How, as I entertain the 
 strongest conviction that he is in error, and that the truth lies 
 in the opposite direction, I will proceed to lay before you the 
 grounds upon which I base my recommendation of the com¬ 
 pulsory survey of unclassed ships. Before we proceed further 
 to consider the case of unclassed ships, it is desirable, if not 
 necessary, that we should first define what classification means. 
 Lloyd’s Register Committee is a body of more recent existence 
 than Lloyd’s Room, which consists of underwriters with their 
 organisation, and it had its origin in the need of information 
 felt by the underwriters as to the vessels upon which they were 
 asked to issue policies of insurance. This Register Committee 
 was appointed to make a list, as far as possible, of vessels, and 
 
16 
 
 COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 to furnish, particulars of the state of repair in which they were^ 
 In doing this they found it necessary to arrange vessels in several 
 classes. Subsequently they extended their operations to the 
 survey of ships in process of construction, as it was found that 
 the possession of a class facilitated the business of insurance,, 
 and also the sale of vessels which owners might wish to dis¬ 
 pose of. Provision was made to secure an adequate revenue 
 by levying a scale of fees upon the ships surveyed. No capital 
 was required and consequently no dividends are declared. The 
 organisation was so successful that its revenue was greatly in 
 excess of its necessities, and when all had been done that could 
 in decency be done in the way of raising salaries, and a surplus 
 still remained, the expedient was resorted to of reducing the 
 scale of fees; this has been done from time to time, until they 
 have reached their present rate of charge. The classes into 
 which this Committee divide vessels on receiving the reports of 
 their surveyors (all of whom are handsomely paid), is briefly as 
 follows—they have two classes marked A, the highest is simply a 
 black letter, and the next a red letter, the highest is for new 
 vessels of unexceptionable material and workmanship, the second 
 for the same vessels after the original period has run out, or for 
 vessels little inferior in material and construction to the first. 
 Both these classes denote ships fit for the conveyance of dry and 
 perishable goods to and from all parts of the world. (See Rule 60.) 
 The next character is diphthong JE, and this denotes ships 
 which have been found on survey fit for the safe conveyance of 
 dry and perishable goods on shorter voyages, or for the con¬ 
 veyance of cargoes not in their nature subject to sea damage on 
 any voyage. (See Rule 61.) The character E denotes ships which 
 have been found on survey fit for the conveyance of cargoes not in 
 their nature subject to sea damage, on any voyage. (See Rule 64.) 
 The character I denotes ships which have been found fit to carry 
 on coasting voyages only, cargoes not in their nature subject to 
 sea damage. (See Rule 66.) The term of years usually allotted 
 varies from eight up to twelve, and some even higher where there 
 is a reasonable presumption that the vessel will remain without 
 need of repair, casualties excepted, for that period, but subject 
 nevertheless to what is called a half-time survey to investigate her 
 condition. After a vessel has run out the term allotted to her, 
 either originally or subsequently, she may under what is called a 
 continuation receive a further allotment of years in the same- 
 class. or in the case of very extensive and thorough repairs, may 
 
COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 17 
 
 even be restored from one of the lower classes to the next above, 
 under what is called a restoration. Xow I think yon will agree 
 with me that when a vessel has ran through all these classes with 
 such further terms as she may have been able to obtain in each 
 class under the name of continuation and of restoration, and 
 when she is no longer fit to carry, even on coasting voyages, 
 cargoes not in their nature subject to sea damage, that it is high 
 time such a vessel is broken up. That is what I may call the 
 negative proof of the necessity for the compulsory survey of all 
 unclassed ships. I will now proceed to lay before you proof of 
 a positive kind. If you were to take up one of the annual 
 volumes published by Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, you will 
 find in the margin opposite a considerable number of vessels a 
 black mark and others, the characters of which are withdrawn. 
 Now these marks indicate that the vessel has become, either 
 from extreme age, or the neglect of repairs by her owner, unfit 
 to have even the lowest of these classes which I have described 
 assigned to her. A large number of vessels now afloat are in 
 this condition. Mr. Bernard Waymouth, the secretary of 
 Lloyd’s Register Committee, in his evidence given before the 
 Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, in answer to question 
 7876, handed in a list of some of the vessels in the condition I 
 have described, and with your permission I will quote some out 
 of the great number of cases which that list contains :— 
 This is a Parliamentary document,* and may therefore be 
 quoted without any impropriety. The brigantine “ Emily,” of 
 Swansea, was stated to be “ not fit for any character, the trenails, 
 planks, &c., defective.” The barque “ Erromanga,” oLSunderland, 
 deck clamps, top side planking timbers, and trenails, defective, not 
 fit for any character. The barque “ Glenara,” of Middlesborough. 
 has written opposite her, “ bad case, many rotten timbers.” Of 
 the iron steamer “ Lion,” of Sunderland, it is stated that she had 
 been lengthened forty feet, that she was over eighteen depths 
 in length, and not fit for any class in the Register. Of the 
 barque “ Loretto,” of Pembroke Dock, it is stated, “top timbers 
 “ and beam ends defective; necessary repairs not complied 
 “with.” The brig “Mary Allan,” of Maryport, is stated 
 to be “ not worthy of any class.” Of the brigantine 
 “Osceola,” of Llanelly, it is stated, “ trenails and several timbers 
 “ defective, not worthy of classification.” Of the “Patrician,” 
 of Liverpool, it is stated, “ extensive repairs would have to be 
 
 * Look at page 55. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 “ done, which the owners were not disposed to do.” Of the 
 barque “ Patriot,” of Whitby, “ timbers dry rot, planks defective, 
 “ would involve large outlay, which owners decline going into.” 
 Of the “ Revnard” it is stated, “two beams broken, defective 
 “ ceiling and clamps, and a few shifts of outside planking, 
 “ declined to do any repairs.” Of the “ Roxana,” of Llanelly, 
 “timbers aloft defective, declined to go on with the repairs.” 
 Of the brig “ Thompson,” of Workington, it is stated, “part 
 “ of deck beam, clamps, &c., defective, requires repairs, vessel 
 “missing.” Of the “Venus,” of 1,190 tons, built in 1857, 
 it is stated that “she was wormed, declined to repair under 
 “ survey, vessel lost.” Gentlemen, these are a very few of 
 the cases which I have read to you. At the period of last 
 year up to which I had obtained a return of the vessels that 
 had gone off their class, as it is called at Lloyd’s, there 
 were no less than 2,654 vessels in this condition, though the 
 precise number, however, is, I think, disputed. You have heard 
 many say, “if you meddle, our shipping will go under foreign 
 “ flags.” Fifty-nine of this sort went under the Belgian flag in 
 eighteen months, and twenty-one of them have since been 
 wrecked, and six are missing. These are the sort which go to 
 c oreign flags, but that is now impossible in five of the maritime 
 nations of Europe. At present the natural end of ships is to be 
 lost either by foundering or wmeck, and this, speaking broadly, is 
 the intended end of all ships by all their owners.. This may seem 
 at first sight too sweeping an assertion, but what else is there 
 for it P If anybody intended ever to break up a ship somebody 
 would do it, but what is the fact P Mr. Martell, the chief 
 surveyor of Lloyd’s, states that in an experience of thirty years 
 he has never known one ship broken up voluntarily (those broken 
 up during the last three years are the result of recent legislation); 
 even with respectable shipowners when a ship is worn out they 
 sell her, and thus she passes from hand to hand until she is 
 lost, blow I want to revive the lost trade of the shipbreaker, and 
 to abolish that which has taken its place, that of the ship-knacker. 
 Gentlemen, I will now endeavour to show you in how much 
 greater peril men are placed who sail in unclassed ships than 
 those who sail in ships which are classed ; how largely the fatality 
 is increased; and at the same time disprove, I hope to your 
 satisfaction, the argument and statement of Mr. Rathbone which 
 I quoted at the outset. On the occasion to which I have referred, 
 when Mr. Rathbone addressed the House on the 8th April, 
 
COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 19 
 
 187-5, I was so strongly convinced that his view was not only 
 inaccurate, but the very reverse of accurate, that 1 wrote to the 
 Secretary of Lloyd’s, and asked whether it was not worth while 
 to £0 into the matter thoroughlv, with a view to showing what 
 was the comparative loss of ships and lives in the two classes of 
 vessels. They put the matter in hand, and produced a most 
 elaborate report.* The following figures will show that the 
 proportion of losses among unclassed ships is double as great, 
 and the insurance risk three times as great as unclassed ships. 
 This comparison would be far more striking, but that in 
 preparing their report they have only counted as classed ships 
 those classed in Lloyd's Register , leaving out, and therefore giving 
 the advantage, both negative and positive, to unclassed ships, all 
 those classed in the Bureau Veritas, the Liverpool Underwriters, 
 the Austrian Lloyd’s, the American Lloyd’s, and indeed all other 
 registers whatever, and giving also to the term “ unclassed'* all 
 those vessels which comprise some of the best afloat, they being 
 the property of such firms as the Peninsular and Oriental Com¬ 
 pany, the Cunard Company, Holt’s China Line, the Brazilian 
 Line, Thompson's Line, the Australian Line, and many others, 
 and also all yachts. You will see that if all these were 
 deducted from the number of unclassed ships, and if those ot 
 them which are in other registers were counted on to those included 
 in Lloyd's Register, the comparison would be much more 
 striking; yet even under these circumstances the report in 
 question, prepared by Lloyd’s Register Committee of British 
 and Foreign Shipping, gives the remarkable results above 
 stated. Then they say, “ The number of losses was 2*96 per 
 “ cent, of the classed ships, and 7'55 per cent, of the unclassed 
 “ ships * * * The proportion of losses from foundering 
 
 “ was 1*68 per cent, of ships classed in Lloyd's Register, and 
 “ 8‘26 per cent, not so classed * * These figures have been 
 
 “ very carefully obtained from official documents prepared at the 
 “ Board of Trade and from Lloyd's Register Boole * * * In all 
 “ these returns it will be seen that the number of unclassed ships 
 “ lost is from two to three times as great as the number of classed 
 “ ships lost * * * TYe may add that the Board of Trade, 
 
 “ under the Act of 1878, have confined their action almost entirely 
 “ to unclassed ships. The long list of condemned ships were all 
 “ unclassed ships * * * ” (I may here remark, that this list 
 
 consisted of 465 to 1sir-January, 1875, ' only fourteen of which 
 
 * Look at page 66. 
 
20 
 
 COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC, 
 
 7 7 
 
 were found seaworthy.) The report from which I am quoting 
 
 also cites the evidence of Mr. J. Riley before the Royal Commis- 
 
 • 9 «/ 
 
 sion, and states that his firm had the management of seven 
 clubs, some of which restrict their business to ships of a high 
 class, and one of which, the Equitable Marine, places no restric¬ 
 tion as to class. Then the report goes on to state that the 
 average premiums areas follows:—“The average of the five 
 “ high-classed clubs for vessels is £4 15s. 6d. per cent., against 
 “ £13 9s. Id. premium for unclasped vessels insured by the Equi- 
 “ table Marine.” The evidence of another gentleman also is 
 referred to who gave statistics for four clubs in the North of 
 England, and they show the average percentage on losses in the 
 classed ships was 3 per cent, in these clubs, and 9‘9 per cent, in the 
 unclassed. These facts, startling as they appear when put into 
 figures, will not astonish those who have experience of the insu¬ 
 rance of unclassed ships. * * * Tn the Equitable Marine 
 
 the premiums sometimes rose to above £20, in other clubs still 
 higher, with premiums standing between £20 and £30, the 
 owner has to pay about one-fourth of the total value of his ship 
 for one year's insurance, giving an average existence to these 
 vessels of four years. With high-classed ships and premiums of 
 £5, the vessels are estimated to run twenty years before covering 
 the^-risk to the underwriter in the event of their loss. We 
 (Lloyd'^ arrive, then, as between classed and unclassed ships, to 
 the following conclusions :—1. “In spite of the large unclassed 
 “ steamers belonging to great companies, and of a host of river 
 “ steamers, yachts, tugs, and others not liable to sea risk being 
 “ included among the unclassed ships, and in spite of the latter 
 “ including the British vessels classed in the Liverpool Registry 
 “ and in the Bureau Veritas, the actual returns of losses prove 
 “ that unclassed ships, or ships not classed in Lloyd’s Register, 
 u are lost twice as rapidly as those not so classed. 2. Could the 
 “ vessels specially alluded to above be eliminated from among 
 “ the vessels deemed unclassed, so as to arrive at the numbers of 
 “ those actual seagoing vessels which are not classed because 
 “ they are unfit for any class, we should unquestionably find the 
 “ rate of mortality of those vessels far higher than we have 
 “ indicated above. 6. The statement that classed ships are lost as 
 “ frequently as unclassed ships, is by the above statistics proved to 
 “ be as much opposed to the facts of the case as it is contrary to 
 “ reason, and it is much to be hoped that such facts will become 
 “ known, not only to the shipping community but to the general 
 
COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 2L 
 
 “ public, who are much more likely to be misled by erroneous 
 “ statements propagated with much pertinacity, for purposes 
 “ which it is unnecessary here to characterise, but which are 
 “ likely if not confuted to be a source of much injury to the 
 “ shipping legislation of this country.” I think, Gentlemen, you 
 will now have no difficulty in forming a clear opinion as to 
 the necessity for the compulsory survey of unclassed ships. 
 
 I have shown you, I trust, clearly, and as briefly as the case 
 permitted, the nature of the classification, and by consequence 
 the nature and condition of many, unclassed ships. I have 
 also shown you the great fatality which attends the latter class 
 of vessels, as compared with the former class. If these latter 
 vessels were dealt with in the same way as the former, the 
 inference is irresistible that the loss of life would be very greatly 
 reduced, but this change, so necessary and so life-giving, will be 
 violently opposed; and I proceed, therefore, to examine some of 
 the objections which—as they have been persistently urged and 
 repeated, against reform in the past—will assuredly be insisted 
 upon when a proposed reform again engages the attention of the 
 House of Commons. The compulsory survey—the survey which 
 I recommend being that of Lloyd’s, as distinguished from a 
 Government department—is objected to on two main grounds :— 
 the first is, that if we recognise Lloyd’s and the Liverpool 
 classification as evidence of seaworthiness, we should also 
 have to recognise such foreign registers as the Bureau Veritas, 
 the American Lloyd’s, the Austrian Lloyd’s, and others. The 
 second great objection is that to recognise the certificates of 
 either of these bodies would be to hand the mercantile marine 
 of the country over to the hands of private trading companies. 
 These objections look very specious at first sight, but anyone 
 acquainted with the facts knows perfectly well that they are 
 entirely groundless from first to last. The objectors overlook a 
 grand and a vital difference between the constitution of(X/loyd^t/ 1 / 
 and that of the Bureau Veritas, that of Lloyd’s as L~have 
 explained to you possesses no capital, makes no dividends, has a 
 large and well trained staff of highly paid servants, and the 
 existence of the Society depends upon the fidelity with which it 
 does its work. It does not depend upon patronage. It seeks to 
 make no profit, and the whole organisation, from the most newly 
 admitted surveyor to the oldest official, are perfectly well aware 
 that the whole concern depends upon the trustworthiness of the 
 information issued by the Committee. Vow the Bureau Veritas 
 
22 
 
 COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 13, on tlie contrary, a trading concern, owned by one man, depen¬ 
 dent upon custom, anxious to attract business, careful to make 
 profit, and is also of foreign origin, and is therefore altogether 
 different from Lloyd’s; so also of other foreign registers. To talk 
 about the necessity for recognising foreign registers therefore 
 is pure nonsense, the constitutional differences are too great. 
 You will see that this analysis of the character of these institu¬ 
 tions answers also the second objection, that we should be 
 handing over the mercantile marine to trading concerns. I 
 contend, therefore, and think I have shown that w r e might with 
 perfect safety accept the classification of either Lloyd’s or the 
 Liverpool book or both, reserving, of course, to some superior 
 authority, the Board of Trade, until we get a better authority 
 to interfere by w r ay of complaint, if the standard of either should 
 seem in danger of falling below the point of safety. You will 
 know that without the imprimatur of the Inns of Court no gen¬ 
 tleman is considered competent to plead before our tribunals ; yet 
 the Inns of Court are not a Government department. Also, yon 
 are aware that no^man is allowed to,-practice medicine without 
 a diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons; yet the Royal 
 College of Surgeons is not a Government department. I may 
 add, in the w^ords of a very able writer on this subject—“ It 
 “ would be as correct to rate the Inns of Court, the Royal College 
 of Surgeons, or any of the various institutions in London, that 
 “ under Government sanction control and confer distinction and 
 “ powers on the members of the learned professions, as so many 
 trading concerns, as to talk about Lloyd’s Register of Shipping 
 u being a trading concern, or a private commercial enterprise.” The 
 whole of the objections urged against the recognition of the 
 action of these Societies are utterly groundless from beginning 
 to end. Nor have the objections to the thing itself, any better 
 foundation. You well know that our railways are surveyed by 
 authority before they are allowed to commence business—that 
 our mines and collieries are surveyed also by authority, and that 
 our factories also are subjected to a like inspection. Neither in 
 any one of these cases is it allowed for a moment that this super¬ 
 vision destroys the responsibility of the owners of these several 
 kinds of property for subsequent neglect. In the absence of 
 proved subsequent neglect of course it should relieve from 
 responsibility, as also a properly ascertained and determined 
 load line should relieve from responsibility for overloading if 
 that line is not submerged. We have practically asserted the 
 
COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 23 
 
 responsibility of the shipowner when we require him to repair 
 his ship, and when we define the point beyond which he shall 
 not load, and to talk therefore of holding him responsible if 
 accident occurs, even while these requirements are complied 
 with, is unreasonable and absurd. I should like, if the time 
 available for the purpose permitted, to have enlarged upon 
 this part of the subject, but I trust I have said enough to demon¬ 
 strate at least the truth of my observations. I will now ask 
 shipowners themselves to compare my proposal <£ which I have 
 shown would be thoroughly efficient, with the present action of 
 the Board of Trade, and say, if they can be impartial enough to do 
 so, which they prefer, a survey which occurs at intervals, the 
 term of which is clearly defined and easily provided for, or that 
 capricious action which leaves each one uncertain whether or not 
 his ship may be suddenly pounced upon on the information of 
 some unqualified person. One observation as to the clause in the 
 Merchant Shipping Act of 1875. Power is given therein to 
 one-fourth of the crew to demand a survey if they think the vessel 
 unseaworthy. Numerous recent instances show, take the “Wild 
 “ Rose for example, and some ships at Falmouth, that crews 
 have been sent to gaol for refusing to go to sea in ships that 
 they declared to be unsea worthy, but which were afterwards 
 declared by the surveyor who had not to go to sea in them to 
 be seaworthy. You see here that ignorant persons unqualified 
 apparently to judge of a vessel’s condition as to seaworthiness, 
 are by the law constituted judges of seaworthiness, and by the 
 same law are sent to gaol if their opinion is contradicted—I do 
 not say disproved, but merely contradicted—by Government 
 officials. You first treat Jack as a judge and then punish him 
 as a criminal, the whole thing is preposterous. My mode of 
 having a vessel surveyed would be general and regular, and the 
 possession of classification under proper supervision would be 
 taken as evidence of the vessel’s seaworthiness, and so would 
 remove altogether any grounds of complaint of unseaworthiness 
 on the part of crews who are not fit judges of the case. I 
 doubt whether I ought to occupy even a few minutes of your 
 time with personal matters, as they seem to me so insignificant 
 compared with the great issues, one of which has engaged 
 our attention this evening, bat I must maintain my credit 
 as a trustworthy witness. It is necessary to my case. Mr. 
 Bentinck is reported, in the Daily Telegraph of the 15th 
 instant, to have said :—“ Mr. Plimsoll admitted his whole 
 
24 
 
 COMPULSORY SURVEY. ETC. 
 
 “ case, by acknowledging that he made a serious error last 
 “ session in speaking of the number of lives lost at sea. 
 
 “ * * * * a blunder which he (Mr. Bentinck) had already 
 
 “ detected and exposed.” His whole case then, it appears, was 
 this inadvertent misstatement of a total of mine, w r hich he him¬ 
 self now speaks of as a blunder; yet this gentleman did not, 
 hesitate, on more than one occasion previously, to speak of this 
 which he now calls a blunder as a fabrication; more than that 
 he multiplied it into fabrications, and further, he thought fit to 
 characterise these fabrications as scandalous, and repeated the 
 phrase “scandalous fabrications” many times, with evident 
 relish, all of which rests, according to his own showing, upon 
 w T hat he now speaks of as a blunder. This gentleman also, in 
 addressing his constituents, referred to the case of the “ Bala- 
 “ clava.” I was endeavouring to show that men were sometimes 
 forced to go to sea in unseawortliy ships, or to go to gaol, and 1 
 spoke of this vessel as being, what I am confidently told she w^as, 
 unseaworthy. The crew, in going down the Biver Thames, 
 found it to be so, went ashore at Deal, refused to proceed, were 
 sent to gaol, another crew was put on board, the vessel went 
 to sea, and subsequently foundered. The entry in the Par¬ 
 liamentary return* runs thus:—“ Sandwich Town prison. 
 “ ‘ Balaclava.’ Seven men committed by W. M. Cavell aud 
 G. Hughes, Esquires, Deal. Four weeks’ hard labour. This 
 “ vessel foundered in the Channel. Ship leaky. Rigging bad. 
 “ Unseaworthy.” I have read the entry as it stands. It 
 
 appears that I said she was never heard of afterwards, 
 instead of saying she foundered, and I must undoubtedly 
 accept the responsibility of this inaccuracy. The statement 
 still remains as strong in support of the inference I wished 
 to draw as before, since the vessel was unseaworthy, a crew 
 was sent to gaol for not sailing in her, and the lives of 
 the crew that did sail in her when she foundered, although 
 saved by a passing vessel, were lost so far as the ship 
 in which they sailed was concerned ; and I quite fail to see 
 that this accidental circumstance diminishes the force of the 
 instance as quoted by me. However, take it as granted that 
 my statement was so far inaccurate, what has been the con¬ 
 sequence of this ? Why, that this individual instance of 
 partial inaccuracy has been made the occasion of attacks 
 upon me by three different Members of Parliament, in widely 
 
 * Look at page 82 . 
 
COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 25 
 
 different places, and at wide intervals, and the attack has 
 been made more than once by two of these gentlemen. We 
 thus have a partial instance of inaccuracy reproduced time after 
 time, by different people at long intervals, and so made to have 
 the appearance (because the public cannot identify these 
 cases as one) of a separate and distinct charge of inaccuracy 
 brought against me ; thns five separate charges have arisen ; 
 and similarly with the inaccurate total ; it has appeared no 
 less than on six separate occasions. Is this fair fighting ? 
 How I take this as a singularly strong proof of the great 
 accuracy of my statements, which is the result of the care 
 I take in making them; no one single statement that I 
 made in the book which I published three or four years ago 
 has been overthrown, and, although I have addressed the 
 House of Commons many times in the interval, and public 
 meetings more than I can recollect, and, although each of 
 the speeches thus made has comprised a great number of 
 statements, yet the partial inaccuracy of my statement about the 
 “Balaclava/' and the wrong total I gave of lives lost in 1873 
 (the latter due entirely to the obscurity of the Wreck Register 
 itself), are the only two instances in which my enemies have 
 been able to show that my statements were not literally— 
 and in all particulars—correct. I now come to the remarks 
 made by the Member for Plymouth on the case of the 
 “ Balaclava/’ You have had my explanation of the circum¬ 
 stances, and I do not doubt that you believe my statement, 
 yet this person says to his constituents as reported in the 
 Western Daily Mercury , on the 15th instant, that “ He charged 
 “ Mr. Plimsoll with deliberately falsifying the Government record 
 “ of the loss of the ‘ Balaclava,’ and with stating deliberate false- 
 “ hoods in the House of Commons and in the Times with refer- 
 “ ence to that vessel.” “ Deliberately falsifying ”—“ deliberate 
 “ falsehoods,” and other like expressions, which I forbear to quote; 
 but, gentlemen, it is not in Liverpool that it is necessary I should 
 defend myself against Mr. Bates. He is a Liverpool man ; he 
 conducts his business, and spends his life in Liverpool, and you 
 know him, and you know his character, and that knowledge is 
 mv sufficient defence. It is no lioffit matter to be made the 
 
 m/ ' O 
 
 subject of these incessant and repeated and unfair attacks—un¬ 
 fair because one incident is so often reproduced. But whilst I 
 regard it as no slight misfortune to be thus assailed, I can see one 
 even greater, and on calm reflection I am disposed to think that 
 
2(3 
 
 COMPULSORY SURVEY, ETC. 
 
 I am likely to sustain less injury from the hostility of both these 
 men than I should in the opinion of gentlemen in the one case 
 and honest men in the other, if I were to incur the misfortune 
 of being praised by either. I will conclude my speech, by giving 
 you the figures denoting the loss of life in British vessels abroad, 
 excluding those lost on our own coasts, for the years ending 
 December, 1871, 1872, the first six months of 1873, and the 
 twelve months ending June, 1874; the numbers are, 1,6*59, 
 1,892, 1,813, and 4,013 (see page 10 Wreck Register). The 
 annual returns were made up to December until the end of 
 1872, then six months were returned separately so as to bring 
 the end of the year to June. If this dreadful, this needless, 
 and this progressive loss of life does not convince all of the 
 need of the reform I urge, no words of mine will. 
 
LOAD LINE. 
 
 Bath , February 4 th, 1876. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I dealt with compulsory survey at Liverpool, and deck 
 loading* in Derby; here I shall discuss toe load line ; at Dei by 
 next week (Saturday) the Derby Committee will report, after 
 that grain cargoes, &c., will receive attention, and then t ve 
 future administration of Shipping Law, and thus I shall com¬ 
 plete the series of subjects I set before me when I returnee 
 home just before New Year’s Day. The test, for ii on is also a 
 subject upon which I trust the Louse will be asked to legislate, 
 but this subject has been undertaken by Mr. L. J. Reed, the 
 member for Pembioke, a gentleman of eminent ability, as ns 
 occasional letter's to the newspapers abundantly prove, and one 
 possessing besides the requisite technical knowledge for securing 
 for his opinions attentive consideration. The subjects of marine 
 insurance and the rights of seamen, although intimately con¬ 
 nected with shipping law, still do not, come within the lange of 
 such a Bill as is desirable should be passed in this Session, and 
 would perhaps on all grounds be more likely to secure the 
 attention which their importance merits if each vveie made the 
 subject of separate legislation; the subject of marine insurance 
 specially will need careful preliminary inquiry, in order that it 
 may be satisfactorily dealt with. Commencing then with the 
 load line, I will just briefly endeavour to establish the necessity 
 for some limitation upon the discretion, or want of it, which 
 owners have hitherto exercised in relation to this matter. I do 
 not propose to overlay my subject with too much proof, but it 
 will be necessary probably that I should give some. the 
 following paragraph is extracted from a return* to the House Oi 
 Commons in the inquiry into the loss oYthe^'Sea Queen; the 
 Court which held this inquiry conclude their* finding by saving, 
 “ A Ye cannot dismiss the consideration of this painful case, 
 “ involving the loss of so many lives, and in which such a 
 u strong feeling has been expressed on the subject of ovei- 
 
 * Lujj i f, T a 
 
2 8 
 
 LOAD LIXE. 
 
 loading, without respectfully urging upon Government the 
 44 necessity of instituting some inspection to prevent a system 
 44 which has become so notorious in vessels leaving the Tvne.” 
 The next instance I will cite in proof is the finding of the Court 
 of Inquiry* which sat upon the loss of the “ Benachie*’ steamer, 
 which foandered, as the Court says, 64 In comparatively calm 
 ** weather. ’ * * * 44 After a careful and anxious review of 
 
 44 the whole evidence, we can arrive at no other conclusion than 
 * 4 that the ship had been generally, on her homeward voyages. 
 44 overladen. * * * The result of our investigation is to leave 
 
 4 ' no doubt upon our minds that the cause of the vessel founder- 
 44 ing was the excessive weight of cargo which the ship had to 
 44 carry.” Further on they state, 44 The owners have been at pains 
 44 to prove that such a free board is common in the trade ; that is 
 44 probably quite true ; but it only makes it more imperative upon 
 44 us to declare such loading to be dangerous in the extreme * * 
 
 44 The baneful custom of overloading , which it is manifest to us 
 “ from the evidence to which we have listened has become prevalent. 
 44 at least in the North of England ports , of which we desire to 
 44 express our unqualified condemnation .” At a Board of Trade 
 inquiry held in Glasgow into the foundering of the 44 Fay,’’ the 
 Court concluded their finding in these words: 44 The Court 
 
 44 decided to call the attention of the Board of Trade to the 
 44 dangerous practice of vessels constantly crossing the Channel to 
 44 and from the Irish Coast too deeply laden.” These instances 
 are all from Government documents. I have confined myself as 
 much as possible to these, to avoid the misrepresentation of 
 those who dispute my statements; but there are four letters 
 which I have, three of which stand upon such authority that 
 they cannot be questioned, and the fourth letter is so interest¬ 
 ing in itself, that I think you will excuse my giving it you. 
 I will deal with the latter one first. It consists of a note 
 which I received in the early part of last year from one of out 
 University towns, the name of which, however, I do not feel a* 
 liberty to give, as the writer asks me not to mention his name; 
 it is, however, the name of a most respectable person, and I have 
 no doubt whatever of its perfect authenticity. His first letter 
 runs thus:— 44 On the 28th of November my brother was 
 4 ‘ drowned off the coast of France, very near to where the 
 4 4 4 La Plata ’ went down. He was acting as first officer, but had 
 4 * a captain’s certificate, and was to have taken command of a 
 
 # Look at page 87. 
 
LOAD LINE. 
 
 29 
 
 “ steamer had he arrived home safely. He was considered a 
 “ first-class and very clever sailor, and m that fearfn gale, 
 
 “ seeing the ship in great danger, the man at the wheel lying 
 “ insensible, and no one else caring to take his place, he volun- 
 “ teemed to do so. After getting the steamer through some very 
 “ heavy seas, he was washed overboard and drowned. Amongst 
 “ his papers we found a letter addressed to you, dated the day 
 “ before he went down. I have taken the liberty to forward it 
 “ to you thinking it might do some good, and perhaps sav e 
 “ some other brave fellow from the same fate. When he was 
 “ eoino- away from England the last time, he wrote to me and 
 “ said—‘ Hear Brother,—If you read of any severe gales in the 
 “ ‘ direction our steamer is going, put me down for lost, as i feel 
 “ ‘ sure, from the way our ship is loaded, down we must go, even 
 “ ‘ if the weather is moderate.’ ” I will now read you the letter 
 which I received from the dead sailor, written, as you observe, 
 the day before he was drowned from the overloading of the 1 
 vessel. I may just add here, by way of parenthesis, that excessive 
 overloading—a practice which has sprung up during the last six 
 years—drowns a great number of men, even when it is not . 
 followed by the loss of the ship. In the year 18/3 alone, 1,0341 
 men were drowned at sea without loss of ship. The letter from 
 the dead seaman is as follows “ Sir, I wish you would draw 
 “ attention to steamboats coming to England from Spam loaded 
 « with copper ore. It is scandalous the way m which some of 
 “ them are loaded, with only a few inches freeboard I wish to 
 “ God that you may get your Bill through for a load line, for until 
 then many a poor fellow will meet with a watery grave through 
 the Greediness of shipowners. I have come over across the .Bay 
 a 0 f Biscay in steamers when I never expected to see home any 
 a more It is not the captain’s fault. If they do not load them 
 a as ^ eep as other vessels, the owner will soon find men who vnu.-ff 
 « Do for God’s sake, dear Sir, try what yon can do lor ns. . 
 u f ]arc not sign my name, for I should never get a ship again. 
 
 “ I am, dear Sir, your obedient Servant, Mate of a Steamer. 
 
 That poor fellow was drowned the day after writing that 
 letter from the cause which he too truly apprehended would 
 lead to his death. Three more witnesses I will call m order 
 to establish the necessity for interference m loading and that 
 shall suffice They were all written m Constantinople. 1 
 may state that Constantinople affords a magnificent opportunity 
 for studying this question. The Sea of Azof has five corn 
 
 U 
 
 a 
 
 
30 
 
 LOAD LINE. 
 
 loading ports, the Black Sea has many more, it is fringed all 
 round with large and important commercial ports, and all the 
 vessels loading at any of these ports for places outside the Black 
 Sea have to come down a narrow channel which connects the 
 Black Sea with the Sea of Marmora, called the Bosphorus, 
 and it is upon this channel that the city of Constantinople is 
 built. The channel itself is about the width of the river Thames 
 a few miles below London Bridge. The banks of the channel 
 are very beautiful, and are highly prized as sites for residences, 
 and on both sides, nearly all the way up, palaces and villas stand 
 close to the edge of the water. Anyone living in these houses, 
 therefore, sees every day an immense number of vessels going 
 upward to the Black Sea and the Sea of Azof, and also of those 
 coming down ; it affords as good an opportunity for observation 
 as the banks of the Thames would, if nearly all the vessels 
 which load round the coast of England had, for some arbitrary 
 reason, to pass up and down the river, to an onlooker from a 
 house upon the side of the river. In the course of my conversa¬ 
 tion with gentlemen in Constantinople, several remarkable state¬ 
 ments were made, and at length it occurred to me that if these 
 statements could be made by these people in England, their 
 perfect impartiality and high character would secure for such 
 statements respectful consideration, and it occurred to me at this 
 juncture to ask some of them if they would write to me a letter 
 re-stating briefly what they had just stated in conversation, and I 
 now furnish you with the result in one or two of these cases :— 
 This is the letter of Dr. E, D. Dickson, physician to the British 
 Embassy at Constantinople. He writes :—“ Dear Sir, In reply 
 “ to your inquiry, I beg to state that I have been living in Con- 
 “ stantinople ever since 1857. During this interval of time I 
 “ have seen thousands of vessels of all descriptions pass through 
 “ the Straits of the Bosphorus, a narrow channel about the width 
 “ of the Thames, and thus allowing a full view of every object in 
 u it. Amongst these I have often noticed steamers coming from 
 “ the Black Sea overladen to a frightful degree. The water-line 
 “ appeared to be on a level with that of the vessel's dech. In some 
 “ instances the ships were tilted on their sides, just as they 
 “ would appear under canvas impelled by a strong side wind. 
 “ In every instance that has come under my notice these vessels 
 “ carried British colours. I have never seen a foreign vessel in 
 “ similar circumstances. What I have here stated is a matter of 
 “ common notoriety in this port. I have often called the atten- 
 
LOAD LINE. 
 
 O 1 
 
 Ol 
 
 “ tion of other spectators to these facts, and as often have had 
 “ my own drawn to it by others. The recklessness and immo- 
 “ rality of those who are responsible for such occurrences cannot 
 “ be too severely censured, Yours very truly, E. D. Dickson.” 
 Now, yoa will perceive that this gentleman is not a shipowner, 
 and not connected with shipowners, and I think you will judge, 
 from the position he occupies, and the calm and judicial tone of 
 his letter, that he is entitled to credence. The next letter, a 
 portion of which I will read to you, is from Sir Hen ry Elliot, Her 
 Majesty’s Ambassador at Constantinople. He dates it from The- 
 rapia, and his house is close to the side of the water. His letter 
 is as follows:—“ Dear Mr. Plimsoll,— * * * You ask whether 
 “ I have observed that English vessels were frequently over-loaded 
 “ # # * I can have no hesitation in savins- that I have con- 
 
 %J C J 
 
 “ stantly seen English ships pass so deep in the water that they 
 “ looked to me quite unfit to face bad weather. Last year a 
 “ considerable number of vessels passed with a more or less 
 “ serious list, showing that the cargo had shifted in the short 
 “ passage across the Black Sea. * * * Yours sincerely, 
 
 “Henry Elliot. 5 ’ I presume even Mr. Bentinck will not charge 
 this gentleman with scandalous fabrications. I will now read 
 another letter, which (if I may say so, with due respect to the 
 writers of those I have already read) I value almost more, 
 simply because the writer’s name will be known to you all, and 
 to, probably, most people in England. It is from Mr. Frank Ives 
 Scudamore, who was many years connected with the Post Office 
 in this country; he also lives close by the water. His letter 
 is dated from Hasta Khane. “ Dear Mr. Plimsoll, I readily 
 “ comply with your request, that I should put in writing the few 
 “ words which I spoke to you this morning. Since I have been 
 “ here my attention has repeatedly been called by foreigners to 
 “ the condition of English ships on their way out of the Bos- 
 “ phorus or the port of Constantinople. On the very first morn- 
 “ ing of my arrival here from Marseilles, the captain of the 
 “ French steamer pointed out to me an English ship which was 
 “ working her way into the Sea of Marmora, and said, in very 
 “ strong terms, that she was not fit to go to sea. Since then I 
 “ have lived for two months at Buyukdere, which commands a 
 “ full view of all the shipping coming out of or making for the 
 “ Black Sea, and whenever an overloaded ship has attracted our 
 “ attention she has invariably proved to be English. If you 
 “ were to hear the comments of foreigners on the condition of 
 
32 
 
 LOAD LINE. 
 
 “ some of our ships, you would think yourself a very mild critic. 
 “Yours in haste, F. I. Scudamore.” 1 have letters of a similar 
 character from people quite as much entitled to our credit at 
 Malta and Gibraltar, as well as others from Constantinople itself, 
 but there is such a thing as wearying even the most attentive 
 audience, and I am anxious not to weary you. I am anxious 
 also to compass my speech within limits which may afford to me 
 a reasonable hope that what I say will be reported. With this 
 motive pressing upon my mind, and out of my great anxiety to 
 say nothing or do anything which could harm or hinder the 
 cause I have at heart, I now bring this part of my address to you 
 to a close without making any appeal to your feelings, but resting 
 my case only and entirely upon the verdict of your judgment and 
 your conscience. These letters are not only extremely valuable 
 evidence of the existence of overloading, and the necessity for 
 remedying it, which they alone go far to prove, but they also 
 disprove the allegation often made that if we interfered with the 
 practice of overloading we should place our shipowners at dis¬ 
 advantage as compared with foreigners. These will probably be 
 held to be more than sufficient to prove alike the necessity for 
 interference, and the fatal effects of the existing practice. I 
 now come to consider the objections that have been so per¬ 
 sistently urged against interference. My work here is much 
 simplified by the Act of last session, because, whereas the ship¬ 
 owners had never ceased previously to argue against the possi¬ 
 bility of determining the load line of a ship, in such terms as 
 implied that it was something beyond the skill of man to accom¬ 
 plish, last session, made the discovery or the admission that it 
 could be very easily done if it was only left to the shipowners to 
 do it; the direct value of this admission was so great that I did 
 not care to point out to them what is the fact in very many cases, 
 that a prosperous retail tradesman—a tailor, grocer, a plumber 
 and glazier, and furniture dealer, will frequently combine their 
 resources to purchase a ship, and that it is difficult to see how 
 the fact of their having purchased her can have conferred all at 
 once accurate technical knowledge upon them ; I let that pass. 
 Let us assume for the moment, that a shipowner, no matter what 
 he was yesterday, so long as he owns a ship to-day, is thoroughly 
 capable of determining how much she can carry with safety. I 
 imagine there will be no difficulty in your seeing that, at any 
 rate, if a shipowner can tell what a ship can carry with safety, 
 at least the man who built her is as well qualified as the one to 
 
LOAD LINE. 
 
 33 
 
 whom she belongs, or for whom she was built. But it is obvious 
 that even his knowledge, while perfectly accurate at the time 
 that the ship left his yard, might be at fault after a series of years, 
 during which the vessel had done a great deal of work, as the 
 wear and tear would affect the question ; but then we have skilled 
 men who, with a perfect knowledge of shipbuilding, are employed 
 to take note of the condition as to repair of ships, and these are 
 called surveyors, and employed by Lloyd’s. Well now, I think 
 that if we had the united verdict of the man who built the ship, 
 and the skilled surveyor cognisant of her present condition as to 
 repair, as to what her fair load line was, we should have at least 
 as accurate measure of her capacity as that of the man who 
 owns, and who possibly bought her only last week. It has also 
 been objected that ships are of different forms, degrees of original 
 strength, and age, and that all this would make it impossible to 
 define a load line for all; but I have never contended that we 
 should lay down that which has been attributed to me very 
 freely—a hard and fast line. My proposal is that granting all 
 these differences to exist, even to the extent of supposing that 
 each individual ship is different from all others, still it is obvious 
 that if a shipbuilder and a ship surveyor take a given ship in 
 hand, they can get a good load line for her, and that is what I 
 propose should be done. Let it not be supposed, however, that it 
 will be necessary to determine separately the load line of every 
 ship in the 27,000 odd which we possess; this infinite variety of 
 differences will not be found, if the subject is fairly attacked, to 
 be so great as has been represented. Before such a body of experts 
 as I have indicated has been at work many weeks they will have 
 settled a considerable number at least of typical cases, and it will 
 be easy then to apply the results arrived at in these cases to 
 others which are similar to them in all respects. The load line 
 which is now on all vessels, although preposterously unreasonable 
 in many cases I coald name, will still simplify the work to be done, 
 if proper advantage is taken of it. For example, a return in each 
 case is made to the Board of Customs ; these returns ought to 
 be, and possibly are, now undergoing examination. In all those 
 cases where it is found that a fair freeboard has been allowed 
 for, the returns could be put aside as satisfactory, and all the 
 others should be subjected without loss of time to careful scrutiny, 
 so that by the time Parliament meets, and this subject is again 
 ripe for legislation, the department ought to be in a position to 
 indicate pretty clearly the cases where interference was desirable 
 
34 
 
 IX)AD LINE. 
 
 and necessary. We shall thus find our 27,000 cases reduced by 
 these means to a very manageable number indeed; a number 
 which a gentleman thoroughly conversant with the subject tells 
 me he thinks could be disposed of satisfactorily by a body of 
 experts (who need not know the names of the owners of the 
 ship they are dealing with, and whose decisions therefore 
 would be above suspicion) in a period of three or four months. 
 I spoke just now of the preposterous position in which the 
 load line is at present placed by some owners; it seems almost as 
 if they wished to reduce the owners' load line to the reductio ad 
 absurdurn in derision, for they have put it so high on the sides of 
 some steamers that they might just as well have put it upon the 
 funnel. The mode of dealing with this subject which I have 
 advocated would also cut the ground from under some other 
 objections which were urged to the owners’ load line. A writer 
 of great ability on this subject, whose articles have appeared in 
 j Engineering, says,that the owners’ load line would tend to make all 
 shipowners load deeper, because that those w r ho gave a fair sidfc 
 now would not like to tie their hands too tightly, and there being 
 nothing to prevent them they would put their load line higher 
 than they are in the habit of loading, and so having done so and 
 not having this found fault with, they and their captains would 
 insensibly begin to think they were throwing away some advantage 
 in not loading the vessel up to the point which they had indicated. 
 This writer also says, what is perfectly true, that an owner’s load 
 line would also thus breed great confusion. Its only value, in my 
 opinion, consists in this—that it has established once for all the 
 principle of a load line, which it will be our business to improve in 
 detail. In an able article on shipping legislation, which appeared in 
 Engineering on the 25th of June last, from which and a preceding 
 article I have quoted, they say—“ There can be little doubt that 
 “ Mr. Plimsoll’s proposal would more effectually put an end to 
 “ the evils of overloading than that of the Government, and it 
 “ would tend, which the Government proposal would not, to bring 
 “ about a greater uniformity between the depth of loading of 
 “ similar in different parts of the country.” It will also be neces¬ 
 sary that the load line thus established should be the maximum 
 load fine until the ship is again classed or surveyed. There must 
 also be, to make this legislation anything more than a pretence, 
 penalties for loading beyond the load line, which the present 
 Act does not impose, and any attempt to submerge the load 
 line ought at once to free the men from any contract of service. 
 
LOAD LINE. 
 
 35 
 
 Within the last day or two I have received from the Bristol 
 Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, a communi¬ 
 cation which has given me the liveliest satisfaction. It appears 
 that they are at issue, with the majority of one, of the meeting 
 held on the 5tli of January, in London, which adopted the 
 illusory owners’ load line. The Bristol Chamber* prefer the 
 principle of a proportion of buoyancy sufficient to insure safety. 
 This I regard as infinitely better than the owners’ load line, 
 though I am still of opinion that the load line fixed by experts 
 on full consideration of the circumstances of each vessel will be 
 preferable even to this, as the experts would undoubtedly consider 
 surplus buoyancy as a principle, though they would be at liberty 
 to modify it in its application where needed. Gentlemen, it 
 would have been much easier for me to have made this speech 
 twice the length than to compress it as I have done within the 
 limits containing it. The multitude of cases of overloading, 
 attended by the most disastrous consequences, which have come 
 to my knowledge, and the heartrending letters which I occa¬ 
 sionally receive from widowed women, from women who have lost 
 their sons, and sometimes from friends of people in this condition, 
 detailing the sad incidents attending the loss of those who were 
 dear to them, and upon whom they were dependent for their 
 subsistence—presented to my mind a very strong temptation to 
 enlarge my speech by giving some of them in detail. I have, 
 however, had to consider not merely what would be telling and 
 effective addressed to my auditors, but the probabilities of being 
 reported; as you are doubtless aware, that the series of speeches 
 which I am now engaged in delivering, though primarily 
 addressed to those who are before me, and who hear my voice, 
 are delivered in the strong hope that they will be read by as many 
 hundreds as they are listened to by units. This expectation has 
 hitherto been remarkably fulfilled by the ample reports which the 
 press have so kindly given of my public addresses, and I must 
 not jeopardise their continued favours by now trespassing upon 
 their patience. I thank you for the patient hearing you have 
 given me, and I trust that the effect of this and other similar 
 addresses will be to bring about a happier state of things, and to 
 hasten the time, which I at least believe to be not far distant, 
 when our hardy mariners shall pursue their most useful and 
 laborious calling with as much safety as attends our easier if less 
 exciting work ashore. 
 
 c 2 
 
 ' * Look at page 104 
 
GRAB CARGOES AND GUNPOWDER. 
 
 r L/ / 
 
 I l< 1 
 
 Derby, February 12th , 1876. 
 
 Gentlemen, — Youhave heard fromMr. Leech and Mr. Griffith, 
 and also from the report which they have presented (o this meet¬ 
 ing, the disgraceful means that were employed for obtaining the 
 repeal of deck-loading legislation. Had my object been to frame 
 an indictment against the men who were guilty of this great 
 crime against humanity, I could have made it much stronger, 
 and still have made it quite easy for Messrs. Leech and Griffith 
 to have reported ; but you will remember that my speech treated 
 of deck-loading, and that only, and I did not think it right to 
 allow myself to be drawn from the consideration of that subject 
 b 7 any other matters whatever. How, however, I can state what 
 then I could onlv have stated with some fear of diverting atten- 
 tion from the subject upon which I was anxious to fix it; and I 
 may add that the inquiry has disclosed that other legislation, 
 almost equally important, has been swept away without a single 
 word of reference or explanation or notice of any kind whatever, 
 to either Parliament or the public, with very disastrous results. 
 I refer to the legislation which, when iron ships were first intro¬ 
 duced, required that they should be built with two water-tight 
 compartments, dividing the vessel into three equal portions, one 
 of which being injured by collision, or stranding, or running 
 upon ice, would still not cause the vessel to sink, as the other two 
 would be sufficient to float her. This happened in one or two 
 instances. Speaking on this subject in May, 1870, Sir John 
 Pakington (now Lord Hampton) said in the House of 
 Commons:—“ Our law used to require that no ship should go to 
 “ sea without water-tight bulkheads, but the regulation was 
 “ abrogated in 1862.” (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. It was repealed by 
 Act.) Sir John Pakington resumed :—“ That was a melan- 
 “ choly fact. He could not imagine under what infatuation the 
 “ provision was repealed; and to show how useful the provision 
 « was he referred to the case of the ‘ Damascus/ one of the 
 
GRAIN CARGOES AND GUNPOWDER. 
 
 37 
 
 “ Canadian mail steamers, which came into Liverpool with one 
 “ of her compartments full of water. Her bulkheads were water. 
 “ tight or she would have sunk. Another case was that of the 
 “ ‘North American,’ another ship of the same line. She fell in 
 with ice off the Coast of Newfoundland. She stove in her 
 14 bows, her fore parts were entirely filled with water, and if 
 “ it had not been for her bulkheads that ship would have 
 44 foundered at sea. Was not this, then, another question 
 “ for the most grave and searching inquiry?” This legis¬ 
 lation which thus you see saved the lives of a large number 
 of persons in each of these cases, and would doubtless have 
 saved the lives of a great number in the interval since its 
 repeal, was swept away by the simple insertion of 44 300 ” in the 
 same Schedule of the same Act of Parliament which did away 
 with the legislation on deck-loading. Other Acts of Parliament, 
 I believe, have either been systematically disregarded by the 
 Officers of this department, or have been dealt with in such other 
 way as entirely to frustrate the intention of Parliament; and as 
 soon as the Merchant Shipping Bill is through the House, it is my 
 intention to move for a Committee of the House to enquire into 
 this and other matters. It was my intention not to have occupied 
 your time this evening with any remarks upon any other subject 
 than that upoil which we have met, but events have gone rather 
 faster than I expected, and with your permission I will just say 
 a few words upon the subject of grain cargoes and stowage of 
 gunpowder. I now come to the subject of stowage, with especial 
 reference to grain cargoes. Here my task is much simplified by 
 the Act of last Session, since it was allowed by Parliament that the 
 subject required legislation. Had the clause which was offered 
 to the House bean accepted, much loss of life this winter would 
 have been prevented. A ship-owning Member, however, suc¬ 
 ceeded in obtaining a very considerable modification of the clause 
 as proposed, which I fear will have rendered it nearly, if not 
 altogether inopera five. What is past, however, cannot be 
 helped, and I will in a few sentences describe the state of 
 matters, and the probable effects of legislation. In the year 
 1872 five steamers and 26 ships, grain laden, were reported as 
 missing, with a loss of life of 453 men ; in 1873 the number had 
 increased to 10 steamers and 42 ships, and the loss of life to 776. 
 In this year, however, Canada and America adopted stringent 
 legislation which, although only involving a gross outlay of 
 sixpence per quarter, has been attended with this remarkable 
 
38 
 
 GRAIN CARGOES AND GUNPOWDER. 
 
 result, that no ship whatever was lost in either of the two 
 following winters from Canadian or American ports, and I. 
 believe that is also true of this winter, though that I cannot 
 speak to certainly. The result is seen in the fact that in 1874 
 the loss of steamers was reduced from 10 to 4, and that of 
 ships from 42 to 19, and the loss of life from 776 to 339 y 
 What I ask, and indeed what I believe the whole country will 
 insist upon with these pregnant facts and conclusive evidence 
 before them, will be that our legislation on this subject be 
 assimilated to that of Canada and America. There will be 
 no difficulty in carrying this into effect in foreign ports, as 
 everywhere I visited I found the foreign authorities were 
 perfectly willing to assist in carrying out the law for us, or 
 to take charge of its administration if we wished. This, how¬ 
 ever, had probably better be done through our own consuls. 
 With regard to ail the vessels that I saw and* boarded during 
 my visits to Black Sea ports, efficient arrangements were made, 
 and I expect, with some confidence, that the effects would be 
 most noticeable so far as these were concerned. What has been 
 done in this matter since I have left I am of course unable 
 to say. There is another matter closely akin to this, of which I 
 have said nothing hitherto. There is another kind of cargo, 
 the stowage of which we can effectually supervise, if we will, 
 since it is shipped in British ports. I allude to gunpowder, 
 respecting which I have received many scores of letters 
 during the winter, from which I will cite to you a few, and only 
 a few, of the facts. Gunpowder is at present so placed in 
 vessels as to lead to the most deplorable results. I have 
 received from Captain Cummins, who occupies an official posi¬ 
 tion at Port Chalmers, in Xew Zealand, a report, in which he 
 says that during two years only one instance has been found 
 in which gunpowder had been stowed with ordinary precautions. 
 He also states that on the 19th of August, 1875, the year just 
 closed, he surveyed the main hatches of the ship “Knight 
 “ of Snow down,” from London, with 200 kegs of gunpowder on 
 board, stowed against a plain three- quarter inch bulkhead that 
 divided off the passengers' berth from the cargo. “ 30th of August, 
 “ surveyed the main hatches of the ship 4 Altcar,’ also from 
 44 London, with 400 kegs of blasting powder, and 20 cases of 
 44 canister powder ; that 9 kegs and 2 cases of the powder were 
 44 completely smashed, and the contents of the whole 9 kegs were 
 44 mixed with the cargo.” I mav also state that in one of the 
 
 O v 
 
GRAIN CARGOES AND GUNPOWDER. 
 
 39 
 
 reports received from that country, I find that an action at law 
 was brought by the consignee to recover for 11 cases of powder 
 undelivered, and in the evidence it was stated that 118 flasks 
 were delivered subsequently to the kegs, resulting from the 
 sweeping up of the ship after the other cargo, consisting, inter 
 alia , of railway iron, had been removed, but that this powder was 
 very much damaged, owing to the admixture of dirt and dust. 
 Captain Cummins also makes a similar report of the ship 
 “Waimea.” I think these facts will show you the absolute 
 necessity of some responsible supervision in the stowing of this 
 description of cargo. God forbid that I should even hint that 
 the public excitement respecting the sad accident at Abbot's 
 Ripton is excessive; yet there thirteen people were killed; at sea 
 the loss of 1,300 does not create a tithe of the excitement. 
 Since reading these reports, I have looked through the Act of last 
 session, called the “ Explosives Act, 1875,” hoping to find some¬ 
 thing bearing on this subject. I cannot, however, find that any 
 provision is made for ships in relation to explosives, except what 
 is rather obscurely permitted, &c., and what the state of the law, 
 apart from this Act, may be, I do not know, but I have shown 
 you what the practice is. I think you will agree with me that 
 although it may be an open question whether stowage generally 
 should be taken under the care of the legislature, there can at 
 least be no objection to interference in the cases of corn and 
 gunpowder, and I shall do my best in the present session 
 to obtain legislative enactments to this effect. I should have 
 preferred, as stated at the outset, to have treated these matters 
 in two speeches instead of in one, had time permitted this, but I 
 trust that they have still been so treated as to prove at once the 
 evils at present existing, and to show that the remedies proposed 
 will be both efficacious and free from any real and serious 
 objection. 
 

 
 
 
 •' '. - > ? c- . . ) • ' 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 ■■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix No. I. 
 
 TO SHIPOWNERS, BY MR. PLIMSOLL. 
 
 35. Victoria Street , S. W. 9 
 5th January , 1876. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 On the 31st ultimo I received a circular from the honorary 
 Secretary of the Southampton Chamber of Ccmmerce inviting me 
 to your meeting to-day. I thought it desirable to write to him 
 asking whether I was to regard the sending of the circulai as an 
 act of courtesy merely, or whether he thought it would be ac¬ 
 ceptable to the meeting of Shipowners that I should be present, 
 in which latter case I should certainly have come. Hi3 ieply 
 received on the 4th instant leaves me in doubt as to what would 
 be the best to do, and I thought it better to reduce to writing 
 and submit to you what I should have said than to incur any 
 risk of giving pain by my presence to any respectable Ship¬ 
 owner who may have erroneously (as many have) thought that 
 in speaking* of a portion of the Shipowners in the past, I haAe 
 spoken of the whole, and consequently of him. 
 
 I am truly glad that respectable shipowners are at length 
 taking up this subject, because I have always considered that 
 there was far less divergence of opinion between myself and 
 shipowners like those which, I take for granted, constitute this 
 meeting. I presume that there is no shipowner present who 
 would not claim for himself that he manages his property with 
 a due regard to the safety of the lives of the men employed upon 
 it, at the same time I think it cannot give offence even to these if 
 I state that all shipowners do not exercise this care. It is then 
 against the latter that legislation must take effect, for there are a 
 great number of shipowners whom no reasonable legislation on 
 this subject will hamper or cripple in the slightest degree, inas¬ 
 much as they do already all that which is sought by legislation 
 to compel others to do. 
 
42 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 1 ( Load-line ).—In the first place, then, I think that the load- 
 line, which depends (as at present) upon the will of the shipowner 
 himself, cannot be accepted as a satisfactory measure to prevent 
 over-loading, because, even if we assume that all shipowners have 
 the knowledge which is necessary to guide them in judging of 
 the carrying capacity of their ships (which is surely a larger as¬ 
 sumption than the facts of the case warrant), we should still 
 have inevitable differences in practice arising from differences of 
 opinion, and also in some cases arising from the disposition (unless 
 checked) of some shipowners to load more deeply than any 
 reasonable man with a competent knowledge of the subject would 
 allow to be safe. I may say that in all the ports which I have 
 visited during the winter in the Black Sea I have had to listen to 
 what I may call an universal concurrence of condemnation of 
 w’hat is called the owner’s load line. Many ships’'captains, and 
 people in the various ports connected with shipping, speak of it 
 as a farce, and some give expression to strong terms of contempt 
 in relation to it. I think, however, that it has done some little 
 good, and would therefore recognise it until it could be displaced 
 by a more perfect load-line. Let us suppose, for the purpose of 
 determining this load-line that there were a commission appointed 
 of the best practical men representing ship builders, ship sur¬ 
 veyors, and sea captains, and that they were to determine the 
 maximum load-line of a given vessel after considering carefully 
 the circumstances of that vessel, its original strength of construc¬ 
 tion, its present age, and any other circumstances peculiar to it 
 —surely it must be admitted that they would be likely to arrive 
 at an accurate result. I would, however, give to the ship owner, 
 if he thought from any particular circumstances that his vessel 
 was capable of carrying’ with safety more than the mark thus 
 indicated would allow, that he should have the right of appealing 
 and having the case g’one into again, himself being heard, of 
 course. A process like this would take time, but I prefer to 
 indicate my proposal barely, without going into details of the 
 modus operandi of arriving at the results, merely stating in this 
 case, what will also be true of each, that the modus operandi has 
 been carefully considered, and that I do not offer any suggestion 
 which, in my humble opinion, could not be carried out without any 
 serious difficulty. 
 
 2 ( Survey ).—The second point to which I would call the atten¬ 
 tion of the meeting is the survey of unclassed ships. You 
 know, gentlemen, as v’ell as I do the various grades in which 
 vessels are classed by Lloyd’s; and you also know that after 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 43 
 
 vessels have gone through all the classes, having been kept in 
 each class as long as continuation and restoration would allow 
 and having become in such a condition that Lloyd’s Register 
 Committee refuse any longer to give them any class at all, are 
 still sold and kept going by owners who are less scrupulous than 
 their former owners, and who by their purchase of the vessels so 
 to speak bind themselves down in heavy recognizances to keep 
 them going as long’ as they will remain afloat. jNow, surely it can 
 be no hardship to anyone to insist that these vessels shall be sur¬ 
 veyed compulsorily, and either efficiently repaired, where that is 
 possible, or, where it is not possible, that they shall be broken up. 
 1 am quite aware that the term unclassed ships includes, besides 
 those 1 have just described, a large number of the very best ships 
 afloat, vessels never built to be classed, simply because the 
 owners always keep their vessels in good and thorough repair. 
 1 can see no harm, under proper precautions, in exempting this 
 class of vessel from interference, simply reserving the right to 
 interfere if occasion should occur. My proposal is rather a pro¬ 
 posal for the compulsory survey of disclassecl ships than unclassed 
 ships, and as such does not appear to me to be open to any 
 reasonable objection. You will note also that this compulsory 
 survey would be periodical, not annual, i.e ., would extend over as 
 long a period as the condition of the ship would permit. 
 
 3 (Deck Loading ).— The third point to which 1 wish for a mo¬ 
 ment to refer is, the abolition or regulation of deck loading*. If 
 the shipowners present at this meeting would take the trouble 
 of reading the Reports which were made by the Parliamentary 
 Committees on this subject in 183i) and 1813, I think that they 
 would be quite convinced that it was necessary to prohibit deck 
 loading*. Those Reports described a state of things as existing 
 which was truly appalling—legislation was adopted to abate the 
 evil and this legislation was attended with the most beneficial 
 results {see Report for 1843). I have found in Lloyd's List , under 
 the date of May the 22nd, 1871, a report on deck loading made 
 by Lloyd’s Committee for the Board of Trade, which I am having* 
 reprinted, and I shall be happy to furnish every gentleman 
 present with a copy if he will be so kind as to accept it. 1 
 think it will satisfy the shipowners present that the case for the 
 abolition of deck cargoes is irresistable. 
 
 4 ( Grain Cargoes ).—The experience of Canada and of America, 
 
 I think, is conclusive as to grain cargoes. In the winter of 
 1872-73, a considerable number of vessels—(no less thai seven 
 from Montreal alone)—were lost, accompanied by a great loss 
 
44 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 of life. On the 10th of August, 1873, the present Act of the 
 Parliament in Canada was passed (similar measuies are taken 
 to regulate the stowage of this cargo in United States Ports, 
 Boston, and New York), and since that time, during the winters 
 of 1873-74 and 1874-75, 1 am informed that not one single vessel 
 has been lost from a Canadian, nor from an American port. The 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote, stated last 
 session that whereas before the change in the law the cost of 
 insurance of grain cargoes from Californian ports was five 
 guineas per cent., it was at the time of his speaking only forty- 
 five shillings. The cost of fitting ships for the receipt of grain, 
 even taking the Canadian Schedule of requirements, is stated 
 by the Minister of Marine to be only sixpence per quarter all 
 told, and that even this sum is subject to reduction by the 
 value of the materials employed on their arrival in England, and 
 I myself, have had an estimate prepared by a competent person 
 who states that to carry shifting-boards from the under side of 
 the deck planking right down to the keel, would not cost more, 
 but less, than twopence per quarter. The expense then is not 
 formidable, while the results that may be anticipated from the 
 outlay are so excellent, as the experience of Canada and the 
 United Scates testify. I think these facts will show you the 
 absolute necessity of some responsible supervision on the stow¬ 
 ing of this d escription of cargo. 
 
 5. {jron^ — The last point to which I will call your attention is 
 that ofThe quality of the iron used in shipbuilding. It is no¬ 
 torious that it is very inferior indeed to the quality of iron which 
 was originally employed for shipbuilding, and many shocking 
 instances have come to my knowledge showing the worthlessness 
 of the iron employed. A test which, while not unnecessarily 
 impeding manufacturers, should yet secure the use of good iron 
 in ship-building, will not, I hope, be considered an unreasonable 
 requirement. 
 
 These reforms, Gentlemen, are large enough and general enough 
 to admit of treatment in an Act of Parliament; but there are 
 many others which cannot be crystallised into an Act of Parlia¬ 
 ment, but which well deserve close and careful attention. The 
 question of advance notes; that of clothing for vessels going 
 into cold climates; whether boats which so often fail in emer¬ 
 gency, and greatly encumber a ship at all times are the best 
 means of safety; the question whether such a life light as 
 Holmes’s should or should not be generally adopted; the new 
 practice of some in stipulating* that the seamen should provision 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 45 
 
 themselves, and which is alleged by many captains to entirely 
 destroy discipline in foreign ports ; whether owner or captain 
 should appoint the engineers so as to avoid disputes ; the better 
 supply of, and better discipline of seamen; whether the present- 
 are the best possible rules of road ; whether signals could not be 
 agreed upon for showing instantly in darkness or light to an 
 approaching* vessel how the ship meeting her was steering ; are 
 only a few of the questions, the consideration of which by prac¬ 
 tical men bent upon arriving at a sound decision, would not 
 merely occupy a very considerable time, but would in their 
 solution diminish to an extent—of which we can form very little 
 idea—the loss of life and property at sea. I cannot for myself 
 understand how so large an interest as that of the British 
 Mercantile Marine can so long have been left to unknown and 
 irresponsible officials who have no practical knowledge of the 
 subject. Such a supervision as this must combine the maximum 
 of vexatious interference with the minimum of effective super¬ 
 vision, but such an oversight as a Mercantile Marine Board 
 constantly sitting, would exercise would be likely, on the con¬ 
 trary, to secure the maximum of effective supervision with the 
 minimum of interference. Also an Act of Parliament itself, 
 however good, may be so administered as to become inoperative 
 on the one hand, or be made an instrument of great and needless 
 worry and irritation on the other hand. These latter considera¬ 
 tions have long convinced me that we ought to have a Mercan¬ 
 tile Marine Board, consisting of the best practical men that 
 could be obtained, whose sole business should be the adminis¬ 
 tration of the laws relating to merchant shipping (whether the 
 members of such a Board should be nominated By the Govern¬ 
 ment of the day, or elected by the interests affected by them, or 
 partly by both, I do not undertake to say; but for my part, I 
 am disposed to think that such a Board elected only by the 
 interests affected, and responsible to Parliament, would be the 
 most trustworthy machinery for reform). It would occupy the 
 same position in relation to ships that the Metropolitan Board 
 of Works bears to the property of the Metropolis. It would 
 probably consist, no matter by whom its members would be 
 nominated, of men possessing the requisite knowledge, men of 
 undoubted honour, and, above all, men responsible to public 
 opinion. Its acts and policy, would be open to the healthy 
 criticism of the press ; Parliament itself would not be slow to 
 exercise an efficient oversight which would come alike from both 
 sides of the House, both those who were in power and those 
 
46 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 who were not in power, both alike would be free to, and would 
 probably exercise a judicial oversight, whereas the acts of a 
 department of the government, no matter whether they are for or 
 against shipowners, or for or against the public interest are from 
 the necessities of the case defended by and apologised for by the 
 Ministers of the day, and it is useless to expect that gentle¬ 
 men, eminent it may be, as debaters and politicians can, when 
 placed over a department of the Government, be otherwise than 
 almost entirely in the hands of the permanent officials of the 
 department. If your opinion coincides with this, and you believe 
 that a Mercantile Marine Board, apart altogether from the Board 
 of Trade, would be a better means of supervising ship matters 
 than those at present in existence, and if you, yourselves were to 
 elaborate some proposal of that nature, I venture to think that 
 you would be supported b} 7 all parties in carrying it out. For my 
 part I have never concealed my opinion that there is sufficient 
 honour and humanity as well as there undoubtedly is sufficient 
 knowledge in the interests affected to put everything right which 
 is now wrong, that is to say, if they were incorporated and placed 
 in a position to give concrete expression and the force of law 
 to their opinions. One point, such a Board would have to keep 
 in view, would be to endeavour as far as possible I o keep Foreign 
 governments abreast of us in our reforms, so that British in¬ 
 terests should not be exposed to an apparent disadvantage by 
 standing alone. 1 say apparent, because I believe the apprehen¬ 
 sions which are felt on this subject are in great part ground¬ 
 less, especialty as to overloading; but I also believe that there 
 would be very little difficulty indeed, perhaps none at all, in 
 inducing foreign governments to join us in any limitations which 
 it might be thought desirable to adopt. I can only see one way 
 in which the respectable shipowner can suffer if all these re¬ 
 commendations were adopted, while I can see many ways in 
 which they would benefit. The market for worn out ships would 
 no doubt be spoiled; if when a surveyor reported to any of you 
 that a ship was so far worn out that the cost of repairing her so 
 as to make her a good ship would be greater than the ship 
 would be worth when the money had been spent; if she could 
 not be sold as a working vessel she would still realise something 
 for old materials, or as a coal hulk, and if the difference between 
 what she would thus realise and what she would realise if sold 
 as a working vessel must be considered as a loss, I am of opinion 
 that you would be far more than recouped by the fairer terms 
 on which you would then compete for business with those 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 47 
 
 unscrupulous persons who now buy the worn-out ships, to say 
 nothing of greatly diminished premiums of insurance. 
 
 I trust that in frankly stating my opinions I have succeeded 
 in avoiding giving any just grounds of offence, and am, Gentle¬ 
 men, 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 SAMUEL PLIMSOLL. 
 
Appendix No. IT. 
 
 Victoria Street, Derby, 
 
 Feb. 14 th, 1876. 
 Sir, 
 
 As Chairman of Mr. Plimsoll’s Committee, I have 'pleasure 
 in handing you a copy of the Report prepared by the Rev. W. Griffith 
 and Mr. Samuel Leech, Solicitor, and read at a Public Meeting 
 held in Derby, on Feb. 12 th, 1876. 
 
 WILLIAM HALL. 
 
 To William Hall, Esq., Derby. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Acting in accordance with the unanimous resolution 
 of a large Public Meeting of the Electors of Derby, held in the 
 Royal Drill Hall, on the 10th of January, of which you were the 
 Chairman, we attended at the Library of the House of Commons 
 on the 26th of January, and there inspected the statutes, journals, 
 and other records of the proceedings of Parliament from 1839 
 to 1862 inclusive, relative to the Deck Loading of Timber Ships, 
 and we beg to submit to you the following report thereon:— 
 
 On the 9th of April, 1839, a Select Committee was appointed 
 by the House of Commons “ to inquire into Shipwrecks of 
 “ Timber Ships, and the loss of life attendant thereon, and to 
 “ report to the House whether any or what means can be 
 “ adopted to reduce the amount thereof in future; ” and on the 
 18th of June, 1839, this Commiotee presented a Report to the 
 House, the final paragraph of which was thus worded:—“After 
 “ a full consideration of the evidence received, your Committee 
 cc give it as their decided opinion, that no deck loads should be 
 “ suffered to be carried on any Timber-laden Vessels from North 
 “ America, and that every inducement should be given towards 
 “ promoting a fair and efficient survey of every ship in the 
 “ Merchant Service.” 
 
 On the 17th of August, 1839, the Royal Assent was given to 
 ec An Act to prevent until the end of the next Session of Par- 
 
 v) € c jc_ .Jjfl 
 
 * 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 49 
 
 44 liament, ships clearing out from a British American Port, 
 
 “ loading any parfiof their cargo of Timber upon Deck.” (2nd 
 and 3rd Victoria,-eap. 45.) The preamble states that “great 
 44 loss of life and severe sufferings have been occasioned amongst 
 “ the crews of ships and vessels laden with Timber from British 
 44 Ports in North America, from the practice of having a portion 
 44 of the cargo of such ships stowed on or above deck,” and by 
 the first section it was declared to be unlawful “ for any part of 
 44 the cargo of any ships or vessels wholly or in part laden with 
 44 timber and clearing from any British Port in North America 
 44 between the 1st day of September and the 1st day of May to 
 44 be stowed or~pIacecT'during any part of the voyage upon or 
 44 above the. deck of such ship or vessel ; ” and, further, that 
 the captain or master should 44 not be permitted to sail without 
 44 first procur ing a^certificate from the Clearing Officer that all 
 C4 the cargo is below deukg” and by the second section of the 
 same statute it was enacted that any captain, owner, super¬ 
 cargo, or other person 44 so offending shall forfeit and pay any 
 44 sum not exceeding £100.” 
 
 On the 23rd of July, 1840, the Boyal Assent was given to 
 an Act (3rd and 4th Victoria, cap. 36), re-enacting the same 
 sections and providing for these continuing in force until the 
 1st of May, 1842, and on the 13th of May, 1842, the Royal 
 Assent was given to an Act (5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 17), con¬ 
 taining even more stringent provisions upon the subject, and 
 continuing these in force until the 1st of May, 1845. 
 
 On the 16th of February, 1843, the House of Commons 
 ordered 44 That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into 
 44 the Shipwreck of British Vessels, and the means of preserving, 
 44 the lives and property of shipwrecked persons/' This CornJ 
 mittee consisted of 15 Members of Parliament, and they pub¬ 
 lished their report and the minutes of evidence taken before 
 them in a Blue-Book of 600 pages on the 10th of August, 1843: 
 They also condemned the system of deck-loading, as appears by 
 the following paragraph extracted from their report:—“Tour 
 44 Committee consider that no ship can be seaworthy when her 
 44 upper deck is lumbered with cargo of any kind, and they 
 44 strongly recommend to Her Majesty’s Government a still 
 44 further extension of the prohibitory clauses of the Act of Par- 
 44 liament against the deck-loading of Ships.” 
 
 On the 21st of July, 1845, the Royal Assent was given tq 
 44 An Act to make perpetual and to amend an Act of the 5tli and 
 
50 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 “ 6th years of Her present Majesty for preventing ships clearing 
 “ out from any Port in British North America, or in the settle- 
 “ ment of Honduras from loading any part of their cargo of 
 “ timber upon deck,”—(vide 8th and 9th Yic., cap. 45) ; and 
 these restrictions remained in force without variation for a period 
 of eight years. 
 
 On the 28th of August, 1853, the Boyal Assent was given to 
 the “ Customs Consolidation Act, 1853,” and by the 170th, 171st, 
 and 172nd sections of which similar prohibitory clauses as to 
 deck-loading, with similar penalties to those in the former 
 statutes were re-enacted, and these remained in force, without 
 variation for a further period of 9 years ; in fact, the law against 
 deck-loading of timber-ships existed for a period of 23 years 
 altogether (i.e., from 1839 to 1862.) 
 
 On the 21st of March, 1862, Mr. Milner Gibson, the then 
 President of the Board of Trade, asked the House of Commons 
 for leave to bring in a Bill to effect certain changes in the 
 maritime law; and in the course of his speech, he is reported 
 by Hansard to have said :—“ It was also proposed to repeal 
 “ certain clauses in the Customs Consolidation Act prohibiting 
 “ the carrying of deck-loads in Timber Ships which were found 
 “ to be totally nugatory and to interfere with the fair compe- 
 “ tition of the British with the Foreign Ship-owner.” Leave 
 was given, and the Bill passed its third reading in the House of 
 Commons on the 20th of June, 1862, and between that date and 
 the 18th of July, it passed three readings in the House of Lords, 
 and received the. Boyal Assent on the 29th of July, 1862. 
 
 We went very carefully through the various debates upon 
 the subject of this Bill as reported in Hansard , and with the 
 exception of Mr. Milner Gibson’s short statement on bringing in 
 the Bill on the 21st of March, 1862, we do not find, that on the 
 thirteen occasions the Bill was debated in the Commons, or on 
 the six occasions it was debated in the Lords, the subject of 
 “ Deck-Loading ” was ever discussed. Mr. Milner Gibson’s 
 opening statement was permitted to go unchallenged, and indeed 
 so far as we could ascertain, the subject was never specifically 
 mentioned or referred to, and we venture to add that we find no 
 evidence or statement whatever in the course of the 23 years’ 
 previous legislation on the subject to justify either of Mr. Milner 
 Gibson’s assertions (1) that the clauses “prohibiting the carry- 
 “ ing of deck-loads in Timber Ships were found to be totally 
 “ nugatory,” and (2) that these “ interfered with the fair compe- 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 51 
 
 “ tition of the British with the Foreign Ship-owner,”—indeed, 
 not only is there an entire absence of such testimony, but with 
 regard to the first point at least, the reports of the two Commit¬ 
 tees we have referred to, show the contrary to be the fact, and the 
 last of such reports proves conclusively that a great saving of 
 life and property had been effected by the prohibition of deck¬ 
 loading, to the extent of “a reduction in the loss of ships in each 
 “ year from 56 to 23, and as near as could be calculated, the 
 “ saving of 200 lives of Seamen.” 
 
 Having commented upon the mode in which the law prr 
 hibiting Deck-loading was repealed, we think it right to cad 
 your attention to the technical form in which it was done, and 
 which if not intended to mislead as to the real object of the 
 repealing sections, would in our judgment have the effect of dis¬ 
 guising it. The statute we refer to (25th and 26th Victoria, 
 cap. 63), is headed thus:— u An Act to amend the Merchant 
 “ Shipping Act, 1854 ; the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 
 “ 1855, and the Customs Consolidation Act, 1853.” The second 
 section which repeals the clauses in question is worded thus:— 
 “ The Enactments described in Table (A) in the Schedule to 
 “ this Act shall be repealed as therein mentioned, except as to 
 “ any liabilities incurred before such repeal.” On reference to 
 the Schedule we find (interalia) the following entries:—“ Table 
 “ (A), see section 2. Enactments to be repealed, 16 and 17 Vic., 
 “ cap. 107, Customs Consolidation Act, 1853. The last provision 
 “ in section 74, and sections 170, 171, and 172, to be repealed 
 “ immediately on the passing of this Act.” 
 
 The statute, although comprising 78 sections altogether, 
 contains no reference to the subject of “ Deck-loading,” or its 
 prohibition, other than that given by us, and contains no 
 distinct or specific allusion to it whatever. The words “ deck- 
 “ loading” are never mentioned throughout the statute, and, as 
 it seems to us, it would scarcely be possible for any member of 
 either House of Parliament to understand or estimate the im¬ 
 portant nature of the repealing sections with respect to Deck¬ 
 loading unless he had himself instituted a somewhat similar kind 
 of search and investigation to that upon which we have been 
 engaged. 
 
 We are, Sir, 
 
 Yours obediently, 
 
 Will t am Griffith. 
 Saml. Leech. 
 
 n 2 
 
 Derby , 5 th Feb., 1876. 
 
Appendix No. III. 
 
 REPORT ON DECK-LOADING. 
 
 Lloyds, 1 8th May , 1874. 
 
 To the Committee of Lloyd's. 
 
 A 
 
 |\ 
 
 Gentlemen,— 
 
 It may probably be in your recollection that in conse¬ 
 quence of a letter addressed to yourselves by Mr. Thomas Gray, 
 Assistant Secretary of the Marine Department of the Board of 
 Trade, we undertook, at your request, to make such an extension 
 of the short report upon deck-loading* in the Autumn months 
 from British America, which we made to you in November last, 
 as would include a review of the loss of life as well as of pro¬ 
 perty, and also embrace the whole ten years during* which this 
 practice has been allowed by law. We accordingly sent, with 
 your permission, to Lloyd’s Agents at Quebec for a further 
 return from the Custom House at that place, not only of the 
 needful number of sailings, but also of the crews and tonnages 
 of all vessels clearing thence during the periods in question. Our 
 enquiry, therefore, now covers the Autumn voyages of a period 
 of twenty^years in all, namely, fronrttro-O- to 1859 inclusive, and 
 from 1863 to 1872 inclusive. We find that during the former 
 period 3,774 ships sailed from Quebec for this country with 
 timber cargoes after the first of September, and during the 
 latter period 3,068. Every one of these 6,842 voyages has been 
 examined, and, except in two cases, all their results traced out. 
 The aggregate total of the crews of these vessels amounted 
 to 68,382 in the former instance, and 58,867 in the latter. Of the 
 first jiumber 135 seem to have perished; of the latter 445";' or, 
 proportioning each of these numbers to the whole number afloat, 
 we find that the deck-loading period was marked by a loss of life 
 nearly four times as great as the ten years during which no deck 
 loads were allowed. 
 
 This contrast is made still more manifest by limiting the 
 comparison to lives lost on board of missing vessels only. Of 
 
 
APPENDIX III. 
 
 53 
 
 these we have in proportion to the respective number of sailings, 
 nearly five times as many lost in the one period as in the 
 other, 263 against 66. This is the more remarkable when we 
 remember the immense increase of traffic upon the North Atlantic 
 Ocean during the latter period as compared with the former—a 
 fact of much importance in relation to the number of days, or 
 even weeks, during which water-logged timber-laden ships will 
 float before finally disappearing. By way of illustrating this, 
 we may mention that in 1859, 661 vessels, either ships or 
 steamers, are reported from ports in this country as having 
 either sailed to or arrived from New York, and other ports 
 north of New York, during the months of October and November, 
 whereas in 1872 no less than 1,437 did the same thins* within 
 the same time. Many ships, therefore, reported as u abandoned ” 
 during the latter period, would, we fear, have never been heard 
 of during the former, and every one on board would have 
 perished. Neither, viewed in this way, was ’72 the worst year 
 in either decade. 1865 exceeded 1872 in the number of missing 
 ships and lives lost therein, although not in the total loss of life 
 or total loss of property. 
 
 We have thus far spoken of the loss of life only. It will be 
 remembered that our original enquiry was with reference to the 
 number of ships lost, and that from a comparison of the two 
 periods of five years each, contained between ’55-'59 and 
 ’68-’72, we estimated the increase of loss during the latter as half 
 as large again as during the former. By an extension of the 
 area of comparison to ten years instead of five, we find that in 
 proportion to the whole number of sailings 45 per cent, more 
 were lost in the one period than in the other, thus, further 
 substantiating our first conclusion. It is to be borne in mind, 
 also, that during the latter period some of the best and largest 
 shipowners abstained, of their own accord, from carrying deck¬ 
 loads, believing that the increased danger and loss to life and 
 property thereby incurred more than counterbalanced the ad¬ 
 ditional freight. Mr. Fry, Lloyd’s Agent at Quebec, has men¬ 
 tioned to us the names of half-a-dozen firms who have thus 
 acted, one or tw^o of whom are amongst the most well-known 
 in the trade? We thus conclude that even the figures above quoted 
 do not represent the whole case against the carrying of deck 
 cargoes during the autumn months, as they would assuredly have 
 been somewhat worse but for the care thus widely exercised. 
 At the same time, the voluntary incurring of all the disadvantages 
 at which these gentlemen were placed, in competing with their 
 
54 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 neighbours, should go to convince us that no real hardship 
 would be inflicted upon shipowners by their being compelled to 
 abstain from this dangerous practice, and that their only right 
 remedy must lie in a slight increase of rates and freight, 
 which would all in the end fall upon the consumer, who can have 
 no right to have his goods cheapened at the cost of human 
 life. It must doubtless be conceded that the framing of all 
 legislation of this kind is most difficult, and that to make enact¬ 
 ments very stringent is often also to make them inoperative, but, 
 at the same time, to forbid all attempts of the kind on the 
 ground that they run counter to the theory of free-trade is 
 practically to acquiesce in much that is unjust and wrong. 
 
 We cannot conclude without mentioning two facts of some 
 interest that have come to light in the course of this little enquiry, 
 viz. : that although the shipments after the 1st of September, 
 between ’63-72, were so much fewer in number than between 
 ’50 and ’59, yet that the average size of the vessels increased 
 from 522 tons to 722 tons, thus making the aggregate tonnage of 
 the later period somewhat larger than that of the earlier; and 
 T also that the average number of men per 100 tons decreased in 
 the same time from 3*47 to 2*65. 
 
 We enclose the tabular statement upon which the foregoing 
 Report is based, and beg to remain, 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient Servants, 
 
 John Wm. Janson, 
 Leonard C. Wakefield. 
 
APPENDIX IV. 
 
 O 
 
 i—i 
 
 Q 
 
 £ 
 
 a 
 
 Ph 
 
 A 
 
Vessels classed in the Register Book with a black line —— continued. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 X 
 
 i 
 
 18 
 
 m 
 
 X 
 
 © 
 
 i 
 
 r- 
 
 • 
 
 *-H 
 
 
 1 < 
 
 £) 
 
 
 ^ c 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 *~«G 
 
 J- 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 5 s- 
 
 rv 
 
 Tl 
 
 
 
 ® © 
 si X 
 
 
 «4-i 
 
 O 
 
 5 
 
 "T © 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 "fi 
 
 >-> 
 
 . 
 
 hH 
 
 
 © 
 
 ' . • e\ 
 
 
 M 
 
 k _ 
 
 >• 
 
 S § 
 
 
 ? 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 » * 
 
 — W 
 
 3Q 
 
 x t£ 
 O £ 
 O • ^ 
 S- »— 
 
 sc o 
 
 X 
 
 > <“ 
 
 £ ft 
 
 •wS 
 
 X „ X 
 i §<C 
 ^ 8 p, 
 
 V s 
 
 g |^~ 
 
 • pH 
 
 ■8 | S * 
 
 © O © >-G 
 © 
 
 ® ® 
 W © "" 
 
 
 S-t X 
 
 q ei 
 
 § ® «t 
 
 S O 
 
 g3 £.2 
 
 i—l 
 
 i—l co 
 
 CO CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 f 
 
 os I-* 
 
 
 X 
 
 x> co 
 
 1 
 
 CO CO 
 
 1 I 
 
 7 
 
 » ^ 
 
 1 
 
 CO 
 
 CO x> 
 
 » 1 
 
 » 
 
 CO 
 
 UO 1> 
 
 lO 30 
 
 30 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 TT 1—1 
 
 
 
 t? CO 
 
 CO 1> 
 
 X 1—1 X 
 
 X o 
 
 X CO 
 
 CO to 
 
 *0 ro 
 
 00 CO tO 
 
 CO o 
 
 to to 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 XXX 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 rH rH 
 
 rH rH 
 
 rH rH rH 
 
 rH rH 
 
 I—l• rH 
 
 <3 * 
 
 X >» 
 
 
 • 
 
 o 
 
 O ^ 
 
 * r- 
 
 • ^ 
 
 ©”2 
 
 O ^ 
 
 ,o 
 
 Q 
 
 ft- > 
 
 r© .2 
 
 X ”Z 
 
 is 
 
 © 
 
 r<r 
 
 o ? 
 
 5 
 
 ""3 0 
 
 ? o 
 
 O H 
 
 Tonnage, 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 tO 
 
 to 30 
 
 r> to 
 
 — j>» 
 
 w> 
 
 95 
 
 1,000 
 
 608 
 
 98 
 
 524 
 
 CO CO 
 i>> CO 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 • • 
 
 £ £ 
 
 X 
 
 • • 
 
 X j£ 
 
 X ^2 
 
 ^ X X 
 
 ^ ^5 
 
 x pq 
 
 r/ c 
 
 X 22 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 r\ r* 
 
 w rH 
 *- © 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 ■ 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 O 
 
 -u 
 
 • r-H 
 
 i Wave.. 
 (iron) .. 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 v^v O 
 
 • • 
 
 
 — 
 
 © 
 
 i-3C © 
 
 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 w c 
 
 .SO* 
 
 H 
 
 r - <■< 
 
 © 
 
 1 5*- 
 
 
 — 
 
 H 
 
 , <— 1 
 
 • r-H 
 
 C— — 
 
 > l « 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 o3 
 
 < 
 
 o . 
 
 W • ~“ 
 
 » O 
 
 <*n^ 
 
 r- ! rH 
 
 5 .2 
 
 X X 
 
 rH rH 
 
 CO fZ ~r 
 
 r—^ 
 
 r - —H 
 
 ^ 5 r © 
 rOQ 
 
 © 
 
 X 
 
 c5 
 
 r \ 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 O 
 
 © ^ 
 
 ^ ft* 
 
 o o 
 
APPENDIX IV. 
 
 57 
 
 © 
 
 $ 
 
 s: 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 c3 
 
 a 
 
 © 
 
 Ph 
 
 CO 
 
 r* 
 
 a 
 
 o3 
 
 £ 
 
 © 
 
 «+h 
 
 c3 
 
 T; . 
 
 a p 
 
 c3 .£ 
 
 . - 4-3 
 
 bC « 
 cl © 
 
 .S «H 
 
 *53 ^ 
 
 © co 
 © 
 
 •N I—H 
 
 a p 
 
 o £ 
 
 QQ 
 
 © 
 
 «4H 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 k 
 
 • <-H 
 -4-3 
 © 
 © 
 '-H 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 >■ ^ 
 •rH cW 
 -+3) ^ 
 
 o - 
 0) 02 
 
 05 O 
 HZ Q5 
 
 % § 
 
 © PS 
 
 05 
 
 05 05 
 
 02 
 
 ra 
 
 c3 
 
 a 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 Ph 
 
 +52 
 
 be 
 
 05 
 
 H k 
 "rj • i-h 
 
 - 1-3 
 
 3 » 
 
 Po^ 
 
 Q, <35 
 
 GO 
 
 Ph 
 
 05 
 
 rQ 
 
 W CL5 >4/ i >■' 
 
 W 
 
 ^. . 
 
 <42 © 
 
 *£ > 
 C3 -rH 
 
 £ IS 
 
 J=a 
 
 O r^J 
 »» 
 
 « 05 
 
 >40 Cl 
 
 *Ks c3 
 
 ■j 'i—~i 
 
 O PH 
 
 05 
 
 02 
 
 .J3 o3 
 
 02 ;H 
 © 
 
 o © 
 
 a,n 
 
 a t 
 
 53 02 
 
 —H f'H 
 
 05 © 
 
 rO 
 
 ri4 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 A 
 
 <43 
 
 •+3 
 
 03 
 
 e 
 
 OS 
 
 C«S 
 
 03 
 
 8* 
 OS • 
 
 ^ © 
 O 05 
 
 3 05 
 
 -40 rj- 
 
 ^ 0 
 >4-3 
 
 O rj 
 
 fl 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 k 
 
 i—i 
 
 -4-3 
 
 05 
 
 © 
 
 «+H 
 
 © 
 
 r 0 
 
 o ^ 
 © © 
 
 “ 1 
 
 Pi 
 © 
 
 a 
 
 c3 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 02 
 P -S 
 
 c3 «H 
 
 r5p ° 
 CO 0^3 
 
 as 
 
 Tj 
 
 o3 
 
 Ph •- 
 
 © TS 
 
 O 
 
 rP 
 
 w 
 
 be 
 
 P 
 
 • rH 
 
 • rH 
 
 <D 
 
 o 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 c3 
 
 © 
 
 rQ 
 
 •N 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 p 
 
 53 
 
 Ph 
 
 H 00 
 O co 
 © 53 
 
 & 13 
 
 b£r 
 
 CQ 
 
 Cu 
 
 £ £ 
 
 c -i—i 
 
 04 £ fl 
 
 “£a 
 
 (no 
 
 OjrH © 
 
 © 03 rrt 
 
 p p ^ 
 
 0 • rH CO 
 
 ^ © 
 bb£ a 
 
 P ‘So £ 
 
 © o 
 
 A 
 
 . a 
 
 p & 
 
 05 ,_, 
 - 4-3 © 
 
 o ® 
 r 
 
 © -rH 
 
 02 
 -4-3 
 — © 
 CO K*. 
 
 s •£ 
 O ^H 
 
 CO 
 
 © "© 
 ^ r cJ 
 ^ o 
 
 CQ 1 
 
 a o 
 
 & o 
 
 cd 
 
 §2 
 
 W<l 
 
 ® p 
 
 rO © 
 
 ° ^ 
 
 ■“ J 
 
 02 
 
 © 
 
 fX3 • *> 
 P <Tj 
 © © 
 
 a ^ 
 
 a § 
 
 8 8 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 c3 
 
 pp 
 
 © 
 
 w 
 
 o3 
 O 
 
 _ P 
 O 52 
 
 -4-3 ^ 
 
 © 
 
 beSts 
 P o 
 
 • rH 
 -4-3 
 
 o, © 
 
 © 
 
 »> • I—I 
 
 P-4 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 .Si 
 
 -4-^ 
 
 r5 ^ 
 
 Q. © 
 
 r" 
 
 pp o 
 
 s a 
 
 «2 
 
 o3 _, 
 
 -43J H© 
 
 co c3 
 
 S 4 - 
 
 TO c^h 
 
 -fe ® 
 
 02 T5 
 
 CO 
 
 pp 
 
 © 
 
 pp 
 
 CO 
 
 «+H 
 
 O 
 
 00 
 
 ^ *© © 
 
 _o ^ a 
 
 H 43 O 
 
 0 
 
 PJ 
 
 • rH 
 
 rJ* 
 
 o 
 
 riP 
 
 3 
 
 c3 
 
 3 
 
 • rH 
 
 £ 
 
 ri4 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 PQ 
 
 0 
 
 -t-5 
 
 • rH 
 
 &J0 
 
 0 
 
 Ph 
 
 0 
 
 rC 
 
 r(-5 
 
 tJ 
 
 0 
 
 GO 
 
 GO 
 
 c3 
 
 r—I 
 
 0 
 
 U1 
 
 (—4 
 
 0 
 
 CO 
 
 GO 
 
 0 
 
 t> 
 
 *4—^ . 
 
 0Q 
 
 r^ O 
 
 c a ^2 
 © -5 C 
 
 © 
 
 © .j 
 02 M 
 
 02 
 
 ID 
 
 CO 00 1> 
 t>» CD CO 
 I I I 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 X> 
 
 CD CD 
 I I 
 
 r-i e> 
 
 i 
 
 i> CD 
 CD CD 
 I I 
 CD X> 
 
 fl 4J 
 
 a ^ 
 
 S' 3 
 
 ^rO 
 
 CD 
 
 CD O CD 
 
 CD 
 
 rH GO 
 
 
 X> CO 
 
 T? 
 
 id H >0 
 
 lO 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 4D CD 
 
 00 
 
 00 00 00 
 
 oc 
 
 00 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 00 
 
 r-4 
 
 rH rH rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH rH 
 
 rH 
 
 iH rH 
 
 be 
 
 P 
 
 • rH 
 
 be 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 13 
 
 rO 
 
 +32 
 
 pH 
 
 o 
 
 Ph 
 
 © 
 
 be 
 
 o3 
 
 P 
 
 rH 
 
 HH 
 
 o 
 
 Eh 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 m 
 
 • 
 
 «# 
 
 r d 
 
 • 
 
 m 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 c3 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • Ph 
 
 * rO 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 CO 
 
 T3 
 
 O 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 53 I 
 
 © 
 
 r 0 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 U1 
 
 P 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 Ph , _ 
 
 cbp 
 
 +3> 
 
 >* 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 pq 
 
 rQ 
 
 ps 
 
 P 
 
 "Dl 
 
 T5 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 00 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 *> 04 
 
 Ol 
 
 rH O 
 
 o 
 
 00 CD CO 
 
 o 
 
 lO J> 
 
 O 
 
 CO O 
 
 00 
 
 04 rH rH 
 
 00 
 
 rH 
 
 iH 
 
 04 CD 
 
 GQ 
 
 r±4 be P5 
 
 ppqpq 
 
 ri4 
 
 W 
 
 02P 
 
 © 
 
 GQ 
 
 
 
 
 • • • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 
 1 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 ^ • 
 
 o3 o 
 
 <6 
 
 <H 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 'a' 
 
 o 
 
 £ a 
 
 © 8 
 ® -a 
 
 a 
 
 c3 
 
 © 
 
 pa 
 
 • • 
 
 0 rH * 
 
 r— H H 
 
 o3 ^ 
 k © * 
 
 P -5 K 
 
 o3 
 
 be 
 
 a 
 
 o3 
 
 a 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 02 03 
 
 ® © 
 
 © 5 
 
 Ph 
 
 • rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 CQ 
 
 • pH 
 
 II 
 
 -4-3 SO 
 
 
 P 
 
 rH 
 
 P g raJ 
 
 o 
 
 a a 
 
 Ph 
 
 a 
 
 
 H 
 
 c3 
 
 © «—i n 
 
 Ph 
 
 Ph 
 
 rH 
 
 m a 
 
 PH 
 
 ci 
 
 c3 c3 
 
 • rH r ♦ 
 
 
 r*\ 
 
 r—i 
 
 d 53 !2£! 
 
 Mhn 
 
 El 
 
 
 o 
 
 
Vessels classed in the Register Book with a black line , &c. — continued. 
 
 58 
 
 APPENDIX IY. 
 
 72 
 
 r* 
 
 k 
 
 eg 
 
 3 
 
 <35 
 
 Ph 
 
 43 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 73 
 
 ""eg 
 
 06 
 
 v. 
 
 45 
 
 rC5 
 
 p* 
 • r*H 
 
 $$ 
 
 <35 
 
 *K> 
 
 © 
 
 1 g 
 
 K-C 
 o O 
 
 5>,2 «S 
 
 0 r O Q} 
 
 fc 
 
 P 
 
 72 
 
 $rs P 
 
 © od 
 
 S <35 
 
 5 43 
 43 
 • • rH 
 
 »a 
 
 © o 
 
 pq^ 
 
 03 faD 
 
 P p 
 
 <35 
 
 C5 CP 
 k 03 
 43 O 
 
 dd _, 
 k d 
 
 § g 
 
 c3 
 
 72 
 
 05 <35 
 
 rQ P 
 
 .p k 
 
 H H 
 
 k 
 
 <35 
 
 CJD 
 
 p 
 
 O 
 
 dd 
 
 <35 
 
 QQ 
 
 o 
 
 <35 
 
 ”• rO 
 
 k> s 
 
 <35 
 
 k 
 
 P-143 
 
 35 .© 
 ^ «4H 
 
 ^ <35 
 £ "P 
 72 
 
 <35 
 
 P 
 
 ■ I—i 
 —4 
 © 
 05 
 3d 
 
 l 
 
 r*4 
 
 r—H 
 
 P 
 
 C3 
 
 © 
 
 dd 
 
 <35 
 
 k 
 
 • rH 
 
 P 
 
 cr 1 , 
 
 Q5 ' 
 
 ba 
 
 k» 
 
 <35 
 
 k 
 
 k 
 
 p 
 
 72 
 
 <D 
 
 k 
 
 • rH 
 
 O 
 
 45 
 
 «fH 
 
 <35 
 
 d3 
 
 73 
 
 faD 
 
 P 
 
 73 
 
 72 
 
 c3 
 
 —H 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 Cp 
 
 O 
 
 P5 
 
 dd 
 
 P 
 
 c3 
 
 k 
 
 k 
 
 P 
 
 U1 
 
 O 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 O 
 
 pq 
 
 C5 © rg 
 
 .5 a a 
 
 ■ o 
 
 C5 
 
 .'p p ^ ^ 
 
 k 3P <35 05 
 
 O -rH 73 71 
 
 • r —3 © 73 72 
 
 Cg O C0 Cg 
 k—I i—I i—I 
 
 & o o 
 
 tSm 
 
 ? ^ a 
 
 ® <"d o3 
 05 
 
 • r> ^ 
 
 Poo 
 
 •H 0 (J) 
 
 fifl 
 
 05 
 
 k 
 
 • p-i 
 43 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 <43 
 
 • <35 
 
 • <s> 
 
 fa D 
 
 ® P 
 
 §-3 
 
 - 8 
 
 d$ 
 
 © 
 
 ?3 r—/ 
 <S> "3 
 
 P 
 
 dC 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 © 
 
 *H 
 
 05 
 
 . ^ 
 fab ^ 
 p 2P 
 
 • rH M 
 r—H • rH 
 
 ’53 ^ 
 
 © P 
 
 5 P • rrj £ 
 
 OPP Q, 
 
 <35 O P rt 
 
 dj P d , 
 
 K. Pn 73 dd 
 
 bo 4 
 
 dd 
 
 05 
 
 P 
 
 rP 
 
 43 
 
 VP 
 
 P4 
 
 a 
 
 Cg 
 
 rP 
 
 43 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 QQ 
 
 43 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 eg 
 
 r-4 
 
 o 
 
 05 
 
 ds 
 
 05 rH 
 
 a 05 
 
 5 P5 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 72 
 
 k 
 
 05 
 
 rQ 
 
 ®'5 c d 
 
 k ^ ^ 
 
 ■3 - H 
 
 s 2 k 05 ■ rH 
 
 5? a p a 
 
 k 43 QQ 'g 43 
 k OH <35 - 
 
 Ph 
 
 m P 
 
 05 
 
 £ 00 M 
 
 %r-< £ 
 <35 "k ^"k 
 
 k ° ^ o 
 
 •rt Ph^ P< 
 
 —^ O ^ 05 
 
 ® s ^ k 
 
 P k4 7 j O 
 ^^dj b 
 
 ks © 
 
 o ^ 
 
 o 
 
 Oj H 
 
 CD CC <3D GO 
 
 
 O H 
 
 O CP 
 
 00 
 
 00 H H H 
 
 CO 
 
 CNCO 
 
 1 1 1 1 
 
 CP 
 
 | 
 
 Jt> 1^- 
 
 1 1 
 
 i> cp 
 
 CP 
 
 1 
 
 cp X> X> CP 
 
 -t> 
 
 1 
 
 ! i 
 
 CO CO CO H 
 
 1 
 
 UO 
 
 1 
 
 to H 
 
 q6 cp 
 
 1 
 
 x> 
 
 III 
 
 H Cp X> CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 43 
 
 05 CM X> GO 
 
 O 
 
 O H 
 
 to lO 
 
 CD 
 
 CO H H H 
 
 r-H 
 
 rr-, 
 
 r—H 
 • rH 
 
 to CP >0 H 
 
 CP 
 
 H >0 
 
 rr 
 
 tO 
 
 CP CP CP H 
 
 cp 
 
 CP 
 
 P 
 
 00 00 00 00 
 
 CO 
 
 00 00 
 
 06 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 00 00 00 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 rP 
 
 H H H H 
 
 rH 
 
 H r—1 
 
 rH rH 
 
 H 
 
 H r— < ri rH 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 faC 
 
 P 
 
 • rH 
 
 fao 
 
 05 
 
 rQ 
 
 o 
 
 pH 
 
 73 
 
 • r-1 
 
 H 
 
 53 
 
 a 
 
 cd 
 
 rrt 
 
 'o 
 
 r*H 
 
 O 
 
 r-j 
 
 <75 
 
 O 
 43 
 CJj 
 
 P 
 
 • rH 
 
 k 3 
 
 r-i r |~ ) 
 
 O Ph 
 O 
 
 K' 'Vi 
 
 r' H 
 
 43 
 
 <Z3 
 
 72 X 
 
 73 O 
 © Ph 
 
 P O 
 
 O 
 
 r~rt 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 cb 
 
 eg 
 
 72 
 
 72 
 
 O 
 
 d P 
 
 rH 
 
 — H 
 
 dC 
 
 eg 
 
 P k<» o 
 
 a pdc 
 k p 
 
 _ r ° p 
 
 QQ pH QQ 
 
 o 
 
 r-- 
 
 o 
 
 h-q 
 
 S3 
 
 r—H 
 
 ro 
 
 h-1 
 
 pq 
 
 Ph 
 
 05 
 
 bJD 
 
 eg 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 H PI CC CD 
 
 07 
 
 CC 0 
 
 O to 
 
 00 
 
 H CP 00 CD 
 
 to 
 
 0 
 
 Ol H 1 >* CD 
 
 cp 
 
 to CO 
 
 C 5 CO 
 
 00 
 
 CP CP 0 to 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 H to CO Ol 
 
 01 
 
 r-H i'* 
 
 07 
 
 
 r-H rH 07 
 
 to 
 
 H 
 
 pq pq pp pp 
 
 'CD 
 
 r<"\ 
 
 bD.14 
 
 sqpq 
 
 k fa£) 
 QQpq 
 
 k 
 
 02 
 
 k k k P >3 
 QQ^QQpq 
 
 P4 
 
 pq 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 og 
 
 £ 
 
 eg 
 
 k 
 
 eg 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 k 
 
 O 
 
 P 
 
 55 
 
 72 
 
 dd 
 
 k 
 
 eg 
 
 ki 
 
 dd 
 eg 
 P 
 
 05 - r-i - 
 
 . . k k , eg 
 
 05 
 
 P 
 
 05 
 
 w 
 
 <4-4 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 dd 
 
 P 
 
 eg 
 
 fa£ 
 
 o 
 
 D . 
 
 o 
 
 MW 
 
 ki 
 
 k rP 
 4— O 
 
 ® -P 
 r5 ^ 
 
 dd 73 
 
 P Ph 
 
 H (H 
 
 05 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 k 
 
 eg 
 
 P 
 
 43 
 
 QQ 
 
 eg 
 
 r- H 
 r—H 
 
 o 
 
 05 
 
 43 
 
 O 
 
 rH rH 
 
 Ph W 
 
 05 
 
 n ^ P P 
 
 a cpp 
 
 g <5 o o 
 
 Hbbb 
 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 Ph 
 
 O 
 
 nn 
 
 O 
 
 PP 
 
 p 
 
 eg 
 
continued. 
 
 APPENDIX IY. 
 
Vessels classed in the Register Book with a black line —&c.— continued. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
Vessels classed in the Register Book with a black line ■■■■■■ , &c.— continued. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 61 
 
 x 
 
 U 
 
 Cv 
 
 p 
 
 M 
 
 0) 
 
 P3 
 
 c+3 
 
 o 
 
 ■+3 
 
 p 
 
 c3 
 
 £ 
 
 x 
 
 O 
 
 'dJB 
 
 © O 
 
 P 
 
 • rH 
 
 'o £ 
 
 o o 
 
 © o 
 
 £ § 
 5 £ 
 m m 
 
 X 
 
 u 
 
 © 
 
 rQ 
 
 ^ rC 
 
 i—I © 
 
 g p 
 o ^ 
 > © 
 © ® 
 x Tj 
 
 r P 
 
 P © 
 
 =1 fc 
 
 * >» 
 bCPC 
 C H 
 
 *4 (3 
 
 • -a a 
 
 ■o zS o 
 
 © PP © 
 
 ?- 2 
 ^ cs _ 
 <p © o 
 
 PH ^ 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 k 
 
 u 
 
 P 
 
 X 
 
 p 
 
 O t3 
 
 “ o 
 
 k» 
 
 © 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 
 ^ c 
 
 r © © -t 
 
 £ P «H 
 
 P pp _P 
 
 X P- 
 
 © 
 
 [> P 
 £ pp 
 P © 
 
 x O . 
 
 HQ X 
 
 3 © ^ 
 
 6+-i p u p 
 
 ^ .p o £ 
 
 ■p 43 P 
 
 S3 cii, fe- 
 
 X Ph 
 
 P w 
 
 © 
 
 r* _ 
 
 O -13 K 
 
 • •> ■ 
 r— © 
 
 P rrH 
 
 © ^ 
 
 jjg P4 
 
 p s 
 2^ 
 
 © Pi 
 
 43 P P . . 
 
 O c3 ^ P4 
 
 a - o .2 
 
 ^ 2 p ^ 
 
 P P ^ 
 
 ^ o P 
 
 - _o o fciD 
 ■H d 
 W • iH 
 © rP 
 
 £ © © 
 
 s.fc's 
 
 43 43 
 
 P § o 
 o ? ^ 
 
 Q N 
 
 © 
 
 P3 
 
 x 
 
 <D 
 
 rP 
 
 2 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 © 
 
 x 
 
 03 
 
 s 
 
 «0 
 
 «0 
 
 CS 
 
 03 
 
 £ 
 
 445 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 X 
 
 rH 
 
 53 
 
 o 
 
 • r4 
 
 43 
 
 P 
 
 . P 
 
 © X 
 
 p rP 
 PP sc 
 o p 
 © © 
 r a © 
 8 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 03 
 
 5<3 
 
 o 
 
 445 
 
 03 
 
 8 
 
 e 
 
 *8 
 
 83 
 
 r*45 
 
 © 
 
 «o 
 
 *45 
 
 s. 
 
 03 
 
 44> 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 
 03 
 
 * 
 
 © 
 
 «0 
 
 8 
 
 03 
 
 8 
 
 § 
 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 4 *' 
 
 ‘•'rP 
 
 03 O 
 
 • ?4 
 
 445 ' 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 •44 
 
 «0 
 
 8 
 
 e 
 
 r*3i 
 
 P,- 
 
 o 
 
 "8: 
 
 •8 
 03 
 <4 
 
 03 0 
 
 o 
 
 © . 
 6+3 44> 
 
 ■ Co 
 8 8 
 O © 
 
 Hi 44 
 
 © 
 
 8 
 
 © 
 
 
 O 
 ^ , 
 
 © 
 
 l £ 
 
 ?4 © 
 •2 ^ 
 8 
 
 s 
 
 5^ © 
 od 44 
 —' 8 
 "S ■«* 
 
 o 
 
 © -P 
 
 t£ © 
 
 ■S ^ 
 
 g 8 
 
 o © 
 > © 
 p ^ 
 
 * 
 
 60 
 8 
 © 
 8 
 © 
 H- 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 4^ t* 
 
 2 o 
 
 v© 1> 
 
 ©J 
 
 CP X 
 
 rH 
 
 ©1 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 CP 
 
 
 O CO 
 
 1^ 
 
 1 
 
 CP CP 
 
 I 
 
 14. 
 
 1 
 
 i^ 
 
 1 
 
 CP 
 
 1 
 
 CP 
 
 P P b> u 
 
 CO CM 
 
 O 
 
 C5 i© 
 
 CO 
 
 x> 
 
 4 
 
 
 o 
 
 © © _S 8 
 
 rP P 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 O ^ 
 
 i© i© 
 
 i© 
 
 i—1 C© 
 
 rH 
 
 
 i© 
 
 o 
 
 
 o »© 
 
 i© 
 
 4Tl CP 
 
 CP 
 
 >© 
 
 CP 
 
 CP 
 
 i© 
 
 r~ p 
 
 00 00 
 
 GO 
 
 X X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 rH rH 
 
 tH 
 
 rH rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 6 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 be 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 f • p“H 
 
 t£ 
 
 c - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 P 
 
 p— • 
 
 o 
 
 
 b ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 O 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 
 i—H 
 
 (■H 
 
 
 r _^ 
 
 
 f J 
 
 bJD r- 
 
 
 P ? 
 
 O 
 
 43 
 
 k 
 
 H 
 
 "© 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 •P 5 
 
 P4 ,P 
 
 
 P t> 
 
 /'•N Cj 
 
 H- — 
 
 o 
 
 Ph 
 
 rH 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 Cj 
 
 o 
 
 p3 
 
 k* 
 
 43 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 o .2 
 
 
 • 
 
 HP > 
 t2 © 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 <H 
 
 rH 
 
 c3 
 
 © 
 
 • rH 
 — 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • rH 
 
 hJ 
 
 S" 
 
 r- H 
 
 H) 
 
 • rH 
 
 H 
 
 is 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 b£) 
 
 C© O 
 
 ©i 
 
 O 14 
 
 
 X 
 
 05 
 
 i© 
 
 X 
 
 r* 
 
 C5 4? 
 
 CP 
 
 ©1 X 
 
 rH 
 
 X 
 
 05 
 
 rH 
 
 CP 
 
 
 rH 
 
 X 
 
 rH rH 
 
 co 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 ©L 
 
 ©1 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 bb 8 
 
 pp ^ 
 
 GO 
 
 8 tb 
 
 GO pq 
 
 GQ 
 
 Bn. 
 
 p 
 
 PP 
 
 GQ 
 
 PP 
 
 
 p • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 fc> . 
 
 )—i 
 
 • • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 c3 
 
 H • 
 
 § : 
 
 l—i 
 1—1 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1© p 
 o ^ 
 -S 
 
 ps 
 
 r— 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 O 
 
 Ph 
 
 cd 
 
 Ph 
 
 O 
 
 P -+3 
 
 |25 O 
 
 c3 
 
 N 
 
 • P-H 
 
 © 
 
 8 
 
 a 
 
 c3 
 
 »—H 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 x 
 
 o 
 
 c3 
 
 • P-H 
 
 • ° 
 
 ‘S 
 
 43 
 
 o3 
 
 O 
 
 • rH 
 8 
 43 
 
 s3 
 
Vessels classed in the Register Book with a black line &c.— continued. 
 
 (52 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 00 
 
 © 
 
 r*H 
 
 oo © 
 
 r o O 
 S3 
 
 S3 M 
 
 • 
 
 r^H © 
 
 P © 
 
 P- 1 - 
 
 ~ © 
 
 o o 
 
 *4-1 ^ 
 
 05 -+3 
 pH - 
 
 © > 
 rQ > 
 C © 
 
 e 
 
 3 • S 
 
 © ci 55 
 
 © > ** 
 rr*> ** ^ 
 
 r d j> 
 d ^ «0 
 
 © 5D«t3 35 
 
 n© to * d o "S 
 
 p! ■’ H 
 
 * 
 
 » r-H 
 
 00 
 
 ci 
 
 ci 
 
 oo 
 
 © 
 
 — ys 
 © .23 
 
 ► Ss* 
 
 oo 
 
 -2=3 
 
 33 
 
 I - 
 
 • rs Q."0 
 rs> 
 
 £ Ph -2 
 
 • to** 
 '*- s © ^ 
 
 &H 
 
 
 o *5 rd * o 
 
 ^ S3 © £ *** 
 rd §>< ^ 'J~ 75 
 
 >§ V§ £ 3 
 
 © d zi „© © 
 
 »-» ^ .,© ^H ^ 
 
 ■—' *-S> -H 
 
 y ^ <d _ © 
 ■“ • •<! r rt 
 
 I s a -7 a 
 
 sii S| 
 
 --i o ^ 
 
 •«c O _ ~ <-H 
 > 8 P( ® 3 
 
 § M S 3h' 
 
 2 5 ^ O 
 
 I O 5- 
 
 VI © • i-H 
 
 7, jDh m 
 
 <$* o o fl d 
 
 •<s> r 3 ^ ci O 
 
 dd 
 
 •—h 
 
 ci 
 
 r—H 
 
 C. 
 
 © 
 
 r "d 
 
 • H 
 05 
 HJ 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 <4-1 
 
 o 
 
 05 
 £ 
 •oO 
 »—i 
 © 
 so 
 
 *S3 
 
 i 
 
 © 
 
 r3 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 Ph 
 
 — 
 
 CO 
 
 ■na 
 
 Ph 
 
 c3 
 
 • & 
 Ctn 
 
 ^ rW 
 *>- ^ 
 
 « 5 
 S3 
 
 ' £ 
 
 ^ ?H 
 
 ^ 2 
 
 § B 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 © 
 <4-H 
 . © 
 
 < g d ^ 
 
 .d 50 
 
 t3 © r2 
 
 <2 © ~ 
 © © -oo 
 
 tC’3 ^ 
 c Ph d 
 © .5 
 H 
 
 
 Js _. 
 
 • ^ o 
 
 « ^ 
 
 c3 
 
 ^ § 
 
 S^i 
 
 • -si CQ 
 
 si © 
 
 © r£ • 
 
 O *H ^ 
 
 a 
 
 *2 S'© 
 
 2 a 
 
 oo © 
 © 
 
 >• oo 
 c3 
 
 • rs 
 
 ©: t 
 
 rS ^h 
 ► * 
 
 o Z 
 
 cc 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 .. bJD 
 
 © 
 t- fl 
 
 2 S 
 © o 
 C t +- 
 ^ © 
 
 © 
 
 ©3 
 
 © d 
 
 ^ o 
 
 Ph-^ 3 
 >- ,rH 
 g ^ 
 
 ° o 
 
 ^ © 
 
 ^ rj 
 
 £ ° 
 
 -Ui 
 
 Z2 
 
 QQ O 
 
 pO r 
 r-< 
 
 .2 ©' 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 d - d s. 
 
 ^ o o '" 
 
 © 
 
 d © c 
 
 © © 3- © 
 
 ^ W) * .5 ^ 
 
 > ci © -d © 
 
 ^ .d rQ g 
 
 d o 
 
 0Q O 
 
 d ►> 
 6 3d 
 © d 
 
 5S ^ g 
 
 ^d h 
 
 d ^ 2 
 y o fc> 
 © _d sh 
 
 ©3 5 
 m 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 00 
 
 ©1 
 
 X> 
 
 I 
 
 00 
 
 sc sc 
 sc sc 
 
 1> 
 
 sc 
 
 o 
 
 O id 
 
 1 > sc 
 
 I I 
 
 VC d 
 
 i> 
 
 so 
 
 CO 
 
 d 
 
 i> 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 Ci 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 d3 
 
 so 
 
 X 
 
 co 00 
 
 vc 
 
 X X 
 
 00 
 
 X 
 
 vc 
 
 00 vc 
 X X 
 
 X 
 
 Ci 
 
 vc 
 
 X 
 
 VO 
 
 so 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 -©S 
 
 to 
 
 © 
 
 _o 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 pH 
 
 d4 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 ri 
 
 w 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 O oo 
 
 -d d 
 
 o © 
 
 h^pp 
 
 Ph 
 © 
 —s 
 
 oo 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 H-3 
 
 • *-H 
 
 © 
 
 HP 
 
 -§ s 
 
 • ^ r—H 
 
 pp hq 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 Sh 
 
 © 
 
 Ph 
 
 —j 
 
 oo 
 
 y 
 
 13 
 
 PP 
 
 o 
 
 A 
 
 © 
 
 tJD 
 
 ci 
 
 d 
 
 c* 
 
 rn 
 
 c 
 
 EH 
 
 C5 
 
 Ci 00 
 
 Ci 
 
 VC 
 
 o x> 
 
 X 
 
 Ci 
 
 00 
 
 d 
 
 O 00 
 
 VC 
 
 Ci 
 
 1—^ t> 
 
 so 
 
 Tfl 
 
 VC 
 
 co 
 
 vc 
 
 
 00 
 
 rH rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 d 
 
 X 
 
 U1 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 Ph 
 
 X 
 
 d4 
 
 PP 
 
 x 23 
 
 fcJO 
 
 PP 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 Ph 
 
 • 
 
 *x 
 
 X 
 
 © 
 
 r-K 
 
 d 
 
 ci 
 
 d 
 • »—♦ 
 
 d 
 
 <H-h 
 
 o 
 
 Ih 
 
 <d 
 
 © 
 
 Ph 
 
 ©5 
 
 05 
 
 © 
 
 W2 o 
 X JS 
 
 ^ H-5 
 dn «+H 
 
 3 o 
 
 2 d 
 
 •|| 
 
 ph6> 
 
 rd 
 
 Ph 
 
 03 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 P3 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 H-5 
 
 Ph 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 ci 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 P3 Ph 
 
 HJ 
 
 ©3 
 
 o 
 
 rC 
 
 -C 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 53 
 
 X 
 
 TS 
 
 Ph 
 
 ci 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 fi 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 • —< 
 
 X 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 da 
 
 Ph 
 
 ci 
 
 Oh 
 
 X 
 
, Vessels classed in the Register Book with a black line &c.— continued. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
Vessels classed in the Register Book with a black line 
 
 L)i a IV 
 
 64 
 
 
 o 
 
 «c 
 
 3* 
 
 P, 
 
 53 
 
 © 
 
 ft 
 
 >> • 
 
 "o 
 
 ji 'o 
 
 ^ s 
 
 ft o 
 
 •S 3 
 3 ft 
 
 © O 
 
 ^ ... 
 
 © O 
 
 >■ 
 
 t © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 <4h 
 
 © 
 
 '"3 
 
 34 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 43 
 
 © 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 n3 
 
 © o ^ 
 
 '3-1 •.£ 
 
 gll 
 
 ^ ~ Ph 
 
 _, be i 
 © PI 2? 
 
 t/2 • i—i -jja ~ 
 
 O * 
 
 e-H ' 
 
 O © 
 
 r 3 
 
 QQ 
 
 34 K 
 C3 © 
 
 S £ 
 
 r—H *—h 
 
 cc 
 
 OQ 
 
 © -<u 
 
 k © 
 
 Cw 
 
 O 
 
 £ 
 
 cc 
 
 CO 
 
 c3 
 
 '"o 
 
 i 
 
 © 
 
 Ph 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 tf. 
 
 «+h 
 
 a 
 
 co 
 
 pH 
 
 © 
 
 32 
 
 © 
 
 43 
 
 © 
 
 cc 
 
 «+H 
 
 QQ 
 
 (-1 43 
 
 O c3 
 
 • Tj QQ 
 
 -43 — 
 
 3» P" 1 
 
 © 
 
 r* 02 
 
 - P- 
 
 © 
 
 a s 
 
 <3 43 
 
 © 
 
 2 n-j -P ~ © 
 
 9 § ft 2ft 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 ft 
 
 02 
 
 £ § 
 
 .9 © 
 
 r—H 
 
 o 
 
 o ^ 
 
 2 ? 
 
 § 
 
 © £ 
 £► PH 
 Ph © 
 
 3 3 
 
 02 , W 
 
 r © 
 
 © pj 
 
 3; O 
 
 © 3 
 
 e£ 3 
 
 ft 3 
 
 C3 
 
 r—H 
 
 © 
 ~ QQ 
 <3 CO 
 
 33 > 
 
 © 
 
 • rH 
 
 ft ft 
 
 ift 
 
 © 
 
 cc r C 
 
 • i—i 
 
 C3 ao 
 
 3 © 
 © TD 
 
 •43 
 
 3h 
 ... O 
 
 © O 
 © © 
 
 r © «4-H 
 
 © ^ 
 3 02 
 
 U Ph 
 
 9 o 
 
 O ^C 
 
 -a 
 
 gftft 
 
 3 ^ Ph 
 
 © 
 
 © -- 
 
 © 
 
 ^ g 
 © > 
 
 k 53 
 
 Ph 3 
 
 ^ oc 
 
 02 
 
 5 § 
 
 JS ~ 
 
 © 
 Ph 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 Pht: 
 
 _ © ft 
 
 g.s i- 
 
 los.S 
 
 — © 
 
 d -3 © 
 
 | ~ > t> 
 
 ^ © -Ph 
 Q [> 3 
 
 ^ O ° 
 
 c2 
 
 © 
 
 32 
 
 © 
 
 Ph 
 
 O 02 
 
 £ft 
 
 © ft 
 
 Ph "35 
 CO 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 s £ 
 
 ft qq 
 
 •" o ® /-'s O 
 
 0,-2 © © -+3 
 
 f-H 43 
 
 r-> HH .^H .pH 
 
 rH CQ 43 ^_i 
 T! ^3 ~ Q ” 
 
 S 3 h3 © © . . 
 
 ffi -H -3 © 22 
 
 o 13 o ©3 © 
 
 —5 3 O r-- e+H o 
 
 © o © 
 
 O Ph 
 
 3 © 
 
 © r^1 
 
 c3 
 
 (-> 43 
 
 « 02 
 ci 
 
 PP 
 
 When last 
 seen by 
 Lloyds’ 
 Surveyor. 
 
 2Q 
 
 4> 
 
 00 
 
 10-69 
 
 8-70 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 C0 CD 
 i> CD 
 
 1 1 
 
 H» a—i 
 
 6-72 
 
 10-71 
 
 3 • 
 
 (V) -4-^J 
 
 >0 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 -*? 00 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 1C 
 
 CD UO 
 
 CD' 
 
 CD 
 
 3 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 00 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ^ 32 
 
 T—! 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 bC 
 
 ■ r-H 
 
 be 
 
 *© 
 
 32 
 
 o 
 
 Ph 
 
 © 
 
 e3 
 
 Ph 
 
 r~* 
 
 H 
 
 c3 
 
 H 
 
 Ph 
 
 © 
 
 43 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 Sligo .... 
 G-oole .... 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 Ph 
 
 43 
 
 ?H 
 
 O 
 
 Ph 
 
 bC 
 
 QQ 
 
 p—H 
 
 ft 
 
 3 
 
 c3 
 
 Ph 
 
 43 
 
 m 
 
 *© 
 
 Ph 
 
 O 
 
 fH 
 
 QQ 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 ft 
 
 Ph 
 
 © 
 
 • rH 
 
 ft 
 
 QQ 
 
 Szi 
 
 P3 
 
 O 
 
 43 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 be 
 
 c5 
 
 3 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 <M 
 
 r> 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 eg 
 
 X 
 
 CD 
 
 C5 
 
 X X> 
 
 X 
 
 C2 
 
 x> 
 
 to 
 
 oq 
 
 rH 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 be 
 
 ft 
 
 be 
 
 ft 
 
 34 Ph* 
 
 ft QQ 
 
 QQ 
 
 34 
 
 ft 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 bo 
 
 og 
 
 r—H 
 
 O 
 
 r~ 
 
 Ph 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 43 
 
 3 
 
 ^3 
 
 O 
 
 Ph 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 43 
 
 rH 
 
 ^3 
 
 3h 
 
 02 
 
 g3 
 
 34 
 
 CO 
 
 £ 
 
 IS 
 
 • rH 
 
 ^ I 
 
 43 • rH 
 
 co Z2 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 ft 
 
 o 
 
 r-H 
 r© 
 (— 
 3 
 
 is 
 
 32 
 
 3 
 
 is 
 
 3rd September, 1873. B. Waymouth, Secretary. 
 
■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
66 
 
 APPENDIX IY 
 
 UNCLASSED 
 
 A Statement showing the Steamers (unclassed) Abandoned, Foundered, 
 extracted from Returns furnished by the Committee of Lloyds to 
 
 (Put in by Mr. B. Waymouth. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Where built. 
 
 When 
 
 built. 
 
 Voyage. 
 
 Gross. 
 
 Register. 
 
 From 
 
 To 
 
 Carolina. 
 
 1,174 
 
 733 
 
 West Hartle- 
 
 1861 
 
 Baltimore .... 
 
 Queenstown 
 
 
 
 
 pool 
 
 
 
 
 Churruca. 
 
 905 
 
 672 
 
 Seacombe .... 
 
 1871 
 
 New York .... 
 
 Waterford... 
 
 Gravina . 
 
 950 
 
 672 
 
 Seacombe .... 
 
 1870 
 
 Montreal. 
 
 Dublin .... 
 
 J ames Mary church 
 
 905 
 
 574 
 
 Cardiff . 
 
 | 
 
 1871 
 
 Montreal .... 
 
 Queenstown 
 
 Advance. 
 
 394 
 
 246 
 
 Stockton. 
 
 1854 
 
 Hartlepool.... 
 
 Gothenburg 
 
 A rhi/an . 
 
 544 
 
 370 
 
 Bristol . 
 
 1857 
 
 Heulva. 
 
 Liverpool .. 
 
 Cortes. 
 
 437 
 
 265 
 
 Glasgow. 
 
 1866 
 
 Barcelona .... 
 
 London .... 
 
 Dalmatian . 
 
 1,989 
 
 1,693 
 
 Belfast . 
 
 1862 
 
 Liverpool .... 
 
 Palermo.... 
 
 Florence . 
 
 882 
 
 553 
 
 Glasgow. 
 
 1871 
 
 Cardiff . 
 
 Gibraltar .. 
 
 Grecian . 
 
 1,420 
 
 1,260 
 
 Belfast . 
 
 1861 
 
 Liverpool .... 
 
 Palermo.... 
 
 Isleman 
 
 175 
 
 58 
 
 Glaso-nw. 
 
 1858 
 
 
 
 Talisman . 
 
 738 
 
 581 
 
 Greenock .... 
 
 1860 
 
 Santos . 
 
 Hamburg .. 
 
 Wando . 
 
 — 
 
 680 
 
 Port Glasgow 
 
 1864 
 
 New York .... 
 
 Havana .... 
 
 AlATanflpv T nrl 
 
 
 913 
 
 Kiel 
 
 1871 
 
 Rostock. 
 
 Leith. 
 
 Genua. 
 
 888 
 
 718 
 
 Hamburg .... 
 
 1872 
 
 Mediterranean 
 
 Hamburg .. 
 
 Parmer 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chrysolite . 
 
 64 
 
 53 
 
 
 1868 
 
 Port Dundas .. 
 
 Londonderry 
 
 Fverarrl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 
 
 
 New Orleans .. 
 
 Apalachicola 
 
 TTonfleuris 
 
 173 
 
 104 
 
 . i 
 
 
 Havre. 
 
 Honfleur .. 
 
 Ins 
 
 145 
 
 125 
 
 
 1867 
 
 
 
 Lae-la-Pelle 
 
 
 
 American .... 
 
 Coaster .... 
 
 Mao-net 
 
 
 
 
 
 Geestemunde.. 
 
 Queenstown 
 
 Milaoro 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 Peruvian .... 
 
 Coaster .... 
 
 M oseow 
 
 
 
 
 
 Antwerp. 
 
 Danzig .... 
 
 "PiAruifir’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A IDUoUl »•«••••• 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX IT. 
 
 67 
 
 STEAMERS. 
 
 or Missing during the year 1872 and up to the 31st March, 1873; 
 the Committee of Lloyds’ Register of British and Foreign Shipping. 
 
 See Minutes of Evidence, Question 7908). 
 
 Cargo. 
 
 Grain 
 
 Grain 
 
 Grain 
 
 Grain (maize) 
 Rails . 
 
 Sulphur ore.. 
 
 General 
 
 Coal . 
 
 General 
 
 Coffee. 
 
 Grain . 
 
 Cork, &c. 
 
 Coal 
 
 Palm oil .. .. 
 
 - 
 
 Casualty. 
 
 Date of 
 Casualty or 
 when last 
 heard of. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 j 
 
 Abandoned.. 
 
 14 Oct., 1872 
 
 
 ) 
 
 Missing .... 
 
 3 Nor., 1872 
 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 8 Nov., 1872 
 
 Lat. 48° N., long. 
 
 i 
 
 
 60° W. 
 
 Missing .... 
 
 27 Oct., 1872 
 
 
 Abandoned.. 
 
 22 Mar., 1872 
 
 North Sea. 
 
 ; Abandoned.. 
 
 5 Jan., 1872 
 
 Cape Finisterre 
 
 Abandoned.. 
 
 5 April, 1872 
 
 100 m. S.W. of Brest 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 
 
 , Foundered .. 
 
 16 June, 1872 
 
 Bav of Biscay .... 
 
 Missing .... 
 
 30tfan., 1873 
 
 
 ; Foundered .. 
 
 10 Sept., 1872 
 
 Martinique. 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 Jan., 1873 
 
 12 m. off Lisbon 
 
 Abandoned.. 
 
 4 Feb., 1872 
 
 Lat. 38° N., long. 
 
 
 
 vx° w 
 
 
 
 4 0 \ V . 
 
 Missing .... 
 
 31 Dec., 1872 
 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 24 Oct., 1872 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 20 Nov., 1872 
 
 Lagos 
 
 Sunk . 
 
 14 Jan., 1872 
 
 Memphis 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 27 Dec., 1872 
 
 Off Sanda Island 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 27 Sept., 1872 
 
 Martinique . 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 23 Dec., 1872 
 
 25 m. W of Mobile 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 14 Oct., 1872 
 
 Near Amford Bank 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 14 Nov., 1872 
 
 Corralita 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 16 Oct., 1872 
 
 Lake Michigan 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 5 Dec., 1872 
 
 Schiermonkoog 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 22 Sept., 1872 
 
 Eten Harbour 
 
 Foundered .. 
 
 5 Nov., 1872 
 
 Scaw 
 
 Foundered.. 
 
 14 Mar., 1872 
 
 San Francisco 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Shipped a heavy sea 
 which filled stoke-hole 
 and put out fires. 
 
 Capsized ; did not com¬ 
 ply with Port "War¬ 
 den’s regulations as to 
 loading. 
 
 Struck by a sea; made 
 water; cargo shifted. 
 
 Rudder earned away by 
 heavy sea, Ac. 
 
 No survivors (probably 
 wrecked). 
 
 Explosion of gas. 
 
 Sank in a hurricane 
 
 Sank in a hurrieaue 
 Sprung a leak. 
 
 E 2 
 
Appendix Y. 
 
 LOSSES OF CLASSED AND UNCLASSED SHIPS. 
 
 The assertion is often made that a greater number of classed 
 ships are lost than unclassed ships. Sometimes it is put in the 
 more qaalified form that a greater proportion of classed ships is 
 lost than unclassed ships. Both forms of the statement, however, 
 are so emphatically contradicted by the daily and yearly experi¬ 
 ence of all engaged in the various branches of trade or business 
 connected with the Mercantile Marine, that they have not hither¬ 
 to been tnotight worthy of the attention necessary to collect 
 statistics sufficient to prove them utterly unfounded. 
 
 When, however, it is stated that statistics are to be produced 
 in Parliament to prove such assertions true for the purpose of 
 influencing legislation, it behoves every one interested in the 
 welfare of the Commercial Marine of this country to examine 
 carefully into the facts of the case, and to prevent as far as 
 possible these facts being misrepresented. In the first place it is 
 obvious that other things being equal, a well built, well equipped, 
 and well cared for ship will have a better chance of weathering a 
 storm than one badly built, or badly equipped, or more or less 
 rotten and out of repair. 
 
 A. large proportion of the unciassed ships of this country are 
 composed of vessels that have been classed, but from one cause 
 or another, from age or decay of the ship, the owner finds it will 
 become expensive to keep her in thorough repair, he shrinks from 
 submitting her to the necessary surveys, or refuses to effect the 
 repairs, and in consequence she loses her class. 
 
 It is frequently a mere matter of money with the owner. He 
 does not spend large sums in repairing the vessel; he sometimes 
 patches her up, puts her into a rougher trade to carry less 
 valuable cargoes, and is content, as we shall show, to pay double 
 or treble the rate of insurance. 
 
 Apart from statistics, is it not perfectly obvious that the risks 
 are increased as a vessel becomes more defective; if not, the 
 
69 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 whole basis of Marine Insurance in the country is wrong. Instead 
 of the premiums for low classed and unclassed ships being two or 
 three times as high as for A 1 ships, they should be lower. 
 Merchants, instead of paying higher freights, and giving the 
 preference to A 1 ships, should reverse their long standing prac¬ 
 tice. Mutual Marine Insurance Clubs should place no restriction 
 as to class upon the ships they accept. Shipowners should have 
 no inducement to submit their vessels to independent survey, 
 and all the various institutions and organizations which have 
 grown up with the Mecantile Marine to afford commercial facility 
 and mutual protection, should be pronounced useless, if not mis¬ 
 chievous. 
 
 The following few figures will show that the 'proportion of 
 losses among unclassed ships is double as great as among classed 
 ships , and that the insurance risk is three times as great on unclassed 
 ships as on classed ships. 
 
 We give results only for ships classed or unclassed in Lloyds’ 
 Register, because, when so confined, we can speak with certainty. 
 This, as you will see, gives to what we term “ unclassed ” ships 
 the advantage, whatever it may be worth, of including vessels 
 classed in other Registers than Lloyds’ Register. 
 
 We take also sea-going ships only, because it would be 
 manifestly misleading to include yachts, fishing smacks, and 
 other small craft which undergo none of the risks of the seagoing 
 trading ship. 
 
 The Committee of Lloyds’ Register deem all vessels of 100 
 tons and upwards, worthy of a place in their Register, whether 
 classed or unclassed. We take the same limit as defining a sea¬ 
 going ship. Here again w T e give the unclassed ships the benefit 
 of including a large number of yachts and other vessels that are 
 nursed carefully in harbour during the winter months and rough 
 weather, and many river steamers, lighters, and tugs, &c., for the 
 most part unclassed, that never venture out of smooth water. 
 
 To eliminate all these vessels from the comparison, so as to 
 arrive absolutely at what we want, viz., the proportion of loss 
 among the vessels which actually risk life and property on the 
 seas and around our coasts, would be a work of vast labour and 
 difficulty, and take much time. So we take all vessels of 100 
 tons and upwards, as a good approximation, but as erring some¬ 
 what in favour of unclassed ships. 
 
 In the early part of last year, the Board of Trade commenced 
 printing a monthly list of vessels whose British Register was 
 
70 
 
 APPENDIX Y. 
 
 cancelled during tlie month, either from being wrecked, lost, sold 
 to foreigners, or converted into hulks. Previous to that time 
 these lists were kept in manuscript. 
 
 We have a complete official record for the whole of 1874, and 
 the first six months of 1875, showing the tonnages of the vessels, 
 and the cause of the loss of Register. Eliminating from this 
 record all vessels under 100 tons, all vessels broken up, sold to 
 foreigners, or converted into stationary hulks, we get at the total 
 number of casualties, resulting in the loss of the ships reported 
 to the Board of Trade, during that period. 
 
 These casualties mav be divided into two classes, one con- 
 taining ships which are stated to have been stranded, wrecked, 
 sunk through collision, burned, or otherwise lost through assigned 
 causes not traceable to the ship being defective ; the other where 
 the ships are reported foundered, missing, abandoned, or lost 
 without the cause being assigned. 
 
 We give the latter class as being by far the most weighty and 
 conclusive, and as it is contended with truth that ships are some¬ 
 times driven ashore from faulty equipment, the whole of the 
 casualties from all causes are also compared. 
 
 In 1874 the total number of British ships of 100 tons and 
 upwards returned to the Board of Trade as lost from all causes 
 was 593, of which 181 were classed in Lloyds’ Register, and 412 
 
 VJ 
 
 were not so classed. 
 
 The total number of British ships, excluding Colonial ships, 
 of 100 tons and upwards, in existence at the middle of the same 
 year was 11,569, of which 6,115 were classed in Lloyds’ Register, 
 and 5,454 were not so classed. 
 
 The number of losses therefore was 2*96 per cent, of the 
 classed ships, and 7*55 per cent, of the unclassed ships. In the 
 first six months just passed of the present year, the number of 
 British ships of 100 tons and upwards reported to the Board of 
 Trade as lost, from all causes, was 396, of which 135 were classed 
 in Lloyds’ Register, and 261 were not so classed. The total 
 number of British ships of 100 tons and upwards, in existence at 
 the middle of the year was 11,362, of which 5,893 were classed 
 in Lloyds’ Register, and 5,469 were not so so classed. The pro¬ 
 portion of losses, therefore, was 2*29 per cent, of ships classed in 
 Lloyds’ Register, and 4*77 per cent, of ships not so classed. 
 
 Excluding those returned as wrecked, stranded, burnt, <fcc., 
 where there is a cause assigned not directly traceable to the 
 unseaworthiness of the ship, the returns are as follows :— 
 
APPENDIX V. 
 
 71 
 
 In 1874 the number of British ships of 100 tons and upwards 
 lost, foundered, missing and abandoned, was 281, of which 103 
 were classed in Lloyds-’— Register, and 178 were not so classed. 
 The total number in existence as given above was 11,569, of 
 which 6,115 were classed in Lloyds’ Register, and 5,454 were not 
 so classed. . / 
 
 The proportion of losses from foundering, &c., therefore, was 
 1*68 per cent, of ships classed in Lloyds’ Register, and 3*26 per 
 •cent, not so classed. 
 
 In the first six months of the present year the number of 
 British ships of 100 tons and upwards reported lost, foundered, 
 missing, and abondoned, was 200, of which 77 were classed in 
 Lloyds’ Register, and 123 were not so classed. The total number, 
 again as above, was 11,362, of which 5,893 were classed in 
 Lloyds’ Register, and 5,469 were not so classed. 
 
 The proportion of losses reported during the first six months 
 •of 1875 was therefore 1*3 per cent, of ships classed in Lloyds’ 
 Register, and 2*25 per cent, of ships not so classed. 
 
 These figures have been very carefully obtained from official 
 documents prepared at the Board of Trade and from Lloyds’ 
 Register Book, and they fully bear out the statement made above, 
 that sea-going vessels not classed in Lloyds’ Register are lost in 
 •twice as great proportions as those which are so classed. 
 
 Put in a tabular form, the foregoing results stand thus :— 
 
72 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
APPENDIX Y. 
 
 We have not such complete data as the foregoing for earlier 
 years than 1874, bnt it maybe predicted with confidence, that if 
 similar investigations for those years were instituted, the results 
 obtained would be substantially the same as those we have given 
 for 1874 and 1875. The whole of the losses for British vessels 
 of all sizes are given below for the years 1872, 1875, 1874, and 
 the first half of 1875, and it will be seen that in all cases the loss 
 of vessels not classed in Lloyds’ Register js much greater than 
 the loss of those so classed, and bears about the same proportion 
 in 1872 and 1873 as in 1874 and 18/5. 
 
 All losses, including stranding, collisions, 
 foundered, missing, &c. 
 
 Losses from foundering, 
 missing, but not 
 stranding, collisions, &c. 
 
 
 Classed 
 
 Classed 
 
 Unclassed 
 
 Classed 
 
 Classed 
 
 Unclassed 
 
 Year 
 
 and 
 
 Lloyds’ 
 
 Lloyds’ 
 
 and 
 
 Lloyds’ 
 
 Lloyds’ 
 
 t 
 
 Unclassed. 
 
 Regr. 
 
 Regr. 
 
 Unclassed. 
 
 Regr. 
 
 Regr. 
 
 1872 
 
 863 
 
 262 
 
 601 
 
 198 
 
 70 
 
 128 
 
 1873 
 
 938 
 
 301 
 
 637 
 
 316 
 
 108 
 
 208 
 
 1874 
 
 1258 
 
 313 
 
 945 
 
 506 
 
 162 
 
 344 
 
 First half of 1875 
 
 1013 
 
 273 
 
 680 
 
 389 
 
 118 
 
 271 
 
 For some time past the Board of Trade have been periodically 
 sending lists of lost ships to the different Register Societies,. 
 with the request that the class of the vessels, if any, should be 
 inserted and the lists be returned. 
 
 The number of ships’ names so sent to Lloyds’ Register is 
 460, and of these 153 were classed in Lloyds’ Register, and 307 
 not so classed. 
 
 In all these returns it will be seen that the number of un-- 
 clased ships is from two to three times as great as the number 
 of classed ships lost, and if the yachts, river-boats, and other 
 small craft below 100 tons were eliminated, the actual propor¬ 
 tionate loss would be at least twice as great, in unclassed as in 
 classed ships, as proved to be the case in 1874 and the first half 
 of 1875. 
 
 A statement showing the steamers abandoned, foundered, and 
 missing during the year 1872 and the first three months of 1873,. 
 was laid before the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships by 
 
74 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 the Secretary to Lloyds’ Register, and it is published in an 
 Appendix to the first volume of the “ Minutes of Evidence.” 
 
 From these returns it appears the total number of steamers 
 lost in the way above-mentioned was 62, and of these 20 only 
 were classed in Lloyds’ Register, while there were 42 steamers 
 lost not so classed. 
 
 Abundant records could be brought to light, did time permit 
 of it, to prove that taken broadly, the losses of sea-going ships 
 not classed in Lloyds’ Register, are twice as numerous and twice 
 as great proportionally as in the case of ships so classed. 
 
 We may add that the Board of Trade, in carrying out the 
 powers conferred upon them by the Act of 1873, to survey, and, 
 if necessary, condemn any ships not seaworthy, have confined 
 their action almost entirely to unclassed ships. 
 
 The long list of condemned ships were all unclassed ships, 
 and instances where even repairs have been deemed necessary 
 for a classed ship, have been very few and very exceptional, and 
 such as must always be expected where the number of classed 
 ships is so extensive, in spite of the utmost vigilance to pre¬ 
 vent it. 
 
 We have stated above, that the insurance risk is three times so 
 great on unclassed ships as it is on classed ships . In making this 
 statement, we are not unmindful of the fact that some of the 
 large companies own unclassed ships, which could at any time 
 be insured on terms as favourable as an A 1 ship. 
 
 These are the exceptions. They afford no guidance in dealing 
 with the bulk of unclassed shipping, and cannot be taken to 
 represent unclassed ships. 
 
 To arrive at correct information on the point, we must seek 
 the records of the Mutual Marine Insurance Clubs, and we shall 
 find that for the most part unclassed ships are insured in Clubs 
 of this description associated with low-classed ships, and that 
 the premiums are so high as to effectually shut out high-classed 
 ships from the Clubs that admit the vessels without restriction 
 as to class. 
 
 There are in fact two types of Mutual Clubs in this country: 
 
 One in which the ships are carefully restricted to the highest 
 and best classes, and the premiums kept low; and the other in 
 which the ships are admittedly inferior, and in which the pre¬ 
 miums have to be very high. An excellent illustration of this 
 is to be found in the evidence given by Mr. J. Riley, before the 
 Royal Commission. The firm of Tindall, Riley, and Co., who 
 
APPENDIX V. 
 
 75 
 
 manage tlie London Mutual Marine Insurance and Protection 
 Clubs for steam and sailing ships, have perhaps the largest expe¬ 
 rience in the country upon such matters. At the time of the 
 sittings of the Royal Commission, they had seven Clubs, with 
 £1,580,000 insured, and 400,000 tons of shipping protected. 
 Table A, which is appended, contains the annual result of the 
 operations of these Clubs, from the time of the formation of 
 each of them to the end of 1873, and is deserving of the most 
 careful study. 
 
 Six out of the seven Clubs deal only with sailing ships, and 
 of these six, five restrict the vessels to those having a high class 
 in Lloyds’ Register, while the other one does not place restric¬ 
 tions as to class, and it will be seen that very high premiums 
 result in this Club, and as a matter of course, the Club contains 
 only unclassed or low-class ships, which would not be qualified 
 to enter one of the other Clubs. 
 
 The high class Clubs are the Thames, Standard, Imperial, 
 Reliance, and Oriental, and the Club which places no class restric¬ 
 tion is the Equitable Marine. 
 
 Their average premiums are as follows :— 
 
 
 £ 
 
 5 . 
 
 d. 
 
 
 Thames 
 
 .. 3 
 
 5 
 
 0 per 
 
 cent, per annum 
 
 Standard 
 
 .. 4 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 5) 
 
 Imperial 
 
 .. 4 
 
 18 
 
 7 
 
 
 Reliance 
 
 .. 5 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 
 Oriental 
 
 .. 5 
 
 11 
 
 0 
 
 J) 
 
 Equitable Marine . . 
 
 .. 13 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 5) 
 
 Taking the average of the five high class Clubs, it amounts 
 to a premium of £4 155. 6d. as against £13 95. 1 d. for the low 
 and unclassed vessels of the Equitable Marine, or very nearly in 
 the proportion of 1 to 3. Mr. Riley was questioned by the Com¬ 
 missioners as to this vast difference, and he imputed it partly to 
 the ships being less safe, and partly to the trades being more 
 risky, from the averages being higher, a point which he explained 
 more fully in his evidence. 
 
 The losses of unclassed ships, as we have shown above, are 
 twice as great in proportion as of classed ships, and the other 
 cause assigned by Mr. Riley appears sufficient to carry the insu¬ 
 rance risks up from 2 to 1, to 3 to 1, as between classed and 
 unclassed ships. 
 
76 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 Other illustrations might be taken from the Mutual Insu¬ 
 rance Clubs of the North of England. 
 
 Table B embodies an extract from the evidence before the 
 Royal Commission, of a gentleman who has had considerable 
 experience of these Clubs. Statistics are given for four Clubs , 
 extending over the years 1870, ’71, and ’72, and embracing three 
 Clubs for the insurance of first class vessels, and one for the in¬ 
 surance of low class or unclassed sailing ships. 
 
 Comparing the high class sailing ships with the low and 
 unclassed sailing ships, we find the average percentage of total 
 losses (excluding collisions) on the number insured was 3 per 
 cent, in the former, and 9*9 per cent, in the latter, the average 
 for the high class steamers being in the two Clubs 3’51 and 3*84 
 respectively. 
 
 The author of these statistics pointed out that whereas in 
 the Clubs referred to in Table B, about one-half of the low 
 class and unclassed ships lost were reported foundered or miss¬ 
 ing, only about one-fourth of the high class ships lost were 
 reported foundered or missing. 
 
 These facts, startling as they appear when put into figures, 
 will not astonish those who have experience of the insurance of 
 unclassed ships, nor will they surprise the owners of such vessels,, 
 who know only too well the risks attending them. 
 
 We arrive, then, as between classed and unclassed ships, to 
 the following conclusions :— 
 
 1. In spite of the large unclassed steamers belonging to 
 
 great companies, and of a host of river steamers, yachts, tugs, 
 and others not liable to sea risk being included among the 
 unclassed ships, and in spite of the latter including the British 
 vessels classed in the Liverpool Registry and in the Bureau 
 Veritas^the actual returns of losses prove that unclassed ships, 
 or ships not classed in Lloyds’ Registry, are lost twice as rapidly 
 as those not so classed. --- 
 
 2. Could the vessels specially alluded to above be eliminated 
 from among the vessels deemed unclassed, so as to arrive at the 
 numbers of those actual seagoing vessels which are not classed 
 because they are unfit- for any class, we should unquestionably 
 find the rate * of mortality of those vessels far higher than we 
 have indicated above. 
 
 3. The statement that classed ships are lost as frequently as 
 unclassed ships, is by the above statistics proved to be as much 
 opposed to the facts of the case as it is contrary to reason, and 
 
APPENDIX Y. 
 
 77 
 
 it is much to be hoped that such facts will become known, not 
 only to the shipping community, but to the general public, who 
 are much more likely to be misled by erroneous statements, pro¬ 
 pagated with much pertinacity for purposes which it is unneces¬ 
 sary here to characterise, but which are likely, if not confuted, 
 to be a source of much injury to the shipping legislation of this 
 country. 
 
 Remember Classed Ships contain the following well known 
 unseaworthy vessels, namely 
 
 1. East Coast Well steamers. 16 in three months, 1874 and 
 1875, winter. Black Sea home. 
 
 2. Clyde overmasted sailing vessels (Numerous cases.) 
 “ Stuart Hahneman ” capsized. 
 
 3. Weakly constructed steamers (Hindoo, &c.). 
 
 4. Over-lengthened steamers. Steamship ‘‘Delaware,” &c.). 
 
 5. Vessels (steamers) lately built without shear. 
 
 .Unclassed Ships contain : — 
 
 1. Our very best ships afloat. P. and 0. Company, Cunard 
 Line, Green’s, Wigram’s, W. I. Company, Holt Line, and 
 any number of others. 
 
 “ Allow for these facts, and then consider what the above 
 .figures mean ! ! ! ! ” 
 
78 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 <P 
 
 C 
 
 PS 
 
 <D 
 
 rC 
 
 -H-S 
 
 ?H 
 
 c 
 
 «Pl 
 
 <D 
 
 rj 02 
 
 § pH 
 
 > 3 
 
 <J &)C0 
 
 H 
 
 ^ ^ ■£ 
 9 « g 
 
 ^ g I 
 
 r .ij o 
 o 
 
 ;t5 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 05 
 
 g 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 *yj 
 
 — 
 
 Ph 
 
 GQ 
 
 £h 
 
 QQ 
 
 ro 
 P 
 P 
 p 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 o 
 £ 
 
 <1 
 
 P 
 
 m 
 
 5 H 
 
 £ 
 i—i 
 
 P3 
 
 <1 
 
 3 
 
 P 
 
 ◄ 
 
 P 
 
 H 
 
 P 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 n 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 PI 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 o £ 
 
 O U1 
 
 *1 
 •N I—' 
 
 >H rP 
 
 S © 
 
 □ O 
 
 P o 
 
 P - 
 P 1> 
 <J '“ , 
 P 
 £ 
 
 ca 
 
 K 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 PP 
 
 02 
 
 S-> 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 © 
 
 CD 
 
 r-* 
 
 o 
 
 b£) 
 
 ct 
 
 r-* 
 
 p-< 
 
 c5 
 
 © 
 
 H Hi 
 
 P O 
 H H 
 
 Hi 
 
 © 
 
 P0 
 
 03 
 
 si 
 
 © 
 
 r© 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 5k Hi 
 « H2 
 
 'O 
 
 Hi 
 
 Cj 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 © P 
 
 •Hj 
 
 
 P 
 
 —* 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 UO 
 
 40 
 
 
 © 
 
 £2 
 
 
 P 
 
 00 
 
 <—* 
 
 hH 
 
 of 
 
 •N 
 
 OJ 
 
 crt 
 
 03 
 
 rv 
 
 OJ 
 
 rH 
 
 •N 
 
 f-H 
 
 r\ 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 *o 
 
 rv 
 
 *> 
 
 «C 
 
 «0 
 
 •«4 
 
 5k 
 
 s> 
 
 >J 
 
 5k 
 
 Hi 
 
 •2 s 
 if 
 
 •5 *- 
 g <© 
 
 © 2 ^ 
 
 I* s 
 55 © 
 
 * -O 
 
 ^ Vj 
 
 O ^ g* 
 ^ 
 2Q 
 
 <a o-^ 
 
 <$ «o ^ 
 ■N 1 ^ S 
 
 ^ « « 
 
 © .. ?0 
 
 •■Ki r '^-* 
 *<* © 
 
 55 « 
 V. ^ 
 
 » ^ 
 
 © © 
 -+H 
 
 g 
 
 O © 
 
 >* 
 
 -Hi 
 
 «o 
 
 P3 
 
 © 
 • Ki 
 
 Hi 
 
 © 
 
 <H 
 
 a: 
 
 © 
 
 «o 
 
 © 
 © 
 «o 
 =o 
 
 ^ 
 
 jo s ^ 
 
 b « 
 
 os 
 
 © 
 
 <42 
 
 03 
 
 e 
 
 <42 
 
 O 
 
 ■<i 
 
 Hi 
 
 H 
 
 OK 
 
 <42 
 
 r* 
 
 5k 
 
 <42 
 
 >Hi 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 <42 
 
 Hi 
 
 o 
 
 02 
 
 m 
 
 Cj r* 
 
 2 5 
 
 » H %-* 
 
 bo ph 
 
 * M V M S 
 
 'o 
 
 zn 
 
 — 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 C3 
 
 < < 
 
 o o 
 
 03 03 
 
 < < < < < 
 
 io <n ic <o 
 
 Ul o O C5 o C5 
 
 < < < << 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 Q o o o o o 
 
 , | r t F ,M 1 i » i * 
 
 <3a <^ <^ <^ <j£ 
 
 g . 
 
 O 
 
 ^ ^ <^ <^ ^ 
 
 CD 
 
 rQ 
 
 ^P 
 
 6 
 
 02 
 
 r P 
 
 P 
 
 c5 
 
 P. 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 Cj 
 
 02 
 
 5-i 
 
 Cj 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 ! 
 
 VO 
 
 ^ CO 
 " I 
 CO 
 
 - <D 
 
 ~ PH 
 
 03 
 
 (M 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 F—• 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 Hi Hi 
 
 ‘2 .®o 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 • »—♦ 
 
 • 
 
 
 © *p? 
 
 rv 
 
 rv 
 
 rv 
 
 rv 
 
 r\ 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 ^ It- 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 <1 
 
 rH 
 
 < 
 
 A 1 
 
 < 
 
 rv 
 
 
 
 «o 5 k 
 
 § © 
 © © 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 rH 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 a,^ 
 
 •P 1 So 
 
 Si 
 
 tH 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 . 
 
 O 
 
 r~< 
 
 
 
 CQ o 
 
 
 02 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 c3 
 
 CD 
 
 DH 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 <J <j <j 
 
 OkF s 
 
 • ri. 
 
 C3 
 
 Tj 
 
 p 
 
 Cj 
 
 Hi 
 
 m 
 
 5-. 
 
 O 
 
 rv 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 P 
 
 Cj 
 
 C3 
 
 H-i 
 
 © 
 
 © -<?j 
 
 _ o 
 
 tJD © 
 Hi 
 
 O 
 
 Sj 
 
 © 
 
 5k 
 
 h3 
 
 P; 
 
 .®? 
 
 © J <43 
 
 5. 
 
 <42 
 
 h5S 
 
 Hi 
 
 © 
 
 Hi 
 
 03 
 03 
 
 $ e 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 8 
 
 =0 
 
 S* 2Q 
 
 © 
 
 S» 
 
 <-S<^ 
 
 •v ^K» 
 
 03 
 ■ ri 
 
 X 
 
 ^2 
 
 ©H 
 
 00^ 
 
 ^ s 
 
 <> 
 
 tS 
 
 •<- K^ 
 
 HO 
 
 <42 
 
 Hi 
 
 e 
 
 <42 
 
 03 
 
 02 
 
 © 
 
 K. 
 
 © 
 
 Hi 
 
 03 
 
 © 
 
 © .s 
 § « 
 
 
 SJ 
 • oi 
 
 © 
 
 03 
 
 © 
 
 kTJ 
 
 © 
 
 . £> 
 P; « 
 
 5k 
 
 © 
 
 Hi 
 
 03 
 
 • -i 
 
 ^© 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 * 
 
 © 
 
 Hi 
 
 © 
 
 55 «o 
 
 •S>5 
 
 Co ^ 
 
 ^ "© 
 
 0» ^ 
 
 © 
 
 8 ^ hh 
 o P* >•- 
 
 O^R. 
 
 H « O P P< P 
 
 os 5 $ 
 
 *<H • H 
 
THE LONDON MUTUAL MARINE INSURANCE AND PROTECTION CLUBS FOR STEAM AND 
 
 SAILING VESSELS, 1849 to 1874. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 79* 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 •8 
 
 P P 
 P O 
 
 HH 
 
 Ǥ 
 L2 r 
 PS 
 
 » 4* 
 H-1 © 
 
 H g 
 Ph^ 
 
 P rP 
 
 H g 
 fa p 
 Q_| rP 
 
 " o 
 
 » 8 
 £ g 
 
 Mi P 
 
 © (+5 
 
 s 
 
 69 
 
 <15 
 
 §> 
 
 
 r O 
 
 © 
 
 H-i 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 H-> 
 
 O 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 Tft 
 
 to 
 
 r-J 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 r P 
 
 •N f V) 
 
 i> £ 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 cv 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 VO 
 
 •N 
 
 rH 
 
 GQ 
 
 & 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 OQ 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 rO 
 
 2 
 
 © 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 or 
 
 VO 
 
 Equitable 
 
 Marine. 
 
 1849 
 
 25 
 
 80 
 
 120 
 
 All 
 
 W. I. C. 
 
 Sails 
 
 £600 
 
 £55,000 
 
 £470 
 
 £13 9 1 
 
 Oriental. 
 
 A 1, 8. 
 
 1855 
 
 19 
 
 120 
 
 155 
 
 A 1, 8 
 
 W. I. C. 
 
 Sails 
 
 £2,000 
 
 £184,000 
 
 £1,190 
 
 £5 11 0 
 
 Reliance 
 
 A 1, 10. 
 
 1858 
 
 16 
 
 110 
 
 180 
 
 A 1, 10. 
 
 W. I. 0. 
 
 S ails 
 
 £2,000 
 
 £234,000 
 
 £1,300 
 
 £5 8 8 
 
 Imperial 
 
 A 1, 12. 
 
 1860 
 
 14 
 
 90 
 
 145 
 
 A 1, 12 
 
 W. I. C. 
 
 Sails 
 
 £2.000 
 
 £200,000 
 
 £1,370 
 
 £4 18 7 
 
 Standard 
 
 A 1, 12. 
 
 1867 
 
 7 
 
 110 
 
 190 
 
 A 1,12 
 
 W. I. C. 
 
 Sails. 
 
 £2,000 
 
 £264,000 
 
 £1,380 
 
 £4 14 3 
 
 Thames 
 
 Iron 
 
 A 1. 
 
 . 1870 
 
 4 
 
 50 
 
 160 
 
 100A1 
 
 Iron 
 
 Sails 
 
 £2,000 
 
 £166,000 
 
 £1,050 
 
 £3 5 0 
 
 1 
 
 Britannia 
 
 Steam 
 
 Ship. 
 
 1871 
 
 3 
 
 65 
 
 165 
 
 100A1 
 
 Iron 
 
 Steam 
 
 £3,000 
 
 £311,000 
 
 £1,900 
 
 £6 15 3 
 
 
 . rP . " r- , # SO-H 
 
 .Jr . .Hz . . O 
 
 . £ . . £ . . bJO . 
 
 00 
 
 rC 
 
 o 
 
 «4H 
 
 o 
 
 GG 
 
 © 
 
 s 
 
 rH 
 
 cs 
 
 © 
 
 rn 
 •»—< 
 
 3 
 
 C3 
 
 -+H 
 
 GQ 
 
 © 
 
 * 
 
 GQ 
 
 H © 
 
 2 ^ 02 
 
 • r -1 c o. 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 02 
 
 d 
 
 ?H 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 2 
 
 02 
 
 (~N . 
 
 o 
 
 k>, 
 
 p 
 
 c3 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 GO 
 
 © 
 
 Ph 
 
 P 
 
 GQ 
 
 C3 
 -M 
 
 P 
 
 Ph <j> 02 
 
 • O © 
 
 02 
 
 © 
 
 »«4H e+H « ^ 
 
 o o O O 
 
 (-1 S_ I_ o r-H 
 
 03 
 m -jh 
 
 o rH 
 
 H H C/5 C-> 
 
 d » ^ “ 
 
 © 
 
 K. ^ £ 
 
 © ^Ph o 
 
 4-j P e 
 
 fcD 
 
 c 3 
 
 U 
 
 © 
 
 k 
 
 cS 
 
 P © © 
 
 CO ^ rO 
 
 ■P 
 
 d d 
 
 n T5 rH GQ 
 
 X © P -*- J 
 rj P 
 
 S 3 .5 P 
 o Phm 0 
 O 9 c3 S 
 
 02 o 
 
 k ^ 
 
 O r—< 
 
 P 
 
 1 -^ £ r-* 
 
 .” P £ 
 
 u c3 S 
 © © _ 
 fcJD tJD o 
 
 Gj Cg ® 
 
 rH rH GQ 
 
 © © o 
 k k ^ 
 
 <1 
 
 # 
 
 Many of the Members and their Ships are in more than one Club. 
 
TABLE A— continued . 
 
 80 
 
 APPENDIX V 
 
 1 § 
 
 43 
 
 *d ci 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 d 
 
 c3 
 
 © 
 
 PH 
 
 
 ci 
 
 CM 
 
 © 
 o. 
 
 ^NhoOOMOHO«OOONN^HH^QOCOt?XC5hOO 
 
 rH I—I rH 
 
 ^XHCOWOiOCHOOCO^N^OiCOOlCOiOlOH^OCOOTfiOO 
 
 MCDO^OONOONONHCO^C3HJ>H0N^iOOHO*vO 
 
 rH rHi-HrH H rI rI M rl rH HrlHrHHHHHNN 
 
 rH 
 
 ~ 
 
 -H 
 
 00 
 
 
 rH i> O O , '5? rH X> CO 
 rH rH rH rH 
 
 HXHOOHOC5COM 
 rH rH 
 
 d 
 
 © 
 
 r\ 
 
 rH 
 
 -iii 
 
 1 1 1 CO LO t> to CM TH rH CM CO 
 
 1 1 1 rH rH rH rH rH 
 
 0Nt?CHQONNM(5 
 
 rH rH rH rH rH pH 
 
 O 
 
 <1 
 
 
 lO<nCOH?X>^rftr?QCCO^O^CDCD^CDl>CO 
 
 
 «c 
 
 ft} 
 
 OOOOOCi«OOOOH^OHCN0 
 
 rH pH 
 
 CCiCN^QOOOOCD^CCiXMNiCQOOCO 
 
 rHi—Ir-irHrHrH rH rH 
 
 COO>VOtJICOCOCO’-<JItJICOVOCOC04C5<M 
 
 
 * i 
 
 ft} 
 
 OCXCCCO^?OOOC505i-HX>pHi.O 
 
 rH rH 
 
 rH H H H r—irHrH H H 
 
 0COHX05O^^MiO^CONH 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 • i-H 
 
 JC 
 
 © 
 
 bfi 
 
 d 
 
 Ti 
 
 
 MNOO^ONCO 
 
 u oq 
 
 ^ rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 "C 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 I 1 1> uO J> CM CO 4 LO 
 
 i ^ 
 
 H M i i M 1 m 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *-H rH 
 
 1 m < 
 
 
 0 O W T? x p 
 
 CT5 
 
 »« 
 
 cm a id o 
 
 © 
 
 
 rH 
 
 s o H 
 
 eo’ 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 
 JAh 
 
 ^ II 1 1 II 1 II 
 
 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH rH 
 
 H 
 
 
 •CM CO CO O 
 
 c3 
 
 
 CM O O 
 
 • rH 
 
 d d d 
 
 c 5 ft 
 
 to 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 
 
 rH rH 
 
 J cs d3 
 
 pq 
 
 N 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 
 
 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH rH pH 
 
 VO rH CM 
 rH 
 
 £ d 
 
 r © 
 
 00 rd 
 
 1> £ 
 00 ^ 
 
 r " 1 4 
 <9 ^ 
 
 ^ i** 
 
 pO g 
 
 © 5 
 2 
 
 c ® 
 
 N rd 
 
 §o 
 
 3>« 
 
 © o 
 x> £ 
 
 x> 
 
 d 
 
 O 
 
 *4H 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 a 
 
 c5 
 
 £ 
 
 OOHINCOrfUOCONOOCiOHOJCO'fli.OCONOOClOHOJJO 
 ^ lO lO iO LO tO id lO LO »0 C O 0 O 'O 'vO '>£ CO O CD N N 1> N 
 OOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOXOCOOQOQOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
 
 rH rH rH rH rH rH pH rH rH rH rH r-1 r - 1 rH rH rH i—i rH pH rH rH rH rH rH rH 
 
 V_ _ _ ) 
 
 0 
 
 CtC 
 
 to 
 
 © 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 nd u o 
 © o 
 
 S 
 
 3 P 
 
 U 
 
 © 
 
 gfi 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 -H> 
 
 - 8 ^ 
 
 © A-z; 
 
 © to r-d 
 © 
 
 dC dO 
 
 © -=e 
 
 c3 O 
 © CM 
 
 d 
 bo d 
 d bo 
 © 
 rd 
 
 © 
 
 bO 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 pH 
 
 °* ■ 
 
 © <3 o 
 
 fco-^ d? 
 
 CCS 00 ~r S3 
 
 © ^ S 
 
 ^ o 00 ct 
 C3 -h> rH © 
 
 -- 
 
 d 
 
 nd 
 
 '■d 
 
 © 
 
 fc* 
 
 c3 
 
 c3 
 
 © _ 
 
 ^d 
 
 _o H 
 
 £ d -Q 
 2 dc © 
 
 yOJn 
 
 £ 
 
 © 
 
 bO 
 
 <0 
 
 •ns 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 U 
 
 © 
 
 ft* 
 
 © 
 
 ft 
 
TABLE B. 
 
 APPENDIX Y. 
 
 81 
 
 <x> 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 A 
 
 4-> 
 
 O 
 
 t+H 
 
 o ° * 
 
 ; -(j 
 
 3 g * 
 
 GQ o 
 
 © 
 
 ° f-. ,o 
 
 ?! I 
 
 § 73 
 
 © ° ^ 
 
 o 
 
 £ 8 ~ 
 o 
 
 *73 
 
 a 
 
 & 
 
 X> 
 
 c3 
 
 © 
 
 X> 
 
 - | 
 8 S 
 
 O © 
 
 Cj g 
 -H> O 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 < 4-1 
 
 o 
 
 •73 
 
 m © 
 cj ^ 
 
 ai 
 
 cn 
 
 © 
 
 w>;=h 
 
 oS O 
 -*•3 o 
 
 £ vn 
 © hi) 
 
 © 3 
 
 • rH 
 
 © r ~j 
 
 Ph ^ 
 o 
 H 
 
 © 
 
 Average 
 
 of 
 
 three 
 
 years. 
 
 ID CO CO <N 
 
 (M CO N »D 
 
 • 
 
 rH 
 
 
 i> 
 
 O ^ • • « 
 
 00 
 
 00 • • • 
 
 rH 
 
 
 • 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 • % • 
 
 CO 
 
 04 • • • 
 
 rH 
 
 I 
 
 ' 
 
 • 
 
 O 
 
 
 *>. 
 
 rH ♦ 
 
 CO 
 
 rH • • 
 
 rH 
 
 
 j 
 
 Average 
 
 of 
 
 three 
 
 years. 
 
 3-51 
 
 3-84 
 
 3*0 
 
 9*9 
 
 
 CO <M 
 
 
 CO rH rH CO 
 
 00 
 
 • • • • 
 
 rH 
 
 tF 30 CO 30 
 
 
 rH 
 
 • 
 
 rH 
 
 tF 
 
 .t> 
 
 (MQ t>. 30 
 
 00 
 
 * • • • 
 
 rH 
 
 COCO (M o 
 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 30 
 
 Jt> 
 
 ^ ^ CO ~f* 
 
 00 
 
 • • • • 
 
 rH 
 
 <M oq co co 
 
 © 
 
 £ 
 
 03 03 
 
 ?H ?-t 
 
 © © S3 
 
 a 
 
 a ci ® 
 © © P-i 
 
 -4-3 ■+-> *h 
 03 03 ,x3 
 
 a “ 
 2 
 
 £ 
 
 O 
 
 03 03 
 
 CO CO 
 C3 03 
 
 r H f ■ i 
 © © 
 ■ I 
 
 4-) 
 
 03 03 
 
 S-l fH 
 
 ©3 c£ 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 US CO 
 
 Mh «4H 
 
 oo 
 
 Cj 
 
 03 
 
 rH rj 
 , i—i 
 
 Ho 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 30 
 
 «+4 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 f < 
 
 -3J 
 
 03 
 
 c3 
 
 © 
 
 £ Ph * 
 
 3 ° * 
 
 Pi * 
 
 ° ~ s 
 
 ^ © r£ 
 
 §3=3 
 
 c3 rj ^ 
 
 £.£<2 
 
 03 53 
 Tj ^ 
 
 03 
 
 ° s a 
 
 O ^3 *5 
 
 co '3 3 
 
 H to h 
 
 -fi T3 ^ 
 
 O «? g 
 
 •§ s § 
 
 03 Tl ^ 
 
 «H ° ^ 
 
 K 
 
 » 
 
APPENDIX VI. 
 
APPENDIX VI, 
 
 $3 
 
 c .5 
 
 ft 
 
 p bl ® 
 
 ^ £*5 « 
 
 2 p o 
 
 ©.2 g .. 
 
 *2 _ P Xa 
 P ft © M 33 
 
 §3 si g 
 
 «S« p~ | 
 
 •S . *r o 
 g a x: © o 
 S © p *3 
 « ® a 
 
 S Mo c 
 
 » j2 s= « § 
 
 rr *h ^ *—> 
 
 S O bC o 43 
 (it 
 
 43 
 
 to 
 
 «> 
 
 43 
 
 02 
 
 *2 
 
 02 
 
 p 
 
 • M 
 
 43 
 
 — 
 
 © 
 
 O 
 
 it 
 
 P 
 
 V 
 
 02 
 
 P 
 
 ©3 
 
 *3 
 
 a 
 
 P 
 
 4* 
 
 c 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 •P 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 *- 
 
 02 
 
 © 
 
 -»— 
 
 P 
 
 c 
 
 -© ft P 
 o-a> 
 t£-P 
 
 OQ 
 
 CO 
 
 © a> c3 
 
 b 
 
 ©' 
 
 o 
 
 *© 
 
 
 to 
 
 tfc, • 
 
 B 
 
 U 44 © 
 
 t P 
 
 tH 
 
 43 
 
 O — © 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 © 
 
 J1.V-. 
 
 ©OX 
 
 ’cC 
 
 )- 
 
 > 
 
 to o C3 
 rt ~ 
 
 © 
 
 ► 
 
 O 
 
 
 •P 
 
 rr 53 3 
 
 P 
 
 ^r"P © 
 © — 
 
 7 
 
 O "S "p 
 
 * S‘3 
 
 (=3 «2 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 p 
 
 CO 
 
 C *P 
 P P 
 -43 
 
 © ~ >» 
 P ’P © 
 
 ^ d r< 
 
 r. 
 
 5 
 
 2 c it 
 
 a 2 d) 
 
 /-v X-C 
 
 u c 
 
 p — 
 
 &S 
 ■2 « 
 
 ■SS 
 
 P _ 
 
 o o 
 ja ** 
 
 P *3 
 o o 
 
 O C 
 
 to 
 
 o2 o, 
 -© p .a 
 
 -c OP 
 © £ “ 
 2 x 
 c. © c 
 
 © 43 p 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 # 
 
 • • 
 
 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 C 
 
 u 
 
 )- 
 
 S-H 
 
 S-’ u 
 
 C 
 
 u ©.' 
 
 u 
 
 P 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 p p 
 
 p 
 
 p p 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ci 
 
 o 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 43 
 
 42 
 
 43 
 
 4= 
 
 43 ^ 
 
 43 
 
 43 43 
 
 43 
 
 8j 
 
 «3 
 
 e3 
 
 4 
 
 e3 P 
 
 e3 
 
 c3 P 
 
 P 
 
 
 r H 
 
 
 
 r- ■ 
 
 r—t 
 
 r-^ *—• 
 
 
 *P 
 
 •P 
 
 •P 
 
 •P 
 
 ns ’p 
 
 T3 
 
 T3 *P 
 
 ”P 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 €3 
 
 eS 
 
 c3 
 
 ci 
 
 P 2 
 
 P 
 
 P P 
 
 P 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 43 — 
 
 43 
 
 Xi 43 
 
 43 
 
 "bo 
 
 tc 
 
 "qq 
 
 *l(Q 
 
 « 2 
 
 *io 
 
 *C/2 « 
 
 *co 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 2* 
 
 
 44 44 
 
 44 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © p 
 
 © 
 
 © © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © ^ 
 
 © 
 
 o o 
 
 © 
 
 * 
 
 ► 
 
 it 
 
 * 
 
 £ £ 
 
 it 
 
 ^ it 
 
 it 
 
 ■"T 
 
 »o 
 
 00 
 
 <C 
 
 CC « 
 
 CO 
 
 CC CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CC CC 
 
 oc 
 
 44 44 
 
 44 
 
 © © 
 
 © 
 
 © © 
 
 © 
 
 £ £ 
 
 it 
 
 -r co 
 
 CO 
 
 • r+ m 
 
 
 X P • 
 
 • 
 
 J- p • 
 
 • 
 
 CO 43 cr 
 ^ ^3 co 
 
 cr 
 
 CO 
 
 
 w 
 
 >p ^ F p*' 
 
 2?" 
 
 P r*© 
 
 ”© 
 
 C ui <c2 
 
 CC 
 
 44 44 
 © © 
 © © 
 
 £ £ 
 
 to 
 
 44 44 44 
 © © © 
 © © © 
 
 £ * £ 
 
 XH xH x* 
 
 1C 
 
 44 
 
 « 
 
 © 
 
 * 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ p 
 © 
 
 ■p Q 
 P M 
 
 p r 
 
 DC 
 
 — © 
 —• o* 
 
 © 02 
 
 O «f 
 © 
 
 . 43 
 
 3 g 5 
 
 .B 
 
 £ 
 
 03 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 cr 
 
 92 
 
 w 
 
 '© 
 
 c3 
 
 f*-, WH 
 
 © 
 
 be 
 
 *3 
 
 P-t 
 
 t—i © 
 ©* C2 
 XS ® 
 P >2 
 C3 *3 
 
 w ^ 
 © 
 
 43 • 
 
 g £ 
 
 .w 
 
 d 
 
 c3 
 
 © 
 
 ft 
 
 cr 
 
 02 
 
 w 
 
 cT 
 
 W 
 
 fa" 
 
 — P 
 cs © 
 
 c a . 
 
 r c* 
 cr 1 a) 
 oc a 
 ft „ 
 
 -•P 
 © © 
 ±d. — 
 
 33 a 
 p . 
 Bca 
 • • 
 M Is- 
 
 lJ P © 
 
 * © bo 
 
 pQ p 
 r • © .ft 
 fe O o.-- 
 
 . CO ©H 
 ■§£«•§ 
 *S?*S§ 
 
 r- a -43 CO 
 
 r: © 
 
 gp«M£ 
 
 K3vm “ 
 
 H-. *it P-M 
 
 c3 
 
 u a 
 © cr 
 
 c 02 
 
 B (a 
 
 w 
 
 r-T of 
 ^ © 
 43 
 
 to 
 
 cr. 
 
 co ► 
 
 W 
 
 © 
 
 S 
 
 fe<*3 W <0 O 
 
 ^ ^ C/v 
 
 cr* ri 
 
 >-3 *p p 
 
 P <y 
 
 r_ — fT 1 *Ti M 
 
 M •— W »-M HH 
 
 d 
 
 s 
 
 >> 
 
 t- 
 
 p 
 
 © 
 
 cr cr 
 
 O CO 
 
 KH 
 
 "BB 
 "© "© 
 C3 CP 
 
 CO CO 
 
 p p 
 e3 d 
 
 i— 1 —< 
 
 r% ^5 
 
 >7 >» 
 
 4- l* 
 
 P P 
 
 o © 
 
 cr cr o* 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 H ^ W 
 
 © © © 
 cc «p «n 
 
 CO 7. CO 
 
 C P P 
 P c3 P 
 
 SSS 
 
 ^ ^ 
 s- t- ~ 
 
 p p p 
 © © © 
 
 ^K=3 
 
 cr 
 
 l£k 
 
 w 
 
 © 
 
 «3 
 
 «o 
 
 P 
 
 o3 
 
 S 
 
 P 
 
 © 
 
 K 
 
 r- 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 O CO 
 
 <N 
 
 C0 
 
 
 
 
 <N 
 
 
 
 
 B-H 
 
 fH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *—1 
 
 
 
 
 r-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 •p : 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 9 < 
 
 p : 
 ^3 fl 
 
 © s 
 
 • >»( rT 
 
 a § 
 
 © 
 rt 
 —J 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 K 
 
 c 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ei 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •0 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 p 
 
 s_ 
 
 43 
 
 C 
 
 s_ 
 
 
 N-« 
 
 HH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 55 
 
 
 c © 
 
 |S 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 > 
 
 : 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 <a 
 
 © 
 
 4) 
 
 
 H 
 
 p p 
 
 © O 
 to 43 
 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 4= 
 
 .2 
 
 .5 
 
 
 H- og 
 
 
 
 © o 
 
 r 
 
 p : 
 
 • 
 
 o 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 -u P 
 
 © 
 
 p > 
 
 p ^ 
 
 CO ft 
 
 ^-3 
 
 a 
 
 a a 3 
 
 p p _ • 
 
 in m O 
 
 HH 
 
 d 
 
 o ©. 
 
 © o 
 
 ”bC 
 
 © 
 
 ft] 
 
 c P P © c 
 
 ooi -P P 
 
 a a C/2 C C 
 
 © o 
 
 43 •-< 
 
 E- > 
 
 O K h 
 
 -Q ^ # 3 
 
 4ft> 
 
 a 
 
 CM 
 
 00 
 
 O —I (N 
 t". t^. '- 
 CO 00 00 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 W 
 
 Pi 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 *£ 
 
 p-t 
 
 >> 
 
 C2 
 
 w O 
 o 
 
 »-} p 
 M o 
 
 90 
 
 £ 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 • H 
 
 Ch 
 
 43 
 
 bo 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 V< 
 
 o 
 
 PQ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o, 
 
 h 
 
 > 
 
 > a 
 
Appendix No. VII. 
 
 “SEA QUEEN.” 
 
 RETURN to an Order of the Honourable the House of Commons y 
 
 dated 12 May , 1870;— for , 
 
 COPY “of Proceedings of the Court of Inquiry recently held 
 by direction of the Board of Trade at Neiccastle on Tyne into 
 the loss of the Steamer “ Sea Queen,” with the Minutes of 
 of the Evidence laid before the Court.” 
 
 T. H. FARRER. 
 
 To the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade. 
 
 My Lords, 
 
 This was au inquiry into the loss of the screw steamship 
 “ Sea Queen,” which occurred, as is supposed, on the night of 
 the 13th of February last upon the North Scroby Sand, cif 
 Caistor, on the coast of Norfolk, and which it has been al etred 
 was caused by the overloading of the ship. 
 
 This vessel was built at Hartlepool in the year 18*59, and was 
 registered at that port as the “ Normanby,” of the gross burden 
 of 457-^g- and 311-Jg- net tons. She is described as having been 
 at that time 184 feet in length, 26in breadth, and 13^ in 
 depth, with a raised poop and forecastle. 
 
 After passing through various hands with change of name to 
 “ Venezuelan,” &c., she ultimately was registered at Liverpool 
 in 1864 under the denomination of the “ Sea Queen.” 
 
 At this time the ship had been lengthened, and an upper 
 deck built upon her, uniting the poop and forecastle. Site 
 appears by her register to have been in length 233 feet, breadth 
 with a depth of hold of . 19-^ feet. Thus her length was 
 increased by 49^- feet, and her carrying capacity enlarged by 
 
APPENDIX VII. 85 
 
 366 tons. Her gross tonnage was now 836f£, and her 
 677U tons. 
 
 Tn 1867, the “ Sea Queen ” was purchased by her present 
 owners, Messrs. Seymour & Cooper, of London, by whom she 
 was variously employed up to the voyage now under review. 
 
 In February last the vessel was loaded in the Tyne Dock for 
 Malaga. According to the most reliable evidence, her cargo 
 consisted of 1,117 tons of coals, including those in her bunkers, 
 in all, about one-third more than her gross tonnage. 
 
 Thus laden, she proceeded to sea on the 12th of February, 
 drawing about 16 feet aft, and 13 feet 7 inches forward. On the 
 13th and 14th of February it blew a very heavy gale from the 
 eastward, and the vessel was last seen from the Cockle Light¬ 
 ship at midnight of the 13th, bearing S.E. by S., at a distance 
 of two miles. The following day some portion of the wreck was 
 washed up on the North Scroby Sand, and the inference is that 
 every soul on board perished. 
 
 In reviewing the very conflicting depositions of the witnesses 
 in this case, the Court had to discriminate between the evidence 
 of those who had observed the ship previous to her departure 
 from the Tyne, and the evidence of those who had known the 
 ship on former voyages, and who produced documentary proofs 
 in confirmation of their testimony. Of the former witnesses 
 none had measured, they had merely guessed at, her clear side, 
 which they estimated variously from 12 to 18 inches above the 
 water in the midship body of the ship. The Tj ne Dock-master 
 who had an experience of 34 years in that capacity, and who 
 saw the vessel when she undocked, stated that her clear side was 
 only 12 inches, and that she drew 16 feet of water. This 
 draught of water seems to have been admitted by all the wit¬ 
 nesses ; and in accordance with a rule of Lloyds, would have 
 have given a clear side of 4 feet 10 inches. He also stated that 
 the “ Sea Queen ” was a deep-waisted vessel, with a poop and 
 forecastle. The documentary evidence of her register, and the 
 viva voce evidence of the surveyors and others, affirm that she 
 was not a deep-waisted ship, but had a properly laid upper or 
 weather deck. When altered from her original construction as 
 a poop ship, her solid sides had been raised fully seven feet, 
 making the depth from the bottom of the keel to the covering 
 board of the upper deck no less than 22 feet 6 inches. 
 
 The Dock-master further deposed that when the “ Sea Queen 
 undocked, there was only 20 feet of water in the dock-sill. Ad- 
 
86 
 
 APPENDIX VII. 
 
 mitting this, and that the vessel had, as he states, only 12 inches 
 of clear side from the water to her covering board, she could not 
 have been undocked. Little reliance can therefore be placed on 
 evidence so irreconcilable with the known construction and floata¬ 
 tion of the ship. 
 
 The other witnesses who speak to her deep immersion do not 
 appear to have noticed her marks. A vessel of such great length, 
 not less than nine times her beam, and without any bulwarks, 
 would naturally appear very deep and low in the water when 
 loaded to 16 feet, and might mislead a casual observer. 
 
 Some stress was laid upon the fact that the “ Sea Queen 99 
 went to sea without a mainmast. The ship, upon being length¬ 
 ened, had four masts placed in her, one of which, the mizen, had 
 been subsequently removed, and those who had experience of the 
 vessel were of opinion that the centre mast might also be dis¬ 
 pensed with, and a cargo derrick or crane substituted in its 
 place. We have no evidence to show that the absence of this 
 mast rendered the ship unseaworthy, or contributed to her loss. 
 
 According to the testimony of those witnesses most capable 
 of forming an opinion on this case, the draught of water of the 
 “ Sea Queen,” admitted by all to have been 16 feet aft, may be 
 considered with reference to her length and beam, deep, but not 
 excessive. The Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the 
 “ Sea Queen,” though deep, was not overladen to that extent aa 
 to render her dangerous. 
 
 We cannot dismiss the consideration of this painful case, 
 involving the loss of so many lives, and in which such a strong 
 feeling has been expressed on the subject of overloading, without 
 respectfully urging upon Government the necessity of instituting 
 some inspection to prevent a system which has become so noto¬ 
 rious in vessels leaving the Tyne. 
 
 We have, Ac. 
 
 (Signed) James Morrison. 
 
 W. Hunter . 
 
 We concur in this Report, 
 
 Hy. Harrisy 
 
 B. Elliot, Inspecting Commander, 
 
 Nautical Assessors. 
 
Appendix No. VIIL 
 
 OVERLOADING. 
 
 In case you should think that that the state of things indicated 
 in this story is at all overdrawn, the following two or three cases, 
 well established by competent witnesses, are added for your 
 information. 
 
 The following is from the finding of the Court of Inquiry, held 
 in Aberdeen, in October, 1873, into the loss of the “ Benachie M 
 (steamer), which foundered, as the Court says, in “ comparatively . 
 calm weather, in August last.’’ 
 
 “ The evidence of the manager of the firm which built the vessel is to the 
 effect that had she been intended for the carriage of iron ore (the article which 
 she was only employed to bring home), she should have been especially 
 strengthened for that purpose; and the captain of the vessel represented to 
 one of the superintendents employed by the owners, after the ship had made 
 a few voyages, that if she were to be continued in the iron ore trade, she 
 would require to be strengthened. . . . After an anxious and careful 
 
 review of the whole evidence, we can arrive at no other conclusion than that 
 the ship had been, generally on her homeward voyages, overladen. The 
 cargoes of iron ore were much in excess of the cargoes which she took out, 
 and being stowed as they were, must have brought great strain on every part 
 of the ship. The result of our investigation is to leave no doubt upon our 
 minds that the cause of the vessel foundering was .... the excessive 
 
 weight of cargo which the ship had to carry. 
 
 “Some of the witnesses declared that they observed the boiler moving, 
 although they differed as to the amount of the movement. Others observed 
 the forecastle head twisting, and the master stated that there was more vibra¬ 
 tion in the “ Benachie ” than in any other steamer in wdiich he had sailed. 
 The carpenter told us that he and a former c:iief officer often spoke of the 
 straining of the vessel, attributing it to the heavy cargo, and deposed that it 
 
 was matter of common conversation among the crew. 
 
 “ The firemen, on rough nights, were frightened to go from the engine- 
 room to their berths in the forecastle, and preferred to stay in the engine- 
 room during the time they were entitled to be in bed; while the owner’s 
 superintendent admits that he on several occasions heard the crew, after the 
 return of the vessel to this country, talking to each other about the straining 
 of the ship, in a manner which seemed to him intended to attract his atten¬ 
 tion. 
 
 “ It is proper to say that .... to sail with so low a freeboard a« 
 
88 
 
 APPENDIX Yin. 
 
 2 ft. 9 in. was unquestionably hazardous. The owners haxe been at pains to 
 prove that such a freeboard is common in the trade. That is probably quite 
 true ; but it only makes it the more imperative u] on us to give no uncertain 
 sound on the subject, but to declare emphatically that .... to sail a 
 vessel of the construction and with the cargo of the “ Benachie,” with so low 
 a freeboard, is dangerous in the extreme. 
 
 “ Their superintendent actually stated his opinion to be that 2 ft. of clear 
 side was quite sufficient for safety. The absurdity of such an opinion, and the 
 probably disastrous consequences of giving practical effect to it, must be 
 apparent to all. To send a ship, with over 1,200 tons of iron ore, having only 
 2 ft. of clear side, to encounter the heavy seas of the Bay of Biscay, which are 
 frequently as high as 20 ft., appears to us to be little short of either wickedness 
 
 or folly. The baneful custom of overloading. which it is manifest 
 
 to us, from the evidence to which ice have listened , has become prevalent , at 
 least in the north of England ports ; but of uhieh we desire, with the perfect 
 concurrence of the assessors, to express our unqualified condemnation. The 
 sum of the whole matter is this—the ‘ Benachie 5 was run to death by carrying 
 too heavy cargoes at too high a rate of speed.” 
 
 The Court consisted of the Sheriff, Comrie Thomson, Esq., 
 and Colonel Cadenhead, assisted by two nautical assessors. 
 
 The crew would all have been lost had not one of H.M. ships 
 of war picked them up. 
 
 Another Court of Inquiry into the loss of a steamer, held at 
 Newcastle, conclude their finding by saying, “ That they could 
 not dismiss this painful case without respectfully urging upon 
 the Government the necessity of instituting some inspection to 
 prevent a system of overloading, which had become so notorious in 
 vessels leaving the Tyne; and 
 
 Mr. Stevenson, the Secretary to Lloyds, read before the 
 Royal Commissioners the following letter from the mate of a 
 ship to his sweetheart (see Minutes of Evidence, p. 249) :— 
 
 (Copy.) 
 
 “ Dear Lizzie. —We sail to right, and I wish she was going without me } 
 for I don’t like the look of her, she is so deep in the water. But I won’t 
 show the white feather to any one. If she can carry a captain, she can carry 
 a mate too. But it’s a great pity the Board of Trade doesn’t appoint some 
 universal load water-mark, and surveyors to see that ships are not sent to sea 
 to become coffins for their crews. But don’t torment yourself about me. 
 I dare say I shall get through it as well as anybody else. Hoping that you 
 may continue well—I remain, yours fondly, 
 
 “ Tom.” 
 
 The ship went to the bottom with all hands. “ That,” said 
 the witness, “ was an instance of a vessel going to sea with 
 competent persons on board, who knew she was going to the 
 bottom. Re had received many letters of this kind.” 
 
APPENDIX VIE. 
 
 So far as to overloading. Cases might be added indefinitely ; 
 indeed, in at least two cases known to the writer (one a young 
 man of tw r enty, and one the second mate of a ship), both men 
 went home and put on old suits of clothing, that the sister in 
 /one case, and the wife in the other, might have the better clothing 
 to sell in case they were lost, which they knew to be inevitable 
 unless they had calm weather all the way. In both cases, the 
 ships and ah the men were lost. 
 
 UNSEAWORTHINESS. 
 
 Many good people find it hard to believe that men can be 
 found so wicked as knowingly to send a ship to sea in an unsea¬ 
 worthy state. They not only do so, but, if the men show any 
 reluctance to be drowned for their profit, they try and too often 
 succeed in sending them to gaol for their reluctance. In Sep¬ 
 tember last, five seamen were brought before the magistrates at 
 Dover for refusing to go to sea. By desire of the bench, a sur¬ 
 veyor was directed to examine the vessel (let us be thankful for 
 that now, it was not always so) ; and his report stated that there 
 was a great insufficiency of ropes, spare sails, and the necessary 
 gear, and the vessel v:as unseaworthy. 
 
 In the same month (September, 1873), four men were brought 
 before the Hull magistrates on a similar charge. A survey was 
 ordered, and Mr. Snowden, surveyor, reported “that there was 
 sufficient to justify the prisoners in nor proceeding in the vessel. 
 The deck wants caulking, and certain timbers are rotten; and it 
 is quite possible that the masts might roll out of her, and make 
 her at the mercy of the sea. Water also came through the deck 
 on to the men in the forecastle.” Asked, if he were a sailor 
 would he go to sea in her, he answered, “ I would not do so.*’ 
 
 In the same month it was attempted to send six seamen to 
 gaol for refusing to go to sea in a ship of which (a survey having 
 been ordered) two surveyors reported:— 
 
 “ We find as follows :—Bobstay slack, jib and flying jibstay decayed, hawse 
 pipes both dangerously started, jib and flying jibguys look bad, part of cut¬ 
 water started; fid of maintopmast rotten, and topmast sagged two or three 
 inches, and slung with chains from lower masthead ; lower deck beams rotten, 
 many lodging knees also rotten, breast hoAs rent and rotten, ceiling rotten in 
 several places, riders started and bolts loose and apparently broken; cathead 
 beam very rotten and breast beams rotten. Certainly, in her present state, we 
 consider that she is not fit to proceed to sea.” 
 
APPENDIX Vm. 
 
 00 
 
 In the evidence given before the Royal Commissioners (see 
 Minutes of Evidence, p. 207), a Liverpool shipowner, called 
 William James Fernie, sajs, in reply to questions, that he gave 
 £3,500 for a ship registered at 2,800 tons. The same witness, 
 in answer to a question as to what a good ship would cost per 
 ton, answered, “ £13 or £14;” and he was also asked by another 
 Commissioner— 
 
 “ Do you think you have a right to expect to obtain a per¬ 
 fectly sound vessel at £1 per ton ?” 
 
 As to the sort of ship she really was, another Commissioner 
 as it happened, was able to tell his fellow-Commissioners that he 
 himself had surveyed her, and had reported to the Salvage 
 Association as follows —inter alia :— 
 
 “ She was trussed w r ith transverse bars of iron, screwed up 
 amidships, like an old barn or church, before she started on 
 this last voyage. That is to say, that the whole of the fastenings 
 at the beam ends and knees w r ere so rotten, that there was no 
 junction on the sides of the ship, and this mode of fascening was 
 introduced, and the only way of fastening the ship together was 
 to introduce these enormous amounts of iron.” (Inventive genius 
 of the British shipbuilder !)—(Report of Royal Commissioners, 
 p. 3.) This, bear in mind, is the evidence of one of the Commis¬ 
 sioners themselves. This man also admitted that he had lost 
 nineteen ships in the last ten years only (he has been a shipowner 
 twenty-five years), with the following ascertained loss of life :— 
 
 In the “ General Simpson” 
 “ Dawn of Hope ” 
 
 “ Royal Victoria ” 
 
 “ Royal Albert . 
 
 “ Great Northern ” 
 
 “ Windsor Castle ” 
 
 “ Golden Fleece ” 
 u Royal Adelaide ” 
 
 “ Florine ” 
 
 “ Malvern ” 
 
 “ Denmark ” 
 
 “ Henry Fernie ”,. 
 
 Eight lives lost. 
 
 Twxnty-eight. 
 
 Fourteen. 
 
 All hands, number not known. 
 Sixteen lives lost. 
 
 Twenty. 
 
 One. 
 
 Seven. 
 
 All hands lost. 
 
 Not stated. 
 
 Not stated. 
 
 Not stated. 
 
 Not stated. 
 
 “ Dunkeld ” 
 
 (See Minutes of Evidence, p. 207.) 
 
 This witness stated that in 1866 he formed the Merchants 
 
APPENDIX Vm. 
 
 91 
 
 Trading Company, to which his ships were transferred, and of 
 which he is the managing director; and he admitted that nine 
 thousand nine hundred and ninety shares (out oi the ten 
 thousand) were held by his brother-in-law, in trust for his wife 
 and family, and the other ten shares were held by himself and 
 his dependents. (See id.) 
 
 The Board of Trade have issued their Annual Report for 
 1872, and say in it that “ forty ships have foundered from unsea¬ 
 worthiness in that year.” 
 
 Extract of a letter from David Maclver, Esq., one of the 
 managing partners in the firm which owns the Cunard steamers 
 at Liverpool, published in the Liverpool Mercury :— 
 
 “ Deab Sib— 
 
 # * 
 
 “ Wanlass How, Ambleside, Oct. 20, 1873. 
 
 # # * * 
 
 “ Far more vessels are lost than ought to be, and many of these have been 
 new, or nearly new bteamers. I do not say Liverpool steamers ; but I do say 
 that their loss is as easily accounted for as the loss of a few 56 lb. weights 
 would be if you put them into an old basket, or sent them afloat in a tin pan 
 of inferior material or workmanship.—Yours very sincerely, 
 
 “ David MacIveb.” 
 
 Extract from a letter, written by Mr. R. Knight, Secretary 
 of the Iron Shipbuilders’ (operatives) Society, and published in 
 the Liverpool Daily Courier , Oct., 1873:— 
 
 *#*### 
 
 “The facts of the case are as follows—viz., the screw steamer “Brighton,” 
 built in 1872, by J. Blumer & Co., of Sunderland, for the Commercial Steam¬ 
 ship Company, London, registered number 68,364, went only one voyage to 
 Gibraltar, and when she returned to this port the owners or agents were com¬ 
 pelled to put her in the Herculaneum Dock about February last for repairs, 
 and she remained there nearly seven weeks. The keel rivets were all loose, 
 and had to be taken out, and others put in; also a large number in the stem 
 and stern. I went and examined the vessel, and saw that she was very badly 
 built; any one could pass a mechanic’s rule between the frames and the shell 
 plates in many places, also between the strips, as the w r ork was never properly 
 closed. As the men put in the new rivets and closed the work, the old rivets 
 projected about 3-16ths of an inch ; and had the men continued to close the 
 work as it should have been done when the vessel was built, they would have 
 been compelled to rivet her all over. The foreman and inspectors, seeing this, 
 requested the men to use light hammers, about 2 lbs. (the usual hammers for 
 that kind of work are about 5lbs.), so as to nobble the end of the rivet in the 
 hole, and not close the piates to the frames. Thia was done, and she was 
 made watertight; but she would not keep so very long, as the straining of the 
 vessel would very soon loosen the rivets, through the work not being closed; 
 and where the plates met, the joints were so open that they had caulked her 
 with oakum.” 
 
APPENDIX vm, 
 
 Are men sent to gaol for refusing to go to sea in such ships f 
 Let the following tables reply. 
 
 Particulars of seamen committed to gaol for refusing to go to 
 sea in vessels alleged by them to be unseaworthy, so far as has 
 been ascertained:— 
 
 1870. 1871. 1872. 
 
 England. 294 281 420 
 
 Wales. 107 90 150 
 
 Scotland. 23 41 45 
 
 Ireland . 55 79 43 
 
 479 491 658 
 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 County. 
 
 Chester . 
 
 Cornwall. 
 
 Devonshire. 
 
 j) . 
 
 Dorsetshire. 
 
 Durham .. 
 
 Essex . 
 
 Gloucester. 
 
 Kent . 
 
 » ... 
 
 j, ............ 
 
 )> .. 
 
 Lancashire. 
 
 » ... 
 
 Lincolnshire . 
 
 Middlesex . 
 
 j, ........ 
 
 Monmouthshire .. .. 
 
 Norfolk . 
 
 Northumberland .. 
 
 » • • 
 Southampton 
 
 a » • • • 
 
 Suffolk. 
 
 Yorkshire . 
 
 >} . 
 
 H .. 
 
 )) ..* * 
 
 Prison. 
 
 Men committed. 
 
 
 1870. 
 
 1871. 
 
 1872. 
 
 Total- 
 
 County Prison. 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 — 
 
 13 
 
 Bodmin.- 
 
 32 
 
 24 
 
 32 
 
 88 
 
 Exeter . 
 
 17 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 26 
 
 Plymouth. 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 Dorchester. 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 51 
 
 59 
 
 Durham . 
 
 48 
 
 56 
 
 71 
 
 175 
 
 Springfield. 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 Bristol. 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 Maidstone. 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 33 
 
 Canterbury. 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 21 
 
 Dover . 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 o 
 
 Sandwich. 
 
 40 
 
 26 
 
 45 
 
 HI 
 
 Preston. 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Liverpool . 
 
 52 
 
 82 
 
 68 
 
 } 202 
 
 Lindsey. 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 13 
 
 ! l i 
 
 Coldbath EL Ids. 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 7 
 
 ' 
 
 Holloway . 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 ii 
 
 Usk. 
 
 22 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 43 
 
 Great Yarmouth. 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 Morpeth. 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 Newcastle. 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 — 
 
 6 
 
 Winchester. 
 
 24 
 
 
 16 
 
 40 
 
 Southampton. 
 
 — 
 
 2 j 
 
 2 
 
 Ipswich. 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 38 
 
 A orthallerton. 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 23 
 
 Wa efield. 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 Kingston-upon-Hull.. .. 
 
 — 
 
 6 
 
 4 1 
 
 10 
 
 Scarborough. 
 
 — 
 
 6 
 
 5 I 
 
 11 
 
 
 294 
 
 281 j 
 
 420 
 
 995 
 
93 
 
 appendix vnr. 
 
 ABSTRACT. 
 
 Men committed 
 
 in 1870 . 
 
 . 294 
 
 yy 
 
 1871. 
 
 . 281 
 
 >» 
 
 1872 . 
 
 
 Total. 995 
 
 WALES. 
 
 County. 
 
 Town. 
 
 Anglesey. 
 
 Beaumaris. 
 
 Carmarthen. 
 
 Carnarvon. 
 
 Glamorgan. 
 
 Carmarthen .... 
 
 Carnarvon. 
 
 Cardiff . 
 
 Swansea. 
 
 D •••••• 
 
 Pembi’oke. 
 
 Haverfordwest .. 
 
 
 Men Committed. 
 
 1870. 
 
 1871. 
 
 1872. 
 
 Total. 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 —• 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 77 
 
 51 
 
 80 
 
 208 
 
 26 
 
 32 
 
 27 
 
 85 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 24 
 
 26 
 
 107 
 
 90 
 
 150 
 
 347 
 
 ABSTRACT. 
 
 Men committed in 1870 
 „ 1871 
 
 „ 1872 
 
 107 
 
 90 
 
 150 
 
 Total 
 
 347 
 
54 
 
 APPENDIX VHI. 
 
 SCOTLAND. 
 
 County. 
 
 Town. 
 
 Cases Tried. 
 
 No. of Men 
 
 Committed. 
 
 Men Committed. 
 
 1870. 
 
 1871. 
 
 1872. 
 
 1870. 
 
 1871. 
 
 1872. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Aberdeen. 
 
 Aberdeen .... 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 >5 .. 
 
 Fraserburgh .. 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 A vr 
 
 Ardros«an . 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 _____ 
 
 1 
 
 . 
 
 !t . 
 
 Troon. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 Clackmannan .. 
 
 Alloa. 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 — 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 Edinburgh .... 
 
 Leith. 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 -— 
 
 6 
 
 — 
 
 6 
 
 _ 
 
 6 
 
 ft .... 
 
 Granton. 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 Forfar 
 
 T)iitu1pp 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Lanark. 
 
 G-lasgow. 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 20 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 
 Renfrew. 
 
 Greenock .... 
 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 20 
 
 — 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 Ross. 
 
 Stornoway.. .. 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 25 
 
 Shetland. 
 
 Lerwick ....... 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 109 
 
 23 
 
 41 
 
 45 
 
 109 
 
 ABSTRACT. 
 
 Number of Cases. . 1870 .... 
 
 9 .. .. 
 
 Men Committed .... 
 
 23 
 
 ,, .. 1871 .... 
 
 16 .... 
 
 tt .... 
 
 41 
 
 „ . . 1872 .... 
 
 16 .... 
 
 5 > ...» 
 
 45 
 
 Total . 
 
 41 
 
 Total . 
 
 109 
 
 IRELAND. 
 
 County. 
 
 V 
 
 Town. 
 
 1870. 
 
 Men cor 
 
 1871. 
 
 nmitted. 
 
 1872. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Antrim . 
 
 Belfast. 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 29 
 
 Cork. 
 
 Cork. 
 
 21 
 
 70 
 
 27 
 
 118 
 
 Donegal . 
 
 T ji ff or d . 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 Louth. 
 
 Dundalk . 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Sligo . 
 
 Sligo. 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Waterford. 
 
 Waterford. 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 
 I 
 
 55 
 
 79 
 
 43 
 
 177 
 
APPENDIX Vm. 
 
 95 
 
 ABSTRACT. 
 
 Number of Men Committed. 1870 56 
 
 „ 1871. 79 
 
 „ 1872 43 
 
 Total. 177 
 
 A statement sent to me by certain seamen, showing the treat¬ 
 ment of sailors charged with refusing to go to sea. 
 
 Sometimes (very rarely) they escape, and this is how they 
 fare :— 
 
 (Copy.) 
 
 “ To Samuel Plimsoll, Esq., M.P. 
 
 “ Hull, 1st October, 1873. 
 
 “ Sir, —We, the undersigned, beg to hand you the following statement, 
 being an account of the treatment which we (together with a seaman named 
 John Williams) have experienced on our refusal to go to sea in an unsea¬ 
 worthy ship. 
 
 “ On the 11th day of September, 1873, we shipped on board the brig 
 “ Expert,” belonging to Mr. Stephen Heaton Lennard, of Hull, which was 
 bound in ballast for Norway, to fetch a cargo of ice. 
 
 “ On proceeding on board with our clothes the same evening, we saw that 
 the ship was unsea worthy, and refused to sail in her. On the following 
 morning (12th September) we were gwen into the custody of the Board of 
 Trade constable, by Mr. Lennard, the owner, and taken by him before the 
 magistrates, sitting at the police court of this borough, and charged with 
 refusing to proceed to sea. 
 
 “We were asked by the magistrates why we refused to do so, and we told 
 them that the vessel was unseaworthy, and requested that a survey might be 
 held on the vessel by the proper authorities. 
 
 [The power to demand a survey was only confirmed last year, 
 and few seamen know of it. They have also to pay all expenses 
 if it is shown that they are mistaken.—S.P.] 
 
 “ In answer to this request we were told that we should have to deposit 
 the sum of two guineas for the survey. This sum we could not at the time 
 deposit; but we stated that we would be all jointly answerable for the 
 amount if, on survey, she was found to be in a fit state to go to sea. 
 
 “ We were, however, then remanded to the gaol of this borough, not 
 being able to find bail, and were taken there in the prison van. 
 
 “ One of us (namely, Mundy) being in a very delicate state of health, 
 suffering from a severe cold and affection of the chest, for which he had 
 remained on shore for about five months ; and he had with him some medi¬ 
 cine, and also an extra flannel on his chest as a protection. 
 
 “ On arriving at the gaol, wo were marched in single file by a warder to 
 the remand part of the prison, when we were at once placed in separate, 
 small, dark cells, and ordered to strip off the whole of our clothes for a 
 bath. 
 
96 
 
 APPENDIX Vni. 
 
 “ We did so, and waited for upwards of twenty minutes in these cold 
 cells, without a particle of clothing upon us, expecting every minute to be 
 called out for a bath. 
 
 “ Mundy was shaking with cold, owing to his bad health and the removal 
 of his warm clothing, and we were all more or less affected by the cold by 
 taking off all our flannel garments which we, as mariners, usually wear. 
 After waiting for about twenty minutes we were removed from these cells, 
 but not taken to a bath as previously ordered, but were marched a distance 
 of about forty yards entirely naked, through a cold, stone passage, to the 
 clothing room, where prison raiment was given to us, consisting only of a 
 rough cotton skirt, a rough singlet, with a pair of stockings ; and with only 
 this clothing on we were marched back again through the passage, along 
 which we had previously gone naked, and were then placed in separate cells 
 and ordered to bed. 
 
 “ A short time afterwards we were supplied with a tin containing skilly, 
 and a piece of black bread, which we refused to eat. 
 
 “ What few provisions we had taken in with us we were refused permis¬ 
 sion to eat, they being all taken away from us, as well as the medicine and 
 breast flannel belonging to Mundy. We remained in these cold cells until 
 the following morning, tvhen we were again offered the same kind of skilly 
 and black bread for breakfast as had been supplied to us the previous night, 
 and which we again refused to eat. We were then ordered to the bath-room, 
 and were taken along the cold stone passage in the cotton shirt, singlet, and 
 stockings, and placed into a warm bath; and after having a bath we were 
 taken back naked through this stone pas-age to be measured, and when this 
 was done we were taken to the cells where we had been confined for the 
 night, and our own clothes were then given to us, w'liich we put on. 
 
 “About ten o’clock the same morning we were removed in the prison van 
 to the cells of the police court, and in the afternoon we were taken before the 
 magistrates (Messrs. Jameson, Fountain, and Palmer), who, upon hearing 
 the evidence of Mr. Snowden, senior surveyor to the Board of Trade (who 
 proved that the ship was unseaworthy), we were discharged, and the following 
 remarks were at the same time made by Mr. Palmer, namely, ‘ That he con¬ 
 sidered that the Board of Trade surveyor had given his evidence in a clear, 
 straightforward manner, and was the right n an in the right place, and that 
 he should never dream of punishing us. That we had exercised a sound 
 judgment in not going to sea in this vessel, and advised us in future to look 
 at vessels before signing articles to go to sea in them, especially if they were 
 to have ice in them. 
 
 “We were, however, discharged without any recompense for our false 
 mprisonment, and the indignities we suffered during our incarceration, and 
 through which Mundy considers his life was endangered. 
 
 “ We therefore wish you to lay this matter before the proper authorities, 
 so that we may obtain justice and reparation, and that the seamen of England 
 may not be treated in the gaols of this country in the way we have described 
 (before being convicted of an offence), for simply refusing to risk their lives 
 in rotten ships. 
 
 “ We are, Sir, yours obediently, 
 
 “ (Signed) William Mundy. 
 
 (Signed) William Rivis (his X mark). 
 
 (Signed) Gabbibl (his X mark) G-uslap. 
 
mm. 
 
 APPENDIX Yffl. 97 
 
 “P.S.—Mundy is still under medical care, and is now much worse from 
 the imprisonment. 
 
 “ Signed in the presence of Geo. Barker, Clerk to Messrs. Oliver and 
 Botterell, Solicitors, Sunderland.” 
 
 Letter from the Governor of one of Her Majesty’s 
 
 Prisons. 
 
 “ Sir, —I beg to enclose you an account of a representative case just 
 given me by the writer of it, who, with another of his shipmates, is a pri¬ 
 soner here. They are both, to all appearances, honest sailors and most 
 respectable young men. It thus appears that there is no alternative for the 
 unsuspicious seaman who, in good faith, enters on board a spongy-bottomed 
 vessel, between drowning and imprisoment. Their late ship has gone to sea 
 with their clothes and certificates, and this young man is writing in the 
 greatest grief to his parents, dreading the shock upon them when they hear 
 that he is in prison. Sandwich Island kidnapping is not more iniquitous than 
 a case such as this. 
 
 AA AA AA 
 
 W TT 7S* 'A' 7T 
 
 I may add, in confidence , that one of the committing magistrates is a merchant, 
 and that the merchants are much interested in supporting shipowners against 
 their seamen ; for if they do not do so, and if they allow shipowners to think 
 that their crews are not well looked after by the authorities, it is feared that 
 
 shipowners will not allow their vessels to touch at-, and consequently 
 
 business will decline. 
 
 ^ 
 
 T? 7? 7? Tv 7? 
 
 “ They (the seamen) state that they were engaged at Liverpool, upon the 
 
 assertion that the ship was going on ‘ a nice little voyage to-only,’ and 
 
 that it was only on them arrival at-that they were informed that the 
 
 old, leaky vessel was to go round the Horn to Callao. Also, that when they 
 were had up before the magistrates, they pointed out that they had taken no 
 ‘ advance,’ which showed clearly that, when they shipped, it was their own 
 borid fide intention to go to sea in the ship, according to their engagement, if 
 she had been seaworthy. 
 
 Ag. AA AA AA AA AA AA 
 
 W TV W W W -A* Tv 
 
 “ The two prisoners have, of course, neither seen nor spoken to one another 
 since they have been here. I have examined them separately, and there is 
 not the shadow of a doubt about the absolute truth of their story—only, as 
 the ship has sailed, there seems no probability of proving it. Seamen are the 
 worst men possible to make out a good case for themselves when had up in 
 court. They look upon themselves as doomed at once—that ‘ it’s no use 
 saying anything.’ The prosecutor makes an audacious harangue, the seamen 
 chew their quids with energy, and look as though they would like to chew 
 liim. Sentence is pronounced by a magistrate whom they know knows no 
 more about ships than they do of the mysteries of marine insurance. They 
 feel that they have been infamously hocussed, but that ‘it’s all a muddle,’ 
 and that it’s better to go to prison than to be drowned, and so they are 
 hustled out of the dock. Other dupes, half-drunk, perhaps, are shipped in 
 their place; the manager or agent remains until the ship is out of sight, and 
 returns to his owners to expp,tiate on his success. We have a splendid 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 APPENDIX VIII. 
 
 specimen of a seaman here now, who has been wrecked three times in the last 
 few months, with the loss of everything on each occasion. I could not help 
 thinking of them and of you yesterday, when in the morning’s Psalms we 
 read, ‘ Let the sorrowful sighing of the prisoner come before Thee ; ’ and 
 thought that you were the instrument of the Lord, raised up to do His work, 
 to show that there is a God that j udgeth the earth, that in this Hod-governed 
 world there is no such thing as permanently-successful villainy either for 
 Napoleons or Hradgrinds ; and I pray that those who have been grinding the 
 face of the poor with such impunity hitherto, may find that ‘ the day of the 
 Lord ’ is not merely £ at hand,’ which they have disbelieved, but that it has 
 
 come upon them and upon their evil houses. 
 
 #####*# 
 
 “ I discharged yesterday, two prisoners on expiry of sentence, whose case 
 was somewhat similar to the present one—joining a ship out in a roadstead 
 upon glowing representations—on getting out to her finding her to be a 
 rotten coffin, and on demand to be put on shore again, sent to prison on a 
 summary conviction. They served out their imprisonment with the patience of 
 oxen ; and until the law is framed to protect them as it does children and 
 minors, they will, with the simplicity of children, fall again into the first trap 
 that is laid for them.” 
 
 The Wreck Register and Chart for 1872 . 
 
 “ Of the 439 total losses from causes other than collisions, on and near 
 the coasts of the United Kingdom, in 1872, 50 arose from defects in the ship 
 or in her equipments, and of these 56 no less than 40 appear to have foun¬ 
 dered from unseaicorthiness .” 
 
 Letter from the French Consul at an Irish Port. 
 
 “ Dear Sir, —Every humane person must wish you success in the 
 courageous campaign you have begun against an infernal set of scoundrels ; 
 and I think every one, whatever is his nationality, is bound to give all assist¬ 
 ance in his power. Y ou will be glad to hear from me that so far you have 
 been successful, that some of the notorious shipowners are trying to put their 
 rotten ships under foreign flags, keeping the ownership of them at the same 
 time, and being in hope, by so doing, of evading whatever law Parliament 
 might enact. YTsterday, one of those notorious shipowners applied to me to 
 authorise a French subject to purchase one of his ships, and to request me to 
 give a provisional French nationality to this ship. Knowing the party by re¬ 
 putation, and the character of his ships, I was doubly on my guard; and, 
 after inquiry, was satisfied that this was not a bond fide transaction, and was 
 made to evade the British law, and, I strongly suspect, to avoid an exami¬ 
 nation by the surveyor of the Board of Trade. I formally refused to grant 
 the request made to me in this instance, and have officially informed my 
 Government of my reasons for giving such refusal. I must say 1 am rather 
 afraid of your law of libel: this is my reason for putting ‘ private ’ on the top 
 of this letter, and giving no name for the present. However, if you thought 
 the name might help your case, if it is asked from me by the Commissioners, 
 I shall give it willingly. I have not yet had time to read your book, but I 
 saw a number of extracts from it; and, after having seen them, all I say is, 
 God help vou in vour good work.” 
 
 A. e a ZD 
 
APPENDIX Yin. 
 
 99 
 
 Letter from the Solicitor to the Board of Trade. 
 
 “ Custom House, February 24th, 1873. 
 
 “My Dear Sir, —You have made a move in the cause of humanity for 
 which you deserve immortal credit. I have not seen your book ; but I read a 
 review of it in the Times with the deepest interest. When you, some years 
 ago, referred to me as having, on the occasion of a Board of Trade inquiry, 
 described the conduct of a shipowner as ‘ homicidal,’ you were well justified 
 in doing so. I might have used the more felonious term, because cases have 
 occurred where delinquents have been executed for murder who deserved the 
 gallows less than the moneyed barbarians who have sent overladen ships to 
 sea. I send you enclosed an illustration of the justice of my statement. But, 
 to judge accurately of the disgraceful case, vou should read, the evidence on 
 the inquiry. It was proved that the decks were so laden with bales of cotton 
 that the crew had to stand and walk on the top of them so as to manage the 
 ship ; and Air. Pearson, a shipowner, examined for the defence, swore that 
 the higher the bales were piled the more it conduced to the safety of the 
 ship, as, if the ship went down, the crew and passengers would have a better 
 chance of escaping. 
 
 “ I am, my dear Sir, &c., 
 
 “ James O’Dowd.” 
 
 Letter from a London Merchant. 
 
 “ Great Tower Street, London, Februay 26, 1873. 
 
 “ Dear Sir, —I have read, with very great interest, of your efforts to 
 better the position of the mercantile marine; and believing that every little 
 information is of use to you, I have taken the liberty of addressing you. I 
 was brought up at a seaport town, and was twelve years in a shipbuilding and 
 repairing yard: six years of the time I acted as outside superintendent, so 
 that I had abundant opportunity of noticing the sort of ‘ coffins ’ in which 
 sailors are often sent to sea. Belfast being a depot for the north of Ireland, 
 there are two important trades carried on —viz., coal and wood. The coal trade 
 -—at least, three years ago (when I left)—was principally carried on by small 
 merchants. They employed schooners, brigantines, and brigs to carry coal 
 from the Scotch and English ports. Very few of these vessels were classed, 
 and the majority were equipped in the most miserable way. One merchant 
 idiom I could name lost two or three vessels every year , and generally all 
 hands with the vessels. He has often been known to send his vessels to sea 
 without proper ground-gear, in order that the captain would have to beat a 
 passage, and not take an intermediate port. I have seen dozens of such 
 vessels that could not be properly caulked, the planks being so rotten that 
 pieces of wood had to be driven in the seams ; and if a piece of plank was 
 taken out, no timber or frames could be found to fasten it to, a plate of iron 
 having to be laid on the ceiling, or inside skin, for this purpose. Then, 
 again, the running gear, as a rule, was perfectly rotten—rotten masts, spars, 
 and sails—and miserable cabins and forecastles. These vessels would make a 
 passage across the Channel in the middle of winter, wfith perhaps 18 inches of 
 side above water. The timber ships are employed running to North America : 
 many of these vessels have no character or class, and their hulls are just as 
 bad as the coal schooners. I have been told that all over the seaports of 
 
100 
 
 APPENDIX VIII. 
 
 Ireland such vessels are employed. The timber ships have generally to bring 
 home heavy deck-loads, and you are well aware of the number of such vessels 
 that are lost annually. Belfast being a very handy place for wind-bound and 
 distressed vessels, I had many chances of seeing vessels which had put into 
 the port leaky, carrying all sorts of cargoes—salt, pig-iron, rails, &c. These 
 cargoes are very severe on old ships. Often the crew have mutinied, or, more 
 properly speaking, refused to proceed in the ships, having regard for their 
 own safety; very often they ivere imprisoned for doing so. I may add that I 
 have no interest, at least pecuniary, in this matter now, as I am in quite a 
 different trade ; but I know that you are right, although you may encounter 
 
 a great deal of opposition. I am sure my old master, Mr. -of Belfast, 
 
 who is still a ship-builder and repairer, would give you every information he 
 could in a private way. I have written this letter on the impulse of the 
 moment.” 
 
 Schedule of Ships posted at Lloyd's to June 30 th this year as miss¬ 
 ing !! Never heard of more! (Excluding all other fatal 
 
 Wrecks and Casualties. 
 
 Year. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. June. 
 
 1872 .. 5 .. 15 .. 15 .. 6 . 9 .. 5 
 
 1873 .. 17 ., 18 .. 27 .. 23 . 24 .. 19 
 
 Though desirous to avoid all comments in compiling this 
 Appendix, I think it right to say here, that this terrible increase 
 of loss was foreseen by me, and by me alone. Our correspondent 
 at Liverpool, in February last, expressed great fear that unless 
 the Government helped me promptly with a temporary measure, 
 that whilst the prospect of overhauling would cause a great deal 
 of repairing of ships and care in loading amongst many, in some 
 it would create so great anxiety in certain quarters to get rid, of 
 ships anyhow,—which would not hear examination,—that a large 
 temporary increase of losses was greatly to he feared. This was 
 why 1 was so anxious—almost frantically anxious—to get a tem¬ 
 porary measure passed. 
 
 My firm conviction is, that had the Government helped me, 
 instead of doing their utmost to thwart my efforts, many, many 
 many hundreds of brave men now at the bottom of the sea 
 would have been alive at this moment. 
 
 The total number of lives lost in 92 of these ships—where 
 the number of the crews is known—is 1,328. Supposing the 
 remaining 36 to have carried a similar number of men, then the 
 total is 1,747 in six months! although this year has been 
 unusually free from stormy weather, and the year 1872 was an 
 
APPENDIX VIII. 
 
 101 
 
 “ unusually disastrous year !” Wliat will the whole year give P 
 and what will other weeks add to this number ? These are 
 missing ships only. May God forgive us for our murderous 
 neglect of our fellow-men at sea ! 
 
 I deeply regret that the time available to me to write this 
 Appendix is too limited to enable me to take proper pains with 
 it. I only heard by accident of the intention to dedicate the 
 Christmas number of Once a Weelc to this subject; and instantly 
 asked for permission to write this Appendix, to enable me to do 
 which the publication was suspended. Editors of newspapers 
 are earnestly entreated to copy this Appendix, or such parts of 
 it as they may deem suitable to their columns. 
 
 Grain-laden Ships Missing to September 30 th in each of the follow¬ 
 ing years ;— 
 
 1872 .. 26 1873 .. 50 
 
 Goal-laden Ships Missing to September 30 th in each of the follow- 
 
 , ing years :— 
 
 1872 .. 11 1873 .. 40 
 
 Timber-laden Ships Missing to September 30 th in each of the fol¬ 
 lowing years :— 
 
 1872 .. 6 1873 .. 17 
 
 Fragments of Evidence given before the Royal Commis¬ 
 sioners. 
 
 Mr. M. Wawn, examined by the Chairman : “ Yon are a surveyor under 
 the Board of Trade ? ”—“ Yes.” 
 
 “ Have you known many ships broken up on account of their age ; 
 because we have been told that in the case of colliers they are hardly ever 
 broken up, but that they go on till they sink ? ”—“ I cannot say that I know 
 of any cases where they have been broken up.” 
 
 “ What becomes of these old vessels—do they go on till they are lost ? ”— 
 I suppose so.” (Minutes of Evidence, p. 123.) 
 
 Mr. S. Robins, examined by the Chairman (Minutes of Evidence, p. 117) : 
 “ Are you a licensed shipping agent under the Board of Trade ? ”—“ I have 
 been so up to the present year. For between eleven years and twelve years I 
 was a licensed agent under the Board of Trade.” 
 
102 
 
 APPENDIX VIII. 
 
 “Can you state to whom the ‘Satellite’ belonged?”—“I cannot sav. 
 She belonged to a Liverpool firm.” 
 
 “ Was she laden with coal? ”—“Yes.” 
 
 “ What was her destination? ”—-“ I believe it was Rio.” 
 
 “ Did yon consider that ship not seaworthy ? ”—“ I did.” 
 
 “ Then, in the first instance, when you got a part of the crew for her, did 
 you consider her to be a safe and seaworthy vessel ? ” (Minutes of Evidence, 
 p. 118.)—“ No ; I considered her a very old vessel, and I had heard reports con¬ 
 cerning her from shipmasters, and I considered in some respects that she was 
 a bad class of vessel, and not fit for the voyage upon which she was going. 
 
 I considered her an old trap.” 
 
 “ Did the sailors object ? ”—“ I had a great deal of trouble in getting them 
 aboard.” 
 
 “ When you considered the vessel to be a bad vessel, did yon still endea¬ 
 vour to get them on board ? ”—“ Yes ; it was more than I dared do to attempt 
 to back a man out.” 
 
 “ You considered that the sailors, having engaged themselves to go, were 
 obliged to?”—“Yes, or else refuse on the pier to go in her; and if they 
 refused, there were police officers to take them in charge .” 
 
 “ What happened to this ship ? ”—“ She was lost! ” 
 
 “I thought that you engaged for her? ”—“ A part of them on the first 
 occasion. I had not then seen the vessel; and, after engaging the men, it 
 was my duty to see them again aboard at the time of sailing, and that was 
 when I first saw the vessel.” 
 
 % 
 
 If these facts do not stir the hearts of my fellow-countrymen, 
 no words of mine will; but, in that case, England will have 
 become false to all her history, and all faith in her destiny will 
 have died out of my heart. 
 
 I leave it to God. 
 
 Samuel Plimsoll. 
 
Appendix No. IX. 
 
 THE FOUNDERING OF THE “FAY.” 
 
 The Court in effect found that the vessel, from its construc¬ 
 tion, was only fitted for canal, river, or short coasting navigation, 
 and not for sea voyages, especially during the autumn and winter 
 months. They also found that the bulkheads were not water¬ 
 tight, that the vessel was too deeply laden, and that she was 
 undermanned. The Court decided to call the attention of the Board 
 of Trade to the dangerous practice of vessels constantly crossing the 
 Channel to and from the Irish coast too deeply laden. 
 
Appendix No. X. 
 
 MERCHANT SHIPPING LEGISLATION.—THE LOAD 
 
 LINE. 
 
 The Bristol Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping. 
 
 31, Clare Street , Bristol , 
 
 28 th January , 1876. 
 
 With reference to the Notice of Resolutions on the business 
 programme or agenda paper of the Association of Chambers of 
 Commerce of the United Kingdom on this subject, the Council 
 of this Chamber consider it necessary to intimate that the first 
 of those resolutions is not concurred in by them, it being differ¬ 
 ent from that moved on behalf of the Bristol Chamber, and, 
 indeed, from that which was passed at the meeting of Maritime 
 Chambers, members of the Association, convened by the South¬ 
 ampton Chamber, and held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, on 
 Wednesday, the 5 th of January instant. 
 
 The resolution then proposed by Mr. John Evans, on behalf 
 of the Bristol Chamber, was taken from that carried unanimously 
 at the antumnal meeting of the Association, held at Cardiff, on 
 the 21th September, 1873, and which the Bristol Chamber has 
 continued to support on each subsequent occasion. The reso¬ 
 lution referred to, as proposed on the 5th instant, was in these 
 terms:— 
 
 Proposed by Mr. Evans (Bristol), seconded by Mr. Harper 
 (Southampton) ;— 
 
 “ That the best and most reliable principle of the Load Line calculation 
 is that which is based on the actual buoyancy or displa cement of the 
 whole ship to the main deck, and which provides that a certain pro¬ 
 portion in reserve of this buoyancy, sufficient to ensure safety, shall be 
 kept above the line of immersion ; and that in lieu of the old free¬ 
 board calculation this principle should be adopted in all future legis¬ 
 lation on the subject.” 
 
 Upon this an Amendment was moved by Mr. Mackenzie 
 
APPENDIX X. 
 
 105 
 
 (Falmouth), and seconded by Mr. Plummer (Newcastle-upt n- 
 Tyne), in the following terms :— 
 
 “ That in the opinion of this fleeting it is impossible to prescribe any 
 universal rule for the safe loading of all merchant ships : but that 
 owners should be compelled to mark on all vessels a practical maximum 
 load line, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade when applied 
 for.” 
 
 which amendment was adopted by a majority of one. 
 
 At the meeting referred to on the 5th instant, a resolution 
 was unanimously passed requesting the Executive Council of the 
 Association to place the resolutions then passed on the business 
 programme of the Association for its next annual meeting; but, 
 as this request was not acceded to by the Council at its meeting 
 on the 19tli instant, the representative of the Bristol Chamber 
 present at that meeting allowed the name of the Bristol Chamber 
 to be added to that of the Southampton Chamber, for the pur¬ 
 pose of placing the resolutions on the programme. But the 
 Council of the Bristol Chamber hereby give notice that it is 
 intended to propose such alterations in the Resolution referred 
 to as will render it consistent with the views repeatedly ex¬ 
 pressed by the Bristol Chamber on the important question of Load 
 Line. 
 
 Charles Townsend, President. 
 
 Vice-Presidents. 
 
 John Evans, 
 
 Geo. S. Bryant, 
 
 Leonard Bruton, Secretary. 
 
 NT. 13.—The Aberdeen Chamber have distinctly affirmed the 
 principle, fixing the load line by Government authority, or some 
 authority independent of the shipowner. 
 
 S. P. 
 
Appendix No. XI. 
 
 “Beak Sib, Next door to me lives a young widow wltKchiid^L 
 
 ^ Mrs iss 1 is™ sl tes tw 
 
 children^whose'hu^and^eft^some'Ainerican'pOTt^n^ s^I^ 
 
 with petroleum 18 months ago, whict" & ill ““ 
 
 pects of whose" husband*”Zklter" is" SJnToTot "Zwwntoth't P , r ° 3 ' 
 
 of a ship 6 "' Hfwill go’Ltl^T ^ ’*? “ ab ° Ufc totake his ^stcommald 
 snip, lie will go to Middlesboro , for a cargo of pig-iron From thm 
 
 overdfden 8 SP^ port, to return with iron ore. He'expects to be 
 
 “ I asked his wife why he, then, takes charge of the shin i> « Tf i, c 
 ”lLm 8 i,'r" ' »»<j will find 
 
 be .Sts" are C ,° miUS ’ Md tbis ^ng man aild hi s crew may 
 present I do not knowf, If tti'beTSiJ’i? 6 nam6 ° f ^ " hip (which at 
 
 “lam, with great respect, 
 
 c ‘ Faithfully yours, 
 
 >>