MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

or obstructs the conduct of any case or investigation by any Naval Court shall be liable to a penalty of 501. or imprisonment with hard labour for any period not exceeding 12 weeks.-(Sec. 266 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) A Master would be entitled to remuneration for his attendance.]

SIGNING ARTICLES.

SIR,-I shipped as Chief Officer on board a ship in a Northern Port. The Deputy Superintendent shipped us. On my proceeding to sign I was asked for my address. I replied I had no settled residence other than my ship, or a lodging where I seldom slept a second time. He refused to accept my signature, so I said, "Take that which is on my certificate. I have not lived there for 13 years, but am in correspondence with my aunt, who will forward any letter." This he also refused, and said it would not do; so I gave him an address I slept at one night the last voyage in London, warning him that the people living there did not know my name; but he said he did not care for that so long as he got an address. I had been some two voyages in the same ship, and as I was compelled to give him a virtually false or fictitious address I think it very strange that one department of the Government should compel me to do so, and another fine me for doing it. BLUE JACK.

Algiers, April 27, 1876.

[For neglecting, without reasonable cause, to join his ship, the Mate would be liable to imprisonment for any period not exceeding ten weeks, and to forfeit out of his wages a sum not exceeding two days' pay.-(Section 243, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) As no substitute was hired, no further deduction could be made by the Magistrates. No claim could be legally made, under the Act quoted, for the detention of the ship. Neglecting to join is treated as an "offence," and not as a "dispute," or civil cause.]

FEES ON IMPRISONMENT.

SIR, The Magistrates at Gravesend Police-court had no alternative, as you will see by the report of the case in your impression of the 3rd, but to send me to prison; but they decided that no Court fees were to be allowed. When paid my account of wages at Tower Hill Shipping Office, 34. was deducted to pay the Captain's expenses, including the solicitor's fee. What am I to do to recover the moneys deducted?-Yours, &c., SAM JOHNSON.

Gravesend, Aug. 14, 1876.

Our Correspondent was ordered by the Mate to go up and scrape the main trysailgaff, but he refused to do so unless it was sent down. For this refusal of duty the Magistrates sent him to prison for seven days; but, in consequence of his previous good conduct during the voyage, the Bench did not impose a fine, and said "they would make no deduction from his wages." The Magistrates have power, under Section 251 of the Merchant Shipping Act, to direct a part of the wages-not exceeding 31.-to be applied in reimbursing the Master for any costs incurred during the voyage in procuring the conviction of any Seaman or Apprentice; but this and the solicitor's fee cannot be lawfully deducted without an order from the Court. Apply to the Magistrate again. Court fees are distinct from costs.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

The

DETENTION OF A SEAWORTHY SHIP. SIR,-On my passage to this Port my vessel struck on a supposed wreck and made water. She was anchored at Monkstown 12 days, when one of the anchor-stocks broke, and she dragged out in the fairway. I got a tug and men, hove the anchors up, and towed her in on the mud, as she would be safer there with only one anchor. Four days after she was towed to Cork, and the first tide she lay there on the hard she got quite tight. There being no remunerative employment to be had when the cargo was out, the vessel was laid up until the middle of last month, and then I wished to take her to Milford for special survey for continuation on the A 1 class at Lloyd's, and sent a notice to the Board of Trade Officer, stating I would place her on the graving bank for him to see her bottom, and I did so. A Board of Trade Surveyor came and looked at her bow, and said I should strip all the metal off and caulk her. I saw nothing amiss with her bottom except the false keel being off and a heavy mark on the garboard forward. metal was nearly as good as when it was put on, from the light water-mark down. The vessel's hull is equal to new, and has no defect whatever, and for the last four months she did not make a bucket of water, although always afloat. I thought it hard I could not take my vessel in ballast where I could get the work done to my satisfaction. There being no general Surveyor nearer than Belfast, I wrote to the Board of Trade on the 24th of May, and on the 8th of June I received a reply from the Officer at Queenstown stating the London Board could not entertain my proposition as to taking her to Milford, but recommended me to put her in dry dock or on a slip. On the previous day the vessel, then lying on the graving bank, aground 22 hours out of the 24, I being absent, a Customs Officer was put on board, and still remains. The vessel has been seven days on the slip, where she will be examined by Lloyd's Surveyors and reclassed, but at great expense, although the ship wants nothing except what is prescribed by Lloyd's Rules. When the metal was taken off and ship cleaned down, every particle of her plank showed the same as the day it was put on, and her bottom seams were perfectly hard. I wrote to London asking when the survey would be held, and described the vessel, but I was absent from the ship for some time afterwards. When I returned the Mate told me a Surveyor had been there. . . . He demanded the ship's logbook, and on the 7th of June the guard was put on board in the graving bank. The Chief Surveyor said that from the fact of the vessel having to be put on shore on the mud at Monkstown her seams were full of mud, and that was the reason she was tight. The vessel laid afloat with the Mate and Cook on board when the anchor-stock broke, as above mentioned, and she was put where she would take the ground. A vessel with her bottom covered with felt and metal from the light water-mark down, and which was as good and as smooth as when it was put on, could not get her seams full of mud. This vessel has always been A in Lloyd's book, but her value has been so much depreciated by bad reports and these stoppages that she could not be sold, and I have already lost a paying freight. The absurdity of placing a guard on board a vessel in the graving bank, and now on the patent slip, must be apparent. Is there no redress to be had in this case? When she struck on the supposed wreck five inches of the keel were knocked off and the upper end of one of the scarfs was strained. When she struck on the hard, the latter went into its place again, and the vessel leaked no more. Queenstown, June 16, 1876.

SURVEYED.

[Under Section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, if an Owner is dissatisfied with any order of the Board of Trade upon survey, he may appeal in the manner provided by the Statute. In Ireland an appeal is allowed to any Court having jurisdiction under the Court of Admiralty Act (Ireland), 1867. If our Correspondent has carried out the instructions of the Surveyor as to the repairs without appealing, no redress is now open to him.]

DETENTION OF A SEAWORTHY SHIP. SIR,-My vessel (see letter in your issue of the 20th inst.) has been some days on the slip here, is scraped and dubbed, and open in all the sections, according to Lloyd's Rules, for

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

special survey for the A 1 class. She has been visited by the Chief Inspector of the Board of Trade, and twice by the Board of Trade Surveyors; and to-day she had another visit from a Board Surveyor, who, with mallet and chisel, cut and hacked her timbers. After three or four of those Surveyors examined her floors and futtocks, doing considerable damage, they could not find the least defect. What class of ships does the Board of Trade require to be seaworthy? If a certificate of A 1 classification is a guarantee for a seaworthy ship, why are those Board of Trade Surveyors interfering with the special Surveyors of Lloyd's? Are they not to be trusted? The last Surveyor of the Board of Trade who visited my vessel told me he would come after Lloyd's Surveyors had passed her, and see if they left anything undone. This is a grand state of affairs for the British Shipping Trade. Who are we to go to law with ?—Yours, &c., Queenstown, June 27, 1876. SURVEYED.

[Our Correspondent's vessel struck on a rock and knocked off her false keel. The Board of Trade Surveyor obtained authority to detain her. The law prescribes the redress open to a Shipowner in case of improper detention. Instead of appealing to the Admiralty Court, the vessel was placed on a graving slip and submitted to inspection. If our Correspondent is dissatisfied with any order of the Board of Trade made on survey, he should apply to a Court with Admiralty jurisdiction. The Board of Trade do not acknowledge the certificates issued by Surveyors employed by any Society for the classification of ships, and are not bound to recognise them. Although the vessel may be seaworthy, uninsured, and classed, and not proceeding to se 1, the Owner is not protected against harassing legislation, except through the intervention of an Admiralty Court.]

[The Board of Trade (Section 6, Merchant Shipping Act, 1876) have power to detain a ship, and so have "Detaining Officers" (Section 12); but no Custom-house Officer has any right to stop a ship, by refusing clearance, without an order from one or other of the above-mentioned authorities.-(See Board of Trade Surveys, page 140, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III., and the Merchant Shipping Act in the Appendix thereto, with Explanatory Notes.]

UNSEAWORTHY SHIP AND IMPRISONED CREW. SIR,-A refractory Crew were taken before the Bench for refusing duty, but the Magistrates declined to act without a Board of Trade Surveyor's report, and upon his report, which was that a little caulking of the decks was necessary, and that the ship was in every respect seaworthy, they were committed to six weeks' imprisonment; but on a subsequent Board of Trade survey the ship was pronounced to be unseaworthy. Are the Owners in any way liable to the Crew who were committed upon the first survey, the defects which showed her to be unseaworthy being known to exist when the first survey was held ?-Yours, &c.,

Plymouth, March 15, 1877.

A SUBSCRIBER.

[If the ship was, as stated, unseaworthy, and the defects were known to exist at the time of the first survey, the Shipowner would be liable to the Crew.]

UNSEAWORTHY SHIP AND PASSAGE HOME. SIR, I shipped as Cook on board a ship to Dublin and back from the Port of London. None of the Crew were called to sign articles until we arrived at Plymouth, having called

VESSEL STOPPED AND TO BE BROKEN UP. SIR,-A vessel has been stopped by the Board of Trade, and all the Owners have agreed to break her up and sell the materials in lots, with the exception of one Owner, who owns 6-64 shares. He will not agree or sign to pull the ship to pieces. What remedy have the majority of the Owners? Yours, &c., A SHIPOWNER.

Whitehaven, Sept. 30, 1876. [The vessel should be broken up, and the dissentient CoOwner left to seek his remedy, if any, at law.]

COURTS OF INQUIRY AND STRANDING. SIR,-In the report of the stranding of the Orwell, in your impression of the 7th inst., I find the Wreck Commissioner is reported to have said:-" It is desirable that Owners should always be represented at Inquiries into strandings." I really don't see why. The Owners' profits are not so large as to admit of any uncalled-for expenditure. I know of one Owner who lately expended 4007. in being represented by a Q.C. at an Inquiry, he being recommended "to have the best of talent." Now, 4001. represents more than the average net earnings of a steamer of 8,0007. value in late years. my brother Steamship Owners will not be misled by the Judge's recommendation, and I shall be glad of your expression of opinion whether a stranding by a Master's erroneous navigation (causing loss enough when not amounting to an average) can in any way so affect an Owner as to require him to have the proceedings watched on his behalf.-Yours, &c., SHIPOWNER.

Hull, April 10, 1877.

hope

[Unless the interest of a Shipowner is directly affected by the stranding, we do not see why a Shipowner should be represented at a Court of Inquiry by counsel. If, however, there is a question raised as to the ship's equipments, or condition, it would be open to the Owner to engage the pro fessional aid of a barrister.]

SURVEY OF SHIP.

SIR, I have been a Shipmaster and Shipowner for many years in a small way, and hold a certificate from the Board of Trade. I was a Receiver of Droits of Admiralty whilst

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

under that Board. I have held an appointment as Government Emigration Surveyor for some years. I have been a Harbour Master in a small Port for a long time. I have been called upon by Underwriters, Shipowners, and Shipmasters to survey their ships round a seaboard of at least 100 miles, in almost every difficult case. Am I eligible, according to the new Shipping Act, to be on such surveys, as I do not wish to nct illegally? A MASTER MARINER.

June 9, 1876.

[Our Correspondent would be at liberty to survey ships for any person who chooses to engage him; but unless he is appointed a Local or District Surveyor by the Board of Trade, or to the Court of Survey by the Local Marine Board, he could not act officially. He should apply, however, to the Board of Trade.]

SURVEY OF SMALL SHIP. SIK,On my passage from Cardiff to Dublin, while plying to windward off the Irish coast, my vessel struck on a supposed wreck and made some water. The next day, the wind and sea increasing, we bore up for Cork to discharge and repair, if necessary. My vessel lay for some time în Port after arrival and got quite tight. As the market was glutted with coal we could not sell the cargo, and so, after 14 days the vessel was taken to Cork, where she now lies. About the 27th Jan. I got a verbal communication from the Custom-house Authorities at Queenstown, stating they had orders to stop my vessel. I replied in writing, but got no answer. On 3rd Feb. I received a printed form from the Board of Trade, stating my vessel was unfit to proceed to sea" without serious danger to human life," and that she was ordered to be surveyed. Hearing nothing more for several days, I wrote to the Secretary of the Board of Trade, asking him to look at Lloyd's Register Book and he would see my vessel's character, also asking him for the address of the party who stated my vessel was unseaworthy, and if he would be so kind as to let me know when the survey would be held. My vessel is A 1 in Lloyd's, and will be continued for three years more. She discharged a cargo from the River Plate at a northern Scotch Port, and immediately ballasted and proceeded round the Orkney Islands to a North American Port, and returned to Cardi. Many vessels leaving about the same time had not got to America yet. One of them, now in this Port, left Scotland seven days before mine, and has her voyage before her yet. My vessel as she now lays in Cork, with the exception of looking at her bottom and remetalling, is fit to go to any part of the world, and is a superior built ship of her class. She carries two sets of riding lamps, side lamps, and stanchions to ship forward, amidships, and aft, according to wind and weather. We do not insure, and are very careful. It is depreciating a vessel's value and character for a report to be circulated that she is stopped and not fit to go to sea, and also defamatory to me; for it was reported that I was taking a vessel to sea endangering human life, or, in other words, attempting to drown myself and others. It is 52 years since I remember my first voyage, and for the last 26 years there has been no insurance on any ship under my command, with the exception of two voyages. A letter was left at the ship from the principal officer of the Board of Trade at Queenstown, stating that they would be ready to survey the vessel when she could be seen dry, and requesting me to give them notice. Am I bound to give the Surveyer notice when and where I may place my vessel to see her bottom? If Shipowners cannot do their own business without this, it is full time to give it up altogether to foreigners, as they are now nearly masters of the situation. I suppose my vessel will be on the list of unseaworthy ships stopped. A SHIPMASTER.

Queenstown, Feb. 20, 1876.

[When a vessel is in dock and ready for survey, we think the Owner should give notice to the Surveyor, although there is no provision in the Statutes which compels him to do so.]

REGISTRATION OF SHIPS.

SIR,-I have lately purchased shares in two ships, and have presented at the Custom House, Plymouth, the bill of

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

sale and form No. 2, properly filled in and indorsed by the British Consul, and requested to be registered as Owner of such shares, but have been repeatedly refused, and toli that I cannot be an Owner of British ships and appear on the register as such, solely because I am at present residing in a foreign country. What remedy have I? Can a British subject residing in a foreign country, and never having taken the oath of allegiance to any foreign State, be sole Owner or Part-Owner of British ships, and his name appear on the register as Owner? N. R.

Corunna, Jan. 13, 1876.

[Section 19 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, enacts that every British ship shall be registered, and, unless registered, she is not to be treated as British. No Officer of Customs is permitted to clear out, and no vessel is allowed tc proceed under the British flag without the production of the certificate. Under Sections 50, 51, 52, 121, and 142 of the Customs Consolidation Act, the nationality of a ship must be disclosed in order to obtain entry inwards and outwards, and a ship without papers is liable to be seized as a pirate and a rover.]

MEASUREMENT OF SHIP.

SIR,-I arrived in Cork from Antwerp with a cargo which was discharged, and wished to have my vessel mes sured, as she has been a foreign one. I desire to place her under the English flag, and gave notice on the 7th inst. I went to the office and inquired why my vessel was not measured, and the reason assigned was that the Board of Trade Surveyor was at another Port. One of his clerks came on board and measured the vessel, and I asked him if I could take in a cargo, as it was waiting for me, and he told me I could not until the Surveyor returned. Am I not enaitled to compensation for my vessel's detention, as the Merchant threatens to make me pay for not taking in his cargo? What course should I adopt, as I can get no satisfaction any where?-Yours, &c.,

JOHN PAULIN, Schooner Little Kate.

Cork, Nov. 11, 1876.

[Until the vessel was entered out for loading she could not take in a cargo for a foreign Port; but if loss has been incurred by the measurement and consequent registration of the ship, application might be made to the Board of Trade.]

MARKING SHIP'S NAME. SIR,-Am I obliged by Act of Parliment to take my vessel's name off the stern? It is carved in wood and screwed on the stern.-Yours, &c., SHIPMASTER. Bridgwater, Sept. 29, 1876. [Section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, enacts that the name of every ship shall be marked on each of her bows, and the name and Port of registry on her stern. Many ships have ornamental work across their sterns, with carved figures, and their names cut out or painted in the central part; others have decorated or plain boards screwed on. It rests with the Board of Trade to determine whether the law has been complied with.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

SALE OF WRECKED VESSEL. SIR,-In the latter end of last December a small vessel of mine was lost on the Welsh Coast, close to the shore and on Band. The Receiver of Wreck of course took the necessary preliminaries to save all that washed ashore from her, but no sale of any description has been held yet by the Customs authorities, though some of the cargo has been saved. The vessel is in abt three fathoms of water, and the sooner she is disposed of the better, or else she will break up. What procedure can I adopt to expedite her sale ?-Yours, &c., Feb. 26, 1877. A SHIPOWNER.

[Subject to the payment of expenses, fees, and Salvage, the Owner of any wreck who establishes his claim thereto to the satisfaction of the Receiver within one year from the date at which such wreck has come into the possession of the Receiver, shall be entitled to have it delivered up to him.(Section 470, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) If the vessel has not been abandoned to the Underwriters, the Owner should claim her, subject to the foregoing conditions, and sell her by auction.]

WRECK AND SALE OF BOAT.

SIR,-A schooner lost a boat in an Irish loch at the en of last November. I reported it to the Chief Officer of the Coastguard next day. In four or five days I heard that it had landed at a neighbouring station. I sent a man down to see it, and he brought back word that it was worth getting from there, and that the Chief Officer had said there was no Salvage. Some time after I wrote to the Chief Officer, saying that I would call for it in a short time, as I was going to those parts. The answer I received was that the Receiver of Wreck had sold it. Was he acting legally in selling_the boat without letting me know?-Yours, &c., Newquay, Jan. 22, 1877.

D.

COMPASSES OF IRON SHIPS.

SIR,-I have a share in an iron vessel, and am requested to take charge of her. I know nothing as regards the errors of her compasses, and have never been in an iron ship before. The Officers are all newly appointed, and no one on board understands the compass errors of the previous voyage. There are some cards of errors on board from the last adjustment, which was about 18 months ago. 1st. Should I go to sea without the compasses being adjusted, and, should the ship be lost in the Channel or elsewhere, would the insurance or my certificate be affected? 2nd. Would the ship be considered seaworthy under such circumstances? I know the Board of Trade compels the adjustment of compasses if I have over 50 passengers, but I am informed I can have 49 and not be adjusted?-Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER. London, Feb. 28, 1877.

[Every seagoing steamship employed to carry passengers must have her compasses properly adjusted.—(Par. 2, Section 301, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) The Statute is silent as to the compasses of sailing vessels. In passing emigrant ships the Surveyors are supposed to look at the compasses, and to ask questions about the adjustment. 1st. If a Ship

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

master knowingly takes the ship to sea with her compasses not adjusted, and she should be lost in consequence thereof, the insurance would be imperilled; the Master's certificate would be liable to suspension, and the Master might be punished for taking, and the Owner for sending, a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state.-(Section 4, Merchant Shipping Act, 1876). 2nd. An iron ship with unadjusted compasses would not, in our opinion, be seaworthy.]

LOADLINE AND LOG ENTRIES.

SIR, I left Liverpool on Monday evening, Dec. 11, loaded to the declared loadline of one foot seven inches freeboard. After being at sea two days the Crew wanted me to put bick, which I declined to do, as I saw no reason for so doing, the vessel being in every way seaworthy, tight, staunch, and strong. On Friday, the 15th, the Crew all refused duty, and consequently I had to run for Kingstown. The following day I went to Dublin to try and get another Crew. The Shipping Master said my vessel had too little freeboard, and that I must have two feet before he would allow her to proceed. He then sent the Surveyor, who reported the vessel much too deep, and served notice to discharge cargo, which I did to the amount of 19 tons, which would lighten the vessel from three to four inches; and the vessel now, in smooth water, has two feet two inches clear side. On arrival here I must have had one foot ten inches. Yesterday the Surveyor told me I could proceed by depositing 107. at the Custom House, which I at once did. On applying for my articles at the Shipping Office I found the loadline entere therein altered. I was much surprised, as that is the Owners' duty, and no one else has any right under the present Act to alter it. The Deputy Shipping Master asked me to sign the alteration, which I refused to do; also to alter the official log, which I also declined to do. I then told him that my loadline was still the same and remained on the vessel, as also the freeboard on the articles, and as I sanctioned no alteration it must remain the same, for the alteration was an agreement between the Shipping Master and the Crew, with which I had nothing to do. Who will have to pay the expense (about 301.) and Demurrage for five days, 20., besides 161. Advance Notes? Is the loadline any protection to a Shipowner? or is it merely a farce, like the two eyes the Chinese put on their junks, which frees them from Harbour Dues?-Yours, &c., HUGH KERR, Master brig Bat.

Kingstown, Dec. 23, 1876.

[The Owners of ships under Section 25 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, have to place a loadline on their vessels, and the centre of the disc is to indicate the maximum loadline in salt water to which the Owners intend to load them. The position of the centre of the disc in feet and inches from the ship's decks above are to be entered on the form of entry at the Custom House, as also on the ship's articles and in the official logbook. If that disc has not been altered, the Master should not be called upon to make fresh entries. The disc placed on vessels as a safety loadline is not binding on Surveyors; and if the ship was pronounced by them as overloaded, and was not so, our Correspondent should have appealed to the Court of Survey in the district. By discharging cargo he indirectly admitted that the vessel was overladen, and he will therefore have to bear all the expenses.]

FRESH AND SALT WATER LOADLINE.

SIR,-Is there any difference allowed when loading a ship between fresh water and salt? I have been stopped by my Crew at Dantzic, the vessel drawing 1-inch beyond the mark, and have had to discharge 20 tons of coal. I laboured under the impression that at least three inches were allowed when loading in fresh water. In salt water my vessel carries exactly 850 tons deadweight, and when loaded is exactly down to her loading marks. My Owners, on leaving home. cautioned me not to load the ship as deep as in summer, cor sequently I took in, with bunkers, 830 tons, being 20 ton less weight than usual, and still I am stopped and have to

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

take out another 20 tons. I have been in this ship nearly Syears, three winters of which were in the mineral trade, and have made in that time some 23 voyages, always carrying 850 tons deadweight. We were three inches mean lighter this voyage than last voyage from Konigsberg, and the Surveyor was on board when we were loaded, and has on other occasions allowed for fresh water. Have Masters to take so much less cargo in fresh water Ports than in salt water-say, Coal Ports in the North of England? The Surveyor was down at Dantzic when we were loaded, and that was the time to say the ship was too deep, not when I got to sea, and compel me to put back and discharge at great expense. Yours, &c.,

RD. REMMINGTON, Lilydale (s), of West Hartlepool. Bremerhaven, Nov. 24, 1876.

[Section 26 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, Par. 2, is as follows:-"The centre of the disc shall indicate the maximum loadline in salt water to which the Owner intends to load the ship for that voyage." The disc should therefore be adjusted to the salt-water maximum, and placed from 2 to 3 inches higher, according to the ship's calculated displacement. The salt-water mark would thus become the freshwater one. This would allow the vessel to load to the mark in fresh water, and to show from 2 to 3 inches of the centre of the disc when the vessel is in salt water. There is no punishment for submerging the disc in fresh water, for Section 28 enacts that any Owner or Master of a British ship who neglects to keep the ship marked, or who allows the ship to be so loaded as to submerge the centre of the disc in salt water, shall incur a penalty not exceeding 100. It is usual to allow for the difference between fresh and salt water; but, in case of legal proceedings being taken against the Master of a ship, the difference between the density of the water where the ship loaded and that of the sea, and the fact that the vessel rose three inches, would be a question of evidence.]

UNEXTINGUISHABLE DANGER SIGNALS.

SIR, Is it true that among the provisions of the Government Shipping Bill, as altered by the Lords, there is one requiring all passenger ships to carry a supply of danger siguals which cannot be extinguished by water, while no provision is made for extinguishing fires on shipboard which may be caused by such signals? It is evident that the danger from fire would be thereby greatly increased in the class of ships in which, of all others, an alarm of fire would be most disastrous, and it is to be hoped that the clause will be well considered before it becomes law. Few travellers would feel comfortable if voyaging for, perhaps, two or three months in a ship carrying these signals. It is surely enough to have the risk of being drowned at sea without being forced to accept the additional peril of being burned to death ?— Yours, &c., QUOD AVERTAT DEUS!

Belfast, July 28, 1876.

[Clause 20, to which our Correspondent refers, was inserted, on the motion of the President of the Board of Trade, in substitution for a clause relating to unextinguishable distress signals introduced by Mr. Plimsoll, but refers to seagoing passenger steamers and emigrant ships only. A fire that cannot be extinguished by water will, of course, add one more peril on shipboard.]

SIGNAL OF DISTRESS.-LUGGER'S CREW. SIR,-On the 18th inst., blowing a gale from about the north, we saw a barque running through the Gulf Stream with her ensign flying at the peak. We knew she did not want a tugboat, as we saw one speak her. We immediately got our lugger ready, and with great risk to life and property succeeded in launching her through a very heavy sea, and proceeded to the barque, and we were in great personal danger the whole way, as there was a heavy sea running in the Downs. We hailed the barque, and he told us he had slipped his anchors. We asked him if he wanted us. He

[The hoisting of an ensign at the peak is not a signal of distress, and therefore does not come within Sections 18 and 19 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873. It might be difficult to prove that the Master wanted assistance, or that be was not compelled to beat off out of danger. The proper place for an ensign is at the peak, and unless it was hoisted union downwards the Master might say that he was showing the nationality of his ship, or privately signalling. If, however, the ship had lost her anchors in a gale, and was in danger, and the flag was intended as a boat's signal, and our Correspondent put off to render assistance, we would advise an application to the County Court.-(See pages 198 and 200, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

SIGNAL IN THE DOWNS.

SIR, Whilst riding in the Downs, in November last, during a heavy gale from the N., I hoisted an ensign to a friend riding near me on board of the schooner Mystery, of Rye, who answered me. Directly afterwards a boat came alongside, and her crew offered assistance to take my vessel to Dover, which I declined, but asked them what they would charge for their assistance. They replied, "We cannot make any agreement here, but will settle ashore." I replied, "No, I will have nothing to do with you," and they then left me without rendering any assistance whatThey now make a claim for 1004. for my merely signalling to a friend.

ever.

GEORGE ROBINSON, of the London, of Rye. [Hoisting an ensign upside down is a day signal of distress in custom, but it is not so by Statute. The signals of distress in the day are a gun, flags NC, International Code, or the distant signal consisting of a square flag with a ball above or below it. An ensign, or any other flags besides those mentioned may be used for private signalling; and if no signal was made for a boat, and none went off expressly in response to the hoisting a flag in the ordinary manner, which flag was so displayed as not to constitute it a boat signal, the claim for services rendered could not be sustained.]

SHIPS' LIGHTS AND BOARD OF TRADE
SURVEYORS.

SIR, The Board of Trade Surveyor visited a little vessel on the 5th of January last, when the Master was absent, and the Mate, not having access to the register case, &c., could not produce the Surveyor's certificate which had been issued on the 27th of July 1875. The next morning the Master was served with a notice from the Custom House, in the usual form, to alter the reflectors of the lamps, and also the light stanchions and boards-having, of course, to pay the customary fee and expenses. The Master told the Customs messenger that he had a certificate, and received for reply that "it made no difference." Subsequently I received a letter from the Surveyor, of which the following is an extract:-"On the 5th inst. I visited the above vessel, and the Master could not produce a certificate; had he been able to do so, you would probably not have been called on to pay any fee." You will notice that the Surveyor had not seen the Master, nor given him an opportunity to produce the certificate which the Mate had told him the Master held. 1. Is such a certificate any protection whatever against the visits and charges of the Board of Trade Surveyors? 2. Had the Surveyor any right to make orders, under the circumstances, without seeing the Master? 3. What Court of Appeal is there against these unnecessary intrusions on honest Shipowners? MANAGING OWNER.

Feb. 2, 1876.

[1st. A certificate, when produced, is supposed to be a