MISCELLANEOUS.

and salt, and the Indus Valley Railway will doubtless tend to increase the shipments of all kinds of produce. Horses from Cabul find their way now to Kurrachee, and it is mentioned that cattle from the upper provinces will be sent down in the near future for shipment by coasting steamers. With the prospect of this Port becoming a much more considerable one for imports and exports than it is now, further accommodation for the berthing of vessels will have to be provided, or delays must necessarily take place in loading and discharging. It follows from the above explanation that Lay-days should always be stipulated for in Charter-parties, and be also recited in Bills of Lading.-November 1876.

WOOD. IRON SHIPS.

Is an iron-built ship more liable to receive damage on taking the ground than a vessel constructed of wood? This problem seems to have engaged considerable attention in the United States, and the conclusion arrived at by the Council of the Underwriters' Association is, that vessels wholly built of iron are unsafe risks unless they are exteriorly sheathed with wood. This will astonish Engineers and Shipbuilders in this country, who have so long insisted upon the inferiority of wood as a building material when compared with metal. The late Mr. GRANTHAM, in his book on "Iron Shipbuilding," claims especially for iron that a properly built ship will bear greater strains than one constructed of wood. In FAIRBAIRN's work, tables of results are given from actual experiments, and it is shown that a wrought-iron plate only one quarter of an inch thick is able to resist a force equal to that required in the rupture of a three-inch oak plank. The strength of dry English oak to resist a crushing force is 4.24 tons to the square inch, whereas wrought iron requires a pressure of about 31 tons to the square inch. The resistance of wrought-iron plates to a force calculated to burst them follows a law different to that of oak, the resistance being directly as the depth, and of the latter as the square of the depth. It has been held by several writers that an iron-built ship will bear a greater strain than a wooden-built one when the hull is resting on unequal ground. The timber joints of a ship are not united either longitudinally, vertically, or transversely, and the strength depends upon the sheathing which is attached to the ribs; whereas the plating of an iron vessel is made homogeneous by the riveting and laps. When the Great Britain (s) was exposed for a whole winter to the action of the sea, stranded in Dundrum Bay, the advocates of iron instanced the case as a proof of the value of a vessel with a metal bottom to resist contact. Another ship was put to rather a severe test on the 7th of April last, when Malta was en fête for the Prince of WALES. The Indus (8), with the outward Indian and Australian mails, when nearing the island, bumped several times on the Monsciar Reef, at the extremity of St. Thomas's Point, remained fast by her heel for some time, but eventually swung round and got off. St. Elmo Light was established to guard vessels from running on to that dangerous reef; but a magnesium light, it is said, caused the Mate to mistake his position. The ship, however, after having called at Malta, proceeded. There has been an almost unanimous chorus in favour of iron for shipbuilding, partly from its alleged immunity

MISCELLANEOUS.

from breaking when resting on uneven ground. There have, however, been recorded instances of iron-built ships snapping in two directly they struck, and it was said of the Royal Charter (s) that she "broke like a tobacco-pipe." The weight of the boilers and machinery must always prove a source of danger to either iron or wooden-built ships, because the mass, when receiving a sudden jerk, will exercise its force on the frames, keelsons, and plating. The boilers, furnaces, and bedding plates are not compactly stowed like cargo in a ship's hold, but are to a great extent held in suspension, and the dead weight, when brought down as a hammer on the hull by the vessel striking, is bound to exe t its influence. There have been persons in England, however, who have expressed an opinion in favour of wooden steamers in resisting strains on being left dry at low water, or on striking on shoals. The American Underwriters' Association have turned their attention more particularly to lake navigation, where iron-built screw steamers have very much increased within the past few years; and to obtain greater security from the dangers arising in passing through canals or rivers, the following, among other rules, has been issued:"Steam-vessels built of iron, not less substantially "than required by the Rules of the New York "Record for the highest class, but, in addition, having "their bottoms built as solidly and defensively as "those of modern steam-vessels (see Section 48), "being timber-filled between the frames of the floor, "the filling in whole length well fastened to the "floor-plates, the bottom outside planked with wood "to the top of the bilge, the planks of three-fourths "the thickness required for wooden vessels by Section "29, single fastened and properly caulked, with "watertight ceiling to the top of the bilge, and three

66

or more compartment bulkheads well caulked, "shall be eligible to the grades of the first-class for "lake navigation. Iron vessels inferior to the above "standard of strength and preparation for taking the "bottom to be assigned a grade in the second or "third class only." All iron-built steamers plying on fresh-water rivers or lakes would, by this regulation, have to be sheathed outside with wood and filled up inside with timber. The pretentious claims of iron ships, it is said, have been found out, and now they are in consequence discredited. Iron when covered with wood cannot be efficiently protected from leakage; therefore, if the plates both inside and outside cannot be got at to coat with paint, whatever water insinuates itself decay will be going on by corrosion. If this rule of classification is acted upon by Underwriters a great blow will be inflicted upon the building of iron ships in Canada and the United States. Iron-built paddle-wheel and screw vessels have been introduced on the Mississippi and other rivers most successfully, and so far as experience goes, they are worked more economically than wooden-built steamers. The extra weight of hull caused by the wood which the iron hull would have to carry is a serious objection; the displacement being increased, the consumption of fuel would be augmented proportionately. The Committee of Lloyd's Register have never attempted to make the Owners of iron-built river, lake, and coasting steamers double the bottoms of their vessels by wooden sheathing. They require all iron ships to be closely cei ed from the main keelson to the upper part of the

MISCELLANEOUS.

bilges, and from there upwards, with either batten and space or close ceiling. By Rule 35, also, the frames and plating of the bottoms of all vessels in the upper part of the bilges have to be thickly and efliciently covered with Portland or other approved cement, mixed with sand, to the satisfaction of the Surveyors. The Shipowning Interests are opposed to this addition of so many tons of material on the hulls of their vessels, submerging them a foot or more, and the subject is receiving considerable discussion in Canada and the States. Numerous letters and flysheets have been published, and among the contributors to the controversy is Mr. D. BELL, of Buffalo, who supplies statistics relating to the ironbuilt propellers belonging to that Port. Action was taken against iron steamers because of the loss of the Merchant (s) last year. This vessel was built in 1862, and her Owners had never made any claim on the Underwriters until she was lost at Racine. During her existence of thirteen years her Owners paid 30,9077. on insurance of hull and eastward cargo, and recovered from the Underwriters 28,7821. The insurers also received about 6,000l. on policies for westward cargoes. The ship returned in gross premiums to the Underwriters a profit of 7,1251. according to this representation. Ten other iron steamers now in existence, and built at a cost of 320,000l., are mentioned, and including the Merchant, or eleven vessels in all, the sums paid to Underwriters were 188,046., and recovered under claims 79,0251., leaving as the gain to the insurers 109,0217. This is the practical experience elicited, in an Underwriting point of view, on the losses and gains in the working of eleven iron-built steamers in lake navigation. The Underwriters say that their earnings do not correspond with the risks undertaken, and the Shipowners declare that, if they had been their own insurers, they might have added five new ships to their fleet. The Underwriters, on the other hand, draw a distinction between premiums on ships and premiums on cargo, and say that, taking the premiums on the vessels and freight money only, the consideration is too small, and that further protection is needed. Shipowners, it would seem, take the premiums as a whole, and the Underwriters look at them in detail.-June 19, 1876.

AGREEMENT NOT TO SERVE IN OTHER EMPLOY.

SIR,-By a letter which I received in England I accepted the appointment of French and English correspondent in the service of a firm in this town. I arrived here, and the senior dictated a letter which I, in good faith, willingly signed, and of which the following is a copy:-" In consideration of your having taken me into your service, I hereby bind myself implicitly that, in the event of your not retaining me, I shall not enter into any other office in Antwerp. This obligation I agree to strictly adhere to." I am now, at an instant's notice, told that my services are no longer required, after a period of 13 months' work. By signing such a letter, one throws the bread out of one's own mouth as regards the town of Antwerp. Would any law uphold the imposition of such a condition upon a clerk?—Yours, &c., S. W.

Antwerp, Aug. 18, 1876.

Unless there was a penalty attached to the condition of not serving in any other office at the same Port, we should say that damages would not be recoverable. In England the agreement would have to be stamped before it could be produced in evidence. The understanding partakes more of a moral obligation than that of a legal condition of service.]

MISCELLANEOUS.

ALEXANDRIA PORT CHARGES.

SIR,-In August last I called at Alexandria with the Richard Anning (s), in ballast, seeking employment, and after waiting there 48 hours, and no employment offering, I left again in ballast, seeking, but doing no Commercial business whatever at Alexandria. On my arrival home, find my Owners have been presented with a bill for the following dues:-Port Charges, 12l. 3s. 9d.; Light Dues, 5l. 12s. 6d.; Buoy Dues, 1.; Bill of Health, 17. 1s. 6d.; Customs' Pass, 78.; British Consul, 10s.-201. 14s. 9d. Are these charges legal, and in accordance with our Treaty rights with Turkey and Egypt? Prior to 1874 any vessel could call at Alexandria secking, and leave seeking, without paying any charge whatever, excepting Pratique Dues-a mere nominal sum. E. THOMAS.

Cardiff, Oct. 15, 1877.

[Vessels entering the Port of Alexandria in ballast are not exempt from payment of dues. We think that where a vessel calls and does not perform any Commercial operation at a Port she should be exempt from the payment of dues, but as regards Alexandria a Bill of Health on leaving would be necessary, and this would entail other charges.]

ANCHOR NOT BUOYED.

SIR,-Is it right that a vessel lying at a jetty with an anchor out should be without a buoy on it to indicate its position?-Yours, &c., WALTER BEVERIDGE.

Alloa, Jan. 31, 1877. .

[On the River Thames, "no anchor or anchors shall be suffered to lie in or remain in the stream of the river outside of the line of the tiers so as to endanger any vessel.”—(Byelaw, Section 18.) The Thames Conservators have made rules to prohibit the anchors of vessels, when at wharves or in the stream, from being unbuoyed. By the ordinary practice of Seamen, all anchors in the fairway of navigable channels are, as a rule, buoyed; and any neglect in not giving Masters of other vessels warning of the position of an anchor would give a cause of action for damages if any loss has been incurred through such default.]

BERWICK AND FIRTH OF FORTH.

SIR,-I chartered my vessel to load a cargo" at a Port in the West of England for Sunderland or Newcastle, or any Port in the Firth of Forth, or any Port north of the Firth of Forth, one Port to be named on signing the Bill of Lading"; but when the ship was loaded she was ordered to Berwickon-Tweed, which is not mentioned in the Charter, the Shipper's Agent protesting that Berwick-on-Tweed is a Port in the Firth of Forth. According to Maritime Law, is it a Port in the Firth of Forth? If not, has the ship any remedy for being sent to a Port she was not chartered for, as now she will have to ballast and go to a loading Port, whereas at most of the other Ports she would have got a return cargo without shifting? A SHIPMASTER.

Berwick, June 7, 1876.

MISCELLANEOUS.

a cargo at a Port which is likely to be interrupted by the outbreak of hostilities, the Master ought not to sail with that cargo without having a written authority in the Bill of Lading or otherwise from the Shipper, giving him full discretion as to how to act with respect to the goods in the event of the Port of destination being blockaded, or of any other interruption resulting from a state of war.-(For further information see page 98, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. 11.)]

BOARD OF TRADE FORMS.

SIR,-I paid my Crew off on arrival from a foreign voyage, and applied at the Shipping office for a Coasting Form of Agreement, but they did not grant one, and so I was obliged to proceed without any or detain the vessel. What course was right for me to take, as there was no one authorised to sell the forms at this Port ?—Yours, &c.,

ROBERT JONES, Master of the John Evans. Cardigan, Oct. 14, 1876.

["Every person who, in any case in which a form sanctioned by the Board of Trade by the third part of the Act is required to be used, uses, without reasonable excuse, any form not purporting to be so sanctioned," incurs a penalty not exceeding 10/-(Section 10, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) For not entering into an agreement, before going to sea, in the form and manner required, there is a penalty not exceeding 51. Coasting vessels must comply with the law, although their Crews have not to sign articles before Shipping Masters. Under the circumstances mentioned by our Correspondent, however, if no Board of Trade forms could be procured, there would be a "reasonable excuse 99 for not entering the agreement on a Board of Trade form. If the forms are not to be had at a Shipping-office, or obtained at the Port, the Master might use an improvised copy.]

BOND AND STAMP FOR STORES.

SIR, I arrived in this Port, from New York, with a cargo of Indian corn. When my vessel was ready to sail I went with my Broker's clerk to clear my ship from the Customhouse for New York, but could not do so until I should pass a regular bond, with a 5s. stamp, for the provisions I had under seal for the use of the vessel, which I had on board, and brought from New York. The provisions I have under seal are-24 lbs. tobacco gross, 80 lbs. chicory, 80 lbs. coffee. I was then forced to pass a bond to have my vessel cleared from H.M.'s Customs. I have been in several places of the United Kingdom, and was never asked to pass a bond before, although having more provisions than I have now, when I am not going on a coasting voyage. Can they force me to do so or not? A FOREIGN CAPTAIN.

Limerick, March 9, 1876. [No stamped bond is required for the clearance outwards of stores under seal to foreign Ports, and therefore the bond should not have been demanded.]

MISCELLANEOUS.

[The Manager or Ship's Ilusband usually orders coal for a ship's use. A Broker would not be entitled to order coals or other necessaries for the use of a ship without authority. Where the Manager or Ship's Husband does not order coals, and the Broker has no authority delegated to him for such a purpose, it is the duty of the Master, as Agent of thɔ Owner, to procure the same.]

BUOYANCY OF LADEN SHIPS. SIR,-Is there as much empty space in the average of loaded ships as would float them, if air-tight, including cabins, forecastle, &c. D. M.

Monitieth (N.B.), Feb. 17, 1876.

[In vessels with two or three decks there would be suffi cient air-spaces to keep them afloat if such spaces were airand-water-tight, and not filled with cargo. Cabins and forecastles are not watertight, and therefore all ships would sink if submerged to their gunwales.]

BUOY OFF BRIGHTON PIER.

SIR,-Having started an excursion steam service to run passengers in the Channel from this pier, I am about to lay down moorings, with large buoys attached, and desire to have it noticed officially and placed upon the charts.Yours, &c., W. S. G.

West Pier, Brighton, July 6, 1876.

[Notice of the intention to anchor the buoy off the pier should be given to the Trinity House and the Hydrographic Department of the Admiralty in London, and application should also be made to the Board of Trade.]

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

SIR, I enclose for your inspection a "Certificate for Clearance Outwards," as a curiosity. Each of the initials involved a journey for the Captain of 44 miles by road each way, and all the Crew had to go occasionally, thus causing the only trouble we have had with our men, some of whom have been 11 years with us. I have just met three Sailors, handcuffed, being marched through the streets to gaol. On asking the policeman in charge the cause of their arrest, he said they had been losing their ships-left behind. The Collector has snt one of his sons to Penarth at last, but the above system has been going on over 10 years. When the Channel Tunnel is made, will the guard or engine-driver have to dance attendance at the Custom-house, Shipping-office, &c., and Harbouroffice? H. V.

Cardiff, May 25, 1876.

[A steamer making frequent trips to French Ports must be entered inwards and outwards at the Custom-house, but whether a railway train will have to be cleared will have to be settled when the tunnel is made. If, however, the Engineer is to stand in the place of the Master of a ship, and comply with the numerous requirements of the Statutes, he will have to engage a Mate as driver of the engine. The certificate sent to us for inspection contains 17 initials, and the document appears to be nearly worn out.]

CHEQUE "PER PROCURATION."

SIR, I recently presented a cheque at one of our large private banks, and was refused payment upon the following point:-The cheque was payable to order, and, in the absence of the payee, was endorsed "per procuration" by the gentleman holding the necessary power of attorney. Can a banker legally refuse to cash a cheque so endorsed? And has any case been decided in a Court of law bearing upon this point? The anomaly is that private banks refuse to cash open cheques so endorsed, whereas the Joint Stock Banks, I believe without exception, recognise this endorsation as equivalent to that of the payee. Yours, &c., A. H. G.

Lloyd's. Dcc. 19, 1876.

MISCELLANEOUS.

[When any of the signatures through which the holder of a cheque claims are by procuration, the party paying (the banker) must ascertain the sufficiency of the procuration at his peril ("Roberts v. Tucker," Queen's Bench); and the payee must also ascertain the genuineness of all necessary indorsements ("Sigourney v. Lloyd," "Ancher v. Bank of England," and "Stewart v. Lee"). If a draft or order on a banker, payable to order on demand, purports to be indorsed by the person to whom it was made payable, he (the banker) is authorised to pay it to the bearer thereof.-(16th and 17th Vic., c. 59, sec. 19.) The banker, without notice and proof of permission to pay per procuration, might therefore refuse to pay a cheque to bearer.]

COLONIAL AND IMPERIAL LAWS.

SIR,-One of my Sailors refused duty in Port, and was sent to gaol for four weeks in the Colony of South Australia. When he came out of gaol, and before he reached the ship, and quite unknown to me, he was taken before a Magistrate and sent to the Lunatic Asylum as a pauper lunatic, where he was detained. When I cleared out I gave the balance of wages to the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine, which he took, but refused to discharge the Sailor, and wrote on the articles that the man was left behind on the ground of inability; and, further, he indorsed my clearance paper that I had not complied with all the provisions of the Act. What the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine required was that I should leave money to maintain the lunatic until he came out of the asylum. Under the above circumstances, was I not justified in refusing to maintain the man while in the asylum, seeing I had no part in sending him there? Does the Merchant Shipping Act overrule a Colonial byelaw? Do not Colonial laws more immediately apply to Colonial vessels than to vessels owned in the United Kingdom making voyages to the Colonies? A SHIPMASTER.

London, March 6, 1876.

The United States, Canada, and the Australian Colonies have laws directed against aged or decrepit persons, or paupers, being landed and left in a destitute condition, irrespective of the flag under which they are brought. In the United States this law is enforced with impartiality, and Shipowners have had to bring back to Europe many cripples, old persons sent abroad from poor-houses, and lunatics. When a man is left behind in a Colony from inability to proceed, the wages must be paid up to the period of discharge.-(Sections 209 and 210, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) That would be a compliance with the Imperial Statute; but we are of opinion that the local law as regards lunatics could be enforced in the Colony on vessels registered in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the Act of 1854.-(As to conflict between Imperial and Colonial Laws, see leading article in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Feb. 23, 1876.)]

COLONIAL-BUILT VESSELS.

SIR,-How many Colonial-built vessels, over eight years old, are at present registered in the United Kingdom, either in the foreign or coasting trade?-Yours, &c., Troon, March 10, 1877. A SUBSCRIBER.

[The information may be obtained by going through the pages of The Mercantile Navy List and Maritime Directory, and extracting a list of such vessels under the heading of "Where built."]

CONSUL'S FEES ON LETTERS. SYR,-Can a British Vice-Consul, in a Spanish Port, legally charge half a real on each letter addressed to his care? May 18, 1876. BRITISH SHIPMASTER.

[There is a regular scale of fees which a Consul may exact for performing duties under the Merchant Shipping Acts,

MISCELLANEOUS.

and the sums so received are paid over to the Crown. A Vice-Consul is usually a person in business who adds this service to his other labours, and there is no law which forbids him from charging a fee for each letter addressed to his care. A Consul or Vice-Consul, if wholly paid by the State, would not be at liberty to levy a tax of this description.]

CONVENTION RELATING TO NEUTRALS. SIR,-Has England entered into any Convention by which vessels of hostile nations are allowed certain days of grace during which they cannot be captured by men-of-war belonging to the enemy; and, in that case, how many, and when do such days begin to count, and what Powers are included in the agreement? What may be the position of goods belonging to a hostile nation in a neutral vessel, and of neutral goods in a vessel belonging to a hostile nation ?Yours, &c., WESTENHOLZ BROS.

London, Nov. 27, 1876.

SIR.-My vessel arrived at Goole on the 3rd of March last from Morocco with grain, and the Captain delivered up all the documents required, and also received a small document called B. B. The vessel sailed again with a cargo of coal for Plymouth, and thence with a cargo of limestones for Portmadoc, where she was until the 4th of August. This vessel had been loaded, and the Crew were on board and had signed articles, when the Broker went to the Custom-house to clear the vessel outwards for Harburg. Previous to this the half-yearly return was produced, and received the document of O. O. The Custom-house Officer refused to clear out the ship. Though the Master had the O. O., the Officer wanted to have the B. B. as well. The B. B. was lost, and the Master never thought it was required, as the vessel was in the Home Trade the last voyage. My vessel has been detained for four days until a duplicate was received from Goole. Am I not entitled to make the Officer pay for the loss of time of my ship?-Yours, &c., SHIPOWNER. Aberystwith, Aug. 15, 1876.

[We would advise an application to the Commissioners of Customs. The forms must be complied with, and there would consequently be no legal redress.]

CUSTOM-HOUSE OFFICERS' BOARD.

SIR, A steamer arrived at Gravesend from a foreign Port -say from a near Port-where a voyage is made weekly. As many as three Custom-house Officers are placed on board to accompany the vessel to her berth in the river at London, and remain on board while the cargo is discharged. Are the

[By Section 46 of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1876, vessels on arrival are to come quickly to the place of unlading, and if the Master of any ship on board of which any Officer is stationed neglect or refuse to provide every such Officer sufficient room and accommodation under the deck for his bed or hammock, the Master of such ship shall forfeit the sum of 201.-(Section 46.) It is further provided that if goods remain on board an importing ship beyond 14 days after the arrival of the vessel, "such ship shall be detained by the proper Officers of Customs until all expenses of watching and guarding such goods beyond 14 days are paid, not exceeding 5s. per diem."-(Section 75.) We know of no law under which a Shipowner is compelled to board Custom-house Officers.]

CUSTOMS ENTRIES AND DUES.

SIR,-1st. What is the present existing law or practice in England in reference to the levying and collection of Tonnage Dues on ships arriving from parts beyond the seas, but which do not actually come within the limits of the Ports of the United Kingdom, and, in fact, come seeking a cargo or market? If the ship enters the Port seeking or in ballast, but does not break bulk, and does not take in outward cargo or freight, must she be reported and come to an entry, and is she then liable to Tonnage Dues ? 2nd. Is a ship putting into any of the Ports of the United Kingdom in distress compelled to come to an entry and report at the Customhouse, and thereafter clear, although she does not take away cargo; and does she pay Tonnage or any other dues? 3rd. Would any of the provisions of the several Acts relating to the Customs be contravened by the entry or clearance of a ship at the Custom-house, or by an Officer of the Customs, on Sunday or on a holiday? 4th. Is Section 159 of the Customs Consolidation Act, which, as regards British possessions, treats of a "certificate of origin" of sugar and rum, declaration of the grower," and "declaration of the Master" of ship, still in force? 5th. Is Section 163 of the same Act, which refers to goods or passengers carried from one part of any British possession to another part of the same possession, except in British ships, still in force ?-Yours, &c.,

Sept. 25, 1876.

A DEMERARA SUBSCRIBER.

[1st. If a vessel enters a Port seeking, or in ballast, she must report at the Custom-house and enter outwards. She would be liable to Tonnage Dues. 2nd. If a ship enters a Port of the United Kingdom in distress, she would have to be reported inwards, and, if bound to a foreign Port, clear outward in the usual form; but if she is going, after entering a Port in distress, to another Port in the United Kingdom to discharge her cargo, the entry at one Port is good for the Port of ultimate destination, and no Tonnage Dues would be charged. 3rd. No work must be done on the Lord's Day.(See the Acts of Parliament at page 207, and Supplement to Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.) 4th. Section 19 is repealed, and (5th) so is Section 163.]

CUSTOMS ENTRY ON CALLING AT A PORT. SIR,-Is a steam vessel pursuing a voyage from one foreign Port to another, but calling at a Port in the United Kingdom for bunker coal only, compelled to report under Section 50 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, or under any regulation whatever ?-Yours, &c., SHIPPING. Cardiff, Nov. 29, 1876.

[The report would have to be made at the first Port of call in the United Kingdom.]

MISCELLANEOUS.

CUSTOMS INSPECTION FEE.

SIR,-My vessel was chartered at Seville to load a cargo of sulphur ore to either of three Ports in the United Kingdom, calling at Douglas for orders, and was ordered to Connah's Quay, River Dee. It not being a legal Port, the Collector of Customs at Chester charged 10s. 4d. for a visit to examine the cargo I have on board. Must the ship or the Consignee of the cargo pay this expense, as the Merchants are only allowed to land foreign cargoes at the above place for their own convenience ?-Yours, &c.,

Connah's Quay, May 4, 1877. A SHARE SAILOR. [When permission is given to a Merchant to have his cargo delivered at a place beyond where the Custom-house Officers are placed on board of the ship, the charges fall on the Receiver of the goods for whose convenience the ship has to be discharged at an irregular place.]

DAMAGE BY SWELL OF STEAMERS. SIR,-We, in common with our waterside neighbours, have tried to remove a most serious and increasing danger to our men, barges, and ships; but as we have hitherto failed, now appeal to you. I refer to the reckless speed at which many steamers pass up the river, and by their swel: causing much damage. On walking down the river bank on Monday morning last I noticed a steamer ploughing along at a most furious rate. On reaching my wharf here I immediately heard of a most serious accident having been caused by the swell. A boat had been upset and the occupant all but drowned. This morning, at 10.45, a steamer passed up at full speed, and it is no exaggeration to say her swell rushed up like a Calcutta bore, breaking adrift a sailing barge, lifting her up and dashing her down, breaking timber adrift, and immersing six men (who were working upon the shore) up to their waists in water. What can we do to stop this? The two boats above mentioned are amongst the principal offenders. Who would be the proper people to proceed against, and can we do so in the County Court ?-Yours, &c., Woolwich, Oct. 19, 1876.

66

WATERSIDE.

[If our Correspondent has received damage from the swell of steamers driven at excessive speed, he will have his remedy against the Owner of such ves els at Common Law.— (See let er Speed of Steam Launches," in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, June 5, 1876.) As regards the wash on the banks and damage caused thereby, the Thames Conservancy Board would be the proper parties to apply to.]