HC Deb 26 February 1869 vol 194 cc369-74
SIR JOHN HAY

said, that, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could only speak once on the Motion before the House, he would now interpose and ask the Question of which he had given Notice. He would, indeed, have been content with simply asking the Question, had he not thought it desirable to explain briefly the nature of the change which he should recommend as to "the rule of the road at sea"—the term usually applied to certain regulations issued by the Board of Trade for the purpose of showing vessels passing each other how to keep clear and avoid collision. Those rules had been translated into various foreign languages, and had been accepted as the rule of the road by almost all maritime nations. It would, therefore, undoubtedly be undesirable to meddle with those rules without sufficient cause. There were two rules with respect to steamships passing each other which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of many persons conversant with the subject, had occasioned collisions, and not secured safety at sea. The two rules to which he alluded were those contained in Articles 13 and 14 of the regulations. Article 13 was as follows:— Two ships under steam meeting.—If two ships under steam are meeting end-on or nearly end-on, so as to involve risk of collision, the helms of both shall be put to port, so that each may pass on the port side of the other. The 14th rule, which related to two ships under steam crossing, was— If two ships under steam are crossing, so as to involve risk of collision, the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other. The rules, he thought, required no change so far as vessels meeting each other end-on were concerned, but when they were slightly or a great deal to the right of each other it was inexpedient that they should alter their course, so as to incur the risk of collision, which had occasionally occurred, from the desire that the vessels should pass to the left of each other. Instead of continuing on their course and passing each other on the right hand side, they turned their bows towards each other with a view to passing on the left, and many collisions and much loss of life had in consequence occurred. He was aware that the Board of Trade had issued certain explanations of the regulations, with the view to point out to those in charge of vessels that it was undesirable on such occasions as those to which he referred to pass to the left; but the Judges had asserted that those vessels which did not attempt to pass to the left under the circumstances and got into collision must be held to have broken the law. In the case of the Thames v. the Stork, the Court said— In order to excuse her from porting it must be quite clear that there are three points of difference and not less; for surely it would never do to contend, where they were so nearly meeting end-on, that if the evidence should be that it was one or two points only in the direction they were meeting, that that would be sufficient to dispense with the observance of this rule? In another case, the Fruiterer v. the Fingal, the Court said— Part of the evidence says that they were within two points of meeting end-on. I should consider that if they were within two points of meeting end-on, they would fall in with the latter part of the statement,' nearly end-on.' There was, he might add, a valuable little handbook which was very generally accepted as a guide by officers in command of merchant ships, in which the author, Mr. Oliver, explained the law thus— The expression 'keep out of the way' used in the foregoing regulations has been held to mean, as a general rule, going astern of the other ship; but under some circumstances it is otherwise. In all cases of doubt the safer course is to port the helm. Now, if vessels happened to be at all to the right of each other it must be very unsafe to cross each other's bows at the risk of collision, with a view to fulfil the letter of the law, if not its intention and spirit. He was confirmed in that opinion by a statement of a late Colleague of his, Sir Alexander Milne, who said— I have always thought that in the regulations some recognition of the starboard helm should have been made; but starboard helm is not mentioned, and persons are therefore led to assume that the starboard helm must not be used, whereas it is quite clear that when a green light is seen on the starboard bow, or nearly ahead, the starboard helm should be used. He thought he had sufficiently indicated the reasons why it was undesirable that vessels already to the right of each other should cross each other's bows and pass to the left, and a very simple rule substituted for Rules 13 and 14 would, he believed, meet the difficulty. The rule which he would propose would require that steamers nearing each other should starboard the helm to a ship on the starboard bow or side, and port the helm to a ship on the port bow or side. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would see the expediency of adopting that view.

ADMIRAL SEYMOUR

said, he was of opinion that, although no regulations could altogether avert collisions at sea, they yet might be, to a great extent, avoided by the establishment of proper rules. He entirely concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) as to the propriety of the change which he suggested. There was another matter connected with the subject, on which, in his opinion, sufficient stress was not laid in the regulations, and that was the stopping of the engines. In the collision between the Osprey and the Amazon, which had recently occurred, it appeared that the Osprey had gone down with her engines at full speed.

MR. BRIGHT

The noble Lord the Member for Wigtonshire (Lord Garlies) is quite right in the interpretation which he has put on the Answer which I gave him the other evening. He is probably aware that the Northern Light Commissioners have, on past occasions, expressed it to be their opinion that the light at Portpatrick, though it might be required for the purposes of the harbour, was not necessary for passing vessels. There is no disposition on the part of the Board of Trade—there could be no disposition on the part of any public Department to put out a light which was shown to be in the least degree useful; and I have now to state, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, that nothing will be done in the matter to which it relates until further reference has been made to the Northern Light Commissioners, and their opinion taken upon it. If it should be found that the light is of use to passing vessels—a point on which I am not competent of my own knowledge to form an opinion—the Board of Trade will take care that it is not extinguished. As to the correspondence on the subject, I have no objection to its production, beyond that which is often a very good one—the expense which its publication would involve. If the noble Lord wishes to see the correspondence he can have access to everything which the Board of Trade has written on this matter, or if he thinks any public advantage could be gained by taking that course, I have no objection to lay the correspondence on the table. This answer will, I hope, be satisfactory to the noble Lord. With respect to the Question which has been put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), the House will hardly expect that I, who am not a sailor, should enter into the minute and technical points to which he has drawn its attention. It is, I think, better that I should read a little memorandum which I made this morning, which will prevent me from being inaccurate, and may, probably, be regarded as containing a sufficient explanation on the subject. I understand that the present rule of the road at sea was adopted in this country after the very best professional assistance in framing it had been obtained, and after full discussion with the French Government, I also understand that the advisers of the Trinity House, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the Judges of the Admiralty Court in England, and the advisers of the French Government were unanimous on the subject. This agreement was come to in 1862, and since then it has been considered by the advisers of the various maritime States on the face of the earth, and adopted by them all. The rule of the road, therefore, which was agreed to in 1862, is at this moment the rule for the ships of all nations, and England cannot now of herself undertake the responsibility of altering this international law. That, I think, must be obvious to every one who examines the question. But with respect to the particular point to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has more especially invited attention—the alteration which he would wish to see made in the ride bearing upon the position in which ships are when they are said to be nearly end-on—I would say that the matter has been considered since 1862, and another Order of Council explanatory of it issued in July, 1868. I am not sure whether both of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who spoke on this subject were not members of the Board of Admiralty at the time. Probably they have forgotten what was then done; but I understand that their own Board of Admiralty wrote to the Board of Trade, giving their entire assent to the explanatory clause to which I have referred. That being so, I think I may fairly ask why, when at the Board of Admiralty, the hon. and gallant Gentlemen did not discover those imperfections in the law of which they now complain, and attempt to remedy them? I may state further that the Board of Trade have received many pamphlets and suggestions on various branches of this subject. No two of those pamphlets or suggestions, however, I believe, agree in the recommendations which they make. The rules now in force are, I may add, very simple. They are such that any person may learn them, as a child does a nursery rhyme, in a very short period; and it is impossible that a man sober, in his senses, and not panic-stricken by the events of the moment, should not be able to remember and apply them. They are taught to all masters and mates of ships, who cannot obtain their certificates until they thoroughly understand them. As to the correspondence on this subject, I may say that there are some Papers with respect to it which will shortly be placed on the table, and which will, I believe, include the correspondence on this particular point. If they should not be satisfactory, he will have the opportunity of bringing the matter before the House again. The House must excuse my further entering into the subject. I have given information which I believe to be correct, and I shall be very glad it it will meet the case which the hon. Baronet has mentioned.