THE RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.

HC Deb 14 February 1895 vol 30 cc806-18

*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

moved the following Amendment— And we humbly represent to your Majesty that the Order in Council made by your Majesty, upon the recommendation or the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Admiralty, on the 30 day of January, 1893, is calculated seriously to increase the dangers of the sea, and we humbly pray that your Majesty will he graciously pleased to rescind that Order; and we further humbly pray that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to refuse assent to the recommendation to your Majesty, of the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Admiralty, that your Majesty should make an Order in Council to carry into effect the revised regulations for preventing collisions at sea, as communicated to shipowners by the Board of Trade circular of March 6, 1894. He asked for the indulgence of the House while he dealt with a difficult and technical subject which concerned the most important industry in this country and the fate of a quarter of a million of British seamen. For two years he had been endeavouring to raise the question, and had always been shouldered out on the plea that it was not a matter concerning Parliament, but a matter of administration. He could not proceed without making one remark on the extraordinary tactics which he had been met with in the most recent stage of the proceedings. First of all they were told by the President of the Board of Trade that lie would listen to nothing, but would enforce the rules. But at the eleventh hour, when the right hon. Gentleman became aware that the shipping interest and every seaman in this country were against him and that he might run some risk of being defeated by his own followers, he accepted the suggestion of the Member for Perthshire for the appointment of a Committee. He had informed the hon. Member that he would call attention to his action. The hon. Member was one of those who most earnestly pressed him to bring the matter forward and promised him his support. He considered that the hon. Member owed it to himself to inform him that he was about to make this entirely new and extraordinary proposal, and he left it to the House to judge whether it was in consonance with Parliamentary practice, and courtesy, and propriety, that when a Member placed a Motion on the Table, one of his allies should at the last moment go behind his back and make an arrangement with the enemy. The right hon. Gentleman had asserted, in reply to a question, that he did not recede from his previously-announced determination. But, if he meant to put these rules in force, what was the good of a Committee? They had already had hundreds of Committees on the subject invariably packed by the Board of Trade, each over-riding the conclusions of its predecessor, till at last they were brought face to face with the most stupendous muddle ever perpetrated even by the ingenuity of a Public Department. His position and the position of every shipmaster, pilot, and shipowner in this country, was that the revised regulations were bad, and, instead of being calculated to prevent, were calculated to increase collisions, and therefore they ought not to be enforced upon the shipping of this country. Without one single exception every single man outside the Board of Trade had agreed in condemning these revised regulations for preventing collisions at sea, in two respects at any rate—namely, in respect of the screening of the side-lights, and the rules as to sound signals. No doubt the unavoidable dangers of the sea were great, but they were as nothing in comparison with the most serious danger of all—the danger of collision with other vessels. He distinguished between natural and artificial danger of the sea, because he claimed that the danger of collision was artificial, and had been made much greater than it need be by the Board of Trade inventing rules of their own instead of going to the sea, taking the advice of seamen and framing consistent, certain, and practical rules. During the five years from 1870 to 1875 inclusive, there were lost at sea from all causes 3,513 British vessels. In the five years from 1889 to 1893 the number of losses was only 2,451, so that, although the number of ships had largely increased in the last 22 years, the total loss of vessels had very largely decreased. But when they turned to those losses due to collisions they found that, instead of decreasing, they had largely increased during the same period; for whilst from 1870 to 1875 the losses from collisions (included in the former figures) were 286, or 8 per cent. of the whole, from 1889 to 1893 they had risen to 425, or 17 per cent. of the total. Thus, whilst the dangers of the sea which were not affected by the rules of the road had decreased, the dangers of collisions which were affected by the rules of the road had enormously increased. He drew the inference that that must undoubtedly be due to some defect in the rules themselves. The present rules were bad, but the worse. One of the most serious defects in the present rules was that since their first elaboration in 1862 they had been subjected to incessant changes on the part of the officials of the Board of Trade, rendering them even more uncertain and complicated, with the result, as he charged, of a considerable increase in the loss of vessels by collisions at sea. The recent deplorable collision between the Elbe and the Crathie was a case of the rule of the road at sea, they being crossing ships. The case with regard to two crossing ships was that each one was subjected to four different rules, two of them dependent upon contingencies which had to be calculated before the helmsman or master could ascertain whether they were applicable to the particular case or not. He only used the Elba and the Crathie case to show how complicated and doubtful is the instruction professed to be given by the rule. Each ship was under four rules, and two of the rules were entirely dependent for their applicability upon the question whether or not a certain set of circumstances had arisen. The rule of the road at sea had existed ever since man began to navigate the seas, and in the case of England, up to half a century ago, the rule was good, short, simple, and certain. It was a rule made by practical men for practical men; it was a rule made by the Admiralty, or Trinity House, or by a combination of the two, for seamen; it was made by seamen for seamen. But some 40 years ago there arose the Board of Trade, and it went about like a roaring lion seeking whom it might devour. It devoured the bankrupt, the electrician, the labourer, the railways, and it then proceeded to devour the sailor, and the way in which it did so was to frighten the Admiralty and the Trinity Board out of all concern with the rule of the, road at sea. He did not entirely acquit the Admiralty of blame. The Board of Trade was unable to make any changes in the rule of the road at sea without the concurrence of the Board of Admiralty, and undoubtedly that security was put into the Act by Parliament for the very reason that there might be some controlling power or body with technical knowledge to override any vagaries that might otherwise be resorted to by the Board of Trade. The Board of Admiralty, with its Sea-Lords fresh from sea, was a body competent to criticise a proposed alteration of the rules of the road at sea, but the Board of Trade had so terrorised the Admiralty that the Admiralty now appeared to regard its duties as merely formal, so that if the Board of Trade proposed any alteration or maintained any which had been made, it was certain the Admiralty would say "ditto." In that respect they had cause to complain of the Admiralty. The Board of Trade seemed to entertain the strangest notions as to a ship. Lord Farrer had said it was a strange thing that the rule of the road should be designed to suit ships. Sir Thomas Gray had stated that the general rule of the road for steamers was precisely the same as the general rule of the pavement for passengers. These gentlemen went the length of believing that a ship might be compared to a pedestrian or a cab or conceivably an omnibus; they never conceived the notion that a ship could not be handled as a pedestrian or as a vehicle. A ship must move in certain ways, and it could not be made to move in any other. The present President of the Board of Trade not only shared all the fallacies of his predecessors, but had formed others which were even more astonishing. In his reply to the deputation who reminded him of the difficulties of the proposed regulations, the right hon. Gentleman said the real question was not whether the additional rules as to sound signals in case of fog caused confusion of mind, but whether they increased danger, which was by no means the same thing. The expression of that opinion showed conclusively that the President of the Board of Trade was incapable of understanding the situation. Confusion at sea was danger; there was no danger equal to it. A seaman had better be wrong and certain and unconfused than right and uncertain and confused. He could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman had given any consideration to the matter when he laid it an axiom that confusion was not dangerous. Comparison was indeed regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as an element of safety. The right hon. Gentleman had said, referring to the subject of additional noises, that, though the signals might not, perhaps, be understood, the inference would be drawn that there was a vessel near. That meant that when they heard at sea a lot of sounds which horribly confused them, their safety and not their danger was increased, because they would say—"Oh, there's a vessel near; we are safe." It might be the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was certainly not the view of practical seamen, that they got more safety by hearing more sounds. On the contrary, practical seamen were of opinion that that would be the greatest element of danger, because their minds would become confused as to the course they should take. But he did not blame the President of the Board of Trade for his want of knowledge of the sea. The right hon. Gentleman could not be expected to have such knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman knew all about the Holy Roman Empire, but not all about ships. Agur the son of Jakeh had said that the way of a ship in the midst of the sea was one of the three things that were too wonderful for him, and if it were possible to conceive of three things that were too wonderful for the President of the Board of Trade the way of a ship at sea was certainly one. But what he complained of was that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of listening to anybody who did know the way of a ship at sea, had placed himself entirely in the hands of officials. The right hon. Gentleman knew that all practical men were against those new regulations, but he did not listen to them. A prudent man, on undertaking the duties of a new office, and finding that all the officials were of one mind in a certain matter, and that everybody who knew anything practical about the matter was of another mind, would have said to the officials, "I must wait a bit; I must consider the matter before I take your view of it." But the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to anybody outside the office, any more than his predecessor, on the subject of those new regulations. Now what was the case against the new regulations? The revised regulations, as compared with the present regulations, were about half as long again. Their length was a very serious fault. The three elements of a good Code of the Sea were brevity, simplicity, and certainty. In the old times when the Admiralty managed affairs one could put the regulations on a sheet of notepaper. Now, one for the same purpose would require a book as big as the great historian Bryce's "American Commonwealth," and also a Philadelphia lawyer constantly at one's elbow to advise which regulation applied. The House would scarcely credit him when he stated that at least 33 different systems of light were prescribed either optionally or absolutely by the new revised regulations. Those 33 different systems of light might be seen all round at once. It was possible to have 33 vessels close at hand, and each in one of the situations for which the 33 different lights were prescribed. It was easy to imagine how confusing that would be to the helmsman, who would have to take notice of all the lights. That number of lights was at least double the number prescribed in the existing regulations, and, like many of the other rules, would lead to increased ambiguity and confusion. In one respect the new regulations had proceeded in the old direction. That was in Article 22, which said— ''When by those Rules one vessel is ordered to get out of the way of another, it shall, if possible, avoid crossing her bow. But why have put it in that form? There were four other Rules in which the fatal Board of Trade words were used, "Keep out of the way," instead of the sound old words "Give way." When a seaman was told that he was to "give way," he knew that he must go under the stern of the other vessel; but when he was told to "keep out of the way," he might either cross the other vessel's bows, or go under her stern, as he liked. This uncertainty was the cause of a large number of collisions, and probably it might prove to be the cause of the recent collision. The new regulations were too long and complicated, and were most confusing in many respects; and where the Board of Trade had proceeded rightly in the direction of cutting away, they had not done it clean, but had put the new words, "Keep out of the way," in four rules, and the old words, "Give way," in the fifth. What was the case urged by the Board of Trade in defence? The first line of defence was, the Washington Conference. He believed it was a huge mistake to have agreed with the appointment of that Conference. The fact that it was agreed to by the right hon. Gentleman below him did not alter his mind; and his right hon. Friend was not responsible for the ulterior consequences. It was a Conference of 28 nations, such as Great Britain and Hawaii, the United States and Venezuela, France and Samoa, Germany and Nicaragua. Little nations which did not possess as much as a boat each possessed a vote, and were placed on an equality with Great Britain, which owned more than half the tonnage of the world. There were 64 delegates—insurance agents, diplomatists, judges, and lawyers by the dozen. There were two important Members—the hon. Baronet who was the Recorder of London (Sir C. Hall) and Mr. Goodrich. Mr. Goodrich said at the Conference that— he and Delegate Hall were mere theoretical sailors who had gathered their knowledge of the question from collision cases in the courts; and he added that of course they "who did not know anything about it" must be very cautious where experts disagreed. The natural result of such a Conference was a longer code, a more refined code, and more niggling and hair-splitting code—a code infinitely more difficult for seamen to work, and infinitely more easy for lawyers to argue about. It was the result to be expected from a Conference composed mainly of lawyers. There were truly a few sailors—three Admirals and two captains from Great Britain; but he noticed that they had almost nothing to say, and that all the talking was done by the lawyers. The President of the Board of Trade sheltered himself behind the Washington Code, and the assumed international agreement to adopt that code. But the Washington Code was not here in question; what was objected to were the revised regulations which the right hon. Gentleman and his officials had founded upon that code. When the Board of Trade received the code, instead of treating it as a sacred thing, they cut it up, suspended part of it, altered and re-altered it, and withdrew alterations and played such pranks with it that, when it came out in the revised regulations, it was difficult to recognise. There were two points in the regulations to which particular objection was taken. One was the new method of screening the side-lights. He said "new method" advisedly. The old law and regulation was, that the side-lights should be fitted so as to show over an arc of the horizon of 10 points, from right ahead to two points abaft the beam, and should be so screened as not to show across the bows of the vessel. For 30 years that regulation had been followed. Now the Board of Trade had seen fit to bring into force the tremendous engine of an Order in Council, making in the regulation what he called an alteration, and what the right hon. Gentleman called an explanation. There had been an alteration from 10 There were two points to 10 points plus 4 degrees, and the result had been that the screening of the lights had led to the two lights squinting across the nose of the ship and across its bows in front, the very thing that had to be provided against. This Order in Council, then, was one of the things that he complained of, and one of the things that he asked should be rescinded. It was claimed that this was no new thing; indeed, the President of the Board of Trade claimed, among other things, that he had made the lights to squint less and not more. If that were so, how then was it that the Board of Trade had been enduring this state of things for 30 years without a movement being made? If the Order in Council only put into force the law as it existed, the Board of Trade had already full power to put it in force without an Order in Council, and this simply by the orders of its inspectors. But every seaman knew that this was an entirely new thing. It raised the great danger of enabling the port light to be seen on the starboard bow, and vice versa; whereas the whole object, of the rule was, that sailors should never see the light except on the bow to which it belonged; that there should be certainty that when they saw the port light they were on the port side of the ship. This certainty, however, was what the screening regulation had removed, and it had increased the dangers in the regulations as they now existed. What happened with regard to the Admiralty? He had asked the Secretary to the Admiralty a question on the point, and the hon. Gentleman replied that they had not altered their lights. The Admiralty knew too well the risk, and they had disregarded the Board of Trade New Order in Council.

*MR. BRYCE

The Secretary to the Admiralty had replied that the Admiralty lights were exactly the same as now provided by the Board of Trade.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said he had fortified himself with a copy of "Hansard," and these were the words which the Secretary to the Admiralty used:— No alteration has been made in the manner of screening the side-lights of Her Majesty's ships, which has for many yours approximated to the system lately defined by the Board of Trade. All ships "approximated" to that system; it was true enough to say that, but this was the complaint of the Board of Trade. He maintained, therefore, that the answer as reported in "Hansard" was strictly correct, and the incorrect and misleading version of it, now sought to be foisted on the House, had no foundation except in the fancy of the right hon. Gentleman. Here then was a thing which the Board of Trade knew to be new, and as wrong and confusing as it was new, and which had not been acceded to by the Admiralty. The Admiralty in the system of screening their lights were practically resisting the Board of Trade, but all merchantmen had to submit to it with fear and trembling. There could not be a stronger condemnation of the folly of this Order in Council, or a better illustration of the necessity for its repeal. The other point was as to the sound signals. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the sound signals had not been increased from 3 to 11. The right hon. Gentleman knew this to be true but he was incapable to give the answer he should have expected from him, because the answer had been put into his hands by the officials of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman began to distinguish between fog signals and sound signals to be used when ships were in sight of each other. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman, as a practical sailor, this question:—"Where are you going to draw the line between fog and in sight?" Would not the proposed change which the right hon. Gentleman thought was conducive to safety really lead to confusion. It was clear that the multiplication of sound signals increased the uncertainty of mind and the danger of the seaman. As to these sound signals and the screening side-lights, there was complete unanimity on the part of those who understood ships. The right hon. Gentleman said there were no complaints in 1892 and 1893, but he (the hon. Member) had made that House resound with his complaints. He was treated with contumely, smiled at, derided, and dismissed. He had cited the protest of Thames Pilots, which was not printed in the Blue Book, and he feared that further protests like that had been sup- pressed, and the misleading impression given that no complaints were made. The right hon. Gentleman said, forsooth! that all other nations had agreed to these regulations, and that therefore we should agree to them. He said they should still resist them if they were bad. What did it matter whether Nicaragua or Hawaii agreed in saying a thing was right if we knew the thing to be bad. That was no answer at all. But was the answer true? Was France prepared to promulgate these regulations? Why, France had decided not to promulgate them till she saw more clearly whither they would lead. Germany had resisted tooth and nail. He had a telegram from the Cunard Line that America had now determined to suspend the sound-signal regulations. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had the advice of an eminent lawyer, but he wanted to know this—if they were going to a lawyer for seamanship, would they go to seamen for law? He thought they might do that. They might call in the captain of the foretop and a few able seamen before the mast, to decide whether France was or was not at war with Madagascar. It was a most serious subject, and he believed he had disposed of every argument. Everybody who knew what a ship was, was at one on this subject, and he warned the right hon. Gentleman that unless he gave way there would be an agitation all over the country. He should go about the country himself, and raise all the sea-ports until they got back the old system of shortness, simplicity, and certainty. The right hon. Gentleman knew he was wrong. It would be a very simple matter to rescind these rules, to follow the example of America, and to give up sound signals and the new screening of side-lights.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)

said there was only one remark in the speech of the hon. Gentleman with which he could agree, and that was the remark that he had not done justice to the subject. He certainly had not done justice to the Department he had attacked when he left him only five minutes in which to reply to his somewhat irrelevant and sometimes discourteous attack. The hon. Member had given some statistics about collisions which were entirely erroneous.

*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

I got them from your own papers.

MR. BRYCE

said that then the hon. Member had entirely misunderstood the papers, for they would prove, not that the new regulations were bad, but that the regulations in force were bad. The side-light question was one entirely within their own control, and if he had time he could have satisfied the House that there was no ground for the suggestions the hon. Member had made. With regard to the question of fog-signals, that was a point which it was impossible to explain in a few words to the House. The hon. Member did not try to explain it because he never mentioned to the House any one of those fog signals. No serious attempt had been made to show that they would tend to increase collisions. It was said that one signal might be taken for another, but the best advice he could obtain—and they had the best nautical advisers at the Board of Trade—was to the effect that, although some of the signals might occasionally be mistaken, there was no reason to think that they would increase the danger of collisions. The hon. Member had not referred to the most important aspect of the question, the international aspect. These rules had been brought back from the Washington Conference, they were submitted to a highly-competent Committee, that Committee reported three times unanimously in favour of them, and after all that how could any one suppose that the Board of Trade did not take the trouble to obtain advice upon them? Those rules had now been acquiesced in by all the Powers, the matter had assumed a considerable international importance, and if this country threw them over, she might lose the probability of an international agreement. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion that it was better to go on than to leave the matter open. His hon. Friend behind him had asked him at question time if he had any objection to a committee, and he said that the House might reasonably desire to inquire into the matter, and, therefore, he had no objection to the appointment of a Committee, and he hoped that answer would be satisfactory. He would only say further that when that Committee was appointed, the hon. Gentleman opposite would, no doubt, be prepared with the evidence of his friends, and the whole matter would be inquired into. He hoped that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment to a division.

MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

then withdrew his Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."

—Mr. J. Chamberlain.

Motion agreed to.