§
On the Order for the resumption of the Debate on Sir D. CURRIE'S Motion—
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the objections which have been raised to the adoption by Order in Council of Rule 15 of the revised International Regulations for preventing collisions at sea, dealing with sound signals in fog, as suggested by the Washington Conference and considered by the maritime Powers.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said, that he must persevere with his Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper:—
To leave out the word 'raised,' in line 2, to the end of the question, in order to add the words 'Order in Council of the 30th day of January, 1893, relative to the fixing and screening of ships' side-lights, and to the adoption by Order in Council of the sound signals prescribed by Article 15 and Article 28 of the Revised Regulations for preventing collisions at sea, as set forth in the Board of Trade circular to shipowners of 6th March. 1894.'
§ MR. BRYCEexplained that the hon. Member for West Perthshire, who represented the shipowners in this matter, desired that a Committee should be appointed to consider the question of sound fog-signals. The hon. Member for King's Lynn wanted something quite different, which had nothing to do with these fog-signals, with respect to which another Committee had been appointed. The Committee would be presided over by the President of the Admiralty Division of the High Court, and would begin sitting immediately. In these circumstances he trusted the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. It hardly became the hon. Member to set his individual will against that of the House and the shipowners. He trusted that the hon. Member would see that the proper way for him to give effect to his wishes was to tender his evidence to the Departmental Committee which was about to sit.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLEShoped that after the long statement of the right hon. Gentleman he should be allowed to make some reply. It was extremely unfair——
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member could only make an explanation by the indulgence of the House.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he could not allow the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman, affecting to describe his objects or the views of shipowners, to pass as correct. He had received a mandate from a large Liverpool meeting to move, and must persevere with his Amendment. The right hon Gentleman said that the subject matter of his amendment was to be considered by a Departmental Committee, but many such Committees had already considered it.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. STEPHEN WILLIAMSON (Kilmarnock Burghs)sincerely hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his objection and allow the question to be threshed out in Committee.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESI am ready to explain my position if I am allowed; if not, I shall persist in my Amendment.
§ MR. C. W. CAYZER (Barrow-in-Furness)joining in the appeal, said the shipowners were quite satisfied with the procedure proposed by the Board of Trade.
§ SIR A. K. ROLLITstated that at a large meeting of the fishing industry, the strongest opinion was expressed that this matter ought not to be longer delayed, because the safety of life and property depended on its making progress.
§ MR. A. J. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside),who said that when he spoke last week he was in receipt of a telegram purporting to come from the President of the Chamber of Shipping, but which he had since discovered was a forgery, also appealed to the hon. Member.
*On being asked by Mr. SPEAKER whether he persisted in his amendment, Mr. T. GIBSON BOWLES said, "Certainly, Sir," and the matter therefore stood adjourned.