HL Deb 18 November 1930 vol 79 cc181-213

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

My Lords, perhaps before starting I might ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, what clause of this Bill is referred to in the Petition that he presented. There is no Clause 41 in the Bill. The clauses only run as far as Clause 31.

EARL HOWE

It is the clause relating to helm orders.

EARL STANHOPE

Clause 22.

LORD PARMOOR

This might appear to be rather a formidable Bill so far as its bulk is concerned, but for this stage it really can be confined within a narrow compass. The position generally is this. A Convention dealing with safety of life at sea has been unanimously agreed to Joy the plenipotentiaries appointed by a large number of countries. Our plenipotentiaries were appointed by the late Government, and I only say that to make it clear that we, of course, consider it our duty and our obligation to carry on a scheme of this kind, initiated by the late Government, and in favour of which their plenipotentiaries have unanimously reported. The necessity for legislation is that the Convention may be ratified. Your Lordships know that is often the case. Before ratification we want some amendment in our law in order that we may carry out faithfully and as a debt of honour the obligations which we undertake when we ratify a Convention. The question seems to me to he whether the Bill in its preliminary clauses does or does not make a suitable provision, such as should be made as regards our merchant shipping law, before ratification should he given to a Convention of this character. That is more or less a simple issue. We cannot alter the terms of the Convention without upsetting it. I imagine that no one thinks that that can be done, although I will deal in a moment with what is called the "helm orders" point.

There can be no body in the world, I think, better than a Committee of this House to deal with the drafting points which may arise on this Bill. The drafting points which will, or can, arise concern the question whether the terms of the Bill adequately change or alter the merchant shipping law, and confer new powers so that if the Convention is ratified we can ensure that it will be carried out faithfully and to the full. In order that your Lordships may know what the purpose of the Bill is, perhaps I may read out a few words from the Title. It is "for the purpose of giving effect to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on the thirty-first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine." It was signed then. It will come into operation, if sufficient ratifications are obtained, of which I think there is no doubt, in July of next year. This country, which, naturally from its naval position and history, has taken the lead in this matter—I would almost say has fathered the work of this Convention—is anxious that before the time for ratifying comes, all legislation should be obtained, so that we can go forward as quickly as possible with the ratification itself.

If your Lordships will look at the form of the Bill and the arrangement of the clauses, I think they will be found sufficiently to show what the various subject matters are. I certainly do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any details at this stage, although I will refer to what is known as the helm order. Our intention in all these matters is to bring our law into harmony with the provisions of the Convention and if we have not done that we shall be most glad to hear any criticism on the form of our drafting. In fact we should welcome, as I am sure your Lordships would if you were sitting on this side of the House, any suggestions from members of your Lordships' House, many of whom have expert knowledge of the subject, which would amend and make more simple or more understandable the form of the drafting which we are proposing. I may say that we are desirous of getting any assistance we can upon that point. From my knowledge of what has gone on, I am aware that this has been a matter of great care and anxiety to the particular Departments concerned. No one who has any knowledge of drafting will say that the drafting may not be improved, and if by talking to one another or by means of Amendments put on the Paper it can be shown that in the opinion of the House such Amendments are improvements, we shall not resist beyond giving to the best of our ability the reasons for the form which the Bill has at present.

If your Lordships will look at the subjects dealt with by the Bill, you will see how important they are, particularly to a country like ours, which depends so much on the character and quality of its carrying trade and its very large pas- senger traffic. Our object is in the main to bring other countries up to our level. I do not say that is the only matter, but in substance it is, and that is what we ought to do in these International Conventions. Seeing that we occupy such a position in regard to naval matters and the carrying trade, we desire to give the advantage of our experience to others. In the main, no doubt, this Convention has embodied our views on a large number of points.

First of all in Part I there is the method of construction and equipment. I need not go into details, but everyone, I suppose, will admit that it is well on these topics for an International Convention to be framed on the best existing practice as to what the intention is. Then there is a clause dealing with lifesaving appliances—with the number of boats and other life-saving apparatus. The alteration of ships and additional surveys are dealt with next; that is to say surveys which can be accepted as between the countries which are parties to this Convention, in order not to have separate surveys in each of them, so that one country can accept a survey which has been made by any other. Then there are provisions as to wireless telegraphy. There has been enormous progress in wireless telegraphy. After the loss of the "Titanic" this question of a Convention on lifesaving apparatus at sea was first considered. The War intervened and that Convention was never really put into operation. But it is remarkable as between that date and the present, if you look at the terms proposed then and those proposed in this Convention, what an enormous advance wireless telegraphy has made. Under this Bill and Convention, though I do not want to put it too high, it is provided that practically every large ship at any rate should have wireless equipment. Not only that, but that they should have someone on the watch for wireless messages from other ships, with special provision as regards the direction in which help may be desired. That is the second heading in Part I of the Bill from which I am reading.

Then there is a clause containing provisions for the issue of safety certificates. It is suggested that the certificates proposed are rather more than may be necessary. That, of course, is a matter for consideration; but they are on the safe side in providing that such certificates as are required by the Convention shall in fact be used at any rate in our ships and, we hope, in all other ships of countries that have joined in the Convention.

Part II contains provisions as to ships of other countries to which the Convention applies with regard to accepting certificates. Certainly, prima facie, they have agreed to accept them upon the terms of the Convention, so that they are all on the same level and under the same conditions. Then in Part III there are all the provisions in regard to water-tight doors. A great many of these matters are very technical, but they have been very carefully considered.

I should like to say a word on Clause 22, which is concerned with the method of giving the helm orders. It is in connection with that, I think, that notice was given by a noble Lord opposite that he wished to make certain objections. Therefore I should like to state at greater length, and I think it would be convenient now, how this matter stands, so that there may be no doubt afterwards as to what our view really is. Article 41 of the Convention deals with this matter of helm orders, and Clause 22 of the Bill confirms it. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has deposited a Bill, which I cannot at present refer to as a Bill, because it has not been read a second time. I do not propose to refer to it as a Bill but I can refer to it as a document. I understand that at some time in the future—I do not know what the future may be—he will propose to bring forward this document as a Bill for Second Reading. This document comes from the shipowners and the shipping federations and people of that sort, and has, I understand, a helm order provision in exactly the same terms as are to be found in the Bill before the House. Your Lordships will find that in the document the same words are used as in this Bill.

I will read from the document which comes from the shipowners and people interested from that side, and if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see it is practically in the same terms. It reads: — No person on any British ship registered in the United Kingdom shall give a helm order containing the word 'starboard' or 'right' or any equivalent of 'starboard' or 'right' unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the right, or give a helm order containing the word 'port' 'left' or any equivalent of port or left unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the left. Therefore, it is the same principle as in the Bill which the Government brings forward.

I think I can explain readily why that is so. It is convenient to have it crystallised in that form. Before this Bill was drafted—I do not know what the date was, whether it was in the time of the present Government or its predecessors—there was a meeting of the associations representing masters and navigating officers and pilots at Trinity House. The date was shortly before the International Conference opened. This Conference was attended by representatives of the Admiralty and of the Board of Trade. There was a full discussion as to whether this change in the form of helm order was desirable or not. At the International Conference there was a reluctance on the part of some British seamen to change, a misgiving being felt as to possible danger, but there was a strong feeling in favour of helm orders being made international and on the basis of the direct system. After all it is only calling the right the right, and the left the left, and the British delegates felt bound to agree to that unanimously. The plenipotentiaries appointed by the late Government were headed by Sir Norman Hill, and the decision of the Conference is embodied in Article 41. That is the Article to which the noble Lord referred when he very kindly gave me notice before the commencement of this discussion.

The English captains refused the suggestion that what the captains of other countries had done successfully could mean any danger if carried out by them. The suggestion was that you might unconsciously do the wrong thing, because formerly you would call right left and left right and now you would call left left, and right right. I may say that it was inevitable that this matter should be settled in the Convention itself. Therefore, we have taken every step, or the Government who preceded us have done so—I am not quite sure which—to ascertain by meetings at Trinity House what the feeling in this country was, and we have ascertained that it was in the direction of international arrangement. It was further agreed unanimously at the Conference by all the British plenipotentiaries that the direction should be one of simplicity by calling right right, and left left. That is the provision which stands in the Bill at the present time.

LORD DANESFORT

May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to ask who appointed the British delegates to this International Conference?

LORD PARMOOR

The late Government appointed them. I asked that question myself. I think that any Government in a matter of this kind would desire to appoint as powerful and as trustworthy a body as could be got, in order to deal with a great international question such as that of safety of life at sea. I assume that substantially the same people would have been appointed whatever Government happened to be in power. A clause in the document which has been deposited by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is in precisely the same terms. I thought at one time that I should have to trouble your Lordships at greater length upon this subject, but when I found that in addition to all the evidence being in favour of this alteration, the document, which I understand came from another source and not from the Government, itself included the same provision, it appeared to me that that settled the matter once for all. No one can suppose after that that the Convention can be altered or any change can be made.

As regards what I may call the supplementary matters dealt with—the countries to which the Convention applies and questions of that kind—I do not think anything can possibly arise on the Second Reading. Upon all these matters I ask for the assistance of the House. I agree that when we come to the Committee stage improvements in drafting may be possible. We are ready at any rate to consider any suggestions that may be made, and we shall welcome them, and if, before the Committee stage is reached—we can fix it for a late date, if necessary—there is any desire to have communication with us, if application is made through the recognised sources or to myself we shall be most glad to have assistance. I am sure it will be assistance that we shall get from noble Lords on the other side of the House in enabling us to put this International Convention into the best possible form.

I do not think there is anything else that arises at this stage, but there is a Motion on the Paper in the name of Lord Stanhope about referring this Bill to a Joint Committee. That will not arise until after the Second Reading has been passed, but it is customary to refer to it, and I desire to acknowledge the courtesy with which the noble Earl gave me notice of it. Suppose I am right in saying that we are dealing really with a question of drafting, I say that the House itself is undoubtedly the most capable body you could find for revising a mixed matter of naval technique and marine law. We shall be able to deal with it in this House, and I venture to suggest that it is not advisable for a question of that kind to be referred to a Committee such as is suggested. There will be no political questions involved. If that were so, I agree that it might be convenient to refer it to such a Committee; but does any one assume for a moment you would get the same power and capacity for dealing with these drafting and legal questions in a Joint Committee as you would get in Committee in this House? I have always taken a pride in this House, and certainly in regard to Committee points of this kind there is no other body which can bring to bear the same power and the same capacity and the same good will.

We are not dealing here with political issues, but we are dealing with a question on which, I think, we might all agree to do the best we can to put in the best form a Bill for bringing into effect this international Convention, which has largely been constructed on our initiative, in the sense that we have been the leading partners, but which has been assented to by the other twenty-nine countries who were represented by their plenipotentiaries. There is only one other matter with which I want to deal. We want to get this Bill as soon as we can, because July, 1931, is the last date for ratification. We want to ratify before that date in order to keep our position as pioneers of this movement. There is a further reason for ratifying before that date, because it is convenient for ship owners and all persons interested in this matter to know exactly how they stand in a matter of this kind. I hope, therefore, you will accord this Bill a Second Reading. At the same time I want to state most distinctly, that so far as drafting Amendments of a useful kind can be proposed we shall be prepared to consider them. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)

EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, you will have observed that I have placed on the Order Paper a Motion that this Bill should go before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I want to make it quite clear that I have put that Motion on the Paper in no sense of opposition to the acceptance of the 1929 Convention. So far from that being the case I have ventured to present to your Lordships' House another Bill on the same subject, covering wider ground than the Bill which His Majesty's Government have presented and, as I believe, going in the right direction to secure full and complete ratification, whereas in my view the Government Bill does not do that. If your Lordships will refer to the Bill which the noble and learned Lord has just presented you will find a phrase recurring throughout the Bill. It appears for the first time in Clause 2, on page 2, line 33. Rules and Regulations are to be made by the Board of Trade as appear to the Board to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the following provisions of the Convention. I put this to the noble and learned Lord opposite. Suppose, in the course of the discussion on the Naval Treaty last year, I had suggested that we should put in a clause allowing the Board of Admiralty to give effect to the provisions of that Treaty only so far as appeared to them reasonable: what would the noble and learned Lord have said? At the least, I think, he would have said: "You are not giving full ratification to the Treaty, and other nations will say that England is keeping power in her hands to accept the Treaty just as far as she pleases and to leave the rest of it out." I think he might even have gone so far as to say that it was an attempt to destroy the Naval Treaty. Perhaps I am not so bellicose as the noble and learned Lord opposite. I am not going to make that charge against him in regard to this Convention. I am sure that when he considers the position he will agree that if you are going to take out that phrase to which I have referred something more than redrafting will be necessary. You will find that the Bill will really have to be recast. There will have to be a number of operative clauses in the Bill giving effect to the Convention, instead of a phrase being put in simply providing for the making of rules and regulations which are necessary to bring the Convention into effect. Rules and regulations will have to be made effective only so far as the Convention goes and no further. In the Bill which I presented to your Lordships' House last week, and which I hope will be in the hands of your Lordships to-night or to-morrow morning—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

We have got it now.

EARL STANHOPE

It is in the Bill Office, and it will be circulated to-night. We have put in that Bill a phrase which I think will overcome that objection. Therefore, from that point of view alone, I feel that this Bill will require more detailed examination than the House is likely to wish to give it. This also may be said. The Convention lays down only the minimum rules which are considered necessary for the safety of ships at sea, and this country might desire to go somewhat further. The Board of Trade might feel that it might go somewhat beyond what has been agreed to by other Powers. I have received a letter from Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond, who was Chairman of the Convention in 1929, and he has allowed me to read to your Lordships such parts of that letter as might be useful.

LORD PARMOOR

Do you mean the Convention that reported in 1929?

EARL STANHOPE

The Convention that reported in 1929: the one that appears in the noble and learned Lord's Bill. Sir Herbert Richmond writes:— Throughout our discussion it was recognised by all delegations that safety at sea could only be effectively secured by agreeing to, and laying down, common standards for all ships under all flags. If any nation attempted to deal with the thing sectionally, by imposing obligations upon its ships which were not imposed upon others, the effect in the long run could only be to drive those ships off the sea. He goes on to say: … it seems to me important … that the Bill should be framed in such a manner as to require the Board of Trade to impose the obligations of the Convention equally on all ships, British and foreign alike; and, as regards those matters dealt with in the Convention, it should not be possible for the British Government to legislate for British ships in excess of the Convention. Furthermore, that this should not depend upon the discretion or opinion of the Board of Trade but upon the clear direction of Parliament. That is what the Bill does not do. I fear that when foreign nations realise the form in which this Bill is presented to your Lordships they may say that the 1929 Convention is simply being used as a jumping-off place for further demands, and they, having agreed in some cases with great reluctance to accept the terms which appear in this Convention, would not be prepared to ratify the Convention if they felt that it was only a jumping-off place for a further extension of the duties which are laid upon surveyors of ships.

Of course, the truth really is that when you go to an International Convention every nation has to give up a certain amount of its freedom of action. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite would be the first to agree that that is so. It seems to me that the Board of Trade perhaps has not quite realised what an International Convention means in that respect. It ceases to be a free agent to make rules and regulations and it becomes an agent to carry out an International Convention—that and no more. Similarly, in regard to the form of the Convention. I think the noble and learned Lord said that the Convention had to be taken as a whole. I entirely agree with him. There were cases in which foreign countries—I do not wish, of course, to specify which—found it very difficult to come up to the high standard that we and some other nations desired. On the other hand, we felt that it was incumbent upon us to try to meet them in order to obtain agreement to the really important advance that was being made in regard to the safety of ships at sea.

I refer particularly to helm orders. If we had been left to ourselves, I think it is very probable that no change would have been made in helm orders. We are a very conservative people, and—the noble and learned Lord smiles, but it is quite true, as he will find at the next Election—apart from that, the most conservative part of the country is probably composed of those whose life depends upon the sea. Therefore I think it is very likely that we should not have made a change in helm orders unless it was well worth our while to agree to that change in order to obtain agreement on other matters that appear in that Convention. I know that it has been said that there is general feeling among masters, officers and crew that the present helm orders should stand. I am told that this is not the case. Most of the older men disapprove of the change, but many of the younger men do not disapprove and would like to see the change brought into operation.

That is not surprising. I have here a report which appeared in Lloyds' List of November 7 on the stranding of a German ship on September 23. What happened was this. When the light-buoy No. 8 was on the port side of the ship, the pilot gave the order "starboard," and a minute or so later the look-out reported breakers ahead. The pilot then gave the order "port," but it was too late and the vessel struck at 1.20 a.m. She was floated afterwards with the assistance of tugs, and with no loss of life. The Court, however, found that the stranding was due to the pilot having confused the helm orders, the report to the Court being that the pilot, a Belgian, had stated that he had been used to British vessels and gave the order "starboard" by mistake, his intention being that the vessel should go to port. In order words, he gave the order in the indirect sense and the German helmsman, as was the custom of his country, treated it in the direct sense.

Exactly the same thing might have happened in the waters under the Port of London. With a British pilot in charge of a German ship, you might have the helm order given in the indirect sense, as the habit is, and the German helmsman might treat it the other way, so that you might have a collision, possibly with loss of life. As your Lordships will see, the present system is not a safe system, and therefore it is not, perhaps, surprising that our representatives—incidentally they were drawn from all sorts of people whose life is connected with the sea; shipbuilders, owners, ship-designers, masters, officers and men representative of the Seamen's Union and other bodies—willingly agreed to this change in the helm orders. The Convention of 1929, in addition to dealing with helm orders, dealt, as your Lordships know, with the sub-division of the ship, with life-saving appliances and, perhaps more important than all, with the installation of wireless apparatus and with the obligation to keep a sufficient watch by a wireless operator or to instal an automatic alarm giving a signal when the ship is called up.

That is not the whole story, for that Convention did not cover the whole of the ground of safety of life at sea. The Convention of 1929 was followed by pother Convention in 1930, which completed, so far as it is humanly possible to complete, the provisions for safety of life at sea. The Convention of 1930 dealt with the enforcement of load line rules in every port and the protection of deck openings—that is to say, the covering of hatchways. Those are two matters of great importance, and very great value is attached to them by masters, officers and men who sail the seas. I believe, and I think that your Lordships will agree, that if you put the Conventions of 1929 and 1930 together you not only get a combined whole but you minimise the opposition that you might find to such changes as those in regard to helm orders. In other words, you will assist the Convention of 1929 to go through if you attach to it that of 1930 as well.

In the Convention of 1930 it was found, as the result of experience, that new types of ships needed an alteration in the load line that had existed in this country. Two such types of ships were those carrying deck cargoes of timber and oil tankers. It was found that the load line which is at present observed in regard to ships sailing under the British flag was such that it caused very great disadvantages when British ships were in competition with ships under other flags. I think it will surprise your Lordships, as it certainly surprised me, to be told that 20 per cent. of the weight of all the imports into this country is timber. When you come to the ships that carry a cargo of timber alone, nearly 90 per cent. of those ships are under foreign flags. If you take together the ships that carry a whole cargo of timber and those that carry a mixed cargo of which timber forms a part, 75 per cent. are ships sailing under foreign flags.

I think the House will realise that, once we get international agreement as to the load lines required for safety in timber-carrying ships, British ships will once more be able to compete. It will of course be a hard struggle to regain the carrying trade that we have lost in that direction, but our people think they can do it, and I believe your Lordships will agree that they should be given the chance. The Convention of 1930 has to come into operation by July 1, 1932, and the change could not be made till then, but it would enable those who are prepared to build ships to realise now that this country would be ratifying the Convention of 1930, and they could begin to build ships that could come into use on the high seas immediately the Convention comes into operation in 1932. It is essential, therefore, that the Convention should no through at the earliest possible moment.

As regards oil tankers, these are divided into quite small sub-divisions. They are, of course, much more subdivided than ordinary cargo ships. The tanks go straight down from deck to keel and are sub-divided perpendicularly. The ships are sub-divided into smaller compartments. Such a ship can still float after an injury which would probably endanger the safety of a ship of the ordinary type. It has been found by experience that we can have a deeper load line in oil tankers than in the ordinary cargo ships, and therefore, in the Convention of 1930, it was agreed with other Powers to allow deeper load lines than are possible in the case of general cargo. I ought to say that it was found difficult to get agreement on that subject, because the United States which, of course, has very wide ex perience of oil tankers, wished to have a deeper load line than we and other Powers were prepared to accept, but unanimous agreement on the load line for oil tankers was arrived at.

Perhaps I may be allowed to quote to your Lordships a sentence from a paper written by Mr. David Arnett, the Chief Surveyor of the American Bureau of Shipping, who was a member of the United States Delegation to the Convention of 1930. He concluded the paper with these words:— Ratification of the Convention by the maritime nations of the world will be a tremendous step in advance over existing conditions, not only from the safety standpoint but also because of the fact that such action will ensure compliance with the load line regulations in all parts of the world and will place individual owners and nations on a fair competitive basis. I think your Lordships will agree that the sooner we can get both Conventions ratified the better it will be for this country. I know that the noble and learned Lord opposite is anxious that the Convention of 1929 should go through successfully, and that it should be followed by the 1930 Convention. The point which I wish to make is this. Those two Conventions were really one whole, and it is much better to get the whole thing through in one Bill—and I think you would get both Houses of Parliament to agree to that without great difficulty—than to separate them and possibly endanger both by concentrating attention in the 1929 Convention on helm orders, and then possibly not have sufficient time to pass the 1930 Convention. May I quote to your Lordships a statement made to me by Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond, who was Chairman of the 1929 Conference:— Although I was not engaged in the Load Line Conference we had had very much in mind that the work of our Conference was to be completed by the Load Line Conference and that the two Conventions would form part of a single whole. Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Oliver, Chairman of the 1930 Conference, in a speech at the closing session said this:— At the closing session of the Conference of 1929, Senator Rio [head of the French Delegation] in an eloquent speech, referred to the Convention that was then adopted as 'a great charter.' But that Convention did not establish international standards fixing the loading limits for merchant ships generally. It has been nor aim and purpose to complete the work in the spirit that actuated the Conference of 1929; and if, as I hope and believe, we have accomplished that aim, we shall in the two Conventions have indeed a great charter placing the international oversea carrying trade of the world on a basis of safety such as has never hitherto been attained. There are the statements made by the Chairmen of the two Conferences of 1929 and 1930. They both agree that they form one complete whole, and all I am asking the House to do is to refer this Bill of the Government to a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Then, if your Lordships are good enough to give my Bill a Second Reading, as I hope you will do early next week, that Bill could also be referred to the same Committee. That Committee will then be able to produce a Bill giving full effect and ratification to the agreements made at those two Conferences. I believe that Parliament should be given an opportunity of ratifying the two Conventions together, and in that way we shall, I think, be giving a lead to the world, as the noble Lord desires, and possibly persuade other nations from ratifying one and leaving the other unratified, because it does not perhaps suit them quite so well. I believe that if we can get both Conventions dealt with as one we shall reduce the difficulty, and I see no reason why, when placed in one Bill, they should not receive the assent of Parliament not one whit later than if they were brought forward as separate Bills. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will support me, when this Bill has been given a Second Reading, and refer it to a Joint Committee.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I have listened with the greatest possible care to the remarks which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, and from the noble Earl who has just sat down. I take a particular interest in this Merchant Shipping Safety Convention, because I had the honour and privilege of serving on the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee under the able Chairmanship of Sir Norman Hill, which was particularly concerned with the question of life-saving appliances, and I welcome the introduction of a Convention to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. They are of a most important character. They provide that floating appliances might be used to supersede, or take the place to some extent of boats carried in ships, and I think it is of interest to note that the majority of casualties, if any accident happens to a ship, occur within fifty feet of the ship's side. I therefore welcome the introduction of floating appliances as provided in the Convention. I also welcome that portion which deals with wireless telegraphy. All the provisions of that portion are of the greatest possible importance, but I do agree with Lord Stanhope on the subject of the words to which lie alluded, in line 33 on page 2, about giving effect to regulations when "expedient" to do so. I entirely share his distrust of the words he quoted.

There is one clause in the Convention Bill which, I think, is possibly more important than, or as important as, anything else in the Bill, and that is the portion which refers to the reversal of the helm orders. I listened with the greatest possible care to Lord Parmoor, because I expected that the Minister introducing the Bill would be able to give a. careful and reasonable explanation of the justification for the proposal. I am sorry, but I could not understand the Minister's explanation at all. He said we were invited to make right right and left left, but I really could not follow from his explanation what really was the view of the Government. I submit to your Lordships that when you are going completely to reverse the existing orders, which from time immemorial, right through our history, have obtained in British ships, we ought to be given a careful explanation why this change is to come about. This Convention is for the safety of life at sea. I venture to submit to your Lordships that if by any chance errors arise, as they are very likely to arise, owing to the reversal of the helm orders, then instead of conducing to safety at sea you will be placing thousands of lives in considerable jeopardy.

It is of interest to examine this question a little bit more than the noble Lord did to-day. On July 3, 1928, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy—a member of the noble Lord's own Party—in another place put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade in the then Conservative Government. He asked him if he was able to make any statement as to the Government's attitude to the proposal to change the form and terms of the helm orders on board ship by international agreement; and what steps have been taken, or will be taken, to ascertain the views of British mariners generally as to the desirability and form of the changes proposed. The Minister replied:— Helm orders on British ships are governed by custom, not by law or regulation, and the Board of Trade would not intervene unless the custom were causing danger or unless there were a general desire to consider the advisability of a change and the Board were invited to assist in the process. In that event, the Board would give all the help in their power, but they would make three suggestions: first, that any proposed alteration should be fully considered by masters, navigating officers and pilots before a decision is reached; second, that if the British system is changed it should be to sonic system which will be international; third, that special care be taken to prevent danger during the changeover. Then Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy asked further:— Has the right hon. gentleman any evidence to show that either confusion or danger is caused by the present long-established and welt understood British helm orders? Sir Philip Cunliffe Lister replied:— No, Sir, absolutely none, and that is why I should hesitate so much to give any support to anything which might be suggested. Your Lordships will note that in July, 1928, a responsible Minister had no evidence whatever that any confusion or danger was caused by the existing custom. The fact that it is a custom is of the greatest possible importance. It is now proposed to deal with it by a law. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord how he is going to enforce it. These orders are matters of domestic concern in any particular ship. The only confusion that can possibly arise is when a pilot goes on board, and then in practically every case, if he is a foreign pilot, he asks the master of the ship whether the orders are direct or indirect, and he pilots the ship accordingly. As the right hon. gentleman, the then President of the Board of Trade said, this causes no confusion and no danger.

The noble and learned Lord said that a meeting was convened at Trinity House, and he suggested, I think, that the sense of the meeting was taken as to whether the shipping community were in favour of the Convention or not. The noble and learned Lord, however, did not tell us who were present at the meeting. As a matter of fact, I have information as to who were present. Nor did he tell us what the result of the voting was. I am given to understand the result of the voting was a tie. And therefore it is obvious that the division of opinion was equal on the point. I am not quite sure haw many there were for or against. But I do suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the big organisations representing the officers of the mercantile marine, that is to say, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild and the Mercantile Marine Service Association of Liverpool—two powerful organisations, which embrace a very large number of the officers of the mercantile marine—both declared emphatically against the proposed change. The noble and learned Lord said that all evidence was in favour. At a later stage I hope to be able to show him that all evidence was not in favour.

LORD PARMOOR

I did not say that.

EARL HOWE

The proposal is to make the ship's head and the wheel go the same way. At present when the order is given to put the helm hard a'starboard the ship's head goes a'port. The practice comes down to us from the days of sailing ships, I believe, when most ships were steered by a tiller. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord what sort of position will arise when a ship is going astern. I do not suppose the noble and learned Lord can answer these questions on the spur of the moment, but he might be able to tell us later in the debate what the view of the Department is upon this point. Then I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware that a very great number of ships are still steered by a tiller, and what sort of order is given in the case of a ship steered by a tiller. Practically all large barges working crowded and narrow waterways are steered in that fashion, and it is in narrow waterways where the chief danger arising out of this Bill will, I think, occur.

Then, again, take the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade, to which I have referred, that before the change was made he would consult all the people affected. What steps really have been taken to collect opinion on this matter? Have the Government consulted with the great associations representing the officers which I have already mentioned? Have they collected any expression of opinion from the fishing community? Because I can see the greatest possible difficulty in getting such people as old skippers of trawlers, who have been all their lives at sea, suddenly to reverse all the orders which they are accustomed to give to their quartermasters. To the best of my information no consultations have been held, and no representations whatever have been sought for from the fishing fleets.

What associations have the Government, in fact, consulted? I know that the two great associations to which I have referred are against any change, and they represent most of the officers. I know that the United Kingdom Pilots Association are against it. I know that the Trinity House Channel Pilots are against it. I know that the Trinity House River Pilots are against it. I know that a number of very important captains of ships are against it. I have an opinion here from the captain of the Mauretania, in which he says that this proposal, affecting helm orders, is nothing else but juggling with the safety of the ship and of all on board.

Has the noble and learned Lord any explicit expression of opinion from the Admiralty Court? At least one distinguished and learned Judge of the Admiralty Court, Mr. Justice Hill I think it was, has expressed his opinion very forcibly on the subject, and has suggested that no change should be made. Then, I understand that the solicitors who practise in that Division of the High Court are very much against it. Then there is a further point as to what effect the change will have upon legal decisions affecting collisions in British Courts. The argument is used that we must not do anything about this because, if we do, probably foreign countries will retaliate, or we may wreck the Convention, or something of that sort. I submit that on a point such as this we are entitled to express our opinion as a maritime nation. We have 10,000 ships at sea, we own approximately half the world's tonnage, having, I believe, altogether some 23,000,000 tons of shipping. Surely we are entitled to say whether or not we are to have these helm orders. Then I understand that other nations are by no means unanimous. I understand that in America the same custom exists as exists here—the indirect system; and if you add the American tonnage to our own the vast majority of the shipping tonnage of the world can be said to be administered under the system of indirect helm orders.

I consider that the proposal is a thoroughly dangerous one. It is one the danger of which may only become apparent after a very great disaster has taken place. Supposing you have a disaster in which one of our biggest ships is concerned. It might happen to the "Majestic" or the "Berengaria," going in or out of Southampton. What would he said of the Government if it were eventually found that such a disaster was doe to this change in helm orders?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

lit would not be the only disaster due to this Government.

EARL HOWE

It is possible the noble Lord may be right in that. At any rate, I feel that this question is one fraught with the very gravest possible danger. I feel that there has not been sufficient consultation with all the people affected, and that the question demands much further examination and much further explanation than the noble and learned Lard has been able to give us this afternoon. For that reason I shall for the moment support the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses. At the same time I want to reserve all my rights to move at the appropriate time an Amendment rejecting Clause 22 of the Bill.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I have been much relieved to hear the close argument of the noble Earl who has just sat down, supported, as it is, by a great deal of evidence about the facts of the case, with regard to Clause 22 of the Bill. So far as the Bill in general is concerned, I am sure that those who attach importance to the prosperity of the shipping industry of this country value the labour which has been bestowed upon it and desire that the efforts which have been made should succeed. But from all I have heard with regard to the probable effect of passing Clause 22 and its coining into operation as it stands, I have the gravest possible fear that this clause will be a blemish upon the Bill, if it becomes an Act, which we shall have the greatest possible cause to regret.

The noble Earl referred to testimony from many quarters. He referred to the knowledge of those who have experience in the Admiralty jurisdiction in this country. I came here this afternoon because, in the judicial position which I hold, I have a substantial responsibility in the matter. I came here to say that while this question has been under discussion for years, I have never heard a man with practical experience of the matter who did not deplore that such a proposal as this should be made. It is spoken of as a simple plan for going left when you say "left," and going right when you say "right," instead of going right when you say "left" and going left when you say "right." That would be very pleasant, of course, in a nursery tale; but the real position of the matter is that, as the noble Earl has said, for many generations the seamen of this great industry of ours have been brought up to follow a simple procedure with regard to the helm order—port your helm and the ship's head will go to starboard; starboard your helm and the ship's head will go to port. It is the commonest thing in the world.

I have attended to the evidence in collision cases in our own jurisdiction, and to what has arisen regarding collision cases, and I am bound to say that I have never known of a collision which has been due to any error of any English seaman with regard to a helm order. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, referred to a grave mistake which was made by a Belgian pilot who was in charge of a German ship. I do not know how they got mixed up, but I know that in our Admiralty affairs collisions of foreign ships and English ships or foreign ships and foreign ships constantly arise. I call to mind collisions in every quarter of the world, and I have never known of life lost by the adherence to the present perfectly simple and habitual helm orders. A man is almost born when he is in the shipping industry to do this thing. He does it automatically. He follows the order without thought as to its consequences, and he does it with safety on that principle of port your helm and the ship's head goes to the right.

On the coining into operation of this Bill it is to be the law that it will be a misdemeanour if any person on board a British ship who means a ship's head to go to the right shall give the accustomed order "Port," or if he means it to go to the left, shall give the accustomed order "Starboard." There is no sort of precaution for accustoming men to the change and no sort of preparation for it. There is a day fixed when this Bill is to come into operation and then you introduce the hopeless confusion which this proposal will introduce. The moment of emergency really is the only time which matters. Most of the day and most of the year the ships move along with perfect safety and people have time to think. But in a moment of emergency if an error is made then, it is the deadly error to which the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, referred.

I will not dwell upon this matter. I regard it as a thing which affects the lives of our fellow countrymen. True, it affects the shipping industry. What persuaded ship-owners, owners of cargo and underwriters to come into a scheme, not, as the noble and learned Lord opposite said, for giving the benefit of our experience but for withdrawing from our own half of the shipping of the world the practical advantages of our experience and submitting our shipping to a rule about which our seamen know nothing? How that came about I cannot conceive; but so far as I am concerned, I thought it my duty, with the necessary contact I have had with this question, to present to the House, in support of those of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the views which I have taken the liberty of presenting. I sincerely trust that the Bill will not be passed into an Act in the form in which it now stands with regard to helm orders.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

My Lords, it has been clear to your Lordships from what has already been said, that there are in this Bill two or three points of a highly technical and also of a most important nature, which certainly require very careful examination before the Bill becomes an Act. The procedure of a Joint Committee, as your Lordships are aware, would afford opportunity for the evidence of expert witnesses being heard which would not be the case if the Bill was referred to a Committee of the Whole House. There are several institutions, such as the Chamber of Shipping and the Master Mariners' Associations, which certainly deserve to be heard on matters affecting them so closely as this, and I may say that is the reason why I have spoken. My noble friend Lord Reading, who is unfortunately unable to be in his place this afternoon, would have supported the Motion of the noble Earl, had he been here.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, the very weighty and important speech to which we have listened from Lord Merrivale has, I feel confident, made a deep impression upon the House as to the extreme undesirability and, indeed, danger of altering this old-established custom as to helm orders. His experience has told us that up to now no collision within his knowledge has ever been due to the existence of the present helm order. That experience was borne out, as Lord Howe mentioned, by Mr. Justice Hill; who, in his time, has tried something like 800 collision cases, and he has stated most positively that in not one of those cases was there any danger from, or indeed any accident due to a misunderstanding of the existing helm orders.

But the matter goes further than that. Not only is there no danger in the existing helm orders, but the persons whose experience at sea entitles and indeed compels us to listen to them, tell us there would be extreme danger in altering it in the manner proposed. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has referred to those two great associations which represent the masters and the navigating officers—namely, the Imperial Merchant Serv[...] Guild, on whose behalf I presented a Petition a few days ago against this alteration, and the Mercantile Marine Association, for whom the noble Earl, Lord Howe, presented a Petition to-day. Then there are the Trinity House pilots. These are the men primarily and deeply concerned in this matter. Their lives indeed depend upon safety at sea, and can it be said that their experience and their advice is to be set aside and ignored by the British Parliament? And why? Because, apparently, as Lord Stanhope told us, some foreign shipowners desire this alteration. Lord Stanhope was very mild in his support of this proposal, and he went so far as to say that had it not been for some foreign shipowners we should never have consented to it.

May I point out one fact with regard to what happened at the International Conference when this alteration was agreed upon? It is a remarkable fact—and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will explain it—that to that Conference not one single representative of those two great organisations of masters and of navigating officers was invited or was present. Why that was so I do not know. The noble Lord has told us that the delegates were summoned by the Board of Trade, and, if that be so, it makes it all the more extraordinary, because, as Lord Howe has pointed out, the President of the Board of Trade expressed himself most strongly, in answer to a Question in the House of Commons, that no alteration should be made in this helm order without consulting fully the masters and navigating officers. And the matter does not stop there. There is another body of people who navigate the sea whose interest should be consulted, and those are the seamen, the National Union of Seamen, numbering. I do not know how many thousands of men, to whom the safety of life at sea is at least as important as to any other body of men in this country. What happened at this International Conference in regard to the National Union of Seamen was this. A Committee was appointed by the Conference to consider this question of helm orders, and there was one representative of the National Union of Seamen who was summoned to this Conference. His name, I think, was Mr. Gunning. Unfortunately, at the very commencement of the work of the Committee of the Conference, he fell ill, and was unable to attend any of the meetings. The result was that at those meetings of the Committee there, was no one whatsoever to represent the interests of the National Union of Seamen; and if my information is correct, the vast majority—if, indeed it is not the unanimous desire—of that National Union of Seamen wish that this helm order should not be passed.

There is only one other point to which I shall refer, and it is this. I was astonished to hear from the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill that if one item of the Convention was altered by your Lordships' House or the other House, the whole Convention would fall to the ground. That is a very strange doctrine. We have Clause 22 of this Bill brought before your Lordships to-day, and your Lordships will be asked to consider that clause later in Committee. Are we to be told that when a Motion is down to leave out Clause 22 it is out of the power of this House or the other House to cut out that clause or the whole Convention falls to the ground? Of course what would happen would be this. If the British Parliament in the exercise of its judgment cut out that clause, the other parties to the Convention would be asked to consent to its elimination, and no doubt they would do so. When the time comes I sincerely trust that your Lordships may see the great dangers that will result from this clause, will realise the absence of any reasons for alteration, and may be induced to agree to the proposition to leave out Clause 22.

LORD JOICEY

My Lords, it is not my intention to speak for more than two or three minutes. I have listened to this debate with very great interest, and I have been very much struck with some of the arguments that have been brought forward in favour of the Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. I confess it seems extraordinary that the Government will not accept the suggestion which has been made. Everybody who has to do with shipping must know that you cannot get reasonable safety unless you have international arrangements. I cannot see how you are likely to get international arrangements if you have three separate Bills, and you have to settle one Bill and then go on with the second Bill, and after that with the third Bill, which, I understand, is to be brought forward next week. Surely, any reasonable man will agree that it would be better to have these three Bills combined into one Bill, and brought forward in that form so that we might get some international arrangement. I am surprised that the Government should not accept a suggestion of this kind. Surely, it would be much more to their credit if they were to pass a Bill dealing with these important matters which would be accepted not only by the British nation but by all nations, and have an international arrangement in order to bring about the greatest possible safety for those who follow this very dangerous occupation of going to sea.

Another point that rather struck me is this. I do not like an arrangement by which the Board of Trade can make regulation s to do practically what they like. You are taking away the power from Parliament and putting it into the hands of a Department. Noble Lords who have heard me speak in this House occasionally know very well my views on giving this power to a Department. The Department does not, as a rule, consider what ought to be the great object of any regulation, but they consider how it will affect the electorate. I have the very greatest suspicion when you give a power of this kind to the Board of Trade. I should like to see that provision eliminated. I would much rather the three Bills were taken together and sent to a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. You would then get a sensible and valuable Bill, which could not only be carried out in this country but in regard to which you could get an international arrangement. I feel sure that if the Government would do that they would get more credit than will come to them by splitting up the Bills in the manner proposed.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the questions that have been asked. I think I can answer most of them, but some specific questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will have to stand over to a later date. On the first point, as regards the Second Reading of the Bill, I understand there is no opposition to that, although I quite understand the view of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, that the Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee. That I will deal with later. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that subject to that requirement of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, being assented to, he should not oppose the Second Reading. Indeed, I do not think that anyone suggests that this Bill should not receive a Second Reading. Then there is the question about the drafting of the Bill to which the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, referred. On that I should like to say a word. The words he takes objection to are really what I may call common form words which have been used on similar occasions. I do not say that is a justification, but drafting very often runs on well known lines. The words put to me are these: Such rules as may be "necessary or expedient." I think those are the words to which the noble Earl took exception.

EARL STANHOPE

"As appear to the Board of Trade to be necessary." "As appear to the Board of Trade" was the point.

LORD PARMOOR

I think it means the same thing.

EARL STANHOPE

No, it is quite different.

LORD PARMOOR

It is a question of drafting, and legitimate questions of drafting will have to be considered. The more important point, as it has turned out, I think, is the point as to helm orders. What is claimed is that the decision of the International Convention should be so far reviewed. Of course the general Convention, which was arrived at after consideration of all the matters which came before the plenipotentiaries, has to be considered as a whole, and, though some of those matters may not have been exactly what is desirable to an individual nation, yet you have to consider the whole Convention if you are to pass on to the ratification of an International Convention of this kind.

Before I go to the further question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, let me say that I think there is a general consensus of opinion that matters of this kind are best settled by international arrangement or International Convention. I should have thought that that was an unassailable proposition at the present moment, particularly for a country in the position in which we stand of being, as I have said, a pioneer and foremost in bringing provisions for the safety of vessels at sea up to the highest efficiency that can be reached. Are we going to reconsider the terms of the Convention? Is the helm order to be reconsidered de novo? Of course that is the intention of the objections that have been raised to-day. I do not deny the objections, such as they are—there are two sides to this question—objections such as were raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, whose opinion on a matter of this kind deserves every attention; but I cannot agree with the inference which he draws that there is likely to be more danger or more risk. I should have thought the advantage of an international arrangement of this kind was that it diminished risk. I am instructed that English captains responsible in these matters denied altogether the suggestion that they could not make a change in the helm orders which has been made in other countries without real risk.

LORD MERRIVALE

I am sure the noble and learned Lord will bear with me. A change of helm orders has not been made in other countries. They use the helm orders to which their seamen have been brought up without any danger to them or to us, and we do the same kind of thing.

LORD PARMOOR

I beg leave to say that with all his knowledge the noble and learned Lord is not accurate. This matter began as long ago as 1889 at Washington. A small number of countries—comparatively small, I think four or five—did, as a matter of fact, use the helm order which is now suggested as an international helm order, and since that time other countries have altered their system. It is not true that no country has altered its system to this direct method of helm order.

LORD MERRIVALE

I was thinking of the French and of other great continental nations. I know what the noble and learned Lord is referring to, but I was not speaking of the small maritime Powers.

LORD PARMOOR

They are maritime Powers of importance as regards some of the matters which have been mentioned to-day, like timber—of very great importance. I do not want to join issue on a matter of that kind, but I want to say distinctly that this matter was begun in 1889, that there has been a change without any real risk of accident, and that again in 1913 and 1914, after the Titanic disaster, the question was raised. It was not settled then, because it was found that there was too much difference of practice between different countries. When the Convention of 1929 came to be considered there was one matter which was considered definitely to be necessary—that is, that you should have one international rule as regards helm orders, and I think every one will realise that, apart from anything like special peculiarities, it ought to be an essential factor as regards the security of life at sea, that there should be no risk of one country having one kind of helm order and another country another. It was in those circumstances that the Board of Trade, which was the Department in control of this matter, called the meeting to which I referred, at Trinity House.

I say this in answer to the noble Earl. I sent a message to the representative of the Board of Trade in this House to ascertain the facts as regards the associations to which he referred, and I was told that they were all represented at this meeting at Trinity House and that they were called there for the very purpose that all sides of the case should be thoroughly thrashed out. Of course, there was difference of opinion. Everyone knows that there is difference of opinion in this country on the subject. When the Convention came into operation that, decision was given and assented to by the plenipotentiaries of this country. It is a very serious thing, if you are to carry through these International Conventions—which I think are of enormous importance—if when your plenipotentiaries have consented to a change of this kind (if you like, an important change of this kind), that subsequently the matter should be reopened and what is more or less a different topic raised—namely, that although we have assented to what is contained in the International Convention as regards helm orders, we want some change in our own law in order to make effective the assent we have given. That is a common enough position, but it is not, in my opinion, ground for considering whether an International Convention is to be ratified or not.

We gave power to our plenipotentiaries, they signed the Convention, and the only authority which comes into operation now is the Crown Prerogative. The fact that on some point or other—this point, if you like—you have to get legislative powers in order to carry out what the Convention agreed upon, is not in my view any reason for attempting to re-open a question which cannot properly be re-opened without all the parties to the Convention being convened again to reconsider it. That is the reason why a matter of this kind is exceedingly difficult.

I do not know that there is any other direct question that I was asked, but I wish to add this. If it is the opinion of the House that this matter is of such importance that we can have the Second Reading only if we further assent to the noble Earl's suggestion of a Joint Committee, I must, of course, leave that to the House. I cannot guide the House. I state most positively the view that I hold that, if you want this International Convention to go forward you ought to accept its terms, because our own plenipotentiaries have agreed to it. That is the only test that you can take, and we ought not to mix it up with any other matter. I think it will only lead to confusion if at this stage we re-open (that is what it comes to) a matter of importance, discussed and settled by the international plenipotentiaries. That is a very difficult attitude to take. At any rate, so far as I am concerned, it is not the attitude which the Government can in any way assume. If the House, as a condition of the Second Reading, desires to impose the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, it is impossible for me to object to that. I am in the hands of the House. I leave it at this: that in the view of the Government the simpler method would be to have this Convention in the form in which we have brought it forward to submit to the judgment of the House, and that, in regard to all the questions of drafting and other matters that have been mentioned, the proper form, having regard to the dignity of this House, is that they should be settled by a Committee of our own members on the floor of this House. As I say, I cannot carry the matter further, and I must leave it so.

EARL HOWE

May I ask the noble and learned Lord one question? When our plenipotentiaries signed this Convention, did not they say that it was subject to ratification by Parliament?

LORD PARMOOR

That I cannot tell you. There is no ratification by Parliament per se. Ratification is by the Crown, and the Prerogative of the Crown. Where Parliament comes in is that if, in order that we should carry out the obligations undertaken, some change in our law is necessary, we appeal to Parliament, as a debt of honour, to undertake to carry it through if possible.

LORD AMPTHILL

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question, by way of correcting what, I believe, is a misapprehension on his part. The noble and learned Lord seems to pin his whole faith on a little meeting held at Trinity House, and he was told that the merchant service was repre- sented there. That is quite true, but did the noble and learned Lord, when he asked for information, on that point, learn what was actually the nature of that meeting and its effect? The effect was really even. There were three parties represented on one side—Trinity House, the Honourable Company of Master Mariners and the Officers' Federation—but those on whose behalf we are speaking were dead against it, and the first-named could not give a corporate vote. They had not consulted their respective societies. I want to make that point quite clear, because I think too much stress has been laid on that Trinity House meeting.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, before we part with this debate I should like to say one word in reference to the general statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the position of what he calls the plenipotentiaries. We are now constantly dealing with these International Conventions, to which we send representatives on behalf of the Government. I agree that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that the question of ratification is, in general terms, one for the Royal Prerogative—that is to say, for the Government of the day—and that Parliamentary ratification is not always necessary. But I must just enter a caveat, in consequence of the very considerable number of Conventions and Conferences that are held. Our representatives who go to those Conventions or Conferences go there with the full knowledge that no effect can be given to their decisions unless the substance of a Convention is ratified by the Government of this country, and that there is no obligation whatever—I will put it even as high as that—on the Government of the country, whether it be the present Government or any other, to ratify a Convention that may have been arrived at by the representatives of this country, unless, in the opinion of the Government, it is desirable and proper to do so. There must, I think, always be reserved to the Government of the day, acting on behalf of the Royal Prerogative, the right, which the noble and learned Lord seems rather to disregard, not to ratify, or to ratify only with alterations, any Convention that may have been made.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I do not think it necessary to continue the discussion. I quite agree with what the noble Viscount has said, and I think it entirely conforms with what I said. Of course ratification has to come from the Government. Though your plenipotentiaries have power to sign, they are not given power to ratify, but I think that, since they go there with full powers, the intention is, unless there is some great change, not merely that they should have a formal meeting but that there Should be a formal agreement which they are all prepared to sign and which the Governments concerned will ratify unless there is some special reason to the contrary. In this case, since we called the Convention to London and took, as I said, a leading part in it, I think it is assumed by everyone that, if the plenipotentiaries signed, the Government—and we are not the original Government in this connection—meant that ratification would follow. Of course ratification is a Royal Prerogative.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I am sorry to differ from the noble and learned Lord, but I do desire to make it quite plain, so far as I am concerned, that I do not regard it as any obligation on the part of any Government to ratify. These gentlemen who go to the Convention are very often representatives of a Department, and the responsibility for ratification must be on the shoulders of the Government and not on the shoulders of those representatives.

On Question, Bill read 2a.

EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will desire me to say anything further in regard to the Motion, that stands in my name, and therefore I beg formally to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that The Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.— (Earl Stanhope.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire their concurrence.