393 INTERNATIONAL LAWS FOR_ THE 



the recommendations of this committee (which stated that 

 they saw no reason for delay), which were made on the iQth 

 February, 1880, a supplemental Order in Council was passed 

 on the 24th March, 1880, putting off the coming into force 

 of the objectionable part of the proposed regulations till 

 the ist of September, 1881, instead of September, 1880, as 

 originally proposed. On the 25th May, 1880, it was ordered 

 " that a select committee be appointed to enquire into the 

 objection urged by persons connected with the fishing 

 industries against the new regulations as to lights for fish- 

 ing vessels." This committee was nominated on the ist of 

 June, 1880, and consisted of thirteen Members of Parliament, 

 who held a most exhaustive enquiry at twenty of the 

 principal ports of the United Kingdom, and who on the 

 I4th July, 1880, recommended that trawlers should be 

 allowed to carry one white light, as they always had done, 

 and that drifters should be distinguished by two white 

 lights. In consequence of the difference in the reports of 

 these two committees the original Joint Committee was 

 reappointed, and on the 5th January, 1881, they agreed 

 that drifters should carry two white lights, and that 

 trawlers should carry a red light at the foremast head and 

 a white light in any position in the after part of the vessel 

 where it can best be seen. In consequence of continued 

 opposition, and questions being asked in the House of 

 Commons, the Joint Committee met again on the 3Oth 

 March, 1881, and confirmed their immediately previous 

 recommendation. Thereupon the Board of Trade wrote to 

 the Foreign Office asking them to ascertain from the 

 Governments of France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, 

 Germany, Norway and United States, what their views 

 were on the subject generally, and especially upon the 

 question, whether the distinguishing light of a trawling 



