the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

336 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Ruleswithout going beyond my brief, that the bankers will certainly recognise that wish onthe part of the mercantile community. (Hear, hear).But, Gentlemen, you must please understand exactly what our difficulties are, andgive us the means of meeting them. Now all our credits to-day, except in particulartrades, have been opened upon the basis of certain documents. We have this decisionwhich I have referred to, and I need not refer to again, to say that under the terms ofthose documents, if we take “received for shipment” bills of lading, we do so at ourown risk, and contrary perhaps to the instructions of our customers.What is the remedy? If all parties will agree to a particular form [131] of document,and will definitely include in their instructions to the bank an authority to acceptthat particular form of document, the bankers’ difficulties will, I think, disappear;at all events they will be largely removed; but, until we arrive at that state of things, thatthe consignor, consignee and banker are all agreed as to the particular form of document,we are in a grave difficulty in regard to “received for shipment” bills of lading.Now what is the usual reason for the issue of “received for shipment” bills of lading?We have heard it from Sir Norman Hill; we have heard it from Mr. Hobhouse. Ientirely accept everything that they say upon that point. A great deal of what they havesaid comes to me as news. Neither Sir James Hope Simpson nor I were aware of anythings that they said this morning. We were not aware that any Eastern bank, or anybank, through its agents, was in any way countenancing or authorising the acceptanceof “shipped” bills of lading with the knowledge that the goods had not yet been puton board. I said to Mr. Hobhouse at once: the bankers must do one of two things. Thefirst alternative is this: if they will not accept “received for shipment” bills of lading,they must rigidly enforce their instructions to their agents to have nothing to do withthem. They cannot allow their agents to put the pressure which was referred to uponthe shipowner, because that would be obviously an unfair thing to do, and I am sure Iam speaking the mind of the bankers when I am saying that they would not generallybe parties to anything of the kind. (Hear, hear). The other alternative is this. I gather,and I am deeply impressed by what I have heard in this room this morning, that thegeneral consensus of opinion among the mercantile community is, that “received forshipment” bills of lading have come to stay (hear, hear); that they are found a convenientform of document; and that the bankers ought, in the interests of trade and commerce,to see whether they cannot find means of adopting the wishes of the mercantilecommunity in that respect. Now it has become a grave and a difficult question toknow how that result is to be attained. I am afraid it cannot possibly be attained in thisroom, because it necessitates a great deal of discussion; but I do think that I may gothis far and say on behalf of the bankers, that, if and when the members of the mercantilecommunity will come together, and will in the clearest possible terms agree andwill instruct the bankers to accept “received for shipment” bills of [132] lading, thebankers will not stand in their way. But bear in mind that, so long as the “Received forshipment” bills of lading are issued, under pressure, by the shipowner with only theconsignor’s instructions, we are always in the difficulty that the consignee, the importerin England, for example, may say: “I will have nothing to do with it, and you,the bank, had no authority to take that document”.Now the problem before us is to get over that difficulty. It must be a matter of time,because all our documents will have to be re-framed; and I am going to suggest that,as soon as practicable, in the autumn, we shall endeavour to get the representatives oftrade, the exporters and importers, into a conference with the bankers in England onthat subject. The shipowners, I take it, and I gather from what Sir Norman Hill hassaid, take a neutral position in the matter. They, like ourselves, would say, I am sure:“We are desirous of facilitating British trade in every direction that we can, and we are