§ Order for Consideration read.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that as a whole he was well satisfied with the Bill, and he wished to thank his right hon. Friend for having introduced the measure, as he believed it would be of great service to the snipping interest. At the same time, he regretted that his right hon. Friend had not dealt with the question of compulsory pilotage. He regretted that it had not been swept away in every port in the United Kingdom. The Committee upon this subject had reported that wherever a system of voluntary pilotage prevailed there was an abundant supply of pilots. Take the cases of Cork and Falmouth. He believed that about the same number of vessels which called at Falmouth called at Cork. At the former the system of pilotage was compulsory, and there there were only thirty-six pilots; but at Cork, where it is perfectly optional with the master of a vessel to take a pilot, there were 303 pilots. He brought forward that statement in answer to the argument that any great change in the existing state of things would have the effect of reducing the number of pilots and jeopardizing life and property. At Sunderland the system of pilotage was voluntary, and they had no lack of pilots. They were to be found in all weathers on the look-out for ships, and they might frequently be seen as far down as Flamborough Head. But at Falmouth the pilots did not trouble themselves about going any distance to look out for ships, because they knew they would be paid whether their services were brought into requisition or not. He would therefore move the insertion of the following clause—
That the masters and owners of all ships, or of any classes of ships, shall not be obliged to employ pilots in any pilotage district, or shall not be obliged to pay for pilots when not employing them in any district, or in any part of any pilotage district.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1o.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
734§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he perfectly agreed with his hon. Friend in the opinion that the Bill was a good Bill, but that it did not go far enough. Still, he did not think it was expedient to press the Amendment. There was no doubt of the advantages of the voluntary system of pilotage, but it was impossible to make great and precipitate changes without doing mischief. He thought the hon. Member might be satisfied with having persuaded the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, to introduce the small end of the wedge, and in time the country would come round to the opinion that the voluntary system was the best.
§ MR. HORSFALLsaid, he hoped the House would not adopt the clause proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. He would remind them that his hon. Friend had appeared amongst them as the representative of the shipping interest. He brought forward a long list of grievances suffered by that interest, and moved for a Committee to inquire into those grievances. While the Committee obtained by the hon. Member was sitting, no less than nineteen or twenty shipowners were questioned on the subject of compulsory pilotage, and only four of those were found to support the view of his hon. Friend. Of those four, two were constituents of the hon. Gentleman himself. Not satisfied with that, his hon. Friend brought forward a clause in Committee to do away with compulsory pilotage in every part of Great Britain. When the question of the adoption of that clause was put to the vote, only two Members of the Committee supported the hon. Member for Sunderland. With that decision of the Committee against him, his hon. Friend had now the modesty to come to the House and ask them to adopt his preconceived opinions. In the Bill before the House there was ample provision for doing away with compulsory pilotage in cases where it was shown to be objectionable. As regarded the port of Liverpool —where the system was compulsory—it was the only port in the kingdom to which special reference was made in the Report as having the pilotage in a satisfactory state. He trusted the House would reject the clause.
MR. HODGSONsaid, that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) had not told the House the reasons given by shipowners for their evidence in favour of compulsory pilotage. Mr. Duncan Dunbar 735 mentioned the case of a ship, the pilotage of which cost him £34, and exonerated him from liability for any damage the ship might do; but if, having no pilot on board, the ship ran down half-a-dozen barges, he might have to pay £3,000 or £4,000 damages. Shipowners, therefore, were content to pay pilotage as an insurance against damages, which they would otherwise be compelled to pay. On the other hand, there was experience to prove that neither the number nor the class of pilots would be deteriorated if Parliament abolished at once the system of compulsory pilotage and adopted a system which, in Shields and other places, had been shown to be effective.
§ MR. CLAYsaid, that he would not then pronounce any opinion on the abstract value of the proposal of the hon. Member for Sunderland. His hon. Friend, however, had not told them how existing interests were to be dealt with. His hon. Friend would destroy the whole edifice, and leave the ruin to take care of itself. He hoped the House would refuse its sanction to so great a change proposed to be made in so hasty a manner.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that if he had to discuss the abstract merits of the voluntary or of the compulsory system, in that case he should, in all probability, agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. But before they introduced a general principle of that sort it was necessary to have regard to the existing circumstances under which they found the pilotage law in operation. The Government had endeavoured to meet as far as possible every complaint, having at the same time due regard to the just claims which had grown up under the present system. One of the complaints which had been made against the compulsory system would be met by a provision in the measure under which a vessel seeking a port for shelter, and not for the purpose of discharging a cargo, would be relieved from the necessity of employing a pilot. There was another provision, under which any person thinking himself aggrieved by the oppressive character of the pilotage system in a particular port, might address a complaint upon the subject to the Board of Trade; and that Board, if it should think proper, might then, for the purpose of removing the evil, issue a provisional order, which would await the future sanction of Parliament. In the Bill powers were also given to the Board of Trade to alter the 736 pilotage districts, and to establish pilotage authorities wherever they might be found to be needed. Under these circumstances he hoped that the House would not adopt the proposed alteration of the measure; and if his hon. Friend should press his Motion to a division, he should feel it his duty to oppose it, although he thought the principle on which it was founded was a sound one.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he would then propose the insertion of a clause for the purpose of limiting liability for loss of life or injury. The clause was to the effect, that where the owner of a ship at the time of engagement delivered a written or printed memorandum that he would not be answerable to a greater extent than £150 for loss of life or injury to a passenger, his liability should be limited to that amount. In the Merchant Shipping Act a provision was introduced by which the liability of shipowners in regard to passengers was put, in one respect, on the same principle as in regard to goods — namely, the shipowner was made responsible only to the extent of the value of his ship. The shipowner received one stated and unvarying amount from every passenger of the same class, but no provision was introduced into that Act to relieve him from the difficulty which resulted from the fact that persons might come on board his ship, who might in case of accident set up enormous claims, of which he could have no possible cognizance. The object of the clause he proposed was to limit the responsibility of the shipowner in relation to passengers on precisely the same principle as it was limited in relation to goods. Until Lord Campbell's Act passed, a shipowner was only liable for an injury to a passenger in case the passenger survived, but Lord Campbell's Act provided that the relations of the deceased should also have the right of action. That Act enormously increased the responsibility of shipowners towards their passengers, and had ended in results of a most unjust character. If a gentleman of fortune, possessed of a landed estate, lost his life on board a ship, the son would not he able to bring an action for substantial damages; but if a man of the same station, but possessed of no landed estate, died from a similar cause, his representatives would be entitled to bring an action, though it must certainly 737 be considered the duty of such a person to insure his life. That was a manifest injustice to all other persons on board the ship, because the value of the ship was a common fund for the purpose of indemnifying the owners of the goods and the passengers against the consequences of that which was a cause of action common to all alike. At present the representatives of one passenger might only claim £150, because the income of the person in question might be small, whilst the representatives of another, who might have paid the same amount for his passage, would be able to bring an action for £10,000. He maintained that, in justice to all the other persona entitled to make a claim, there should be some limit to the claims of a class of persons who might be described as wealthy annuitants going a voyage at the expense of the shipowners. His proposition was, that the shipowner should not by himself be able to limit his responsibility, but that he should give a notice in writing that he would not be responsible for more than a definite sum, and that the passenger or his representative should not claim beyond that amount. In that case it would be optional to the passenger to go or not; but if he went, it would be at his own risk. The clause was framed in strict accordance with the principle laid down thirty years ago, and steadily adhered to in regard to the carriage of goods. He believed that shipowners ought to be liable to the extent of the value of their ships, and not to the extent of their carrying power. The great grievance was, that shipowners were liable without notice to heavy responsibilities, which he thought ought to be provided for. The clause would give satisfaction and peace to the shipowners, while it would do no injury to any person.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1o.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, his hon. and learned Friend proposed to limit very materially the liability of shipowners towards their passengers and the public. The two propositions, with regard to personal injury and loss of life, were separate, and stood upon a different footing. In the case of personal injury there was no necessity for any legislation in order to provide for the object of his hon. Friend; because, as the law stood, there was nothing to prevent any person going on board a steamer from entering into a special contract if he thought fit, that the owners of the vessel should be liable to damages limited to £150 or £100 in case of loss of limb or 738 personal injury. But even then it would not be right for the House to say that an endorsement upon a ticket delivered to a passenger, who perhaps could not read, should constitute an instrument sufficient for the validity of such a contract. He should therefore decline to legislate on that subject, or to insert any clause in an Act of Parliament which should say what instrument should be considered valid. With regard to loss of life, supposing a passenger took a ticket upon which notice was given that the shipowner was to be liable only to the amount of £150 in the event of such passenger being drowned through the default of the managers of the ship, then his hon. Friend would say that no larger sum should be awarded under Lord Campbell's Act. But Lord Campbell's Act gives to the widow, the child, or the parent power to sue the shipowners for the damage occasioned to them by the drowning of their relative. They were the persons entitled to sue, and they would not be parties to the contract. If the House were disposed to repeal Lord Campbell's Act, let it be done deliberately; but they ought not to seek to evade it and prejudice the rights of the orphan and widow by making an important exception in favour of shipowners. On those grounds he must decline to agree to the clause.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, that at present there was no power to compel a person to enter into a contract before proceeding on a voyage; and in case of accident he might claim any amount he thought proper. That being the state of the law, it was an abundant reason why the clause should be agreed to by the House. It was in his opinion, a perfectly fair thing, and in accordance with the principle of the Bill, that shipowners should be allowed to limit their responsibility to a fixed sum.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it seemed to him that the clause was one of a mischievous character, and he did not think it had been well considered. If the law in respect to the liability of shipowners as carriers ought to be altered where personal injury or loss of life was involved, then there could be no doubt that the alteration ought to be comprehensive and general. If the arguments in favour of the clause were good for anything, they would apply to railway companies and other persons carrying passengers for hire. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persist in his proposal, but withdraw it. 739 If he should desire to discuss it on the narrow grounds put forward, it would appear that he had not thrown around the lives or the limbs of persons the same safeguards and protection as were thrown around goods and cattle by the existing statute law. Under existing statutes persons might sue for damages in case of loss of goods or cattle through the personal default of the shipowner, even although there might be a special contract; but the present Bill conferred no analogous right upon passengers by sea. Under the law as it stood, if a person with his eyes open chose to enter into a contract limiting the responsibility of the shipowner in case of an injury to his person, there could be no objection to it. But the great majority of persons to whom the ticket with its endorsement would be given would be emigrants and other persons in humble life, many of them, perhaps, unable to read. He did not think that such a clause as that proposed should be inserted in the Bill at so advanced a stage. If generally carried out, the clause would undoubtedly produce a very important, and, he thought, a dangerous change in the law.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, the law as it stood was in a most unsatisfactory state. For instance, if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his clerk should take their passage in the same vessel, both paying a like sum to the shipowner, and both should be injured or lose their lives, the representative in the one case would claim a much larger sum than in the other, though the shipowner received no more from one than from the other passenger. The proposal, therefore, deserved consideration, although it might not be the proper moment for bringing it forward.
§ MR. COLLIERsaid, there could be no real objection to the clause. He could understand that tickets in the form proposed might not be sufficient notice to the persons who might take them. To remedy that objection, he would suggest that every ticket should be signed by the party to whom it was delivered. The clause did not, in his opinion, interfere with the freedom of contract.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought the clause did interfere with the freedom of contract; for if a shipowner should hand a ticket to a passenger, that of itself would limit his liability, and by the clause the passenger must take the ticket. [Mr. AYRTON: The passenger need not go.] But suppose 740 he wants to go, and there is no other ship to take him. Surely that could not be freedom of contract.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ MR. LAIRDsaid, he rose to move a clause to make it imperative that chains, cables, and anchors should be impressed with an official proof-mark. A Committee of the House had reported that the cables in the navy, which were thoroughly tested, rarely gave way, while of those which were used in the merchant service, and were not tested, a large percentage failed. His own experience bore out the statement of the Committee. He had made it a rule not to receive any cables or anchors which had not been proved at a public machine, and since then he had heard no complaints as to their quality from the persons to whom he supplied them. The shipowners would have to bear the cost of the operation, and they were generally in favour of his proposal. The Peninsular and Oriental, the North American Mail, the Royal Atlantic Mail, and other shipping companies supported his clause, as did also Sir S. Cunard, Messrs. Wigram, &c. He had found no difficulty in enforcing this provision in his own case. There were large public testing machines at London, Liverpool, Birkenhead, and elsewhere. He would therefore move the insertion of the following clause:—
That on and after the 1st day of January, 1864, all chain cables and anchors bought or sold for use on board British ships registered in the United Kingdom shall be impressed with an official proof-mark as evidence of having been subjected to an authorized proof equal to the tensile strain applied by Admiralty regulations to all cables and anchors used in the Royal Navy; the Board of Trade to be empowered to make such rules and regulations thereon as may from time to time appear necessary to ensure the efficiency of ships' ground tackle; to grant licences to public and corporate bodies to apply the required test and authorized proof to all such cables and anchors; to impress a proof-mark, and to give proof certificates thereof for production when required.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1o.
§ SIR JOHN HAYseconded the Motion.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he was sorry that he could not accept the clause, which was rather an indication of opinion than a practical enactment. The Board of Trade were to be required to frame rules and regulations on the subject, but no machinery was provided to carry them out. 741 The principle involved was rather questionable. It was proposed that every anchor and chain cable sold in this country, after a certain date, should bear a test-mark, like a gun barrel. But what would that system involve? There were a great number of anchors and cables in store, and every manufacturer would have to be at the expense of sending them to some place where there was a testing machine to be tested—in the presence, he presumed of a Government official—before they could undergo the stamping process. And unless that were done, the anchors, chains, and cables already made would become valueless, and would not be sold. Again, there were other anchors and cables kept at certain places on the sea coast for ready use, and those would have to be sent to be tested by the machines before they could be used. That would occasion great expense and inconvenience to the shipowner and the manufacturer of chains and cables, who must either send every chain and anchor to some Government establishment to be tested, or they must erect testing machines at an expense which he had heard estimated at £1,000 in each case. But the strength of a chain depended on each particular link; unless the Government stamp, therefore, were put upon every link, the process of testing afforded no security. The decision announced by the Committee of Lloyd's would exercise considerable effect in causing persons to use only such chains and anchors as had undergone testing; but the House ought to consider the question very seriously before it went the length of making it compulsory that all chains after a certain day should bear the proof-mark. A reference to the Gun Barrel Act would show what extensive machinery would be required to carry out such legislation. Testing machines should be established all over the country, and inspectors appointed at great expense. But in the clause no provision was made for anything of the kind; it contented itself with throwing all the labour and all the responsibility on the Board of Trade. His hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth had done good service by the information which he had been instrumental in procuring before the Select Committee; but he thought the House would be acting hastily and unwisely in agreeing to the present Motion.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he bad presented a petition in favour of 742 the proposal from the city of London signed by the representatives of 1,000,000 tons of snipping belonging to that port; the Dock Committee of Liverpool had memorialized their representative to support the Motion; the town of Birkenhead was also in favour of it. He believed the only opposition to it arose from a small number of shipowners not quite as careful of the lives of men in their employment as proprietors with larger capital. The manufacturer of the cables on board the Royal Charter stated that they were only tested to seventy-two tons, and that if they had been tested to Admiralty proof, that was to say to twenty tons more, in all probability they would not have parted. The additional cost would have been only £1 a ton; and as the ship had thirty or thirty-five tons of cable on board, it followed that 497 human lives were lost, humanly speaking, for £35 worth of ship's cable. It was stated in a work published by General Brereton that during the great gale of November 14, in the Black Sea, according to the testimony of the merchant captains, their cables all snapped like glass at a particular period of the gale. The breaking strain was reached at that point; but of the men-of-war lying at Kazatch not one parted her cable. So that thirty transports were lost on that occasion, and the safety of the allied army imperilled, solely because the merchant vessels were not supplied with cables properly tested. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the clause did not propose any machinery. Why, it put the whole matter into the hands of the Board of Trade; and surely it was not too much to expect that the department which undertook the care of the whole marine of the country should pay a little attention to the lives of its seamen. No unreasonable demand was made; it was not expected that all existing cables should be brought on shore and tested. It was simply proposed that after the first of January, 1864, no cable should be sold without an impressed mark; and where human life was at stake trifling considerations of expense or inconvenience ought not to be allowed to stand in the way. The Board of Trade licensed persons to sell bad chains picked up and brought into the Downs, Harwich, or elsewhere; if they authorized the sale of rotten rubbish, by which more lives might be sacrificed, why could they not equally well license the selling of good chains?
§ MR. FENWICKsaid, that no doubt it 743 was desirable that chains and anchors should be of the best possible description; but the question really put by the Member for Birkenhead was, whether owners of merchant vessels were hereafter to be subjected to Government control, If once chains and anchors were inspected, the next step might be to supervise the ropes and rigging. The question was fully discussed before the Committee, which almost unanimously decided against the proposition now before the House; and without suffering evidence he trusted the House would not reverse the decision of the Committee.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he entirely concurred with the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Elphinstone) in the importance which, he attached to the subject. It had been asked why should not the shipowners be allowed to manage their own affairs? No doubt it was most desirable that they should do so; but what, he would ask, was every clause of the Bill but an interference with private rights? The supporters of the clause, however, only asked the Government to interfere to save human life when it might be saved. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had been able to make out a good case against the clause. The right hon. Gentleman said that it only conveyed an opinion, and was not practical. Now, that was precisely the merit of the clause. Its object was to give the Board of Trade the power of dealing with the grievance. What would have been said if the hon. Member for Birkenhead had brought forward a distinct and specific plan? Why, that it was an interference with the Executive in matters of detail. The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way, and said that the stock of chains in hand would become useless in the event of this clause being adopted. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he upheld the system of passing off rotten chains? And then with respect to the question of expense, did the right hon. Gentleman mean to sanction the use of rotten chains because they were cheaper than good ones? As to the question of time, ample time would be allowed under the clause for testing every cable in every part of great Britain. He contended that wherever fraud existed it ought to be put a stop to, especially when it involved the loss of a large amount of life. There was no difficulty whatever in testing chains and anchors; and if the right hon. Gentleman did not consent to 744 the clause, he, and the Government of which he was a Member, ought to be held responsible for the consequences.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, he fully appreciated the motives of the hon. Member for Birkenhead in proposing the clause, but he would ask the House to pause before giving it their sanction and approval. It had been advocated on the ground that it would give additional security to life. But he would ask the House to remember the powers given to the Board of Trade by the Passengers Act with respect to that class of ships in which the greatest loss of life occurred. The Board had the superintendence of the fitting of these vessels and the power of teaching the owners how they ought to be navigated. Lloyds and the insurance companies were, for their own security, also interested in looking after them. Surely, under these circumstances, it was much better to leave the owners to manage their own affairs. The Board of Trade already possessed extensive powers, and he objected to any increase of those powers, but rather hoped that the House would see the necessity of restraining them.
§ MR. JACKSONobserved, that there was abundant evidence before the Committee to show the necessity of the power of testing being given to some proper authority. The hon. Member who had just spoken had treated the matter as one of insurance, but the evidence before the Committee showed that it was one of premium. He apprehended that it was the duty of the House so to legislate as to give the greatest amount of protection to Her Majesty's subjects on board those merchant ships in which they embarked; and if it was once known that the Government were determined that every anchor and cable should be subjected to a sufficient test, shipowners would take care that the requisition was complied with. The opposition to the plan was got up by the owners of small craft, the loss on which was 80 per cent out of the whole loss on shipping. It was useless for the Board of Trade to say they could not carry out the plan. They took all the patronage they could obtain, and ought to take the responsibility; and if they declined doing so, the House ought to make them.
§ MR. CLAYsaid, that if the shipowners were so anxious for the provision as had been represented, they might carry it out without the interposition of Parliament. As far as his experience went, however, 745 they objected to a sort of fidgety legislation which would not leave them masters of their own business. The clause, as proposed, would be wholly unworkable, and would not give to the Board of Trade the powers which would be necessary to attain the object of its author. He thought, however, that the regulations at Lloyd's and the interest of the shipowners them-; selves was amply sufficient to ensure the supply of good anchors and cables to their ships. Wholesale loss of life occasionally occurred on railways from insufficient springs or tires; but no one proposed that every piece of iron employed on a railway should be subjected to a Government test on that account. They bad no right to subject shipowners to restrictions which did not apply to other classes. The clause itself was wholly unworkable, for it gave no power to inflict penalties in case of neglect to comply with its own provisions, nor did it provide for the establishment of testing machines. Even if it was desirable to adopt the principle, the proposed clause was not the way to do it.
§ MR. HUTTsaid, that although the Committee which had been referred to was convinced that it was desirable that cables and anchors, superior in make and material to those which were generally employed, should be used, they reported that it would be inexpedient to force their; adoption upon the shipping interest by means of penal laws. He held in his hand a letter from a civil engineer of eminence who had been employed by Lloyd's to carry out the object of establishing testing machinery. The gentleman to whom he referred was examined before the Committee, and it might be satisfactory to the House to hear this passage in his letter—
You, no doubt, are aware how Lloyd's Committee is formed; it being composed of one-third merchants, one-third underwriters, and one-third shipowners, of which Thomas Chapman, Esq., is chairman. The Committee, upon knowing the decision the Government had arrived at, determined to take up the question, and I am at this time engaged professionally by them to carry out the object of establishing proper public testing machinery, and they in January last passed the enclosed resolutions, which you will see come into force on the first day of next year. The effect of these is that no vessel can be registered at Lloyd's to have an A 1 class or certificate unless these rules are complied with. I am putting down for them most powerful and complete machinery for the port of London at the West India Docks, which will be ready before the winter, and every means will be taken (if the Committee con- 746 tinue like-minded as they have began) to extend such work as may be required at other ports and places, and the local authorities invited to interest themselves therein, while the surveyors of Lloyd's will aid and assist in seeing that the same be properly carried out.By the agency of the regulations which Lloyd's was about to put in force, and the action of the Government in not taking up any ship for troops, emigrants, or stores which could not produce a certificate that her cables and anchors had been properly tested, the object of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laird) would be more effectually and efficiently carried out than by any clause that they could adopt or any Act of Parliament that they could devise.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the question before them was one of the most important in its principle and object, which the House could have before it. It had been argued on the ground of humanity, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth affirmed, that if the Royal Charter bad been supplied with cables of the Admiralty strain instead of the merchant strain, 497 lives would have been saved. It was easy to give that opinion; but how could the hon. Baronet venture to say, if she had been fitted with Admiralty chains, that they would have held the ship? Then as to the men of war in the Baltic, he (Mr. Henley) was informed that on board one of her Majesty's ships all the chain cables broke like glass, owing to the peculiar pitching of the sea, and that the ship was eventually brought up by a hempen cable. That showed that these precautions did not always save life. No doubt it was desirable that all ships should be furnished with cables and anchors of the best description in all cases. But the question was whether that end could be better secured by passing the clause than by leaving the matter to Lloyd's, who, it was quite plain, were taking it up. For his own part, he had no great faith in Government action, and he relied much more upon the merchant body themselves. Then, how often were these cables to be tried? Were the Board of Trade to make a regulation that no unfit ship should ever go to sea? Was the House prepared to go the length of saying that the Government was to see that every ship was seaworthy? He believed they would do better by leaving the matter to Lloyds, who employed persons far more experienced than any Queen's officers could be. But if the question were to be dealt with at all, it ought to be done 747 by Bill, so that all parties might understand what was intended, and that the House might watch every step that was taken. The House would find it impossible to stop in the matter if they once began; and on these grounds he must oppose the clause.
SIR, JAMES ELPHINSTONEin explanation said, that the Algiers rode out the gale of the 14th of November with two iron chains a head as well as a cable; and that thirty sail of men-of-war did not lose a chain cable.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 188: Majority 87.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, that as Clause 52 imposed a large number of liabilities upon shipowners, he would move the following clause to be inserted immediately afterwards: —
Insurances effected against any or all of the events enumerated in the section last preceding, and occurring without such actual fault or privity sis therein mentioned, shall not he invalid by reason of the nature of the risk.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not fulfilled the pledge given before the Select Committee that a magistrate and two assessors should sit as a Court of Inquiry, and that one magistrate and one assessor should not have the power to cancel the certificate of a master, mate, or engineer. He would accordingly move the insertion of a clause that the Board of Trade should appoint a naval court, to be presided over by a magistrate, assisted by two assessors of nautical skill and experience.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1o.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it had formerly been the practice of the Board of Trade to appoint one assessor to assist the magistrate. It was, however, now the practice to appoint two assessors, and the change was found to work well. There was therefore no occasion for the clause.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ Clause 24 (Power of cancelling Certificate to rest with the Court which hears the Case).
748MR. MILNER, GIBSONsaid, he moved to add the following words:—
The 434th and 437th sections of the principal Act shall be read as if for the word 'nautical' were substituted the words 'nautical or engineering,' and as if for the words 'person' and assessor' respectively were substituted the words 'person or persons' and 'assessor or assessors' respectively. No certificate shall be cancelled or suspended under this section unless a copy of the report or a statement of the case upon which the investigation is ordered has been furnished to the owner of the certificate before the commencement of the investigation, nor unless one assessor at least expresses his concurrence in the report.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of giving local magistrates the same power as formerly of adjudicating upon all matters connected with salvage.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 52 (Shipowners' Liability limited).
§ SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he wished to move, in line 38, after "fifteen pounds," to insert "per registered ton in the case of failing ships, and twenty pounds per registered ton in the case of steam ships." He advocated the principle of the registered tonnage being the measure of liability, because it had been always adhered to up to the present time; and there would be great inconvenience in introducing a contrary system, because it would be extremely impolitic to give an inducement to steamboat owners to make their engine-room as small and their engines as little powerful as possible, and because the Committee of the House which sat upon the subject of merchant shipping had recommended it. Steamboat proprietors were willing that the rate should be £20 per ton, provided the register tonnage were taken. The liability imposed by the Bill would be very much above the value of the steam tonnage over the country, and by its adoption a great injustice would be done to the steam-shipping interest.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 20, line 38, after the words "fifteen pounds," to insert the words "per registered ton in the case of sailing ships, and twenty pounds per registered ton in the case of steam ships.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Select Committee on Merchant Shipping, of which he had been a member, intended that the gross tonnage should be taken when a ship was measured to determine the 749 extent of her liability for damage, and accordingly the Committee used the term "gross registered tonnage" to express the opinion that it should be the size of the ship that should be taken as the measure of liability. The plan proposed by the hon. and learned Member would very largely limit the liability of steam ships with powerful engines and large engine-rooms. The hon. and learned Member proposed an increase in the liability from £15 to £20 for life, and from £8 to £10 for goods; but that increase would still limit very materially the liability of powerful steam ships as compared with other steam ships and with sailing vessels. The proposition was to make the steamer's liability dependent on the size of the engine-room—in other words, on the power of her engines. Damage was to be paid to the owners of the injured vessel in proportion, not to the size, or mischief-producing power, but according to the registered tonnage, which was in inverse proportion to the ability of the vessel to do mischief. To show the practical effect of the Amendment, he would quote a few figures. Take the case of the Leinster, a powerful paddle steamer carrying passengers. The gross tonnage was 1,383 tons, her registered tonnage 386. Her present liability for life and for goods was the value of the ship and her freight. Her probable value was between £60,000 and £70,000. His own proposal, taking £15 for life and £8 for goods on the gross tonnage, would give £20,735 for life, and £4,064 for goods. The Amendment of Sir Hugh Cairns would make her liability for life £7,720, and for goods £3,868. Now, take the ease of another vessel. Take the case of the Robert Lowe a screw boat. Her gross tonnage was 1,475, her registered tonnage 1,278. His (Mr. M. Gibson's) proposition would, in this case, render her liable for life to £22,000, and for goods to £11,000. The Amendment would increase her liability for life to £25,000, and for goods to £12,780. So that the hon. and learned Gentleman would increase the liability of the weak-engined ship, and diminish the liability of the powerful-engined ship, which possessed the greatest power to do mischief, because propelled with the greatest velocity. While the Leinster, estimated according to her gross tonnage, would be worth about £70,000, the Robert Lowe, what should be say was her value? Her value was nothing like so large as that of the Leinster. With a considerably 750 less value there was a very great increase of liability. He believed the House had already reached the full extent of limited liability. If they adopted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite, they would be lessening materially the liability of the most valuable class of ships — namely, the passenger-carrying ships, with powerful engines, and relieving those most able to meet liabilities—namely, their opulent owners. And the House should, moreover, remember that the liability only existed where it was clearly proved that the damage was occasioned either wilfully or by culpable negligence.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 97: Majority 20.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would then move the insertion, after the word "things" in line 40, Clause 52, of the words "whether there be in addition loss of life or personal injury or not." The object of the Amendment was to remove obscurity from the clause, and make it clear that £15 per ton was the maximum liability for goods and life, and £8 the maximum for goods alone.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 64 (Power to Shipowner to enter and land Goods in default of Entry and Landing by Owner of Goods).
§ MR. CAVEmoved, page 25, paragraph 7, line 6, after "such delivery," to insert "without due cause." He thought the whole paragraph unnecessary, because, though it was very probable that an owner of goods might wish to keep them on board ship longer than he ought, the converse was not very likely to be true—namely, that a shipowner when discharging his vessel should wish to detain them without cause; and there was this practical objection to the clause, that in case of a ship entering port with a cargo belonging to several consignees, the one whose goods were at the bottom might demand them before it was possible that they could be got at, and then he would be entitled to twenty-four hours' notice, which would be simply nullifying the object of the Bill, and returning to the old system of delay and waste of time. He (Mr. Cave) would prefer omitting the clause; but, failing that, he proposed introducing the words of which he had given notice, in order to prevent abuse of its provisions. The right hon. 751 Gentleman had given notice of another Amendment to the same effect, and he (Mr. Cave) was quite willing to give way to him, if he preferred his own words. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would abide by his Amendment, he (Mr. Cave) would merely move his own pro formâ, and would willingly give his support to that of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 25, line 6, after the words "such delivery," to insert the words "without due cause."
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONstated, that if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were withdrawn, he would make the proposal of which he had given notice.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had then to propose a verbal Amendment in section 7 of the clause. The section provided that where the shipowner had failed to make delivery of the goods to a consignee who had offered to take them, the former, before landing the goods, should give the latter twenty-four hours' notice in writing, otherwise the lauding should be made at his own risk and expense. He proposed after the words "has failed to make such delivery," to insert "and has also failed at the time of such offer"— that is, the offer on the part of the consignee to take the goods—"to inform the owner of the goods of the time at which such goods can be delivered."
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. The Amendment only provided for the case of the shipowner failing to inform the consignee when his goods would be delivered; but suppose the shipowner did inform the consignee when his goods would be delivered, and failed then to deliver them, there was no remedy provided for such a case. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would produce great ambiguity, and might lead to the greatest injustice.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he believed that the clause could not he worked, unless there should be introduced into it some such Amendment as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, because without it the general delivery of the goods would be postponed to suit the convenience of a particular consignee.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not think 752 the case put by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark provided for by the Amendment. The consignee should be entitled to twenty-four hours' notice if the shipowner failed to deliver the goods at the time stated to the consignee for the delivery thereof. He would propose words to that effect.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he considered the words of the Amendment sufficiently explicit to meet the case supposed by his hon. and learned Friend; because, if the shipowner informed the consignee of a time at which his goods could not be delivered, he must be considered as having failed to inform him of a time when they could be delivered. The consignee in such case would be entitled to twenty-four hours' notice.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. R. HODGSONsaid, that he wished to move an Amendment in Schedule A, having for its object the repeal of the 388th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, which relieved shipowners from liability in cases where the employment of pilots was compulsory. The effect of the present system was, that no real responsibility rested upon any one, because every one knew that it was idle for a shipowner who had been damaged by his craft being run down by a ship under the charge of a pilot, to bring an action against the pilot, although such pilot might have given the usual security of £100, it being well known that the pilots had no effects; and, indeed, in one case in which an action was brought, it was found that the pilot had sold off his goods and emigrated to Australia. He had no doubt whatever that he should be told that it would be unjust to the shipowner to make him liable for the carelessness of a pilot over whom he had no control, but he could not see the force of that objection. The pilot was employed for the main purpose of bringing the ship and cargo into port safely; and if in the process of that operation the vessel ran down another, surely the owner ought to be liable just as much as if it had done so without any pilot. He believed the repeal of the section would tend to impose on the pilots a sense of responsibility which would render them far more careful than they now were. At present, practically speaking, there was no remedy whatever for the owners of a vessel which had been run down by another under the compulsory charge of a pilot.
§ Amendment proposed, in Schedule, Table (A), last column, to insert the words "Section 388 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854."
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the Motion touched one of the evils which arose from compulsory pilotage. Let that be swept away, and then let the pecuniary responsibility fall where it ought. As long, however, as the law deprived a shipowner of the charge of his ship when she arrived within a pilotage district, it would be unjust to make him responsible for damage done by his vessel when under the care of a person imposed upon him by the State.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONconsidered it doubtful whether the result of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, even if adopted, would be what he wished. The compulsory pilot was the servant of the State, and he considered that the common law of the country would not hold the shipowner liable for the acts of such pilot. He did not think it would be just to the shipowners to repeal this section of the Act.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the present system gave rise to constant injustice. Very often a vessel had the option in narrow waters of either running down a barge laden with a valuable cargo or going on shore; and the consequence was that the pilot, not being really responsible, ran over the barge and sank her. In point of fact, the present law was almost an invitation to adopt that course; whereas by making the owners responsible, the pilots would be far more likely to exercise due care. It was a monstrous injustice that people who were so treated should have no remedy, and he hoped the hon. Member would persist in his Amendment.
§ MR. HORSFALLsaid, he would remind the House that the pilot being responsible to the amount of £100, it would be a matter of great importance to him not to incur such a fine, and it was amply sufficient to induce him to take due care.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.