HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL. (BY ORDER.) (Hansard, 10 June 1901)

§ MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)

said he rose to move the omission from Clause 62 of words which put the risks of removal on the master or owner of a ship. The Bill was intended to authorise the construction of a dock and other works at Great Grimsby, on the banks of the Humber, the charging of dues for the use of the docks, the appointment of a dock master and other officials to regulate the movement of vessels in and out of the dock, and the making of by-laws under the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Act, 1847. Words appeared in the clause by which the dock company sought to exempt themselves from their common law liability for damage caused in the removal of ships by the acts of their servants. He thought that if the dock company's servants were guilty of any neglect or default in moving the vessel about the dock, the company ought to be held responsible for any damage thereby caused. The common law said that they were responsible, and he was not aware of any dock or harbour company which had sought thus to amend the common law in that respect. There were many ways in which a vessel might be injured through the neglect of the dock employees. It might be sent into a dock, for instance, where there was an insufficient depth of water, and it might ground on a mud bank or on rubbish or wreckage which had been allowed to accumulate there. It might, while it was in charge of officials of the dock, come into collision with another vessel. In all other ports in the United Kingdom the dock companies were held responsible for damage caused under such conditions, yet under this clause the owner or master of the ship was to be made responsible. This was entirely a new departure, and he believed an unintentional one on the part of the pro- 1448 moters. He could not understand how the clause crept into the Bill. It certainly was not there when it came up for Second Reading. He had been asked by the shipowners of the United Kingdom to move that these words be deleted, and he trusted that the promoters would consent to that being done. In that case there would be no further opposition to the Bill. He begged to move the omission of the words to which he had referred.