MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL. (Hansard, 13 July 1900)

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
said he did not think there would be any objection to his Amendment, which he explained on the previous evening. It provided that a ship could not be deemed to have been within the area laid down in the Bill by reason only that it had been built or fitted out within such area.

§ LORD HENEAGE
said that, so far as he was concerned, he had no objection to the Amendment. It appeared a fair and reasonable one, and he gladly accepted it.

§ LORD ALVERSTONE
I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government have really considered what the effect of this clause is. I pointed out when I was in the House of Commons that the clause was practically unworkable. It proposes that dock companies shall get immunity from liability for accidents to the same extent that shipowners now do under the Limitation of Liability Acts. I will quote one instance as an illustration of what I mean. Supposing a dock-master, by mismanagement of sluices, lets out the water, and half-a-dozen ships are grounded and the goods injured, the liability of the dock company is to be limited to £8 a ton, not by any relation 1434 to their own property, but by relation to the ship of largest size that has gone into the dock during the previous five years. If this principle is going to be admitted there is no reason why the liability of railway companies and other contracting bodies should not be limited in the same manner. I hope before your Lordships pass this clause you will see that by it you are introducing the principle—the entirely new principle—of limiting liability for dock companies and other undertakings without the least reference to the same considerations as those which limit the liability in the case of shipowners; the standard that is set up has not the slightest relation either to the obligation of the dock company or the breach of duty they commit. I do not think such a change in the law ought to be made except after full consideration by the Government of the day. I should like the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade to state the reason for this clause. It is said to be a bargain between the shipowners and the dock companies, but we have the rights of the goods owners to protect. There may be damage to the extent of thousands of pounds done to goods, but the goods owners get no consideration under this Bill.

§ EARL EGERTON
While I cannot defend the clause upon any logical principle, I should like to explain that it is the result of agreement between dock-owners and shipowners. It does not limit the amount of damages in an ordinary accident, but is designed to meet such accidents as the one which occurred two years ago in the Manchester Ship Canal. It will be remembered that the ship Harold, instead of obeying orders and going astern, went ahead and charged the dock gates with such force that they were carried away. Had it not been for the presence of mind of the man in charge of the dock, who closed the gates immediately, the water for several miles would have been let out and enormous damage caused. It was felt on either side that there should be some limit to the liability of the shipowner and the dockowner in accidents of an exceptional1 1435 nature, and this limit the clause provides, though, speaking on behalf of dock- owners, I would have preferred a specified limit of, say, £50,000 or £100,000.

§ LORD AVEBURY
The noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill said the clause had been agreed to by all those who were interested. I should like to know if merchants and insurers, who are quite as much interested in the matter as shipowners, and dock companies, are in any way parties to the agreement represented by the clause.

§ *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
The criticisms upon this clause seem to imply a greater amount of affection for it on the part of the Board of Trade than really exists. I ventured yesterday to explain the position of the Board of Trade in regard to the clause. If the clause has to be defended upon its merits the defence must come from the noble Lord who is responsible for the Bill. The Board of Trade are not committed to this clause. Their position is this—they are aware that this is a Bill which is ardently desired by the two parties to this transaction, but whether their interests ought to prevail over the interests of those whom the noble Lord behind me has mentioned is a matter really for the House. I do not make myself responsible for the clause, nor do I in any way defend it. At the same time, I am bound to say that to strike out the clause would be tantamount to rejecting the Bill. If the clause goes to a division, I shall feel bound, after what I said yesterday, to vote for the clause; but I do not think this expression of opinion on my part ought to be held to bind the Government to vote in the same direction.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)
When I addressed your Lordships yesterday I spoke under some reserve. I certainly was under the impression that the noble and learned Lord behind me, the late Attorney General, had spoken on behalf of the Government in support of the clause in another place. Now, however, I feel perfectly free to express my opinion. A more monstrous and more ridiculous provision than that contained in this clause I have never heard in my life, and if the question is put, "that the clause stand part of the Bill," I shall certainly say "not content."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
This is not a specimen of a very united Government. we have heard to-day what is to me an entirely new theory as to the responsibility of the different members of the Government. The noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade has stated that the Board of Trade do not particularly like this clause. That may be, but they take the responsibility of giving their assistance to pass the Bill through Parliament, and therefore they become responsible for it.

§ LORD HENEAGE
I cannot help thinking that an inconvenient course has been adopted in allowing the Second Reading to pass unchallenged, thus approving of the principle of limitation, and raising the question at the present stage. I came down yesterday fully prepared to discuss the Bill on its merits, and so far as I could see there was no opposition except from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who said he did not wish to disturb the unanimity of the House. We approved yesterday of the principle that there was to be limitation, and the only question was how was that limitation to take place. The noble and learned Lord the late Attorney General objects to the second clause of this Bill. I thirds I must remind him that on the Second Reading in another place, after approving of the first clause of the Bill, he said— All I say is that it does seem to me that the dock company has some right to say to the shipowner, 'If you ask that when a ship runs down the dock gates its liability shall he limited to £8 a ton, there ought at least to be some reciprocity.' It was on the basis of such a claim that this arrangement —workable, though utterly illogical—was arrived at by the shipowners and the dock companies. No alternative proposition of any kind whatever was made in the House of Commons, nor by the Law Officers of the Crown in the Standing Committee; and every alternative proposition suggested when the Bill came back from the Standing Committee was thoroughly discussed, and, with one or two exceptions, rejected. What would the noble Lord have us do? We have got to find an agreement, and a basis for that agreement. It would be impossible to make the whole dock liable, because you would have to make the whole fleet of the shipowners liable in the alternative 1437 case. The parties interested have endeavoured to find a fair basis, and what they have done is to substitute for the dock as the basis the largest ship that trades with that port. The compensation that will be paid will be exactly the same as if the damage had been committed by the largest ship in the dock. It may be said that that is a rough-and-ready estimate, but it has been arrived at by practical business men not fond of litigation. For my part I think there is less likelihood of litigation when men of common sense enter into a common sense agreement than there is in many of the laws that are passed by Parliament, even when they are drafted by the most learned lawyers. There will be no difficulty whatever. The largest ship that enters a dock is well known to every-