MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY" OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL. (Hansard, 26 July 1900)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)
said he felt it his duty to give their Lordships an opportunity of protesting against this Bill. He had endeavoured to frame Amendments which would render this a more reasonable Bill, but had come to the conclusion that there were great objections to any form of amendment. The whole purpose and object of the Bill was vicious. It had been recommended to their Lordships' consideration on the ground that what were called the parties were agreed. That seemed to him a very serious thing, because "the parties" were the shipowners on the one side and the dock and harbour owners on the other. This was a circumstance which ought to put them on their guard against the Bill rather than tell in its favour, because they had these two very powerful bodies combining against the public who owned goods and had their lives and limbs to care for. Moreover, the Bill had not been brought before a single one of those bodies who were supposed to look after the commercial interests of the country. If the Bill were passed and Parliament were thus to affirm 1270 the principle of limitation of liability, it would form an irresistible argument in favour of similar legislation for every railway company in the United Kingdom, who at present were liable to the very last farthing they possessed. Clause 3 of the Bill provided that— The limitation of liability under this Act shall relate to the whole of any losses and damages which may arise upon any one distinct occasion, although such losses and damages may be sustained by more than one person, and shall apply whether the liability arises at common law or under any general or private Act of Parliament, and notwithstanding anything contained in such Act. The measure of liability proposed in the Bill was absurd and grotesque. He really did not know what relation the size of the largest ship which had used the dock or harbour within five years previous to the accident had to the liability of the dock or canal owners. He objected to the mode by which the Bill came to be in its present form. The shipowners wanted additional limits, whereupon the dock-owners said, "We shall oppose you unless we get something too." The Bill was supposed to have received the patronage of the Government in the other House. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General had voted against it, and the President of the Board of Trade, with whom he (the Lord Chancellor) had thought it right to communicate, had informed him that he repudiated any responsibility for the measure, but that as he understood both parties were agreed he would not interfere. That was the extent to which his right hon. friend's support went. He begged to move that the Bill be read this day three months.

§ EARL EGERTON
pointed out that the two great commercial cities of Liverpool and Manchester agreed in supporting the Bill. Under the Bill as it stood, the liability of Liverpool would be £136,000, whereas by the first suggested Amendment of the Lord Chancellor it would be only £50,000, and by the second Amendment it would be £530,000.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
I have not moved those Amendments.

§ EARL EGERTON
No; but I am showing how difficult it is to frame any 1271 standard other than that in the Bill. In the case of Manchester the limit of the Bill was £104,000, which was reduced to £23,000 by the Lord Chancellor's first Amendment, an utterly in-adequate amount; whilst by the second Amendment it would be £.230,000, which was far too much. The Bill had been very fully considered by all the parties interested, and it was agreed that no difficulty whatever would be experienced in ascertaining the tonnage of the largest vessel using the port. He trusted that the Bill, which had received the unanimous support of the commercial community, would not be rejected in consequence of any precedent which the measure might form. The shipping interest was entirely different from the railway interest, and he hoped that their Lordships would agree to pass the Bill, which was the outcome of long negotiations between the parties interested.

§ LORD HENEAGE
said he thought their Lordships would admit that the course taken by the noble and learned Lord was extremely inconvenient. The noble and learned Lord first put down an Amendment to Clause 2 proposing as the limit of the liability of the dock or canal or harbour authority 10 per centum of the value of the dock or canal or harbour. He had endeavoured to find out what would be the effect of that Amendment, and, having gone through an immense amount of figures, he had come to the conclusion that it was utterly absurd, ridiculous, and impracticable. The noble and learned Lord changed his mind and put down another Amendment proposing that the liability was not to exceed the value of the dock or canal or harbour. That, if not more absurd than the first, was more complicated and more impracticable. But instead of moving that Amendment, for which the House had come prepared, the noble and learned Lord moved the rejection of the Bill. However, that did not matter, for if the noble and learned Lord had moved his Amendment and had carried it the Bill could not have been accepted by its promoters. The noble and learned Lord dealt with life and property at sea; this Bill had nothing to do with that subject. It was with difficulty that he was able to hear the observations of the noble and learned Lord, but he under- 1272 stood him to say that he (Lord Heneage) had acknowledged that the bodies representing the commercial interests of the country had not been consulted in regard to this Bill. He acknowledged nothing of the kind. In reply to Lord Avebury, who asked, at a previous stage of the Bill, if those interested in cargoes had been consulted, he (Lord Heneage) stated that he could not recollect from memory whether chambers of commerce had been consulted, but that he was perfectly certain that underwriters had been, and that they approved of the Bill. Lord Avebury himself consulted the underwriters, and said he had no Amendment to move. The second clause was not so illogical as it looked, and there would not be the slightest difficulty in obtaining information with respect to the tonnage of the largest ship that had entered the dock, canal, or harbour. He would not ask their Lordships to take his word only for this, but would quote the opinion of one of the leading lawyers in the Admiralty Court. Mr. Butler Aspinall had expressed the following opinion— I am of opinion that the proposed basis of dock-owners' liability, namely, £8 per ton on the largest registered ship, is practicable and can be given effect to by the Admiralty Court without difficulty or undue expense. Dock-owners who propose limiting their liability will institute an action in the Admiralty Division for that purpose. Upon the action coming on for trial, the plaintiff will have to satisfy the judge by evidence that Ins alleged limit is based upon the tonnage of the largest ship. This can be done in accordance with the practice of the court by affidavit and the production of the ship's register. If the defendants deny that the ship in question is the largest ship, this issue of fact can be shortly and cheaply determined, In the large majority of cases there would be no dispute m to which was the largest ship. The basis of the largest ship seems fanciful, but in truth there is net principle in determining the quantum of a wrongdoer's liability, once it is granted that he is to be allowed to limit his liability. The proposed basis is capable of being easily worked, and this to my mind is its great merit. I think that the Lord Chancellor's proposal would lead in many cases to great delay and. heavy expenditure. in many cases there would necessarily be an expensive inquiry into what the rateable value was. The Admiralty Court, has no machinery for this purpose and no officials with the necessary special knowledge to enable them to hold such inquiries. It would mean that both parties would be entitled to be heard before the tribunal holding the inquiry, presumably with a right of appeal, which most conceivably might result in the matter not being disposed of till it had reached the House of Lords for adjudication. 1273 The Lord Chancellor said something with reference to the patronage of the Board of Trade. He (Lord Heneage) had spent the greater part of his life in the House of Commons, and had always understood, when a Bill went through that House unanimously supported by every Cabinet Minister and by the Law Officers of the Crown, that the Department had made itself responsible for the Bill, because, if it was a bad Bill, they ought to have opposed it. Even in the House of Lords Lord Balfour of Burleigh stated distinctly that the Board of Trade was in favour of the Bill, and voted against the Amendment of Lord Alverstone which was moved in Committee. The Board of Trade had loyally stood by the Bill, and was at this moment of opinion that the solution in the Bill was the only possible solution of the difficulty. He trusted their Lordships would not reject the Bill.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said it was a scandalous thing that the spokesmen of the Government on this question should take up such varying attitudes. Notwithstanding this division of opinion, the Department really responsible had given its opinion in favour of the Bill. It seemed to him that when it was a matter of choosing between the opinion of the Board of Trade-the responsible Department—and that of any member of the Government, the best course to take was to follow the advice of the responsible

§ LORD ALVERSTONE
asked their Lordships to consider whether the Bill was one which ought to pass, and not to put the responsibility upon any supposed agreement between shipowners and dock-owners, who were really making a bargain in their own interests without considering the interests of the persons who were really concerned. Not a single argument had been brought forward in their Lordships' House to justify the extended limitation of the liability of dock companies, except a bargain which they had concluded with the shipowners. If this absolutely new departure in the law of England wore to be made, he hoped the Government would be held responsible for the alteration. He did not hesitate to say that, if it were argued on its merits, their Lordships' impartial judgment would lead them to reject this Bill.

CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Manchester, L. Bp.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Northumberland, D.		Harlech, L.
	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Heneage, L. [Teller.]
Camperdown, E.	Brougham and Vaux, L.	Kelvin, L.
Carrington, E.	Calthorpe, L.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Chesterfield, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Lindley, L.
Dartrey, E.		Macnaughten, L. [Teller.]
Egerton, E.	Clonbrock, L.	Massy, L.
Grey, E.	Cloncurry, L.	O'Brien, L.
Kimberley, E.	Colchester, L.	Rathmore, L.
Lucan, E.	Colville of Culross, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Mayo, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Robertson, L.
Northbrook, E.	Cranworth, L.	Sherborne, L.
Spencer, E.	De Mauley, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry).	De Ramsey, L.	Templemore, L.
Yarborough, E.	Dormer, L.	Ventry, L.
	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)	Windsor, L.
Falkland, V.	Glenesk, L.
Powerscourt, V.	Greville, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Hardwicke, E.	Brampton, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)	Morley, E.	Braye, L.
Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)	Waldegrave, E.	Davey, L.
		Harris, L.
Bath, M.	Falmouth, V.	James, L [Teller.]
	Portman, V.	Norton, L.
Carnwath, E.	Templetown, V.	Sinclair, L.
Cowper, E.		Stewart of Garlies, L. (E.Galloway.)
Denbigh, E.	Alverstone, L. [Teller.]