Lords Sitting of 7 November 1911

EARLDOM OF OXFORD.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had received (by post) from John David Sym, Esquire, Sheriff Substitute of the County of Perth, the Report of the Commission ordered by this House on the 8th day of August last, to take the examination upon oath, viva voce, of Amelia Georgiana Murray Macgregor: The Commission and Report of the Evidence to be printed and referred to the Committee for Privileges. (No. 203.)

STONEHAVEN HARBOUR ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
COMMONS REGULATION (BURRINGTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
COMMONS REGULATION (WINTON AND KABER) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

KELSO WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 3a
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): I have an Amendment in subsection (6) of Clause 11 of the Schedule—
(6) Nothing in this Order contained shall interfere with the right of the district committee to alter the level of or divert or improve in any Manner they think fit any county highway in or along which any aqueduct conduit or line of pipes of the Town Council shall have been laid and the Town Council shall forthwith on receiving notice in writing under the hand of the clerk of the district committee alter the position of any such aqueduct conduit or line of pipes in the manner and to the extent prescribed by such notice or as in the case of difference shall be determined by arbitration in the manner hereinafter prescribed.
I move to leave out the last word of the subsection—namely, "prescribed"—and to insert "in this section provided."
Amendment moved—
Schedule, Clause 11, page 13, line 2, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("in this section provided").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (STEVEDORES AND TRIMMERS) (No. 2) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships for Second Reading to-day is a very simple one, its object being to remove hardships which at present exist in regard to a certain section of the maritime population of this country—namely, stevedores and trimmers. As the law at present stands, these persons have no way of arresting a ship in the event of their claims for wages not having been paid. It has been laid down by the Court that stevedores and trimmers have only to do with the cargo, and have nothing whatever to do with the ship. They cannot, therefore, arrest a ship, as can be done by tradesmen supplying goods or by members of the crew. Cases of hardship have been brought to the notice of the Government, especially in the case of foreign owned vessels the owners of which have no offices in this country and consequently cannot be sued in a British Court of law. It is to remove this difficulty that the Bill now before your Lordships has been framed it enables any person of the class I have mentioned to apply to a Judge for the arrest of the ship. I understand that Lord Gorell takes exception to the procedure under the Bill, and is anxious that the procedure should be through the Admiralty Courts. If the noble and learned Lord will formulate an Amendment on those lines I can assure him that it will receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more in regard to the Bill, and it is with confidence that I submit it to your Lordships for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD GORELL: My Lords, the Amendment which I have suggested, and which has been referred to by the noble Earl, would afford some assistance in addition to that given by this Bill. The point is this. The Bill enables a Judge to order the arrest of a vessel, and that arrest can then—I believe I am correct—be enforced by means of the officers of the Board of Trade or in some such form as that. But it is not always possible to find the Judge

95
at the moment that it is necessary to make the order for arrest, and therefore those who desire to proceed—and this is really the point of the Bill—against foreign vessels are not, perhaps, able to effect the arrest because of the difficulty in finding the person to make the order. Then, again, when a vessel has been arrested she can only, as I read the Bill, be released by an order of the Judge, and that may be difficult to get owing to the absence of the Judge. In the high Court, however, the Judge of the Admiralty Court is always accessible, and even in vacation time his duties are taken by one of the other Judges. This Bill, as I understand it, will enable proceedings to be taken, within proper limits, in the County Court, but the Judge of that particular County Court might not necessarily be in the town or place where the vessel was arrested, and the procedure might cause some little delay. Demurrage on a very large vessel is so serious that promptitude in releasing a ship arrested in respect of small claims, as they might be, for stowing and trimming cargo is of great importance. I therefore venture to suggest, and I have made the suggestion to the Department from which this Bill emanates, that it might be desirable to give a power to proceed also in the Admiralty Court. In the present state of things the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to arrest a vessel in respect of necessaries. The noble Earl has pointed out that that does not include the right of persons in the position of stevedores and trimmers to proceed for work done on the cargo; but this is so analogous to necessaries that the suggestion occurs to one that the procedure of the Admiralty Court might be allowed to be put in force in support of these claims. The difficulties in regard to delay to which I have referred might then be overcome, as a warrant of arrest can always be obtained at the office without going to the Judge, and release effected in the same way. Therefore the kind of Amendment which I would venture to propose when the Bill goes into Committee would simply be that power should be given to enable persons who have claims of the character mentioned in the Bill to proceed, if they choose, in exactly the same way as anyone would proceed who was arresting a ship for necessaries.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I need hardly state that any suggestion coming from
96
my noble and learned friend is sure to be very carefully considered. I may say that I am in sympathy with a good deal of what he says, and if he will kindly put down his Amendment for the Committee stage I think he may anticipate a very friendly consideration of it on the part of the Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MARITIME CONVENTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Provisions as to Collisions, etc.
1.—(1) Where by the fault of two or more vessels, damage or loss is caused to one or more of those vessels, to their cargoes or freight, or to any property on board, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each vessel was in fault:
Provided that—

(a) if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally; and

(b) nothing in this section shall operate so as to render any vessel liable for any loss or damage to which her fault has not contributed; and

(c) nothing in this section shall affect the liability of any person under a contract of carriage or any other contract, or shall be construed as imposing any liability upon any person from which he is exempted by any such contract or by any provision of law, or as affecting the right of any person to limit his liability in the manner provided by law.

(2) For the purposes of this Act the expression "freight" includes passage money and chartered hire.
LORD HERSCHELL: My first Amendment is in proviso (c) of Clause 1, to leave out the word "other" ["under a contract of carriage or any other contract"], and the second Amendment is to omit from the same proviso the word "such" ["exempted by any such contract"]. These Amendments are suggested in order to do away with a possible implication of ejusdem generis construction.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out ("other")
Clause 1, line 5, leave out ("such").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to,
LORD HERSCHELL: I now move to omit from subsection (2) of Clause 1 the word "chartered." Certain contracts of hire are not charters, and the word "hire" by itself is considered sufficient.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out ("chartered").—(Lord Herschell).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: After the word "hire" at the end of subsection (2) it is proposed to insert the words contained in the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. The Amendment explains itself, and is really of a drafting nature.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, after ("hire") insert ("and references to damage or loss caused by the fault of a vessel shall be construed as including references to any salvage or other expenses, consequent upon that fault, recoverable at law by way of damages").—(Lord Herscell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: After Clause 4 it is proposed to insert a new clause providing that any enactment which confers on any Court Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of damage shall have effect as though references to such damage included references to damages for loss of life or personal injury, and accordingly proceedings in respect of such damages may be brought in rem or in personam. Your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage of this Bill the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Gorell) moved to insert a new subsection which now appears as subsection (5) of Clause 8, and that Amendment was accepted on the understanding that the drafting might need consideration. The new clause which I am now proposing is merely subsection (5) of Clause 8 in a slightly different form. It expressly confers jurisdiction in cases of loss of life or personal injury, and this is, I believe, in accordance with the views of the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
. Any enactment which confers on any Court Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of damage shall have effect as though references to such damage included references to damages for loss of life or personal injury, and accordingly proceedings in respect of such damages may be brought in rem or in personam.—(Lord Herschell).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
General Provisions.
7. No action shall be maintainable to enforce any claim or lien against a vessel or her owners in respect. of any damage or loss to another vessel, her cargo or freight, or any property on board her, or damages fur loss of life or personal injuries suffered by any person on board her, caused by the fault of the former vessel, whether such vessel be wholly or partly in fault, or in respect of any salvage services, unless proceedings therein are commenced within two years from the date when the damage or loss or injury was caused or the salvage services were rendered, and an action shall not be maintainable under this Act to enforce any contribution in respect of an overpaid proportion of any damages for loss of life or personal injuries unless proceedings therein are commenced within one year front the date of payment:
Provided that any Court having jurisdiction to deal with an action so which this section relates may extend any such period, to such extent and on such conditions as it thinks fit, and shall, if satisfied that there has not during such period been any reasonable opportunity of arresting the defendant vessel within the jurisdiction of the Court, or within the territorial waters of the country to which the plaintiff's ship belongs or in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business, extend any such period to an extent sufficient to give such reasonable opportunity.
LORD HERSCHELL: I beg to propose an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but as it is really or a drafting nature I hope your Lordships may be disposed to accept it. It is in the proviso in Clause 7, after the word "may" ["Provided that any Court having jurisdiction to deal with an action to which this section relates may"], to insert the words "on application in accordance with rules of Court." This is merely designed to give facilities for taking ex parte proceedings.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 4, line 4, after ("may") insert ("on application in accordance with rules of Court").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Application of Act.
8.—(1) This Act shall extend throughout His Majesty's dominions and to any territories under his protection, and to Cyprus:
Provided that it shall not extend to the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland.
(2) This Act shall not apply in any case in which proceedings have been taken before the passing thereof and all such cases shall be determined as though this Act had not been passed.
(3) The provisions of this Act shall be applied in all cases heard and determined in any Court having jurisdiction to deal with the case and in whatever waters the damage or loss in question

99
was caused or the salvage services in question were rendered, and subsection (9) of section twenty-five of the Judicature Act, 1873, shall cease to have effect.
(4) This Act shall apply to any persons other than the owners responsible for the fault of the vessel as though the expression "owners" included such persons, and in any case where, by virtue of any charter or demise, or for any other reason, the owners are not responsible for the navigation and management of the vessel, this Act shall be read as though for references to the owners there were substituted references to the charterers or other persons for the time being so responsible.
(5) Proceedings in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injuries may be brought in rem or in personam.
LORD HERSCHELL: My last Amendment is to leave out subsection (5) of Clause 8. This Amendment is consequential on the insertion of the new clause after Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 4, lines 36 and 37, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, this Bill provides for the laying by the Pacific Cable Board of a direct cable between Sydney and New Zealand. At present communication between Australia and New Zealand has to go either by the Eastern Telegraph Company's line or via the Pacific Cable line which goes from Brisbane to Norfolk Island and south to Doubtless Bay in the north of New Zealand. If your Lordships give a Second Reading to this Bill the proposed line would protect the Pacific Cable Company's revenue from the inroads due to the competition of the Eastern Telegraph Company, and would complete the triangle of Norfolk Island, Australia, and New Zealand. It would also have the effect of saving the company about £6,000 a year in staff, in addition to any gain in revenue. The question of possible competition by wireless has been considered, but the risk is not regarded as serious. I should add that, though there was no obligation upon them to do so by the Act of 1901, the company, like all great
100
commercial companies, have made provision for a reserve fund and have put by annually a sum of £30,000. At present their reserve fund stands at between £250,000 and £300,000, and the sum of £155,000 would suffice to cover the cost of the new cable. All the Governments concerned in this undertaking—namely, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand—are most anxious that this scheme should be undertaken as soon as possible, and the question was raised at the Imperial Conference this year. The Government of this country are responsible for five-eighteenths of any sum which may be required for the repayment of the cost and other expenses of the original cable which was laid as the result of the Act of 1901, and a Vote is taken annually which comes to approximately £54,000 for these purposes, of which we receive back from the other Governments I have mentioned about £39,000, leaving us to pay about £15,000 per annum. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Liverpool.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday, the 20th instant.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): With your Lordships' permission I propose to postpone this stage of the Bill till next week. I find that there is a member of your Lordships' House interested in this measure who wishes to propose an Amendment, and as Tuesday next will suit him I beg to postpone the consideration of the Bill in Committee until that day.
Committee of the Whole House put off to Tuesday next accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.