would be fully enforced; but the 3rd arti- MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, &c. MR. BENTINCK said, 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. [BILL NO. 136.] CONSIDERATION. Order for Consideration read. MR. LINDSAY said, 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 shipping 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 moveable. As regarded the port of Liverpool 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." MR. HORSFALL said, 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 objection -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. HODGSON said, 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 mentioned the case of a ship, the pilotage pilotage districts, and to establish pilotage of which cost him £34, and exonerated authorities wherever they might be found him from liability for any damage the ship to be needed. Under these circumstances might do; but if, having no pilot on board, he hoped that the House would not adopt the ship ran down half-a-dozen barges, the proposed alteration of the measure; he might have to pay £3,000 or £4,000 and if his hon. Friend should press his damages. Shipowners, therefore, were Motion to a division, he should feel it his content to pay pilotage as an insurance duty to oppose it, although he thought the against damages, which they would other principle on which it was founded was a wise be compelled to pay. On the other sound one. 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. CLAY said, 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 GIBSON said, 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 MR. LINDSAY said, he would not press the clause. Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn. MR. AYRTON said, 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 be 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 be considered the duty of such a person to insure his life. That was a manifest in justice 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 persons 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. 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. MOFFATT said, 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. MR. MILNER GIBSON said, his hon. and learned Friend proposed to limit very THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, it materially the liability of shipowners to- seemed to him that the clause was one of wards their passengers and the public. a mischievous character, and he did not The two propositions, with regard to per- think it had been well considered. If the sonal injury and loss of life, were separate, law in respect to the liability of shipowners and stood upon a different footing. In the as carriers ought to be altered where percase of personal injury there was no neces-sonal injury or loss of life was involved, sity 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 VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] 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. hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persist in his proposal, but withdraw it. 2 B 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. 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. LINDSAY said, 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. COLLIER said, 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. LOCKE said, 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 MR. LAIRD said, 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 cial proof-mark as evidence of having been subUnited Kingdom shall be impressed with an offijected 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 time appear necessary to ensure the efficiency of rules and regulations thereon as may from time to 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 HAY seconded the Motion. MR. MILNER GIBSON said, 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. the proposal from the city of London signed by the representatives of 1,000,000 tons of shipping 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-ofwar 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 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 respon-human life was at stake trifling considerasibility 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 ELPHINSTONE said, he had presented a petition in favour of tions 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. FENWICK said, that no doubt it |