tinue like-minded as they have began) to extend such work as may be required at other ports and places, and the local authorities invited to interest themselves therein, while the surveyors of Lloyd's will aid and assist in seeing that the same be properly carried out." By the agency of the regulations which Lloyd's was about to put in force, and the action of the Government in not taking up any ship for troops, emigrants, or stores which could not produce a certificate that her cables and anchors had been properly tested, the object of the they objected to a sort of fidgety legislation which would not leave them masters of their own business. The clause, as proposed, would be wholly unworkable, and would not give to the Board of Trade the powers which would be necessary to attain the object of its author. He thought, however, that the regulations at Lloyd's and the interest of the shipowners themselves was amply sufficient to ensure the supply of good anchors and cables to their ships. Wholesale loss of life occasionally occurred on railways from insufficient hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laird) would be springs or tires; but no one proposed that every piece of iron employed on a railway should be subjected to a Government test on that account. They had no right to subject shipowners to restrictions which did not apply to other classes. The clause itself was wholly unworkable, for it gave no power to inflict penalties in case of neglect to comply with its own provisions, nor did it provide for the establishment of testing machines. Even if it was desirable to adopt the principle, the proposed clause was not the way to do it. MR. HUTT said, that although the Committee which had been referred to was convinced that it was desirable that cables and anchors, superior in make and material to those which were generally employed, should be used, they reported that it would be inexpedient to force their adoption upon the shipping interest by means of penal laws. He held in his hand a letter from a civil engineer of eminence who had been employed by Lloyd's to carry out the object of establishing testing machinery. The gentle man to whom he referred was examined before the Committee, and it might be satisfactory to the House to hear this passage in his letter "You, no doubt, are aware how Lloyd's Committee is formed; it being composed of one-third merchants, one-third underwriters, and one-third shipowners, of which Thomas Chapman, Esq., is chairman. The Committee, upon knowing the decision the Government had arrived at, determined to take up the question, and I am at this time engaged professionally by them to carry out the object of establishing proper public testing machinery, and they in January last passed the enclosed resolutions, which you will see come into force on the first day of next year. The effect of these is that no vessel can be registered at Lloyd's to have an A 1 class or certificate unless these rules are complied with. I am putting down for them most powerful and complete machinery for the port of London at the West India Docks, which will be ready before the winter, and every means will be taken (if the Committee con more effectually and efficiently carried out than by any clause that they could adopt or any Act of Parliament that they could devise. MR. HENLEY said, that the question before them was one of the most important in its principle and object, which the House could have before it. It had been argued on the ground of humanity, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth affirmed, that if the Royal Charter had been supplied with cables of the Admiralty strain instead of the merchant strain, 497 lives would have been saved. It was easy to give that opinion; but how could the hou. Baronet venture to say, if she had been fitted with Admiralty chains, that they would have held the ship? Then as to the men of war in the Baltic, he (Mr. Henley) was informed that on board one of her Majesty's ships all the chain cables broke like glass, owing to the peculiar pitching of the sea, and that the ship was eventually brought up by a hempen cable. That showed that these precautions did not always save life. No doubt it was desirable that all ships should be furnished with cables and anchors of the best description in all cases. But the question was whether that end could be better secured by passing the clause than by leaving the matter to Lloyd's, who, it was quite plain, were taking it up. For his own part, he had no great faith in Government action, and he relied much more upon the merchant body themselves. Then, how often were these cables to be tried? Were the Board of Trade to make a regulation that no unfit ship should ever go to sea? Was the House prepared to go the length of saying that the Government was to see that every ship was seaworthy? He believed they would do better by leaving the matter to Lloyds, who employed persons far more experienced than any Queen's officers could be. But if the question were to be dealt with at all, it ought to be done by Bill, so that all parties might understand what was intended, and that the House might watch every step that was taken. The House would find it impossible to stop in the matter if they once began; and on these grounds he must oppose the clause. SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE in explanation said, that the Algiers rode out the gale of the 14th of November with two iron chains a head as well as a cable; and that thirty sail of men-of-war did not lose a chain cable. Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time.' The House divided:-Ayes 101; Noes 188: Majority 87. MR. MOFFATT said, that as Clause 52 imposed a large number of liabilities upon shipowners, he would move the following clause to be inserted immediately after wards: "Insurances effected against any or all of the events enumerated in the section last preceding, and occurring without such actual fault or privity as therein mentioned, shall not be invalid by reason of the nature of the risk." Clause agreed to. MR. AYRTON said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not fulfilled the pledge given before the Select Committee that a magistrate and two assessors should sit as a Court of Inquiry, and that one magistrate and one assessor should not have the power to cancel the certificate of a master, mate, or engineer. He would accordingly move the insertion of a clause that the Board of Trade should appoint a naval court, to be presided over by a magistrate, assisted by two assessors of nautical skill and expe rience. Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time,' put, and negatived. Clause 24 (Power of cancelling Certificate to rest with the Court which hears the Case). "The 434th and 437th sections of the principal Act shall be read as if for the word 'nautical' were substituted the words 'nautical or engineering,' and as if for the words 'person' and assessor' respectively were substituted the words 'person or persons' and 'assessor or assessors' respectively. No certificate shall be cancelled or suspended under this section unless a copy of the report or a statement of the case upon which the investigation is ordered has been furnished to the owner of investigation, nor unless one assessor at least the certificate before the commencement of the expresses his concurrence in the report." MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, he would express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of giving local magistrates the same power as formerly of adjudicating upon all matters connected with salvage. Amendment agreed to. Clause 52 (Shipowners' Liability limited). SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, he wished to move, in line 38, after " fifteen pounds," to insert " per registered ton in the case of sailing ships, and twenty pounds per registered ton in the case of steam ships." He advocated the principle of the regis tered tonnage being the measure of liability, because it had been always adhered to up to the present time; and there would be great inconvenience in introducing a contrary system, because it would be extremely impolitic to give an inducement to steamboat owners to make their engine-room as small and their engines as little powerful as possible, and because the Committee of the House which sat upon the subject of merchant shipping had recommended it. Steamboat proprietors were willing that the rate should be £20 per ton, provided the register tonnage were taken. The liability imposed by the Bill would be very much above the value and by its adoption a great injustice of the steam tonnage over the country, would be done to the steam-shipping interest. Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 38, after the words "fifteen pounds," to insert the words "per registered ton per registered ton in the case of steam ships." in the case of sailing ships, and twenty pounds MR. MILNER GIBSON said, the Select Committee on Merchant Shipping, of which he had been a member, intended that the gross tonnage should be taken when a ship was measured to determine the Question put, "That those words be there inserted." The House divided:-Ayes 79; Noes 97: Majority 20. The then move the insertion, after the word extent of her liability for damage, and ac- | less value there was a very great increase cordingly the Committee used the term of liability. He believed the House had "gross registered tonnage" to express the already reached the full extent of limited opinion that it should be the size of the liability. If they adopted the Amendment ship that should be taken as the measure of the hon. and learned Member opposite, of liability. The plan proposed by the hon. they would be lessening materially the and learned Member would very largely liability of the most valuable class of limit the liability of steam ships with power- ships-namely, the passenger-carrying ful engines and large engine-rooms. The ships, with powerful engines, and relieving hon. and learned Member proposed an in- those most able to meet liabilities-namely, crease in the liability from £15 to £20 for their opulent owners. And the House life, and from £8 to £10 for goods; but that should, moreover, remember that the liaincrease would still limit very materially the bility only existed where it was clearly liability of powerful steam ships as com- proved that the damage was occasioned pared with other steam ships and with either wilfully or by culpable negligence. sailing vessels. The proposition was to make the steamer's liability dependent on the size of the engine-room-in other words, on the power of her engines. Damage was to be paid to the owners of the injured vessel in proportion, not to the size, or mischief-producing power, but according to the registered tonnage, which was in inverse proportion to the ability of the vessel to do mischief. To show the practical effect of the Amendment, he would quote a few figures. Take the case of the Leinster, a powerful paddle steamer carrying passengers. The gross tonnage was 1,383 tons, her registered tonnage 386. Her present liability for life and for goods was the value of the ship and her freight. Her probable value was between £60,000 and £70,000. His own proposal, taking £15 for life and £8 for goods on the gross tonnage, would give £20,735 for life, and £4,064 for goods. The Amendment of Sir Hugh Cairns would make her liability for life £7,720, and for goods £3,868. Now, take the case of another vessel. Take the case of the Robert Lowe a screw boat. Her gross tonnage was 1,475, her registered tonnage 1,278. His (Mr. M. Gibson's) proposition would, in this case, render her liable for life to £22,000, and for goods to £11,000. The Amendment would increase her liability for life to £25,000, and for goods to £12,780. So that the hon. and learned Gentleman would increase the liability of the weak-engined ship, and diminish the liability of the powerful-engined ship, which possessed the greatest power to do mischief, because propelled with the greatest velocity. While the Leinster, estimated according to her gross tonnage, would be worth about £70,000, the Robert Lowe, what should he say was her value? Her value was nothing like so large as that of the Leinster. With a considerably Amendment agreed to. Clause 64 (Power to Shipowner to enter and land Goods in default of Entry and Landing by Owner of Goods). MR. CAVE moved, page 25, paragraph 7, line 6, after "such delivery," to insert "without due cause." He thought the whole paragraph unnecessary, because, though it was very probable that an owner of goods might wish to keep them on board ship longer than he ought, the converse was not very likely to be true-namely, that a shipowner when discharging his vessel should wish to detain them without cause; and there was this practical objection to the clause, that in case of a ship entering port with a cargo belonging to several consignees, the one whose goods were at the bottom might demand them before it was possible that they could be got at, and then he would be entitled to twentyfour hours' notice, which would be simply nullifying the object of the Bill, and returning to the old system of delay and waste of time. He (Mr. Cave) would prefer omitting the clause; but, failing that, he proposed introducing the words of which he had given notice, in order to prevent abuse of its provisions. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice of another Amendment to the same effect, and he (Mr. Cave) was quite willing to give way to him, if he preferred his own words. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would abide by his Amendment, he (Mr. Cave) would merely move his own pro forma, and would willingly give his support to that of the right hon. Gentleman. Amendment proposed, in page 25, line 6, after the words "such delivery, to insert the words "without due cause." MR. MILNER GIBSON stated, that if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were withdrawn, he would make the proposal of which he had given notice. Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived. the case put by his hon. and learned Friend MR. MILNER GIBSON said, he considered the words of the Amendment sufficiently explicit to meet the case supposed by his hon. and learned Friend; because, if the shipowner informed the consignee of a time at which his goods could not be delivered, he must be considered as having failed to inform him of a time when they could be delivered. The consignee in such case would be entitled to twenty-four hours' notice. Amendment agreed to. MR. MILNER GIBSON said, he had MR. R. HODGSON said, that he wished then to propose a verbal Amendment in to move an Amendment in Schedule A, section 7 of the clause. The section pro- having for its object the repeal of the vided that where the shipowner had failed 388th section of the Merchant Shipping to make delivery of the goods to a con- Act, which relieved shipowners from liasignee who had offered to take them, the bility in cases where the employment of former, before landing the goods, should pilots was compulsory. The effect of the give the latter twenty-four hours' notice in present system was, that no real responwriting, otherwise the landing should be sibility rested upon any one, because every made at his own risk and expense. He one knew that it was idle for a shipowner proposed after the words "has failed to who had been damaged by his craft being make such delivery," to insert "and has run down by a ship under the charge of a also failed at the time of such offer"-pilot, to bring an action against the pilot, that is, the offer on the part of the consignee to take the goods-" to inform the owner of the goods of the time at which such goods can be delivered." MR. LOCKE said, he should oppose the Amendment. The Amendment only provided for the case of the shipowner failing to inform the consignee when his goods would be delivered; but suppose the shipowner did inform the consignee when his goods would be delivered, and failed then to deliver them, there was no remedy provided for such a case. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would produce great ambiguity, and might lead to the greatest injustice. MR. LINDSAY said, he believed that the clause could not be worked, unless there should be introduced into it some such Amendment as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, because without it the general delivery of the goods would be postponed to suit the convenience of a particular consignee. MR. AYRTON said, he did not think although such pilot might have given the usual security of £100, it being well known that the pilots had no effects; and, indeed, in one case in which an action was brought, it was found that the pilot had sold off his goods and emigrated to Australia. He had no doubt whatever that he should be told that it would be unjust to the shipowner to make him liable for the carelessness of a pilot over whom he had no control, but he could not see the force of that objection. The pilot was employed for the main purpose of bringing the ship and cargo into port safely; and if in the process of that operation the vessel ran down another, surely the owner ought to be liable just as much as if it had done so without any pilot. He believed the repeal of the section would tend to impose on the pilots a sense of responsibility which would render them far more careful than they now were. At present, practically speaking, there was no remedy whatever for the owners of a vessel which had been run down by another under the compulsory charge of a pilot. Amendment proposed, in Schedule, Table (A), last column, to insert the words "Section 388 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854." MR. LINDSAY said, that the Motion touched one of the evils which arose from compulsory pilotage. Let that be swept away, and then let the pecuniary responsibility fall where it ought. As long, however, as the law deprived a shipowner of the charge of his ship when she arrived within a pilotage district, it would be unjust to make him responsible for damage done by his vessel when under the care of a person imposed upon him by the State. MR. MILNER GIBSON considered it doubtful whether the result of the proposal ment. In THE COTTON SUPPLY. PAPERS MOVED FOR. MR. J. B. SMITH said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the obstacles which existed in India to the increased MR. BENTINCK said, that the present system gave rise to constant injustice. Very often a vessel had the option in narrow waters of either running down a barge laden with a valuable cargo or going on shore; and the consequence was that the pilot, not being really responsible, ran over the barge and sank her. point of fact, the present law was almost riches from this manufacture, but millions an invitation to adopt that course; whereas in by making the owners responsible, then every part of the world had partaken of the benefit of cheap and comfortable pilots would be far more likely to exercise duc care. It was a monstrous injustice clothing; so that any interruption to our that people who were so treated should cotton trade might be regarded as little less than a world's calamity. It unfortu have no remedy, and he hoped the hon. Member would persist in his Amend- nately happened, however, that the cotton manufacture of England had been dependent for many years almost solely on one source of supply. They had derived 85 per cent of their raw material from the United States of America. For many years past that dependence had been a source of great anxiety to the more intelligent and thoughtful of their manufacturers. When he had the honour of being President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, twenty years ago, it was a frequent subject of discussion, and they were continually importuning the East India Company to open out roads and rivers and to promote the growth of cotton in India. In 1848 his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham moved for a Committee of that House to inquire into the subject of the MR. HORSFALL said, he would remind the House that the pilot being responsible to the amount of £100, it would be a matter of great importance to him not to incur such a fine, and it was amply sufficient to induce him to take due care. Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived. Bill to be read 3° To-morrow. SUPPLY. Order for Committee read. |