The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-07 00:00:00

own or any other person's labour. There are maw
worms in trade, as well as in the more secluded
walks of science and philosophy. Mr. WATTS is

one of these. He tells us that the Underwriters'
liability began everywhere, and ended no where-
in these days. He then invites us to look at the
incessant risk for which Underwriters now are
liable. First, he said—" There was the great
" change made in the size of mercantile vessels ;
" the unuJieldy' and dangerous class of vessels now

" employed ; the clipper nuisance and danger; the use
"of iron in the construction of large ships; the
" difficulty, as every shipowner well knew, of pro-
" curing competent captains and mates ; the
" impossibility of manning ships with ablebodied
"British seamen ; the necessity of making use of
" undersized, drunken, outport and foreign lubbers,
" quite unfit for seamen's duties, thanks to legisla-
" tive tinkering of the laws by ignorant statesmen,
`‘ for the most part set in motion by interested
"adventurers, who now felt the consequences of
" their own selfishness, and were the most eager
"to retrace their steps ; above all, look at the
"increased risk of collision, arising from the intro-

duction of steam, and the reckless sacrifice of
safety to speed." Here we have a catalogue of
according to Mr. WATTS,

those

hanges to which,

Aters at LLOYD'S have not adapted
their system of doing business. It is strange,
however, to find a man in this practical age, stand-
ing up in public, and giving utterance to arrant

- -
Underwriters can write goods or not, as they please.
There is no law to compel them to run risks, and
right well the gentlemen sitting at Lloyd's know this,

and how to use their discretion. Competition has
no doubt reduced their profits; and the employ.
ment of large ships, instead of old crazy tubs, make
their losses fall with increased weight when acci-
dents do occur; but we deny that large ships are
more dangrous than small ones—that clippers are
a nuisance—that the use of iron in the construc-
tion of ships adds to the risk of insurers—that the
employment of steam has led to a reckless sacrifice
of safety to speed—and that the captains, mates,
and ships' crews of the present time are worse
than they were forty or twenty years ago.
Such notions, emanating from Lloyds, might have
been thought exceedingly ominous, if Mr. WATTS
had not been met by an overwhelming majority of
the associated Underwriters, and his motion thrown
aside. Turning from ships to com merce, Mr.
WATTS dealt with the whole mercantile community
with the same severity. He asserted that a system
of imposition was practised on the Underwriter ;
that there was an organised system of premeditated
fraud in the guise of claims for particular average,
for damages by sea water, which was rapidly
identifying itself with ordinary business, and
against which the Underwriter had not sufficient
protection, and that it was impossible to write goods
to any port in the world without having a claim
made for alleged sea damage.
To all this he added, with some truth no doubt :

—" The extent and audacity of this system indi-
" sated a condition of commercial morality per-
" fectly appalling. Shippers and manufacturers
" looked not to the profit of the markets so much
"as to the profit they could extract from the

pockets of underwriters by manufactured claims

for pretended sea damage. It was necessary to
" cheek this nefarious business. It could not, how.
" ever, be done by the present safeguards. It was
" a delusion to consider the law as affording any
protection to undorwritorg against dishonoot
" claims. The extra costs, if successful—which
" was very doubtful indeed—and the annoyance,
" would be found in nearly every instance to out-
" weigh the amount of the dishonest claim.''
Here the speaker alluded to the agency;
and "Average Staters " system, which he
declared to be most defective, as the mode Of
payment placed interest in direct opposition to

honesty. But in cases of this sort, where the evils
are so gigantic, the public always expect to find
some plan proposed which will meet the alarming
symptoms complained of. They are, however,
loomed to disappointment in this instance, for the

proposition Mr. WATTS had to make was—
or the meeting to agree to establish a board of

investigation, to which all doubtful and disputed

" claims should be referred. The decision of this
" board should be binding, either for the claim to
" be paid, or resisted out of a common fund. He also
proposed that a register of claims, the names of par-
ties, and the nature of the claims, be kept for the
" use of the members." So small a mouse never
before followed from the travail of a mountain. Mr.
WATTS would have sufferers by shipwreck handed
over to a board of investigators, whose interest, like
that of their agents, would be at variance with the
speedy settlement of claims ; and a register opened
in which the names of unfortunate shippers would
be inserted, with a view of shutting them out from
insurance after the first accident 1 Mr. WATTS is
evidently one of those philanthrophists who are
always ready to sacrifice the many for the few ;
and because there may be some isolated cases of
fraud practised on Underwriters by dishonest
shippers, he would have the names of the first
manufacturers in the kingdom placed on LLOYD'S
felon list, if they happened to have goods damaged
more than once in a commercial life, by sea-water !
We wish Mr. WATTS and his fellow Underwriters a
happy reception for their bantling on Wednesday
next, when the discussion is to be revived.

THE TOWN DUES QUESTION.—We have reason to believe
sident of the Board of Trade will move
to-night in the House of Commons the appointment of the

that the Vice-p

Select Committee, to whom will be referred the questions
involved in the rejected Local Dues on Shipping Bill. We
have reson to believe that the right hon. gentleman will
propose the following members to constitute the Select
Committee :—Mr. Lo we (Kidderminster), Mr. Milner
Gibson (Manchester), Mr. Cobden (West Yorkshire), Mr.
Horsfall (Liverpool), Mr. Hardy (Leominster), Sir. J.
Duckworth (Exeter), Mr. Deedes (East Kent), Mr. Fen-
wick (Sunderland), Mr. Cardwell (Oxford), Mr. Bouverie
(Kilmarnock), Lord Duncan (Forfarshire), Mr. Headlam
(Newcastle-on-Tyne), Sir Stafford Northcote (Dudley),
Lord Hotham (East Yorkshire), Mr. Moffatt (Ashburton).
Looking at the constitution of the committee, we
see in it ingredients which should ensure the

most energetic action on the part of those
who entertain the opinion that the recent attempt of the
Government was based in injustice, robbery and spoliation.
In analysing this list of names, we find that no less than

eight of the members of the tribunal are favourable, if not
pledged, to the views sought to be carried out by the
Government on this question, while the opponents of the
scheme have only Eve on whom to rely, and the sentiments
of the remaining two members are at present unknown.
We thus class the committee, supposing a division to take
place :—For the Government scheme, Mr. Gibson, Mr.
Fenwick, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Bouverie, Lord
Duncan, Mr. Moffatt, and Mr. Lowe, the father of the
scheme, who will, as a matter of course, occupy the chair.
Of the opponents to the plan, we enumerate Lord Hotham,
Mr. Headlam, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Deedes, and Mr. Iforsfall,
"" we place in the neutral list Sir S. Northcote and Sir
- According to usual practice, the committee,
when will forthwith open their inquiry, and
hence a
nontoinimeteid,
s to be lost in the organisation of the evi-

Y. Duckworth