The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-22 00:00:00

INCLOSURE BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
BLEACHFIELDS (WOMEN AND CHILDREN
EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered, " young persons'
having teen substituted for children.
VIEROITANT OIIIPPINO AOTO ANIIINDIURI3T
BILL.

Mr. M. GIBSON said the object of this bill was to give
effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Mer-
chant Shipping, and to give power to the Board of Trade
to deal with acts of misconduct and others in connection
with the shipping trade, and to withdraw certificates from
captains in case of negligency or incompetency. 7," The act
also had reference to what was called the rules of the road
on sea in cases of collision. The French Government had
agreed to the regulations proposed by the British Govern-
ment, and it was to be hoped that other Governments
would do the same. One of the most important recommen-
dations of the committee had reference to the question of
pilotage. At present the owners of ships were not answer-
able for the damages occurring from the conduct of the
pilot, as under the present system pilots were serving in a
compulsory manner. It is now proposed to abolish com-
pulsory pilotage under certain circumstances. Under
stress of weather it was most improper to restrict a vessel
from seeking shelter in a harbour without the assistance of
a pilot. It was also proposed by this act, that in case of
masters not carrying the lights already required, and which
had been adopted nearly all over the world, it should be made
a punishable offence. One of the most important recom-
mendations of the merchant shipping committee referred to
pilotage. • The present system was much complained of so
far as it was compulsory in pilotage districts in this country,
In the Merchant Shipping Act it was enacted that the ves-
sel in charge of a compulsory pilot might do any damage
through the default or neglect of that pilot, and that the
owners would not be liable for such damage because he was
not their servant, but a compulsory pilot forced upon them
by the regulations of the port ; if he were a voluntary pilot,
then he would be held to be the servant of the owner, and
any damage done through his default would fall on the
owner of the vessel. They had endeavoured to deal with
this without abolishing it directly by enactment. They had
in their bill machinery by which parties interested in pilot-
age might petition the Board of Trade, who might make a
provisional order exempting any particular class of vessels
in one or any pilotage district from such compulsory pilot-
age; but such orders would not have the effect of law
until it had been confirmed by an Act of Parliament.
They did propose to abolish compulsory pilotage in some
cases, in accordance with the recommendation of the mer-
chant shipping committee ; it was proposed that a vessel
passing a pilotage district, but not bound to any port in
that district as a place of discharge, should be exempt
from compulsory pilotage. This was desirable, inasmuch
as it was said that vessels were deterred from going into
harbours of refuge (and consequently sometimes lost)
owing to the charges to which they would subject their
owners for compulsory pilots. Where there was a central
pilotage authority such as the Newcastle Trinity House,
which exercised a pilotage jurisdiction over Shields, Hartle-
pool, Sunderland, and some other places, they proposed to
enable such places by applying for a provisional order to
obtain for themselves the jurisdiction of their own pilots.
They proposed, in accordance with the recommendation of
the hon. member for Yarmouth, to make certain provisions
with reference to salvage of life and property. It was also
proposed to repeal certain clauses in the Customs Consolida-
tion Act with reference to timber ships, which clauses were
found too nugatory, and to interfere with the fair competi-
tion of the British with the foreign shipowner. There was
another point of considerable importance which they had
felt it necessary to deal with, viz., the liability of ship-
owners. As the law at present stood, if a ship did damage,
the personal liability of the shipowner was measured by the
value of the ship and freight. This was simply a premium
on bad ships; and the man who sent his ship to sea well
found, and in all respects did his utmost to pro vide for the
safety of the freight and contribute to the comfort of the
passengers, was the man who incurred the greatest liability
on account of any accident or misfortune. He contended
that the owner of a good ship and the owner of an inferior
ship should be on the same level; and they had fixed the
limit of liability in respect of sailing ships at £45 a ton—
taking the exact figure recommended in the report to which
he had already referred. In the case of steamships the mea-
surements would be so made that the same principle would
be applied to them as to sailing ships. There was another
question with which the bill dealt—it was with regard to
the unshipment of cargoes and the preservation of the lien
for freight on goods after they were landed. Under the pre-
sent law a great deal of irregular practice went on, because
ships could not be discharged, whatever be the agreement
between the shipowner and the shipper, until after the ex •
piration of 48 hours after the arrival of the ship, if the
owner of the goods availed himself of that delay. In
these days it was perfectly obvious that, when continental
and other steamers came and went with so much rapidity
the existence of such a system must be an intolerable
inconvenience, and the consequence was that in practice
it was evaded, and this bill would legalise the existing
practice. If a consignee did not enter and take delivery of
his goods en the arrival of the ship, the shipowner was to
be at liberty to land the goods, proper provision for their
safety being taken, and the lien on the goods for freight
would remain. In the case of large sailing ships which
went into the docks, the provision was necessarily some-
what different. The bill proposed to give for these large
ships three days to enter and commence landing. At the
expiration of the three days, if the owner did not enter and
land his goods, the shipowner was entitled to do so, and
thus relieve the ship of its cargo and the docks of its ob-
struction. The bill was one dealing with many subjects,
but he had thought it better as they all related to matters
connected with merchant shipping, to combine them in ono
bill rather than to effect the same object by a number of
small bills.
Mr. LINDSAY esfressed the great satisfaction which
ho felt on the introduction of this bill by his right hon.

friend, and he was glad to hear that her Majeety's Go-
vernment had entered into negotiations with France and
other nations, with a view to establishing proper regulations

in relation to that which was called " the rule of the road,
at sea. With regard to pilotage, he regretted that the right
hon. gentleman's bill did not go farther than he had stated.
He regretted that the bill did not propose to abolish the

system of compulsory pilotage, and leave shipowners at
liberty to engage pilots whenever they thought it necessary
to do ipt T..he, system of voluntary pilotage had been found
by shipoWners gnd ship captains to work well at Newcastle
and other places, and ho therefore hoped her Majesty's
Government would re-consider the subject. With regard
to the liability of shipowners, with respect to the question
of discipline on board, ho questioned whether it could be
extended to such small boats as fishing boats. He regarded
the bill with great satisfaction, and should give it his
support. .

Mr. G. BENTINCK quite concurred with his hon.
friend who had just addressed the house, with regard to
the change in what was called "the rule of the road."
But he must remind the right hon. gentleman that what
might appear well on paper in reference to that question,
might not operate well when put to the test. They should
take care on this subject tnat men, in observing the rule of
the road, did not run the risk of losing their lives and for-
feiting their insurances. With regard to what his hon.
friend the member for Sunderland had said in relation to
pilotage, ho entirely concurred with him that captains of
vessels should be at liberty to take a pilot when they thought
necessary, and that compulsory pilotage ought to be done
away with. There was another point, too, for considera-
tion, A pilot, for instance, was generally "a man of
straw," and be thought that where a ship was injured by his
running the ship in his charge in collision with her, the
shipowner in whose vessel he was, ought to be responsible.
What he (Mr. Bentinck) wanted to see was free trade in
pilotage. Ho wanted to have that point settled ; for it was
of great importance that when a person in command found
his vessel in circumstances of danger, he should be at libel ty
to avail himself of the best possible chance of obtaining the
most competent pilot. He himself had seen vessels in
circumstances of danger, and persons near who were corn -
petent to take charge of them, but who knew that on the
ve,3sel running in towards harbour, they would be turned
out of her as not licensed pilot s,by the Trinity House nutho-
rity. What he wanted was that every man who could show