TABLE VII.

Sugar, Imported.-In column of re-exported, refined is converted into raw at the rate of 34 cwt. raw for 20 cwt. refined.

Note. The compilers of these tables would not even allow that such increase as is shown pointed to any increase of wellbeing, but commented as follows: "Increase of candles shows a vast increase of night labour, vast increase of barracks, gaols, workhouses and other public works and factories of commodities for export will suffice to account for a great portion of the vast

TABLE VIII.-EXPENDITURE (exclusive of Debt Reductions).

increase of bricks. The excess of soap, used in the manufacture of commodities for export, for which no corresponding equivalent has been obtained, will suffice to account for above increase."-From Statistical Illustrations of the British Empire.

INCREASE OF WEALTH AND EXPENDITURE.

TABLE X.

1822. Number of inhabited houses in Great Britain assessed at

Estimated increase of expense on luxury between 1820-1832-3 (saddle horses, private carriages, male servants, armorial bearings, dogs, racehorses): £2,977,997.

The Limitation of the Liability of

Shipowners

By H. C. GUTTERIDGE,

Cassel Professor of Commercial Law, London School of Economics. THE Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee,1 which has just been published, contains certain recommendations which, if carried out, would effect such fundamental changes in the English law, that the findings of the committee call for very careful consideration on the part of all the interests concerned. A stage has now been reached in the contest between cargo owners and shipowners at which this issue will have to be fairly and squarely faced, namely, whether shipowners are to be allowed to continue to contract themselves out of liability for loss or damage to cargo entrusted to their care, as is the case at present; or whether this country is to follow the lead given by the United States and the British Dominions Overseas, and restrict the freedom of contract of the parties by controlling the right of the shipowner to except his liability for loss or damage to goods caused by the negligence either of himself or his servants.

The position at the present time may be summarized in this way. So far as the carriage of goods by rail is concerned the policy of the English law is to check and control the power of a railway company to contract out of liability for negligence in the carriage of goods. No condition limiting the responsibility of the company for loss or damage to goods resulting from negligence on the part of the company or its servants is valid in law unless the contract is in writing, signed by the consignor or his agents, and unless the condition is one which, in the opinion of the tribunal which is to decide the dispute, is both just and reasonable. As regards contracts for the carriage of goods by sea there is, on the other hand, no obstacle placed by the law in the way of absolute freedom of contract. There is nothing to prevent a shipowner, as he often does, from contracting himself out of liability to such an extent that the cargo owner is in some cases practically debarred from obtaining any relief, unless the shipowner is willing to compensate him as an act of grace.

This practice seems to be of comparatively recent origin. Lord Justice Scrutton, in the first edition of his work on Charter Parties and Bills of Lading, published in 1886, called attention to the change which had already taken place then, and said: "Shipowners have gradually protected themselves by exceptions in their bill of lading 1 Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee, 1921, Cd. 1205. 2 Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, section 7.