son interested as principal or agent on behalf of a vessel wanting.
a pilot, to go off to and take charge of her when it is consistent
with safety to do so; or who shall exact, demand, or bargain
for a larger fee or reward, or a greater price or hire for pilotage
than that established by the rates or rules made upon this sub-
ject; or who shall in anywise delay going on board the vessel
or taking charge of her; or who shall quit the vessel or decline
the piloting thereof after he has been engaged or after going
alongside, without leave of the captain of one of his majesty's
ships, or of the person in command of the vessel, or before the
service has been performed for which he was hired; or shall by
drunkenness render himself incapable of conducting a vessel, or
negligently or wilfully (1) run a vessel on shore, or lose it, or do
any injury to it, or to the tackle or furniture, or shall lend his
license to an unlicensed person to enable him or assist him to
act or claim to act as a licensed pilot; he shall forfeit for every
offence a sum not exceeding £100 nor less than £10, and
shall be liable to be dismissed from being, or suspended from
acting as a pilot, at the discretion of the Deptford Trinity House,
or of any other person or corporation by whom the license was
granted (2). A penalty not exceeding £50, nor less than £10,
together with the risk of deprivation or suspension, at the dis-
cretion of the licensing authority is also incurred by every li-
censed pilot who shall make use of or compel a person in com-
mand of a vessel to make use of any boat, anchor, cable, hawser,
or any other matter or thing for the service of a vessel, beyond
what is actually necessary for its use, with intent to enhance the
charge of pilotage or pilot assistance, whether he acts in this
manner for the emolument of himself or of any other person (3).
A penalty not exceeding £100, nor less than £20, is also in-
curred by any person acting as pilot, who shall wilfully and
knowingly conduct or betray a vessel into danger, in a manner
not already provided against by statute, or shall unnecessarily
or improperly cut a cable belonging to a ship; or shall by wil-
ful misrepresentation of circumstances, upon which the safety of
the vessel appears to depend, endeavour to obtain the conduct
of her. (4)

The charge of pilotage is regulated in various places by usage, 4. Pilotage. or statute, and generally increases in proportion to the depth of

(1) Also remedy by civil action, B. 31. post.

(2) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 51. As

to pilot's neglect, see also post.

(3) 52 Geo.3. c. 39. s. 52.
(4) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 53.

The stat 52 Geo. 3. con

the water which the vessel draws (1). tains, in a table annexed to the act, the rates or prices to be taken by a pilot licensed by the Deptford Trinity House for piloting or conducting a vessel from place to place, and prohibits the taking of any greater recompence (2). It also contains the rates to be demanded by a pilot licensed by the lord warden of the cinque-ports and constable of Dover castle or his lieutenant (3). The rates prescribed by the old stat. 3 Geo. 1. c. 13. were held applicable only to the Trinity House pilots, and not binding upon another person, who in their absence took the charge of a ship in pursuance of the provisions in the 3d section of the act (4). All sums of money that become due to any licensed pilot for pilotage, may under the new act be recovered from the owners or masters of ships, or from the consignees or agents of such ships, not being foreign vessels, who have paid or made themselves liable to pay any other charge for the vessel in the port of delivery, and may be levied according to the amount of the sums, in such manner as any penalties may be levied by virtue of the act, demand being made in writing 14 days at least before the levy. The act further directs, that the consignees or agents of all foreign vessels, who have paid or engaged to pay any charge whatever in relation to the ship, shall be liable to the payment of, and shall pay all sums for pilotage due to the pilots who have piloted the vessels, on proof being made within 15 days after the pilotage has been performed, on the oath of such pilot before a justice of the peace, that the same has not been paid by the captain, if payment thereof shall be demanded from such consignee within 21 days thereafter; such sums are recoverable in like manner as any penalty under £20 may be recovered by virtue of the act, and such consignees or agents of foreign ships are authorized and empowered by the act to retain in their hands, out of monies received on account of such foreign ship, or on account of the owners, so much as will be sufficient to discharge the pilotage and expences (5). The charge of pilotage under the old statutes, where the service was performed in a river within the body of a county, was held not to be recoverable by suit in the court of admiralty (6). Under a stipulation in a charter party, by the freighter of the vessel, to

(1) Abbot on Shipping, p. 2. c. 5. (2) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 3. Table A. Each pilot pays 3 guineas a year to the corporation, s 4. (3) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 9.

(4) The Nelson, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 227.

(5) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 58.
(6) Ross v. Walker, 2 Wilș. 264.

pay certain pilotage and port charges for a particular voyage, the entire sums must be paid, although only a part of the cargo is delivered; for they are not in their nature capable of apportionment (1). It is observed in Beawes, that the master of an English collier is considered by the Flemings and the Dutch to be competent to act as pilot in conducting his ship from Newcastle to their ports, and accordingly in the case of a ship freighted at Shields by a Flemish merchant at Ostend, with coals for that port, he refused to allow the charge of a pilot; the matter was referred to arbitration, the British vice-consul Mortimer being one of the arbitrators, when it appeared that the ship was driven by stress of weather into Yarmouth Roads, which are pilot's water, and a pilot offering his service, he accepted him. Had he done otherwise, he would have been answerable to the owners for the ship in case the same had been lost, and to the freighter for his coals; it was therefore decided, that the freighter was bound to allow the pilotage. Pilotage is allowed in most charterparties, but not, it is said, in those made for colliers in England (2). The charge for pilotage is not recoverable on an illegal adventure, as in respect of a voyage to an enemy's country (3); or of a martial expedition, undertaken by agreement between individuals without the sanction of any government, on the terms that those who embark in it shall receive prize money and an allotment of land (4).

5. Penalty for not taking pilot; liability to third persons on ground of absence of pilot, or

on board.

The penalty to be paid by the master of a vessel which is piloted or conducted by any person but a duly licensed pilot within limits for which pilots are appointed by lawful authority (5) is double the amount of the sum demandable for the pilotage of the vessel; and also an additional penalty of £5 for not having one every 50 tons burthen of the vessel, if the corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford-strond (as to cases in which pilots licensed by the corporation shall be concerned), or the lord warden or his lieutenant (as to all cases in which the cinqueport pilots are concerned) shall think proper, that the person prosecuting should be at liberty to proceed for the recovery of the additional penalty, and shall certify the same in writing.

(2) 1 Beawes Lex Mer. 6 ed. 203. (3) Benjamin Franklin, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 350.

Adm. Rep. 35. Gen. Miranda's
Expedition to Spanish America,
59 Geo. 3.

(5) Vide Law v. Hollingsworth,
7 T. R. 160. Att. Gen. v. Case,

But the act does not extend to subject to penalties the master of a vessel (not anchoring within the limits of a place for which pilots are appointed) who shall himself act as pilot in passing up and down the English Channel or elsewhere, in passing by any part of the coast of England in the course of a voyage, or within the limits of the port to which his ship belongs, nor being a port or place in relation to which provision had been made before the 52 Geo. 3. by act of parliament, or by charter, for the appointment of pilots; or who shall employ any person as pilot, or shall himself act as such for the conduct of his ship, so long as a duly qualified pilot shall not offer assistance nor make a signal for that purpose. Provided also, that the act shall not extend to prevent any persons from assisting a vessel in distress at any time, nor to subject such persons, or any master of a vessel employing such persons, to the penalties of the act in respect of such assistance given during distress, or under circumstances rendering it necessary for the master to avail himself of the best assistance that could be procured (1).

The statute 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. also points out in what cases the owner or master is responsible, on account of his not having a pilot on board, and ascertains the extent of such liability. It provides that no owner or master shall be answerable for any loss or damage, nor shall any ship-owner, or any consignee of goods be prevented from recovering a loss or damage upon a contract of insurance, or upon any other contract relating to the ship or cargo, by reason of no pilot being on board, unless it be proved that the want of a pilot has arisen from any refusal to take a pilot on board, or from the wilful neglect of the master in not heaving to, or using all practicable means, consistently with the safety of the vessel, for the purpose of taking on board any pilot who shall be ready and shall offer to take charge of the vessel (2). Previously to this enactment, the court of king's bench had decided that the assured could not recover on a policy where the vessel was unprovided with a pilot, although it did not appear that the loss was directly imputable to the want of skill in those who navigated the vessel (3). This decision did not proceed upon the particular effect of the pilot laws of this country, but on the ground that there was no person on board the vessel

(1) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 59. cited and commented upon, 3 Price, 319, 320.

(2) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 26. (3) Law v. Hollingsworth, 7 T. R. 160.

competent to conduct her; but the mercantile writers state in general, that if the master of a vessel in tempestuous weather finds himself in a place reputed to be dangerous, usually denominated pilot's water, and a pilot offers to come on board, which offer he refuses to accept, the master in such a case is liable to his owners, freighters, or insurers for the damage or loss of ship and cargo, if either happen in his attempting the passage without a pilot (1). The statute 52 Geo. 3. further provides, that if the owner of a vessel shall become liable under the circumstances just mentioned (2), he shall not be responsible for such loss or damage beyond the value of the vessel and her appurtenances, and the freight due or to grow due during the voyage (3). By the value of the ship is meant the value at the time of the loss, and not at the time of the commencement of the voyage. And in calculating the value of freight due or to grow due, money actually paid in advance is to be included. (4)

No owner or master of a vessel is responsible for any loss or damage, nor is any ship-owner or any consignee of goods deprived of his remedy on a contract of insurance, or upon any other contract relating to the vessel or its cargo, by reason of the neglect, default, incompetency, or incapacity of any pilot taken on board in pursuance of the provisions of the 52 Geo. 3.(5) Nor did the act extend to deprive any person of a remedy by civil action against pilots or other persons which they would have had if the statute had not been passed (6). The master of a vessel therefore, which has a pilot on board, is not answerable for damage occasioned by the mismanagement of her, unless it be expressly proved that the injury arose from the personal misconduct of the master and his servants; and the master is not compelled, in order to absolve himself from responsibility, to prove that the damage was occasioned by the personal misconduct of the pilot (7). The protection afforded to the master on the

(2) Sect. 26. supra.

(3) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 27. and see as to owner's liability in general, 53 Geo. 3. c. 159.

(4) Wilson v. Dickson, 2 Barn. & Ald. 2.

(5) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 30.

(6) 52 Geo. 3. c. 39. s. 31. as to

of all pilots at Trinity House, &c. s. 64.

(7) Bennet v. Moite, 7Taunt.258. 1 More, 4. S. C. Holt C. N. P. 359. S. C. Nicholson v. Mounsey, 15 East. 384. Stort v. Clements, Peake's Rep. 107. Carruthers v. Sydebotham, 4 M. & S. 77. but see Bowcher v. Noidstrom, 1Taunt. 568.