value of such ship and the freight thereof be taken to be less than 15l. per registered ton.
Unnecessary outcry of the Shipowners.
Question of limited liability.
The central body of Shipowners, while protesting[1]
against the injustice of this Act, forgot that, in point
of fact, the limitation of their liability was thereby
secured, which it was not under the common law of
England. They further contended that the 511th
clause of the Merchant Shipping Act was inconsistent
with the 504th clause, as the former enacts
that parties seeking compensation may refuse to
accept the indemnity awarded by the authorities
constituted by the Act,[2] and may bring an action
against the Shipowner for damages, by which he
might be rendered liable to an amount in many
cases involving the whole of his capital. But the
clause providing that any person who is dissatisfied
with the amount of statutory damages (30l. each
person) may bring an action on his own account,
enacts expressly "that any damages recoverable by
such person shall be payable only out of the residue,
if any, of the aggregate amount for which the
owner is liable, after deducting all sums paid to
her Majesty's Paymaster-General in manner aforesaid;
and, if the damages recovered in such action
do not exceed double the statutory amount, such
person is liable to pay all the costs as between
attorney and client.
Value of life. On the other hand, if, as was observed by way of illustration in the course of discussion, a bishop were to fall a victim to an accident, it might be con-*
