no one accompanied the goods, the necessity arose for a separate document. Therefore bills of lading were introduced. They were issued by the shipowner to the shipper of goods, and were forwarded to the consignee― the person to whom the goods were to be delivered-to be produced by him as evidence of his right to take delivery. The bill of lading was a receipt for the goods issued from the ship, and also a document for transferring the title to the goods to the consignee. To fulfil these purposes more than one copy of the bill was required, and the custom therefore grew up of issuing it in duplicate or triplicate. Moreover, the consignee might resell what he had bought before it arrived, and so the practice of transferring the property in the goods by indorsing the bill of lading became established. Apparently bills of lading were in use before the sixteenth century, and by the eighteenth their indorsement and use as transferable instruments was well established (Bennett's "History of the Bill of Lading").

In course of time bills of lading came to be worded so as to state the terms of the contract of carriage, and accordingly the present-day bill of lading is defined in Scrutton on Charter-parties and Bills of Lading as “a receipt for goods shipped on board a ship, signed by the person who contracts to carry them, or his agent, and stating the terms on which the goods were delivered to and received by the ship." The bill of lading, though not the contract, is, as the same learned work points out, evidence of the terms of the contract. When indorsed it is the only evidence.

3. ENLARGEMENT OF THE Clauses.

The introduction of the conditions of shipment into bills of lading was a gradual process. What exactly was the liability of the shipowner in the absence of express stipulations in early days is an historical inquiry which we need not pursue here. Whatever it was, steps were taken to qualify it by the insertion of the words "the dangers of the seas excepted" (old form of bill of lading, Abbott, 472). No further exception was introduced till after 1795, when shipowners were alarmed by a legal decision as to the extent of their liability. Failing in an attempt which was made to obtain legislation limiting their liability, shipowners altered the form of the bill of lading by introducing the more comprehensive exception of dangers and accidents of the seas now commonly in use (Abbott, 578; Maclachlan, 605). The number of exceptions has since grown greatly. To meet risks disclosed from time to time by judicial decisions new exceptions have been inserted to protect shipowners from liability.

"It is," observed Mr. H. R. Miller at the Paris conference of the International Law Association in 1912, "because of those decisions that those most extraordinary and most elaborate clauses of exoneration, not only with regard to the liability of the shipowner, but also with regard to deviations, have been inserted. And at first blush, when one reads one of those bills of lading and sees all these extraordinary exceptions, naturally one is up in arms, and says: 'What on earth does it all mean? Is the shipowner going to carry my cargo and have no

liability whatever?' I can assure you, from the shipowner's point of view, that that never was his intention, nor does it, in fact, take place in practice."

Some of the reasons why the clauses were multiplied were very clearly stated at the Hague conference of the International Law Association, 1921, by Sir Norman Hill, who, after referring to the adoption, a good many years ago, of a clause whereby the shipowner freed himself from liability for negligent navigation, pointed out that the shipowner was not content to stop there. "As his business operations widened out" (continued Sir Norman), "he endeavoured, in the bargains he made, to protect himself against liability for the negligence of those employed in the handling, stowage, and care of the cargo. The work had to be done in small part by the crew, who were his servants, but the great bulk of the work had to be entrusted to independent contractors. The loading, stowage, and discharging had to be placed in the hands of independent stevedores, and in many cases the owners of the cargo bargained for the right to name the stevedore to be employed. In other cases the loading or discharging was taken over by the Port Authority or some other undertaking which provided the piers, elevators, or tips at which the cargoes were handled. And as more and more mechanical appliances were employed, checking by the ship's officers of the weights or numbers of the commodities dealt with became more and more difficult.

"And these responsibilities and difficulties increased as the ships grew in size and as their cargoes became more and more varied. Instead of a full cargo shipped by one

merchant and weighed at the ship's rail, a liner was asked to carry thousands and tens of thousands of separate packets shipped by and consigned to hundreds of different interests.

"There were other factors operating to broaden out the scope of the shipowner's operations. As sea transport improved in regularity, safety and certainty, trade sought to turn the shipowners' organisations to the best possible account, and those organisations lent themselves readily not only to the carrying but also to the collection and distribution-and the retail distribution-of the cargoes. Accordingly the bill of lading was extended to cover not only goods actually laden on the ship, but goods handed over to the line to be shipped in the ordinary course of its business, and goods left on the quays after discharge to be distributed amongst purchasers and sub-purchasers. And it went further than this, for it was made to cover through carriage by land and sea, until the ship became only one of the links in the transport services employed. In all these developments the bill of lading became more and more the document of title upon which trade financed its operations, and the shipowners are, I think, entitled to point with pride to the confidence with which their engagements, as expressed in the bills of lading, have been accepted by the bankers. It was all sound and healthy development of business enterprise, well calculated to cheapen transport and distribution, but it was accompanied by risks. It necessitated the shipowner acting as a shipping agent, as a wharfinger, and even as a warehousekeeper, and as a distributing and forwarding agent, and in all of these

capacities he had to entrust the greater part of the work to independent contractors.

"These developments in the oversea trade" (Sir Norman Hill pointed out), "could have been provided for in either of two ways:

"First. The shipowner could make himself re-
sponsible to carry and to deliver the goods in
safety, answering for all loss or damage which
might happen to them while they were in his
possession, or
"Second. The shipowner could offer his services
to the merchant on the understanding that he
(the shipowner) would use all due diligence in
carrying and delivering the goods, but would
assume no financial responsibility if the goods
were lost or damaged.

"If the shipowner had accepted the first of these positions he would have had to base his freights in part on the value of the goods carried, as the insurance he gave would be part of the working expenses of his business.

"By adopting the second course the shipowner could continue to fix his freights with regard to the weight or bulk of the goods carried and without reference to their value, leaving the merchant free to insure himself against loss, or to run that risk uninsured as he pleased.

"The second course was" (Sir Norman Hill added) "the one adopted, and by strengthening the negligence clauses the shipowner has aimed at relieving himself from all financial responsibility resulting from loss or damage sustained during the carriage."