284 ANNUAL REGISTER, 18l6. 



but that all doubt was removed 

 by the terms of the 7th, which 

 declared that ships clearing out 

 from Liverpool should be charged, 

 on their return, " according to 

 the rate of duty payable from the 

 most distant port from which 

 they shall so trade to the port of 

 Liverpool." 



Lord Ellenborough. — Can it be 

 said, that in this case there was 

 any trading from St. Domingo 

 to Liverpool? The Richard un- 

 loaded the cargo she brought 

 from St. Domingo at London, 

 and there took in a new cargo, 

 which she carried to Liverpool: 

 on this new voyage she had as 

 little to do with the St. Domingo 

 cargo, as if she had delivered it 

 ten years before. 



Mr. Richardson submitted that 

 the w.)r(ls of the 7th sect, which 

 •were most exjdicit, controlled 

 and explained the doubtfal terms 

 of the O'th section. If the Court 

 should decide against his argu- 

 ment, that determination might 

 lead to many evasions of tlie Act ; 

 for a vessel which had performed 

 a long and prosperous voyage 

 might then discharge her cargo 

 at Bristol or Waterford, and af- 

 terwards entering the port of Li- 

 verpool, would only be liable to 

 pay a duty of 5d. per ton. The 

 iword " trading," which had been 

 •constantly and caiitiously used 

 instead of " voyage,' which had 

 formerly occasioned much dis- 

 pute, did not mean bringing the 

 cargo whlcli she had taken in at 

 the most distant port to Liver- 

 pool, but re-entering after the 

 completion of the adventure. 



Mr. Joy, on the other side, 

 contended, that tlic payment of 

 the duty on the entrance of the 



ship always cleared her on her 

 outward voyage, and consequently 

 that if the defendants insisted 

 that the voyage was to St. Do- 

 mingo, nothing was due for that 

 voyage. It would be attended 

 with great hardship if it were 

 decided that duty was payable for 

 the most distant port on the re- 

 turn of the ship to Liverpool 

 without the cargo, which she 

 had discharged at another port 

 of the United Kingdom ; since 

 in that case the owner would be 

 twice liable to tonnage — once at 

 the port where the caigo was ac- 

 tually delivered (in this case Lon- 

 don), and again at the port to 

 which the ship belonged (in this 

 case Liverpool). The language 

 of the 6th clause was quite clear, 

 and the only doubt that could be 

 raised was upon a few words in 

 the 7th sect, which, in fact, had 

 no bearing upon the real ques- 

 tion, and had been intiutlcd into 

 the Act. The onus of explaining 

 away the decided intention of the 

 legislatuie lay xipon the Trustees 

 of the Liveipool docks, and re- 

 ference to the 10th and 12th sec- 

 tions further confirmed Uie con- 

 struction for which the j)laintiffs 

 argued. The contrary had never 

 been suggested until two years 

 after the passing of the 51st Geo. 

 JII.: and the .S3d Geo. IIL e. 

 156, showed that the framers of 

 the former Act never intended to 

 give to the Company that for 

 which they now contended. 



Lord Ellcnborough — The word 

 most in the Act, where it speaks 

 of the most distant port, is a 

 comparative term, and refers to 

 some other ports. Now, in this 

 case, the ship sails from London 

 with an entirely new cargo : there 



her. 



