Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 9:34:37 GMT
The lock keeper at Sunbury told me she was legally entitled to hang me if I refused to turn off my engine.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 10:25:43 GMT
Do you have an authority for that Tony? I haven't seen it in any of the Acts from 1932 on, though I could easily have missed it, and I haven't checked back through earlier Acts. I can't direct you to any specific legislation on this, Nigel, but the info came from someone who I would think would be a reliable source. He was a trainee lock keeper working for what was then the Thames Conservancy and learned of this after witnessing the lock keeper he was working under board a Salters Steamer to arrest the drunken engineer after vessel failed to go astern and crashed into the gates on entering Sonning Lock. Interesting, though interpreting the action observed as evidence of specific employee empowerment is - as you and I both know - unwarranted! If an offence was committed, the lock-keeper might have the power of any member of the public to execute a citizens arrest [and would be best placed to realise an offence had been committed], which is not, however, the same thing as having specific authority by reason of his position. I will keep this in mind [hopefully], as something to look out for when trawling though stuff. Just possibly, it could have appeared in now abolished byelaws.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 31, 2018 11:29:47 GMT
I can't direct you to any specific legislation on this, Nigel, but the info came from someone who I would think would be a reliable source. He was a trainee lock keeper working for what was then the Thames Conservancy and learned of this after witnessing the lock keeper he was working under board a Salters Steamer to arrest the drunken engineer after vessel failed to go astern and crashed into the gates on entering Sonning Lock. Interesting, though interpreting the action observed as evidence of specific employee empowerment is - as you and I both know - unwarranted! If an offence was committed, the lock-keeper might have the power of any member of the public to execute a citizens arrest [and would be best placed to realise an offence had been committed], which is not, however, the same thing as having specific authority by reason of his position. I will keep this in mind [hopefully], as something to look out for when trawling though stuff. Just possibly, it could have appeared in now abolished byelaws. The trainee lock keeper did in fact tell me that he had questioned the lock keeper's right to board the vessel and arrest the Salter's engineer, and the lock keeper was very clear and specific about a Thames lock keeper's powers of arrest. As for dates etc with regard to byelaws and powers, this was around the mid to late 1950's.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 13:11:42 GMT
The previous byelaws were dated 1957, with specific Thames Launch Byelaws published 1952. Earlier than that would have been 1885. I am getting a copy of the 1957 Byelaws, but copies of the others are silly money [11 page leaflet of the Launch byelaws over £50! 19thC byelaws - even modern reprints - from £125 to £420]. I could have a look through the Kew Archives; I have a number of possibilities to copy there.
What might be interesting is a file relating to a “Prosecution by private individual under Thames Conservancy Byelaws of Pilot for negligent navigation”. That dates to 1884, so even precedes the 1885 byelaws. Interesting though, that the prosecution is by a private individual without specifying whether the individual is a TC officer or not.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Jul 31, 2018 14:12:23 GMT
Thacker's 'The Thames Highway Vol 1' records an incident from 1873 where "several gentlemen were varying the evasion (of lock tolls) by pulling their craft over the weirs; and one actually addressed a complaint to the Conservancy that the Shepperton lockkeeper had detained him and demanded toll. Indeed the right to extract toll under such circumstances was being seriously and publicly questioned; and some difficulty evidently existed, and the keepers were instructed not to detain the adventurers, but to obtain their names and addresses whenever possible."
Does that suggest the possibility that the keepers at that time did have powers to detain those using the locks normally (i.e. passing through) but refusing to pay?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 14:42:42 GMT
Thacker's 'The Thames Highway Vol 1' records an incident from 1873 where "several gentlemen were varying the evasion (of lock tolls) by pulling their craft over the weirs; and one actually addressed a complaint to the Conservancy that the Shepperton lockkeeper had detained him and demanded toll. Indeed the right to extract toll under such circumstances was being seriously and publicly questioned; and some difficulty evidently existed, and the keepers were instructed not to detain the adventurers, but to obtain their names and addresses whenever possible." Does that suggest the possibility that the keepers at that time did have powers to detain those using the locks normally (i.e. passing through) but refusing to pay? I don't have the historical details, but I would surmise - on the strength of what you have said - that it rather confirmed that they did NOT have power to refuse passage. Usually, the Conservators applied for statutory authority to build locks, and simultaneously asked for authority to charge to ameliorate the costs. Penalties would invariably apply to refusal to pay a statutory toll, and it would be that penalty for which the Conservators could prosecute [hence obtaining the names and addresses], preventing navigation being out of the question. I cannot see where doubt existed over a right to extract tolls approved by Parliament [though Smeed Dean invites the query whether some locks were built without legislative backing, in which case no tolls could be levied]. What I do NOT see, is any right to insist that the lock was the only route legally available. If people wished to bypass it [where that was possible] as per your quoted example, there could be no offence. Reading through the historical details regarding Hedsor Water and the adjacent cut and lock, it is obvious that the route along the original course remained navigable despite extra difficulty in operating the weir gates - and using such weirs to block passage was indeed a criminal offence. The instructions to the lock-keepers from the Conservators were wise ones!
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Jul 31, 2018 15:00:35 GMT
Thacker goes on to record that "Evasion recurred as late as April 1878, at Sunbury; but under the Act of this year toll was made payable for passing 'through, by, or over' the locks; and the incidents ceased. Certainly, in the absence of the word "by" there seems a clear loophole for the somewhat poor sport of toll-dodging; though it should be remembered that the contemporary toll was sixpence at each lock, in place of the threepence we know."
Fascinating book! Nigel, please stop diverting me away from (almost) proper work!!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 15:55:48 GMT
Well you stop inciting me to get hold of these books and Acts you keep quoting.
Now I have another trip to the LMA to organise.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Jul 31, 2018 16:16:47 GMT
The River and Rowing Museum at Henley has copies of the historic Thames Conservancy Byelaws. They were more than helpful to me in some other research and provided copies of pictures and documents for a small donation. River and Rowing Museum
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 16:37:44 GMT
Terrific thanks David. If Kew doesn't come good I may have to drop in there.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 3, 2018 21:32:43 GMT
Well the 1957 byelaws contain nothing regarding powers of arrest. The closest relating to powers of officers would be s.50 "The master of every vessel shall obey and conform nto the directions of any officer of the Conservators relating to the navigation mooring or unmooring of such vessel."
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 3, 2018 21:49:24 GMT
It has no real bearing with regard to this, but the the senior TC lock keeper who told the trainee working under him about the Thames lock keeper's powers of arrest was very well thought of and popular amongst a great many of the female crew members of the pleasure craft using the river in those days, . . . his name was Dick Knightley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 8:09:30 GMT
Well the 1957 byelaws contain nothing regarding powers of arrest. The closest relating to powers of officers would be s.50 " The master of every vessel shall obey and conform nto the directions of any officer of the Conservators relating to the navigation mooring or unmooring of such vessel." You mentioned this earlier and I wonder if this means the lock keeper can in fact overrule the byelaw I was originally referring to. It is interesting there is no reasonableness in there. But thinking about it is running the engine in neutral related to navigation mooring or unmooring? Once the engine is in neutral it has no effect on the vessel if nobody is present at the controls. Another thing is generators. A hire boat went through a lock with me with a diesel generator going. different lock. Keeper did ask them to turn it off. I suppose "engines" includes electricity generating devices. Another interesting thing is that strapping a boat to stop it is specifically disallowed in the byelaws. You must stop it with the engines then secure it with ropes. I tend get off while boat is still moving as I find strapping more reliable than engine reverse and it also aligns the boat with the side better (in my barge specially). I suppose it is to avoid boaters displacing the bollards and creating projectile hazards as its quite easy to bind the rope up on those bollards if you put the turns on the lockside bollard rather than the one on the boat.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 4, 2018 8:41:43 GMT
Well the 1957 byelaws contain nothing regarding powers of arrest. The closest relating to powers of officers would be s.50 " The master of every vessel shall obey and conform nto the directions of any officer of the Conservators relating to the navigation mooring or unmooring of such vessel." You mentioned this earlier and I wonder if this means the lock keeper can in fact overrule the byelaw I was originally referring to. It is interesting there is no reasonableness in there. It would be implicit in any empowerment of officers to give directions that this could only ever be in accordance with the relevant primary and secondary legislation. If that were not so, then the point of the specific byelaws would be largely lost as redundant – any officer could give any directions they chose, whereas even the Conservators were bound to give or withhold consents and give directions only if commensurate with the primary purpose of the legislation (see Smeed Dean). If not, it would be ultra vires – how much more then, would that apply to officers employed by them? There is in fact, if I recall correctly, a specific option for boaters to disregard byelaws if compliance would endanger their vessel, which is interesting - I will look it up, but have no time now as I have promised to take some guests boating in 20 minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 8:44:31 GMT
Enjoy that Nigel.
|
|