The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-05 00:00:00

contested to leave the matter in the hands of the right hon.
1 1
tS:as;ltitrrit..h:J. .abunMill(AM.EChrzolCßisdarEebelG:Oaileeßldi:teohtanoveiauniei
wed°
mitriceothmkezn ef...'uttailld &Owl
releage of the
pilots of tne Cinque Ports, he felt bound to state that they
anticipated no benefit from the bill.
Mr. W. P. PRICE, as a shipowner, sea reoreeenting
shipowners. expressed his satisfaction and his acknowledg-
ments to the right hon. gentleman fur the introduction of a
comprehensive, conciliatory, and practice! measure. His
constituency was largely interested in the question, and had
had cause to complain for years of evils which this bill
would redress. The navigation of the Bristol Channel up
to the port of Glouenter was a very elifikult one and called
fir a better and more compreheusis• aysteni of pilotage
than tines existed, and which could not be dealt with by
any local acts, and therefore he was grateful for the inteo-
damion of the present bill.
Mr. HUDSON was bound to say this measure hail given
satisfaction to his constituents, and he should give it his
cordial support. The bon. member for Berwick said it pro-
pose no benefit to the shipping interest, but the people of
Sunderland must be very stupid if they sports% td of it,
unless they touted some advantage in it. He believed it
would he beneficial to the shipping interest. Ile had no
objection to the bill being referred to a *sleet committee, 1
but still he thought it was a measure with which a commit-
tee
of the whole house could deal very well.
Mr. DAGGE said that many of his col.stituents would
be deeply injured by the bill if it passed in its present shape
—he hoped it would be seat to asi lect committee. If it was
nut, there were several amendments which he *timid have
to propose. The clause which compelled the Cinque Port
and Trinity House pilots to navigate vessels both ways, so
far from conferring a privilege on them, would be thought
a grievance; and he would suggest that it should be math, I
permissive and not compulsory. There were also objections
to the transferring of certain funds and property held by the
pilots to the Trinity House. The diminution of rates would
cause a orievous loss to many pilots—in the case of the
Cinque Ports amounting to at least 50 per cent. Ile yet
hop, d the bill would be referred to a select committee.
Lord A. I'AGET said that notwithstanding what had
been said by the hon. member for Berwick, the hill would
be of advantage to shipowners by giving to their ships good
and efficient pilots, which was no: always the case now, as
many of them were incapable from age, and it was a griev-
ance to have such pilots sent on board ships. Under the
present system there was often a thffieulty in getting pilots
as soon as they were wanted, and it was only on 28th Feb.
that the Roxburgh Castle, with a large amount cf specie
and 78 passengers, was unable to get a pilot when she first
requited one. Mr. Phillips, a shipowner an I shipping
agent. had written hint a letter, in which he stated " that
this bill would effect much 2ood fur the shipping interest,
by causing a competition with the montipoli.iii4 Cinque
Port and Trinity House plots, and that much damage had
been done to ships by their inefficiency and supineness,
which would cease under the pre,sure of competition.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR said th it this bill would any in-
crease the power of the Trinity House, and consequently
add to a monopoly which all shipowners had long felt to lie
a grievance. He was surprised to hear his hon. colleague
state that Sunderland was favourable to this bill. He (Mr.
Seymour) could say that it was looked at with discontent
by the shipping interest of that town, and that his hon. col-
league must have sten by a paper which he no doubt re-
ceived from his constituents as well es he (Mr. Seymour)
had. At Sunderland there was in authority an antiquated
body called the Trinity-house of the corporation of New-
castle-on-Tyne; by the charter certain dues were derived
from certain creeks, and by that charter Sunderland w.is
defined to be a creek belonging to Newcastle-o»-'Tyne.
Such a pretence as that ought no longer to be perpetuated
by the keeping up of such a corporation under the name of
a Pilotage Bill. When his hon. colleague asserted that the
people of Sunderland approved of this bill, he (Mr. Sey
ne.ur) could only say that they did no such thing.
(" hear," and a laugh.) He hoped the bill would be re-
ferred to • select committee, so that shipowners might have
an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it.
After some words in explanation from Mr. IItDSON,
Mr. CARDWELL wet surprised at the discovery of the
lion. member fur Berwick (Mr. Forster), that this bill would
confer no advansage on the shipowner; the object of the bill
was in the first place to effect a union between the pilots
under the Trinity House and the pilots under the Cinque
Ports; and that was a measure which he knew had long
been itesired by, and would meet the decided appeebation
of the shipowners connected with the Thames, the advan-
tage being that the pilotage which affected them would then
lie under the control, not of a distant body, but of a
body resident in London. An econo nioal system
of pilotage would amount to a reduction of bur-.
thens; and surely in that respect there would be some
advantage conferred by this bill. (Hear, beak), -With re-
spect to what had been said as regarded the eleriefri•fac te-
etering charges, he bed only to explain, as he had stated in
introducing the bill, that it had never been contemplated
by this bill to make a compulsory reduction of charges.
The power was permissive to the pilot boards to make rc-
' ductions, with the sanction of the Board el Trade. As re-
garded the Cinque Ports, he hail heard nothing to induce
him to believe that there had been any invasion of their
vested interests; there had been the most serupulme
exactitude in securing for them, for what they
I lost, full reciprocal advantast a. Then the oppo-
sition of the honous able member for Liverpool
threatr. Turner)fasftwtescodmizeitttedee twoa,onlpLooredpoeinntti.rel His
one clause, the 10th, whereby permissive power would be
I given fur te examination of masters and mates of coasting
I vessels and steamers, with a view, in certain cases, of avoid-
ing the expenses of a pilotage which they did not want.
This permissive power was now exercised by the Trinity
Houses of London and Hull ; but had always been resisted
by the people of Liverpool. The Shipowners' Association
of Liverpool, quoted by the bun. gentleman, did
certainly oppose this clause ; but then they
at the same time aekuowleiged that • desirable
change would be • reduction of rates on coasters and coast-
ing steamers, such reduction to be approved of by the
Board of Trade. Now, this was exactly such • concession
as it was the intention of the bill to produce. (Hear, hear.)
The very printing and laying on the table of this 10th
clause had already produced an effect which bad up to this
time been strenuously resisted ; and such a concession was,
of course, the moat perfect justification of the introduction
of the clause. (Hear.) He wished it to be distinctly under-
stood that he did not wish the compulsory clause to be car-
ried into operation ; but it was clear that there would be
great benefit derived to the shipping interest generally
from leaving it as it stood, as a last resource, If proper re-
ductions were not voluntarily made. Against Liverpool,
Sunderland was to be pitted ; the complaint of tho hon.
member (Mr. Hudson) was t at the Board of Trade did
not do hall enough to have the objects of the 10th clause
more fully carried out. So much, then, for London and
Liverpool. There were real advantages already admitted
and recommended ; and they had the testimony
of the honourable member for Gloucester that the
Severn wou:d be benefited extremely by the bill.
On the whole he hoped that he had argued In favour of the
bill merely on practical grounds, after having consulted all
interests, and studied allaides ; and believing that it was a
measure which would prove • great boon to the shipping
interests, he trusted that the house would regard it in the
light of an unambitious but really practical and useful piece
of legislation, and, as there had been no opposition to the
second reading itself, would reject the proposition of the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Turner) and trust to the committee
of the whole house to make such alterations' were de-
sirable. (Hear, hear.)
Agee some few words from Kr. U. Fos,
The bill was read a second time.

On the queueing that the bill sbould be committed on a
certain day,
Mr. TURNER gave notice (as we undentood) of an
amendment that the bill be referred to a select com-
mittee.

Mr. HENLEY threw out same suggestions for amend-
ment in details.

Mr. DEEDES expressed his regret that the; right hon.
gentleman had not seceded to the reasonable proposition
of the hon. member for Liverpool. It sea very desirable
that the interests involved should not be legislated upon in
the abstract—that they should be heard against the

and that practical defeats in the hill should b`s
a select committee. The house could not itself deal with
such a bill If it required extensive remedy.
Mr. TURNER read in eztenso the resolutions or letter
of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association against the 10th
clause. The male objection, in addition to those already re-
Served to, was that the question of rates of Mersey pilots was
entirely one for Liverpool, to be dealt with locally, and not
by a system of centralisation of which the country was na-
turally jealous. Mr. Turner stated that the shipowners
who made these representations had no connexion with the
pilots, and were not directly interested in the question of
rates.

Mr. D. SEYMOUR considered the clause would give no
practical relief.
The bill was then ordered to be committed on Mondsy
neat.