The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-27 00:00:00

PILOTAOE BILL.

Earl GRANVILI:i;;;WiI; second analog of ibis bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said he understood the
object of this bill to be to relieve shipowners from certain
expences to which they were now subject. He was appre-
hensive that this bill would have the effect of putting down
certain ancient establishments in this country which had
been most useful in regard to the difficult navigation in the
river sass, more particularly in the communication with this
great metropolis. Coder the existing laws all vessels coming
up the Channel were under the necessity of taking pilots
aboard, and for that purpose they had to make signals. The
abject of this measure was to relieve vessels from the neces-
sity for making signals for pilots, provided they had on board
a person who wu certified to be competent to take charge of
the ship. He had been warden of the cinque parts for 20
years. In the first ten, from 1829 to 1839, 3,800 ships on the
average were brought into the river annually. In that
period there were only 22 complaints of accident
through the misconduct of pilots, and an inquiry, it
turned out that only nine had any foundation. In the se-
cond ten years there were only fourteen complaints, and of
those only six were well founded. In all the other eases
the pilots were entirely acquitted of blame. Under these
circumstances he thought that their lordships must feel
that great care ought to be taken not to injure that useful
institution to which he had referred.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would be the last person
to say anything in disparagement of existing authorities,
which parliement was bound to respect, net only on account
of their antiquity, but also for their prosier and diligent dis-
charge of the important functions committed to them. But
this bill was founded on entire respect for and confidence in
those authorities, and its provisions were only permis-
sive. The noble duke would be left at liberty either to
preserve the existing system as it stood or to intro-
duce such modifications as he might consider expe-
dient. But the bill gave to other authorities who had
long exercised similar functions the power of dispensing with
the existing regulations under certain circumstances and
with certain limitations in cages in which the exemption
might be for the benefit of the shipping trade.
Lord STANLEY said it did not appear that there
was any great burden resting on the shipowners; and one
great evil of pausing the measure would be, to render the
'apply of pilots uncertain and fluctuating. He would like
to know whether the government wished to confine the
licenses to British vessels, British masters, and British mated.
If they did, that was inconsistent with treaties of recipro-
city ; on the other hand, if there were to be no such limita-
tion it might be dangerous to give foreigners opportunities
of becoming acquainted with the intricacies of our naviga-
tion. In a national point of view the measure was objec-
tionable.

Lord COLCHESTER agreed that it would be very hie:-
pendient to give foreign masters and mates an opportunity
of leaving the navigation of the British seas end riven.
Earl ORANVILLE replied. He did not think that their
treaties with foreign notions would compel them to admit
pilots on foreign vessels ; but if foreign vessel. had men who
were ready to submit to the regular test, he did not see why
they should be refused to pilot the vessel. With respect to
danger @rising from a knowledge of their coasts, he thought
it most visionary, especially when they furnished foreign
countries with maps and charts of the omit. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH believed this bill was
introduced hurriedly, in compliance with the wish of pro-
prietors of steam-boats plying from foreign countries. He did
not think it necessary, in order to remove this grievance, that
a general measure should be introduced. If they pummel this
bill, they would create an inferior class of pilots. He should
therefore movethat the bill be read a second time that day
three months.

The house then divided—For the amendment lO
Against it
The bill was then read a second time.
ROYAL PAVILION (BRIGHTON) BILL.
On the motion of the Rad of Ceauxems, this bill passed
through committee.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN BILL.
The Earl of HARROWBY moved that the amendments
of the Commons to this bill be agreed to.

L+rd CAMPBELL s.id that all were unanimous as to the ,
obj •et of the bill; the different* was as to the best means of
attaining that object. As a specimen of legislation, this
nemeses was most defective ; no punishment could he in.
flirted under it unless the offence was consummated. It not
only did not strengthen the common law, but actually
weakened it. It also held out a premium for the institution
of prosecutions, and would doubtless lead to many false
charges. He moved that the amendment. should be taken
into consideration that day three months.
Earl NELSON denied that any premium to prosecutions
was held out by the bill.
The amendments were then agreed to without a division.
The Trustees Relief Bill was read a third time and passed.
NEW FOREST AND WALTHAM FOREST BILL.
The Earl of CARLISLE moved the second reading of
this bill, meting tb.t it went to institute an inquiry with a
view to further legislation.

Lord REDEBIiALE complained of the expense likely to
be incurred by the nonamission.
After a few words from Earl Powts, and the Earl of
CARLISLE in reply, the bill was read a second time.
The New Zealand Laad Conveyance Bill passed through
committee.