The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-15 00:00:00

EMPE RIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bil
Mr. P. SCROPE said he had no objection to tha
part of the bill which consolidated the law relating to
friendly societies, but he could not assent to the appoint-
ment of a commission, which the bill proposed, for the
regulation of these societies. Many of these societies,
which entered into distinct engagements, ought not to
have the prestige conferred upon them of being sanc-
tioned by act of Parliament. His own opinion was,
that they ought merely to sanction societies affording
relief in case of sickness, and supported by monthly sub-
scrip',ions, but he strongly objected to !ending the au-
thority of Parliament to societies which took money from
their members upon the condition of pensioning them off
at some very distant period. In the first case the loss
would be lightly felt if the society miscarried either from
defective calculations or mismanagement ; bat in the
second case the loss would fall heavily indeed upon the
vast majority of the members.
Sir G. GREY thought the object of the bill was most
useful. It proposed to consolidate the law of friendly
societies ; 'it was not a new bill, because a similar mea-
sure was before the house last session, when it was re-
ferred to a select committee, and this bill was the re-
sult of that inquiry.
Mr. BRIGHT said he had been too late to present
some petitions in favour of this bill, but perhaps he
might be allowed to state what was the purport of the
petitions. One was signed by 1,700 heads of families
connected with three friendly societies in Manchester,
and they approved of the bill as a whole.
Mr. A. PELLATT said the bill bad been some time
before the working-classes connected with these socie-
ties, who well knew how to take care of their own
affairs, and they cordially approved of the measure.
The house then went into committee on the bill.
Clauses from 1 to 5 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause six,
Mr. MICHELL said the clause proposed to establish
a Board of Commissioners for regulating friendly so-
cieties, but receiving no salaries the commissioners would
not be responsible to any one for the due performance of
their duties. It was quite sufficient that there should
be a registrar, and therefore he moved the omission of
this clause.
Mr. SOTHERON said he proposed so to limit the
functions of the commission, that its duties should be
confined to simply giving information to friendly so-
cieties as to their powers and the construction of their
rules. Tho commission knowing what had been done
by existing societies, would be able to advise the founders
of new societies as to the best mode of proceeding for
the attainment of the object they might have in view.
Mr. BRINES thought the bill would be just as good
without this clause as with it, because it was exceedingly
doubtful whether an unpaid commissioner would effi-
ciently discharge its duties, even though they were con-
fined to simply giving advice and information. If,
however, the committee determined to retain the
spirit of the clause for the sake of establish-
ing a Beard of Advice, the wording of the clause
should to regulated as to stop the duty of the commis-
sion with the mere giving of advice to those who might
choose to apply for it.
Mr. BARROW objected to the commission altogether.
He was opposed to friendly societies, which undertook
life assurance or annuity business ; they should be con-
fined to mere temporary purposes, such as providing for
periods of sickness, and some table of rates should be
issued by the Government applicable generally to the
whole country.
Mr. HENLEY urged Mr. Sotheron, who had charge
of the bill, to withdraw the clauses relating to this com-
mission, with a view to a reconsideration of the subject
before bringing up the report.
Mr. SOTHERON 'accepted this proposal, and asked
leave to withdraw clauses 6,7, and 8..
Mr. MICHELL observed that, as the question -was
to be reconsidered, he would suggest that an actuary
should be substituted for theicommissions, with power
to give advice and regulate rates.
Mr. ADDERLY thought the appointment of a Go-
vernment actuary would be most objectionable.
Clauses 6,7, and 8, were then struck out.
Clauses 10 to 18, inclusive, were agreed to, after a
brief discussion.
Clause 19 was negatived.
The remaining clauses of the bill were agreed to with-
out any important amendraent.
Some other business on the paper having been disposed
of, the house adjourned at six o'clock.

LAW INT.ELLIOkNUE.—March 14.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
TIIR ZiIARK BREEDS.- COLLISION.

This was a suit promoted by the schooner Kezia, of
the burden of 127 tons, against the schooner Mark
Breeds, of the burden of 124 tons, to obtain compensa-
tion for the loss sutaincd by reason of a collision be-
tween them, 15 miles from Flamborough-head, at 5 a.m.
on the 4th of December, 1853. The Kezia, coal-laden,
was proceeding from Sunderland to London; the Mark
Breeds, in ballast, was bound from Whitestable to Sun-
derland. The morning was so hazy that both vessels,
as pleaded, sounded their fog horns continuously, and
carried bright signal lights. The Kezia was on the star-
board tack when she descried, as she alleged, the Mark
Breeds on the port teck, a point on her lee bow. She
kept her course, but the Mark Breeds, instead of porting
er helm, starboarded it, and ran into her. The Mark
Breeds admitted that she had been in collision with a
vessel about the titre in question, but pleaded that it was
a brig, and that the occurrence took place 16 miles from
the place where the Kezia met with the accident.
Dr. Bayford and Dr. Deane were heard for the Kezie,
Dr. Addams and Dr. Twiss for the Mark Breeds.

The learned Judge, after consulting with the Elder
Brethren, by whom he was assisted, said they were of
opinion that the identity was established ; and that the
Mark Breeds was to blame, and no fault was imputable
to the Kezia. lie must pronounce accordingly.

THE CAMBRIDGE.-COLLISION.
This was an action brought by the Greek bark Des-
pine, of the burden of 286 tons, against the Cambridge,
a vessel of the burden of 1,225 tons, to recover the
loss arising from a collision between them off Dun-
geness at half-past nine p.m. on the Ist of September,
1853. The bark was proceeding from Falmouth, where
she had arrived a few days previously, to Antwerp with
linseed. The Cambridge was bound from London to
Calcutta with railway materials. According to the
representation of the bark, she descried the Cambridge
right ahead, distant a quarter of a mile, upon which she
put her helm to port and hailed the Cambridge ; but
her course was not altered, and she ran into the bark
with such force that she sank in a few minutes. The
crew hoarded the Cambridge, and were afterwards landed
at Deal. Tile Cambridge, alleged that on first seeing
the hark she ported her helm and afterwards hailed her,
but the bark, without altering her course, ran into the
Cambridge. She imputed the blame to the bark for not
porting in time. The loss was estimated at 8,5001.
Dr. Bay-ford and Dr. Dean were heard fo the Despina
Dr. Robinson and Dr. Twiss for the Cambridge.
The learned Judge, having conferred with the Elder
Brethren, said they were of opinion that the Cambridge
was alone to blame, and he therefore pronounced against
her.