The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-02 00:00:00

•
were introduced it would seriously damage the bill. When-
ever the tenant made an improvement he would be obliged
to consult an attorney, in order not to forego a claim at
some future time upon his landlord. The only way the
bill was calculated to do good was to encourage amicable
arrangements, instead'of litigation, between landlord and
tenant.
Colonel DUNNE, on the contrary, believed that the in-
sertion of the proviso would prevent any litigation, and
encourage amicable feelings between those parties, if the
nature and value of the improvements were recorded at the
time they were made, instead of searching for evidence
some years after they were made.
Mr. MAGUIRE did not think there were the slightest
grounds for the introduction of the proviso.
Sir J. YOUNG thought it was of the greatest importance
that a correct and accurate statement of the value of the
improvements should be registered at the time they were
made. He believed it would have the effect of preventing
much litigation and misunderstanding between landlords
and tenants. •
Mr. BRADY moved, as an amendment, that the time
should be extended to two years.
After some conversation, in which Mr. F. Scully, Mr.
Maguire, Mr. Grogan, and the Solicitor-General for Ire-
land took part,
The house divided on the amendment of Mr. Brady, when
there appeared—
For the insertion of " two years"
Against it lO6
—7l
Majority
Mr. FITZGERALD objected to the proviso, as likely to
hh
disputed a
hn
yd
making it conclusive on
lead to litigation, requiring, as it did, the tenant to file a
declaration forthwith of claims
landlord, forlcompensation,ees
him ; thus compelling him to dispute it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND said the
proviso • had been framed by the learned member for Dublin
University, and was in accordance with the bill as origi-
nally framed.
Mr. CAIRNS thought this was not so, and that it would
lead to litigation.
Mr. J. BALL objected to the proviso.
Mr. GEORGE supported it, as necessary to protect the
landlord from the sea of claims about to be thrown upon
him.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE pressed the Government to with-
draw the proviso.
Sir J. YOUNG could not assent to this; for the proviso
was necessary, not only to protect the landlord, but the
purchaser, otherwise it would be impossible to know what
amount of indefinite claims was hanging over a property.
Let it be recollected that the bill had a retrospective ope-
ration, and that within a short time of the act passing
every in Ireland would be possessed of its provisions.
Now, it was impossible but that they should know what
improvements, if any, they had effected, and could have no
difficulty in registering them. He did not see how this
could lead to litigation. Undoubtedly he could not deny
that this part of the measure opened a difficult and danger-
ous course of legislation. (Hear, hear.) The Government
held themselves bound, however, to pursue that course—
(ironical cheers)—because the late Government had brought
in a measure on a subject—(renewed ironical cheers)—and
because without it the tenant-right would be endangered
The house divided--
For the proviso
Against it

. 107
. 35
. -72

Majority
The bill then passed.
MERCHANT SHIPPING SEAMEN'S BILL
This bill was read a third time.
Mr. CARDWELL brought up a clause, which was added.
Sir J. GRAHAM brought up a clause :—" In cases
where salvage services are rendered by any ship belonging
to her Majesty, or by the commander or crew thereof, no
claim shall be made or allowed for any loss, damage, or
risk thereby caused to such ship, or to the stores, tackle,
or furniture thereof, or for the use of any stores or other
articles belonging to her Majesty, supplied in order to effect
the salvage service, or for any other expense or loss sus-
tained by her Majesty by reason of such services."
Mr. HUME approved of the principle, but it did not go
far enough.. It was disgraceful to theßoyal Navy that
they should claim salvage in any cases, instead of being
eager to save life or property for the honour of the service.
Admiral WALCOT indignantly denied this, and declared
that there was nothing discreditable in the claim of salvage.
The navy were always ready to discharge their duty to
humanity in the saving of life, but when they preserved
property at the peril of their own lives, they were fairly
entitled to salvage, and the " merchant princes" of Eng-
land would be ashamed to grudge it them. (Cheers.)
Sir G. PECHELL supported the clause.
Sir G. TYLER thought that these calumnies should not
be heaped upon British officers and seamen for merely
doing that which an act of Parliament compelled them to
do. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MITCHELL observed that the case of the Rosalind,
which occurred under the control of the Board of Admi-
ralty, was one of the worst and most flagrant abuses of the
law of salvage that could be pointed at. (Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said, as r carded the particular case
of the ship Rosalind, it would' be inexpedient to pursue
the discussion further, inasmuch as it was now pending
before a court of law. (Hear.)
The clause was then added to the bill.
Mr. HUTT moved the addition of a clause requiring all
ships of the navy and merchant service, yachts, and trans-
ports to contribute in equal proportions to the lighthouse
tolls and dues.
The SPEAK-RR decided the clause could not be enter-
tained.
Mr. HUTT next moved the omission of clauses 33, 34,
and 35, relative to seamen volunteering into the navy,
and to substitute, in lien thereof, the following clause :
" Whereas, it is expedient that seamen should no longer
be permitted to desert the vessels in which they are en-
gaged for the purpose of entering into her Majesty's service,
be it enacted, that the 50th and 51st sections of the act of
the Bth year of her present Majesty, chap. 112, shall be
repealed ; and it shall not be lawful for any officer in her
Majesty's service knowingly to permit or encourage any
seaman to leave the vessel in which he is engaged ; and
every seaman leaving his ship and entering into her Ma-
jesty's service shall be liable to all the penalties of deser-
tion, any law or custom notwithstanding."
Mr. CARDWELL wished to impress upon the house the
fact that this bill had special reference to the interests of
shipowners, and was framed greatly for their advantage.
The question now was whether they would take this power
of receiving volunteers out of the hands of the Admiralty,
or suffer it to be exercised by them in the most cautious
and restricted manner? (Hear, hear.) He could assure
the house that the provisions of this bill were alike bene-
ficial to the shipowners and seamen; and that all exercise
of power on the part of the navy—as regarded the matter
referred to by the clause of the hon. gentleman—would be
watched and regulated with the most jealous restriction.
Mr. HUME said the practice of receiving volunteers from
merchant vessels tended greatly to break up the discipline
of the merchant crews ; and, therefore, men-of-war should
not be allowed to take seamen volunteers from the mer-
chant vessels without the sanction of the merchant cap-
tains. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSFALL said the shipping interest did not com-
plain of the naval service having the power to receive sea-
men from the mercantile marine, but of its being invested
with the power of taking them. He believed, however,
that the evil was not quite so great as many of the ship-
owners imagined, for it appeared by the return recently
published that the number of seamen who bad been so
taken was exceedingly small. The principal evil consisted
in the fact of the seamen knowing that as soon as a man-
of-war hove in sight he was at liberty at once to go on
board her ; and he had it upon the authority of masters of
vessels themselves, that this frequently produced a degree
of insubordination amongst their crews that hon. members
could have no conception of. (Hear, hear.) He was cer-
tain that whenever a merchantman fell in with a man-of-
war in want of hands which she could supply, she would
gladly do so at all times ; and he believed there was such
a good understanding between the two services that there
was no necessity for a law of this sort. He should vote for
the amendment.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR grounded his objection to the
clauses in the bill on the opinion expressed by Sir James
Stirling before the committee of 1848, that they legalised a
breach of contract on the part of the seaman, and laid the
foundation for quarrels between the master and seamen for
all the time they might happen to be together.
Sir G. PECHELL did not think the bill gave the power
which hon. gentleman seemed to apprehend, whilst it cer-
tainly remedied many of the evils of which complaint had
been made.
Captain SCOBELL asked what men-of-war were main-
tained for on foreign stations if not to protect the com-
merce of the country ? And how could they do that if
they were not fully manned ? If they chanced to lose 30
or 40 men through sickness, some means must be resorted
to for the purpose of making up the complement. The
higher consideration, therefore, was that the man-of-war
should be kept in a state of perfect efficiency. And if this
were necessary in time of peace, it was doubly so in time
of war. The shipowner should remember, too, that a vast
concession had been made to him which he (Captain
Scobell) had striven hard to prevent, namely - that he
might enlist foreigners in his crew. (Hear, hear.) As to
the opinion of Sir James Stirling, quoted by the hon.
member for Sunderland (Mr. D. Seymour), all he could
say was that that gallant gentleman differed in his evi-
dence from every other person who was examined. Sir
James Stirling was of opinion that men-of-war could be
manned without the assistance of the merchant service.
But that was sheer nonsense. It was altogether out of the
question. It could not be done in a period of peace. And
in war nothing could supply the navy with men but the
mercantile marine.

Mr. HEADLAM supported the amendment on the
ground that the provision it contained was not only in
strict right and justice due to the merchant service, but
also expedient for the navy itself. At the same time he
admitted that the bill conferred material benefits on the
former. The question was, however, whether it was
worth while, for the sake of such a small advantage to the
navy, to maintain a privilege which was not based on any
sound or rational principle, and which in fact had become
obsolete. He was satisfied that it was not, and that it
was actually for the interest of the navy that it should
rely on the voluntary spirit and efforts of the people.
Sir J. GRAHAM would be extremely sorry if the house,
in an unhappy hour, were induced to depart from this
valuable privilege. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member said
it was obselete. Now if he meant by that that it was ob-
solete, and had fallen into disuetude from not being used
:when positively necessary he was quite mistaken. It had
under
been recognised by statute from the reign of George 11.,
the present time, and been in constant use. And all the abuses of this night had been progressively modified,
and he might :ere now finally rectified by the bill
with regard
disenscosionsawyhich provided a remedy for all the prin-
cipal evils
house was to o'
sure breadiymoplained of. His hon. friend based the mea-
t: 91.3 ground of right and of policy. And
observe
brusei of the privilege, all he asked the
regulations of
ytehaersll'ocac
vided against ilileiT.o the checks and guards that were pro-
rild.roefneldmiralty, which had been
of every ship in her ;la°,fer Ho held in his hand the
d under which the commander
framed a few .
was bound to make a
the circumstances miner which which included all
quarterlyy-'service, at a foreign station,
return,
vessel might have joined his crew, The men from a merchant
Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) was mistaken hon. member for
commander of one of her Majesty's 11 supPnaing that a
from a merchant vessel just as he might ships
ruld take men
was, that he could not only not so take please. The fact
had no right to receive them without statinv.,to
ttethat he
A
raltv whether the captain had consented to the men ~,lnie,i;
teering, and if he had not consented, what was ° the
strength of the crew after the volunteering had taken
place, and what was the reason why ho bad accepted the
men against the wish of the captain. All those returns
were made quarterly from every ship in her Majesty's
service ; they were investigated by the Board of Ad-
miralty, and if any complaint were made by a captain
of Admiralty
in the merchant service, the Board
the was
ready to institute a furtherf inquiry into_ case.
The number of these volunteers was mucbsmaller
than some gentlemen seemed to imagine. Ina pe-
riod of eighteen months, 170 men only had volunteered.on
into the service
foreign station from the merchant service . _
of her Majesty ; and of those 170 persons 61 had assigned
the general ill-treatment they had received on board the