The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-22 00:00:00

if he went to the Baltic with a valuable cargo, no pilot was
required. The house would decide whether these regula-
tions showed such sagacity on the part of the Trinity Board
as to induce that house to give them further powers. If,
however, the house should be of opinion that all the pilots
should be under one uniform authority, it would only be
right that the governing body, be it what it might, should
exercise the greatest impartiality the very large and discre-
tionary powers proposed to be given by this bill. He trusted
the bill would, not be considered a party question, and he
utterly disclaimed any sinister motive whatever in sup-
porting the amendment.
Colonel HARCOURT said the Isle of Wight pilots com-
plained of being subjected to great grievances as compared
with the pilots of Southampton, for, not only did the latter
claim the privilege of piloting vessels through the river,
but also out to sea. Not that he should have objected to
that if the Isle of Wight pilots had been allowed to pilot
vessels- which they had taken charge of at sea up to South-
mpton • but that was not the case. While, too, the Isle
of 'Wight or Cowes pilots were paid only 3/., the South-
ampton pilots were paid 61. 10s. The former were also
obliged to maintain much larger, and therefore more expen-
sive, boats than were required for the pilots of Southamp-
ton. He referred to certain regulations of the Trinity.
house, and to other matters, which he said operated as
grievances on the Isle of Wight pilots and constituted
strong.grounds for inquiry before a select committee.
Lord A.- PAGET observed that in case of grievance the
pilots of the Isle of Wight could have redress from the
Board of Trade if the present bill passed. As the hon.
member for Berwick had expressed an opinion that the
Pilotage Bill would not be of any benefit to the shipowners,
he begged to state that an important document had been
forwarded to him from a large body of shipowners in the
port of London, representing 350,000 tons of shipping.
The document had appended to it the names, among others,
of Mr. Green, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Ingram, and Mr. Lindsay,
and set forth that the undersigned British shipowners were
of opinion that the proposed Pilotage Bill would be of
great benefit to the shipping interest, especially as related
to the system of the Cinque Port pilotage, as it would
open a. competition among the pilots, and, by their having
cruising licenses, would encourage them to seek ships off
Dungeness before the danger commenced, in lieu of await-
ing their; arrival within that point, which had hitherto
been almost invariably the case, thereby jeopardising the
safety of many of the valuably freighted inward bound
ships, their supineness having originated from the mono-
poly they had up to the present period enjoyed. (Hear.)
He certainly thought that the bill would be considered a
great boon by the shipping interest.
Mr. GEORGE gave his hearty support to the bill, which
in his opinion did justice to the important steam interest
connected with the port of Liverpool. He warmly
ap-
proved of the power of appeal to the Board of Tradein the
event of the local boards refusing to license competent
masters and mates; and, to show the injurious operation
.
of the existing system, he referred to the case of the Dublin
and Liverpool Steam Company. The masters and mates
employed by the company were experienced men, and
knew every crevics of the port of Liverpool, but the local
board refused to license them. In the last three years the
company's vessels had made 2,736 voyages from port to
port.
.In only 245 cases had they employed the Liverpool
pilots, and they had been compelled to pay for that service
no less than 4,5001., being at the rate of 1,5001. a year.
(Hear,. hear.)
Mr. HILDYARD complained that the Liverpool board
dealt as unjustly by the masters and mates of the steam-
vessels plying between that port and Whitehaven as they
did those'of the Dublin company.
Mr. LABOUOHE RE looked upon the bill as a great
boon, to the mercantile marine. The local interest had
always exercised a powerful influence in preventing the
adoption of any measure calculated to improve the present
defective system of pilotage. By means of that influence a
bill, introduced by the late Lord Sydenbam, was defeated,
which, had it been adopted, would have saved the shipping
interest a large sum of money. A better spirit would, he
trusted, animate the house on this occasion, and induce
them to reject the amendment. The proposal for sending
the bill to a select committee was a specious one, but,
if the house agreed to it, the reformation of the pilotage
system_ would be postponed to the Greek Kalends. (Hear,
hear.)
Lord CHELSEA wished the bill to be referred to a com-
mittee. He thought that a conclusive reason for adopting
that course was to be found in the 9th clause of the bill,
which proposed to deal with the funds of the Cinque Ports.
That subject could alone be done justice to in a committee
upstairs.
Mr. CARDWELL said, that after the support which
the measure had received from both sides of the house—
after the-repeated addresses which it had been his duty to
make on former stages of the bill—he should not at that
late hour occupy the time of the house by going into de-
tails. (Hear, hear.) He should reserve those for the com-
mittee of the whole house, to which it appeared to be the
general desire of hon. members to send it. He only wished
to make one observation, for the purpose of bringing the
sincerity of hon. members to the test on the subject. They
had passed the second reading of the bill without a divi-
sion. Did they intend that the shipowners and those who
were engaged in the commerce of the country should have
the benefit of the reform of which the house had declared
its approval by that second reading ? Because, if so, they
ought to advance the bill the present stage, and permit the
house to enter upon that fair deliberation which the sub-
ject required. (Hear.) If they sent the bill to a select
committee, and called witnesses on the various points, as
was now proposed, when, he should like to know, would
the bill again make its appearance in that house ? The
noble lord the member for Dover (Lord Chelsea) had spoken
of the state of the funds of the Cinque Ports as a reason
for sending the bill to a committee upstairs. With respect
to that point, he begged to say that it was one which had
engaged, and should continue to engage, his careful atten-
tion ; and he should be ready, when they got to that clause
either to vindicate its provisions or substitute some rea-
sonable alterations ; but he should protest as far as in him
lay against sacrificing the important principles of the bill
by the unavoidable delay which would be the consequence
of sending it to a select committee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said that no objections were taken to
what the hon. gentleman had called the principles of his
bill ; but the first nine clauses had nothing whatever to do
with those principles. They referred to an entirely sepa-
rate and distinct subject—viz., the sweeping away of an
ancient corporation and joining it to another, and that,
apparently, without affording any protection to the inte-
rests of the body which it proposed to sweep away ; and
he would ask whether they were more likely to delay the
bill by discussing the financial question involved in those
clauses over the table of that house, or by quietly endea-
vouring to settle the question in a committee upstairs to
the satisfaction of all the parties concerned ? (Hear, hear.)
He desired to see a good bill pass, and he would lend his
best endeavours to perfect a good measure, but it was im-
possible to discuss such a bill properly across the table of
that house

The house then divided ; the numbers were,
For going into committee ... ... ... 219
For the amendment ... ... ... ... 83

Majority ... ... 136
The house went into committee pro forma, but immedi
ately afterwards resumed.
SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

This bill wont through committee pro form 42, when
several amendments were introduced.

COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL,

The house then went into committee on this bill.

Mr. WHITESIDE said, it was impossible at that late
hour (nearly half-past 12) to go into a discussion of the
measure ; and, as, he had on a former occasion postponed
the bill at the request of the Government, he hoped the
noble lord, in accordance with the promise which had
been made, would give him a good position on a Govern-
ment night.
Lord J. RUSSELL was quite willing that the bill
should come on as Government business, but he could not
fix a day for it until he saw the progress of the financial
measures. He would name, for the present, Monday week.