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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
CASE OF THE BARON DE BODE.
Lord LYNDHURST moved a resolution to the effect
that the claim of the Baron de Bode upon the English
Government, in respect of property confiscated by the
French revolutionary authorities, had been clearly estab-
lished, and recommended itself to the earnest considera-
tion of her Majesty's Government.
The LORD CHANCELLOR entered into a history
of the case, urging particularly that, although the baron
was in point of law a British subject, he was practically,
and to all intents and purposes, a foreigner ; that the
property was confiscated as the property of a French
emigrant, and that the son of that emigrant, the present
baron, had been held by the lawful tribunal to have no
claim. Further, that the Privy Council, on being ap-
pealed to, had confirmed the decision ; and that the sur-
plus fund remaining after the satisfaction of the admitted
claims had been appropriated in what was judged to be
the most equitable manner. His lordship asked if those
decisions were to be set aside, where was the system to
stop—and why should not any other disappointed claim-
ant be hermit over again ? The manner in which the
case was brought forward was altogether indefinite. If
their lordships believed the claim to be just, it was
their duty to pass an act for its satisfaction ; but
if " favourable consideration" meant fair consideration,
he could only say that the case had been already fairly
considered. His lordship believed that the claim had
been founded originally in error, and that at the pre-
sent time there was not only no legal claim, but that
there was no claim even for the equitable consideration
of the house.
Lord TRURO insisted that it would be a disgrace to
the country if their lordships rejected the claim.
Lord MONTEAGLE defended the administration of
the funds allotted for the compensation of all who had
suffered confiscation, and thought that the question
should not be re-opened ; but
Lord HARROWBY declared his opinion that no-
thing but the extent of the injustice prevented the ac-
knowledgment of the debt.
After some further discussion,
The Earl of ABERDEEN would only offer to the
house a very few words upon this question. His noble
and learned friend's motion was to recommend this case
to the favourable consideration of the Government ; but
what result did he expect ?
Lord LYNDHURST—I leave it to the noble lord
to say.
The Earl of ABERDEEN must say, in the first
place, that he could not agree to that motion, because
he thought it one that it was incompetent for him to
deal with, and then, notwithstanding the great ability
of the noble and learned lord, he had failed in his speech
to establish the claim in justice of Baron de Bode, and
he must say that if this was a claim competent to be en-
tertained there was not a single rejected claimant who
had not a right to a hearing. (Hear, hear.) There
had been claims considered and rejected. The com-
missioners were a competent tribunal constituted
for that purpose, and the Privy Council was a compe-
tent tribunal to review the decision in the case. If ever
there was res adjudicates it was here. It was impos-
sible for the Government to lend itself to re-open a case
which every preceding Government deemed to be finally
and conclusively determined. After all, the committee,
to the appointment of which the house had, perhaps,
somewhat incautiously assented, made their report in
the month of June last, and he wanted to know why
his noble and learned friend did not take an opportunity
of applying to the noble lord then at the head of the
Government, instead of writing a letter to him (the
Earl of Aberdeen) about the Baron de Bode ?
Lord LYNDHURST made an observation which was
inaudible.
The Earl of ABERDEEN was still of opinion that
his noble and learned friend would have done well
to apply to the then head of the Government, who was
known to have expressed an opinion favourable to
the Baron de Bode's claim when in the House of
Commons. When his noble and learned friend ap-
pealed to his (the Earl of Aberdeen's) mercy, he
seemed, in some respect, to abandon the strong ground
of justice assumed at the outset. If anything were
left to his discretion he would be happy to yield to the
suggestions of mercy, but he was afraid that in a case of
this kind justice must precede mercy, and he was bound
to declare he saw no reason for departing from the course
taken by preceding Governments. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired whether a
division would be called for ?
Lord LYNDHURST.—Yes ; I will divide, if I stand
alone.
The house then divided ; the numbers were,—
Content 6
Noncontent l6
Majority —lo
In answer to a question from the Earl of HARROWBY,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE stated, that a code of
laws, mitigatory of the criminal system existing in Malta
(which was the same as prevailed in the time of the
Knights of Malta), had been sent over to this country.
It was, however, a printed copy, and was deficient in
the formalities which would authorise him to submit it
to her Majesty for approbation. In the event of a proper
copy arriving, he would not pledge himself not to submit
to her Majesty for approbation before Parliament had an
opportunity of expressing an opinion on it. In the
I meantime the printed copy would be laid upon their
lordships' table.
The Entail (Scotland) Bill, the Stamp Duties Bill, and
the Registrar of Meetings Bill, were read a third time
and passed.
The Public Libraries (Ireland and Scotland) Bill, the
Burgh Harbours (Scotland) Bill, the Elections Bill,
the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill, the Resident
Magistrates (Ireland) Bill, the Turnpike Trusts Arrange-
ment Bill, and the Sheep, &c., Contagious Diseases
Prevention Bill passed through committee.
The Highway Rates Bill the Stamp Duties (No. 2)
Bill, and the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill were read
a second time.

THE INDIA BILL.
On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, this bill was read
a first time and ordered to be read a second time or
Thursday.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.,
The house resumed at six o'clock.
CASE OF ROBERT TOLLER.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from R. Toller,
one of the witnesses who had been examined before the
Clitheroe committee, and who had lately been committed
to the gaol of Newgate upon the charge of prevarication.
The petitioner begged most respectfully to assure the house
that, in consequence of never having been examined before
a committee previous to the occasion upon which he lately
gave his evidence, and never having been subjected to such
rigid cross-examination by counsel, he was very much con-
used, and did not clearly understand the questions which
were put to him. He regretted to find that any mental in-
firmity of his should lead the house to deem him guilty of
wilful prevarication, and begged to assure the house that
his character had never before been called in question. The
petitioner further stated that he had been in custody for
12 days, and that having previously led an active life, his
health had been seriously injured by confinement. He de-
sired to express his contrition for having misled the com-
mittee, and implored the house to sanction his release.
Now he (Mr. W. Patten) held in his hands the certificates
of the surgeon of Newgate and one or two other medical
men, whic testified that Robert Toiler was suffering from
diarrhoea, and that his illness was likely to be prolonged
by the mental excitement consequent upon his confinement
in prison. He had also been requested to mention that
there were at present several gentlemen in London who
wera ready to bear testimony to the good character which
had, until recently, been borne by the petitioner. Now,
under these circumstances he thought the house ought to
take the case of that unfortunate person into their conside-
ration. At the same time, he was unwilling to press the
matter upon their attention, unless the chairman of the
committee before whom Toller had been examined should
be of opinion that the circumstances of the case were such
as to justify his release.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said that the witness Toiler was
the proprietor of a public-house in the borough of Clitheroe,
and that he held that house ender a relative of Mr. Aspi-
nall, one of the candidates at the late election. It was,
therefore, not unnatural that there should be a bias upon
the part of witness in favour of Mr. Aspinall. Toiler
had
been examined by the counsel for the petitioner at great
length, and having been subjected to a cross-examination,
certainly appeared to be not a little confused. At the
same time he (Mr. G. Hamilton) was bound to say that
afterwards his evidence was extremely contradictory- ; so
much so that the committee felt it to be their duty, with
the view to enable the witness to set himself right, to put
some questions to him themselves. He was sorry to be
obliged to state, however, that the result of that examina-
tion upon the part of the committee had been anything but
satisfactory. -Upon the morning subsequent to the day
upon which the examination to which he alluded had
taken place, the evidence given by Toiler had still con-
tinued to be of a very contradictory character, and under
those circumstances the committee felt that they were jus-
tified in taking the course which they had adopted. He
the case
h o w ewv ears,
ebfo nen dt v
e or
ya dpnettahr a to
btehre
ee cteirrc. u
et annec er sw oef,
evidently a man of a very excitable temperament. He had
been in custody for nearly a fortnight, and under all the
circumstances of the matter he (Mr. Hamilton) believed
that the ends of justice had been sufficiently attained,
and he felt assured that he onl7 spoke the sentiments
wasof h
desirableis
Tollerin the s committeeshould
now
bein dsiteaetbianrgg
etdhaftremit
custody.
Mr. W. PATTEN then moved that Robert Toiler should
that
be discharged upon payment of his fees. He was ready to
produce the surgeon .who had granted the certificate in the
case to testify to the truth of what the petitioner had
alleged.
Mr. C. West, surgeon, then appeared at the bar of the
house and gave it as his opinion that further confinement
would prove seriously injurious to the health of R. Toller.
The motion for his discharge was accordingly agreed to.
(i3rtpul3niVthl'isi
ADMISSION OF STRANGERS TO THE GALLERIES
OF THE HOUSE OF CwOisMll:4lo4NStiluDhUoßulseNi
IS).l‘,:vArtheaninloouusnecNevdastlaiabtolpiti,:airwaotei(e)o7 had been
bie.,,.
etrask
et o
care withdraw,
thatt huep osieta‘tN:hl
subject.
TheS O Ns
made for carrying out the
adt.A directrnis
Nkivtolumii(tig
ich
be
neath and in front of the strangers' gallery
divi-
sion
Sheeri seen' -1
The occupants, however, of the remaining portion cleared.
gallery would be allowed to retain their; of the
division proceeded. seats while the
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)
Upon the motion of Mr. G. HAM BILL.
read a third time. ILTON, this was
The question that it do pass having been put,
Mr. GOOLD moved the omission
the words " not exceeding one
from the 10th clause of
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL the amendment. for IRELAND opposed
After some observations from
SCULLY the amendment wea •t Lord MONCE and Mr. V.
Viscount MONCK moved
thewithdrawn.
"growing corn, grass, hops, omission of the words
produce," from the 71st and roots, fruits, and other
that amendment was to preavuset. His object in proposing
very objectionableright en the re-introduction of the
of distraining growing crops.

That right had never existed in Ireland until the year
1816, and it had been abolished in the year 1846 in com-
plianceervefoenraesc,otmehnmis sion
In
moving itht
that
t amendmentn recommendation
he stood,o f th
ethDe
conser-
vative ground, for h. was for leaving things were.
He admitte that there were many provisions 'nes:
which would e Pet valuable improvements in i the bill
the existing
carriedlaw,
with he should rather see it lost altogether than -
with the words to which he was then objecting.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said it was true that the power
which landlords had formerly possessed of distrainingr
growing crops had been repealed in the year 1846, in con-
formity with a suggestion of the Devon commission, of
which he had been a member. But landlords had been
placed by that measure in a worse position than other
creditors, who might seize the crops as well as any other
goods of a debtor. The result that many frauds and scenes
of violence had arisen in consequence of tenants having
entered into collusive arrangements with persons who ob-
tained executions against them and then seized their grow-
ing crops, so that the landlords had no means of recovering
the rents to which they were entitled. The bill then
before the house contained many clauses of a mitigatory
character as regarded the recovery of rent. For instance,
under the existing law a landlord had the power of distrain-
iug for any amount of rent that might be due to him ; but
by that measure the power of distraint to be possessed by
a landlord was limited to the amount of a year's rent.
Again, a landlord had the power under the existing law of
issuing a warrant of distress signed by himself or his agent ;
while under that bill he would be obliged to make an ap-
plication to a magistrate, who alone could issue such a
warrant. His right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Napier),
who had prepared that bill, did not think it proper to
deny altogether to the landlord the right of distraming
growing crops ; but he (Mr. Hamilton) had to state
that his right hon. friend was prepared still further to
mitigate that power. He proposed the introduction of an
amendment which would make that clause applicable to
those cases only in which a landlord was prepared to swear
before a magistrate that he had reason to believe that a
tenant intended to cut the crop with the view to evade the
payment of his rent. His right hon. friend wished that
the clause should be further amended by the insertion of a
proviso to the effect that a landlord who should distrain a
growing crop should not be entitled to any expenses for
watching the property beyond those which he might have
incurred during a period of fourteen days. He hoped that
the house would accede to those proposals, and would not
adopt the amendment of his noble friend.
A division then took place under circumstances which
were to us of a very novel character. Strangers were, as
usual, ordered to withdraw ; but, in conformity with the
rule which the house had adopted about an hour pre-
viously, this order applied to those strangers only who
occupied seats in the speaker's gallery and on the benches
below the bar, both of which communicate with the por-
tions of the building appropriated to the
.use of members.
All persons in the " Strangers' gallery" and in the " Re-
porters' gallery" were, for the first time, left undisturbed
throughout the division.
Two minutes were allowed to elapse before the closing of
the outer door of the house ; and then the speaker having
put the question that the words proposed be left out should
stand part of the bill, directed that the " ayes" should pro-
ceed to the right lobby, and the "noes" to the left lobby.
The members accordingly proceeded to the lobbies at
either side of the outer and the inner doors ; and in those
lobbies, and just out of our sight, their names as they were
returning to the house were told off.
The numbers having been made known to the Speaker
by the " Tellers," were announced by the right hon. gen-
tleman to have been—
Ayes 7O
Noes ... 94
The result was that the amendment of Lord Mon* was
carried by a majority of 24.
Some other alterations were made in the clause, for the
purpose of rendering it conformable in all its provision to
the amendment.
On the question that the bill do pass.
Sir W. VERNER wished hon. members in this country
were really aware of the nature and objects of the bill. It
was the first step to put down the gentry of Ireland, and
replace them by Chartists and Repealers, and was the re-
sult of certain meetings held by hon. members of that
house, who had combined against every Government that
did not give them their demands. The first thing they
demanded was the tenant-right ; now they demanded the
destruction of the gentry. At a meeting held at Bells, in
the county Meath, Mr. Lucas had said he and his col-
leagues were sent to Parliament for the purpose of op-
posing every Government who did not establish religious
equality and the principle of Sharman Crawford'sßill.
They pledged their words—they pledged their souls—they
adjured the high and holy name of God, that they would
abide by those pledges. But no sooner had they got into
Parliament than they broke those pledges. He wished to
call the attention of the house to the advice given by the
Chief Secretary of Ireland—according to the statement of
the hon. member for Meath. (Cries of Divide and Ques-
tion.) But no sooner had that right hon. gentleman got
into office than he changed his tone. The select commit-
tee was appointed on the subject of tenant-right, and the
right hon. gentleman had refused to admit two members
from his (Sir W. Verner's) side of the house on the com-
mittee. As long as conciliation and expediency continued
to be the policy of the Government there would be no
peace for Ireland. (Laughter and hear.)
The bill was then passed.
TENANTS' COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion that the Tenants' Compensation Bill be
read a third time,
Sir W. VERNER said he thought that the bill should
be extended to England, and he had a motion to that
effect ; but, under the circumstances, he should not pass it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for Ireland brought up an
additional clause.
Mr. CAIRNS wished to know the nature of the clause,
It appeared to him to give the tenant power to hold the
land until compensation should be made.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for Ireland said the
clause had been prepared by the right hon. member for
the University of Dublin, and its object was to give the
tenant reasonable time to put forward his claim for com-
pensation previous to ejectment for any clause except mm-
payment of rent or breach of covenant.
Mr. GROGAN said the clause enlarged the powers of
the bill in favour of the tenant very materially, and he
thought it would only hamper the working of the bill to
adopt it. In fact, it was not necessary.
Mr. V. SCULLY said the bill would be nugatory unless
the clause were added to it. He (Mr. Scully) had pressed
a clause to the same effect to a division, but it was nags-
gat
eived. The only objection he had o the clause before
th house was that it did not go far enotugh.
The house then divided—
For the clause
Against it

Majority —Bl
Sir A. BROOKE protested against the unjustifiable
manner in which Irish property was voted away in that
house. He was quite satisfied that two-thirds of the
members who voted on the question did not know what
they were voting about. If it were a question of principle
it would be another thing, but it related to property. The
hon. and learned gentleman said that the clause was pre-
pared by the hon and learned member for the University
of Dublin, but that was no recommendation of the mea-
sure, which he (Sir A. Brooke) had no hesitation in saying
was disapproved of by the whole Conservative party in
Ireland.
Lord J. RUSSELL—No doubt many hon. members in
this house vote without fully understanding several ques-
tions on which they may vote—no doubt many votes in
this house are given in confidence. The hon. members on
this side of the house voted on the present occasion in
full confidence—a confidence which lam sorry to find is
blamed by the hon. baronet —in the character, the learn-
ing, and the ability of the late Attorney-General for Ire
land. (Hear.) I cannot agree with the hon. baronet,
therefore. I have the highest opinion of the right hon.
gentleman the member for the University of Dublin, and
I consequently protest against the attack made against
him in his absence. Few persons in this house possess that
right hon. gentleman's knowledge of the law as it relates
to Ireland—none have given the subject of the bill greater
care and deeper attention. (Hear.) lam very sorry, un-
der the circumstances, that the hon. baronet cannot agree
with him, but at any rate we must still retain our confi-
dence in the right hon. and learned gentleman. (Hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE said the property of Ireland was quite
as much in the labour of the tenant as in the land of the
landlord. English members had no occasion whatever to
be alarmed at this concession to the Irish tenant. The
clause did not go far enough, for it did not give compensa-
tion in the case of eviction for non-payment of rent.
The clause was then added to the bill.
Colonel DUNNE complained that no notice of these
amendments had been given.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND said they
had been all fully discussed in committee, and were only
for the purpose of carrying out the pledges given by the
hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin.
Mr. WCARTHY moved the omission of the 14th clause.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELANP, at the
end of the same clause, then proposed the insertion of a
proviso, that no claim should be allowed for any improve-
ments, unless, within twelve months of the improvements
being made, they shall be registered by the tenant, and a
dcalaration is made of the nature and value of the improve-
ments.
air. Sergeant SHEE apprehended that if the proviho
were introduced it would seriously damage the bill. Wh
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
inaaimprovements were recorded at the
time they were made,
some years after they were dof searching for evidence
Mr. MAGUIRE did not trehamke. there wore 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 amendment, that the time
should be extended to two an
e
After some conversation,yianre.
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
Majority --71
Mr. FITZGERALD oWeeted to the proviso, as likely to
lead to litigation, requiring, as it did, the tenant to file a
declaration forthwith of claims for compensation, uld
making it conclusive on the landlord, unless ilisputed by
him ; thus compelling hills to dispute it. the
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND saiil
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,
on
up
as necessary to protect the
landlord from the sea of claims about
to be thrown
biramr. . Serjeant SHEE pressed the Government to with-
draw the proviso.
Sir J. YOUNG could not assent to this; for the proviso
necessary,not only to protect the landlord, but the
wf or wise it would be impossible to know what
pmreha ount 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 tenant 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
Majority
The bill then passed.
MERCHANT SHIPPING SEAMEN'S BILL.

107
35
-72

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 co: 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 the Royal 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 W ALOOT 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 regarded 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 SPEAKER decided the clause could not be enter-

tabled.
Mr. HUTT next moved the omission of clauses 33, 34,
and 35, relative to seamen volunteering into the navy,
and to substitute, in lieu thereof, the following clause :
" Whereas, it is expedient that seamen should no longer
be permitted to desert the vessels in which thr are en-
gaged for the purpose of entering into her Majest s service,
be it enacted, that the 50th and 51st sections o 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
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 receivingi volunteers out of the hands of the Admiralty,
or suffer
to be exercised by them in the most cautious
and restricted manner? (Hear, hear.) He could assure
the house that the provisions ofthis 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. tl man—would be
watched and regulated with the mostge
jealousn 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 se
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 1 And how could. they do that if
they were not fully manned ? If they chanced to lose 30
or 10 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
oTound 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 materia b
lbenefits 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
hat not, and that it
was actually for the interest of the navy tit 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
been recognised by statute from the reign of George 11.,
to the present time, and been in constant use. And all
the abuses of this night had been progressively modified,
and he might say were now finally rectified by the bill
under discussion which provided a remedy for all the prin-
cipal evils complained of. His hon. friend based the mea-
sure broadly on the ground of right and of policy. And
with regard to abuses of the privilege, all he asked the
house was to observe the checks and guards that were pro-
vided against their occurrence. He held in his hand the
regulations of the Board of Admiralty, which had been
framed a few years ago, and under which the commander
of every ship in her Majesty's service, at a foreign station,
was bound to make a quarterly return, which included all
the circumstances under which any men from a merchant,
vessel might have joined his crew. The hon. member for
Liverpool (Mr. Horefall) was mistaken in supposing that a
commander of one of her Majesty's ships could take men
from a merchant vessel just as he might please. The fact
was, that he could not only not so take men, but that he
had no right to receive them without stating to the Admi-
ralty whether the captain had consented to the men volun-
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 he had accepted the
men against the wish of the captain. All those returns
from every ship in her Majesty's
were made quarterly
service ; they wore investigated by the Board of a
Ad-
miralty, and if any complaint were made by a captain
in the merchant service, the Boa rd of Admiralty was
ready to institute a further inquiry into the case.
The number of these volunteers was much smaller
than some gentlemen seemed to
pe-
riod of eighteen months, 170 men onliymhtiln veaun.lteneraedonof foreignher
Majesty stationsy , t from
and
mthe merchant service into the service
the of those 170 persons 61 had assigned
general ill-treatment they had received on board the
merchant ships as the reason for their having made the
change. It was obvious that that right afforded the sea-
men in merchant vessels a security against ill-treatment ;
and he submitted, therefore, that on the ground of huma-
nity, as well as on the ground of policy, the clause which
IGateshead ought not to be adopted.
Mr. THOMPSON supported the clause proposed by the
hon. member for Gateshead. He believed that the right
for which the right hon. baronet the First Lord of the
Admiralty contended, was of little value to her Majesg',_
service, as the right hon. baronet himself had shown. vain
rile
it was productive of great annoyance in the we
marine.
Mr. MANGLES also supported the clause whriell_ hi' had
been moved by the hon. member for Gateshead.
in-t_r_,,ani
himself seen the right of taking seamen fromvaus !!,runer
vessel exercised in a most offensive and miscvhviio j had ad held
in the port of Madras. The crew of t.heeuten„t of one of
out some signal of discontent, and the 11
e on board, had
her Majesty's ships had immediately
cgreee and had then
compelled the captain to muster his.o w
the had after-
taken off a number of his best men..
disposed to ;leave
barge of his cinties.
wards been greatly crippled
who
Mr. d
hesitation in avowing that
Mr. WILCOX said, that me
a merchant vessel never hsdanY 1-Weere .
such a yes.
it was in consequence of
tleit,tedtmmeenntonthbeyoarwdere induced
to take that step. signal of a red shirt, and. then
sel hoisted the
hweemlll)-
boat,,kiusr'nfrom one of her Majesty's ships.
there came to t,, .n which the system in question had
He 1T....en„a41;:-Inosi t grievoliq way. Off the Mauritius the
operated nn
hoistsa on hoard a vessel bound A
befrot Calcutta
red shirt was
laten:l:ll,joesftythBeshbeittliamis had then t-tn taken
There had out 14rou a suffi-
t i England.outwf
uci
ffenttnnueibe.r of hands left to teenage the vessel, and-next
day. she had approach erfectly logged iu a dead calm. A
steamer had ed, and when the captain had been
asked for 12 men, he said he would do something better
than give them—he would tow the vessel on. He best ac-
cordingly towed her to the Cape, and when arrived there
he had claimed 2,200/. for salvage. The result was, that up-
wards of 5,0001. worth of the cargo had been sold to meet
that claim, and the vessel had been detained six months.
Admiral BERKELEY said he believed that the existino,
arrangement operated as a valuable security against the
ill-treatment of men in the merchant service. He had
known a case in which Admiral Parker, when stationed at.
the Tagus, had endeavoured to terminate a quarrel between
the master and the men on board a merchant vessel. That
vessel had sailed away, but the next day when a ship of war
had been seen by the crew, theyhad jumped overboard their
own vessel to her. It was manifest that nothing but the
-grossest ill-treatment could have driven them to take so
extreme a course.
Mr. I r A.LIABB said that the house had been only a