The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-13 00:00:00

SAVINGS BANKS ANNUITY BI LL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENA NT IN
IRELAND.
The Earl of GLENGALL asked whether Government
would lay on the table of the house a bill pi Ipared by
Sir W. Somerville, when Chief Secretary of I r eland, for
the purpose of consolidating the whole law oil landlord
and tenant in that country. There were several bills in
the other house which were coming up to this house,
and it would be of great use if they had this lb ill before
them.

The Earl of ABERDEEN said there was a .p roject for
such a bill, but there was no such a bill in a Parliamen-
tary sense. He did not think it would be regi filar to lay
the project of a bill on the table of the house.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought it exceed-
ingly important that the bills now in the Hounwa of Com-

moos should be referred to a committee of t heir lord-

ships' house, and he intended to bring forward, a motion
that that be done, and then Sir W. Somer.ville's bill
could be regularly brought before them.
Their lordships then adjourned at twenty-five minutes
to eight o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTER DIY.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL,.

The house then went into committee on this bill, on
clause 29 ; the discussion on Capt. Scobell's prroposition
to omit the clause which permits vessels to be manned
entirely by foreign seamen was resumed.
Admiral WALCOT supported the omission of the
clause, as he considered it would tend, if oarried, to
break up the Mercantile Marine of this countit'S•
Mr. INGHAM thought that after the rep.eal of the
Navigation Laws, when the British shipowner was
exposed to open competition, it was only fait and just
that he should be allowed to man his vessel iia the most
efficient manner possible. He intended, ha wever, to
move a proviso that this clause did not extecnd to the
eoasting trade.
Sir G. PECHELL supported the clause, ms he did
not believe it would lead to the slightest incanvemence
in manning the British navy. He believed it •was quite
impossible to man a ship efficiently with none but
foreigners.

Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR believed that titiis clause
was the most redeeming feature of the bill ; and he
should cordially support it.
Mr. DUNLOP supported the amendment.
Sir G. TYLER opposed the clause.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had given to tole question
the grave consideration which it merited. Previous to
the repeal of the navigation laws, it was confidently
predicted by a number of gallant officers exsenined be-
fore a committee of the House of Commo xis that it
would lead to the utter ruin of her Majesty's navy.
What was the real state of the case, he need 'only refer
them to the last returns to see. It was only after hav-
ing agreed with his colleagues with regard to the aboli-
tion of the clause that he had brought forwa Ili the pro-
positions lately laid on the table of the ho ose to, give
additional benefit to the seamen of her Majest:? 's service.
The one could not be carried out without • the other.
The race of competition was now a very close one,
and the British shipowner must not carry any more
weight in the race than was absolutely nece siiary. ue
was convinced that they could not do anythi bug for the
advantage of commerce, which would not al SO redound
to the benefit both of the Mercantile Mari) if and the
Queen's service.

Mr- WILLIAMS was as ardent a foreig per as any
man in that house, but he thought this clause was carry-
ing the point rather further than was neeessr iry.
Admiral BERKELEY said that the sta.- to of affairs
had very much changed, since the time the hon. and

gallant officers who opposed the clause, had had exp ri-
ence in the manning of the navy. In their times, the
best men in the Royal Navy were drawn from the mer-
chant service, but that was not the case now. The nur-
series for able and thorough:seamen were quite changed.
If lie had not been perfectly convinced of this he should
not have given way to this clause.
Mr. G. HUDSON thought that full and fair oppor-
tunity ought to be given to the British shipowner to
compete at every advantage with shipowners of other
countries, and he should vote for this clause.
Mr. HENLEY regretted that the Government should
have fixed the discussion of a question of such gravity
and importance for a morning sitting. He had great
sympathy for persons engaged in the shipping trade, and
if he were only influenced by a consideration for their
interest, he should have had no difficulty in coming to
a decision as to how he should give his vote on this
occasion. But the interests of the seamen must also be
looked to in deciding this question. It resolved itself,
he believed, into what was the rate of wages to be paid
to the seamen ; and the course which the Government
proposed to take seemed to him to be this, that,
instead of giving the seamen the fair amount of wages
which tempt him to enter the Queen's service,
they exposed him to competition with foreign seamen in
the mercantile service in order to beat down wages and
force him into the Royal Navy. What was wanted
was not so much to increase the number of British sea-
men, but the numbers of the seamen of the best quality,
such as were most fitted to make able men-of-war's men.
It would be impossible to have skilled seamen unless they
took care to have them properly brought up. Able
seamen did not, even then, receive either in the royal
navy or the mercantile service, anything like the amount
of wages which skilled labourers in other trades ob-
tained. He could not help thinking that the tendency
of the bill would be to decrease the number of appren-
tices training for British seamen. In Vine of war they
must have recourse to the seamen in the mercantile ser-
vice to man the royal navy, and he doubted much whe-
ther the bill would increase the facilities for obtaining
them. The two services were, unfortunately, antagon-
istic. Why they were so was a problem which had yet
to be solved. He saw no reason himself why the
Queen's service should not be the most popular in the
world. If its unpopularity was owing to a matter of
money, he thought the pay ought to be increased, for it
was only necessary in peace to have a limited number
of men, and why should these not be picked men ?
(Hear, hear.) Believing that the public safety
ought to overrule every other consideration, awl
doubting very much the policy of the clause, he
should certainly vote against it. (Hear.) He did not
think any case had been made out of the necessity for
an alteration of the law.
Mr. CARDWELL said the real question was, whe-
ther they should increase or decrease the number of sea-
men in the navy. He contended not only that all high
naval authorities in 1849 approved of the change, but
that the experience of the last three years of the repeal
of the Navigation-laws showed its absolute necessity.
As to the number of apprentices in the navy,
he could state that, shortly after the decrease
commenced, the number began to rally, and it had
since continued to increase up to the present time. lit
1850 the number of apprentices who entered the service
was 5,056 ; in 1851, 5,275 ; and in 1852, 5,845 ; and
on the first six months of the present year the number
was 3,731. He readly admitted that this was a ques-
tion of wages, but lie could not understand why any
special protection should be given to sailors, which was
not possessed by other labourers. At the present time
seamen were leaving the American navy and entering
the British service, and they would not do so
unless greater advantages were held out to them.
No less than 5,000 had entered the service since Decem-
ber, and he believed that now we had 8,000 more sea-
men at our disposal that we had before the repeal of the
Navigation Laws. He therefore thought we might dis-
miss from our minds the idle fears entertained as to the
proposed change, and might safely apply to this branch
of the service the sound, healthy principles which were
applied to the other branches of it, and had been found
to work well. The state of the world at this moment

was such that they might safely make the transition
without any apprehension, and without any inconveni-
ence or injury to the interests which it was proposed to
protect. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL considered that the objections urged
to the clause had been satisfactorily answered by the
President of the Board of Trade. He was bound to say
that the apprehensions which were entertained of the
repeal of the navigation laws had not been realised, and
he thought he should only do his duty to his consti-
tuents at Liverpool, and promote the interests of the
country at large, by acceding to the proposal of the Go-
vernment.

Mr. MITCHELL supported the clause.
Mr. HEADLAM protested against the injustice of
the attempt to enable captains in the Royal Navy to
withdraw men from the merchant service.
Mr. HASTIE approved of the clause. Under com-
petition with the world our ships had improved in. con-
struction and sailing qualities, and if we exposed our
seamen to the same competition, he believed tho same
result would manifest itself, and that they would be-
come a better class of men.
WILCOX considered that, if they passed
the clause, they would not employ one English
sailor less nor one foreign sailor more, nor
would they lower the rate of wages ; but they
would do this great good—they would put a check on
that disgraceful and wholesale desertion which now took
place among British seamen abroad. He objected to
that part of the clause which enabled shipowners to
employ foreigners as masters of their vessels. The ithip-
owners of the country would not consider that a boon,
for he believed it would not be resorted to except. for
sinister or unworthy purposes.
Captain SCOBELL replied, and the committee di-
vided, when the numbers were
For the clause..
Against it....,
Majority

•• - I.C) 6

The clause was then agreed to, as were also cl muses
up to 37, inclusive.
The chairman then reported progress and obtained
leave to sit again on Friday at 12 o'clock.
The house adjourned at four o'clock until six this
evening.
The house resumed at six o'clock.
INDIAN RAILWAYS.
Si H. HADDOCK moved for copies or extracts cf any
correspondence received by the last mail from the tlover-
nor-General in Council in India, relative to railway vmder-
takings in that country.—Agreed to.
SUNDAY LABOUR IN THE POST OFFICE.

Mr. PACKE, in reference to the commission appointed
to inquire into Sunday labour at the Post-office, gave notic 3
that on a future day he should ask the Secretary of State
for the Home Department whether the Postmaster-G eneral
had any intention of adopting the resolutions contail sett iu
that report ?
Upon the motion of an HON. MEMBER, the how to was
then counted; more than 40 members being present,, pro-
ceedings were resumed.
•
THE MALT DUTIES.
31x, E. BALL then moved for a committee of the whole
house, for the purpose of considering the duties on analt,
with a 'view of making such alteration in those duties that
the farmer may be exempt from the malt duty on, such
quantity of malt as he may require for his own use, anode
from barley anis own growth.
Sir J. SHELLEY did not rise for the purpose of oppos-
ing this motion, for upon its merits ho was favourable to
it ; but even if this were not so, he should not re; vet to
see it carried, as a lesson to the overnment, who t/ ink no
care about a house being made upon Tuesdays. (i IA this
time the Treasury bench was perfectly empty, and, there
were but three hon. gentlemen upon the benches bebtind it.
The Opposition side of the house was very fairly attended.)
Sir J. Shelley was just concluding his observations, and 14,
call for a division was being made, when
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entered.
Castinga hasty, and somewhat disconcerted look, which was
the signal for a general titter, around him, the right hon.
gentleman hurried to his place. He then said that he was
not less surprised than other people appeared to be :it find-
ing himself in his present position. Upon all forme $r days,
when he had attended punctually, the first half hour or
more of the sitting had gone over in interpellationst ; now,
however, that he was somewhat behind time, the business
upon the paper was arrived at within a few minutes. The
hon. member had made a motion of great importance; but
having made it without stating any arguments or reason
for the step, he did not feed bound to follow him at any
very great length. He hoped the hon. member would not
consider that in so doing he, admitted the force ,of his (Mr.
Ball's) motion. Had the hon. gentleman stated his argu-
ments, [he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have
followed them, and showed the very serious consequences
which necessarily would pia went the Government from ac-
ceding to them. He would , therefore, only state for the
information of the hon. ger itleman, that, when. he saw his
motion upon the books, it d id not to him appear at all clear
whether he (Mr. Ball) intended to claim a special privilege
for farmers, as consumers, or whether he intended that
they should be allowed to make use of malt, exempt from
duty, only so far as regarde d farming purposes. Certainly,
reason would lead him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
at once to the conclusion th at this latter supposition was
the true one. But whether he looked to the reasonable
construction or not—not his t what he felt bound to suppose
that the hon. gentleman meant to act reasonably—he
thought there were valid r( mesons for opposing the motion.
At the same time he admiti lied that much might be said In
favour of allowing malt for the purposes
of breeding stock
to be free from duty. The arguments against it were quite
thhoellpyeurtniwee ,7,ortollfly_
conclusive, but yet it was ta matterwhe
wereno t w
of discussion. Looking es ay to
cerned in it, the hon. mem .kter would have done better bad
The
he entered fully into the r a atter, and he might then have
explained the terms of his j y reposition. motion azsid no-
thing at all of malt forthe p uposes of raising stock, it merely
said " such malt as he (t Ile farmer) may require for his
own use." His own use wo old apply as well to the brewing
of beer as the raising of stc r :k. He was sure that his hon.
friend (Sir J. Shelley), wh,3 was expressing his coin:low lice
in this motion with some • warmth when lie entered. Tao
house, could not mean to say that ;he (Sir Shelley)
could not mean to assert tl t 'it one class should be priviloged
in its consumption of ma [1 i any more than another class.
Why should the farmer be ;allowed to make beer or spirits
free from duty when all o t her persons could not. de so ?
What would be the effect o f giving such a privilego ? The
house would call into exist E awe such an amount of tempta-
tion that, unless lion. men t. hers supposed that all camera
were men not of ordinary, but of supereminent Feinciple,
they would establish a sy 3 tear of fraud so objet tiouable
that it would demoralise a, largo body of people, a wd open
the minor for wholesale ptra ider. But for the pr, :sent he
would assume that it was o nly for the purposes o f raising
stock that the duty was proposed to be renal pd. lie
resist again regret that the , hon. gentleman (Mr. I gall) had
not made some few rernar7 rs 3 in introducing this n lotion to
explain what his meaning -was. As matters stood he (the
Chancellor of the Excheq' aer) was in a position of much
difficulty. (ranch laughter from the opposition, ervideutly
caused by this last remae t being quite apropos to the state
of the ministerial benches, which continued very ti duly
occupied.) He would th prefer° proceed to arguer upoi a the