The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 10.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
The Earl of lIARROWBY presented a petition from
Bath against beer-houses.
PRIVATE BILLS.

O❑ the motion of Lord REDESDALE several private
Bills were forwarded a stage.
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of GLENGALL complained of the conduct
of certain poor-rate collectors in the west of Ireland. In
one instance twenty sheep, belonging to a mail who
owed no poor-rates, had been seized on the land of a de-
faulter, and sold for 21.,, and they had been bought by
the poor-rate collector himself. The parishioners of va-
rious parishes in Galway had expressed their fears of the
consequences of the number of ejectments sued out by the
Law Life Insurance Company of London, who had
brought 970 ejectments, and those 970 families would be

thrown upon the poor-rates for support.
The Marquis cf LANSDOWNE was understood to
say that inquiry should be made into the circumstances.
LAW REFORM—COUNTY COURTS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM said that many objections had been
made to the Bill for extending the jurisdiction of county
courts to bankruptcy cases. One of those objections
was that it made the operation of the clause enforcing
residence on the judges, and debarring them from prac-
tice, prospective. He thought there was force in the
objection, end would, when he again proposed the Bill,
make it retrospective; hitt he did not intend to proceed
further with the Bill during the present session. With
regard to the other Bill fur extending equitable
jurisdiction to the county courts, he felt con-
vinced that some such measure was requisite
to render convenient or at all tolerable and bearable to
the country the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
and he was therefore extremely sorry that he did not
feel that he was in a position to propose to their Lord-
ships to proceed further with this Bill during the present
session.

BURGESSES AND FREEMEN PARLIAMEN-
TARY FRANCHISE BILL.

Lord BEAUMONT moved the second reading of this
Bill. The Small Tenements Rating Act bad incidentally
disfranchised a large number of persons, to whom it was
the objrct of the present Bill to restore the franchise.
The Marquis of SALISBURY objected to the Bill,
because it conferred on the owner practically the right
of conferring the franchise on his tenant, or of with-
drawing it from him. He hoped this error would be
corrected in Committee, but he would not oppose the
second reading of the Bill.
Lord PORTM.AN supported the Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT would bo happy to consider the
subject in Committee, and if the words of the clause
gave to the owner the power of conferring the franchise
or depriving a tenant of it, he would consent to any alte-
ration in the clause which should guard against such an
occurrence.
The Bill was then read a second time.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from
the inhabitants of St. Leonard's, against being included
with Hastings in the General Board of Health Bill.
On the motion of the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
the Attorneys' and Solicitors' Regulation Act Amend-
ment Bill went through Committee.
SYNOD OF THURLES.

Lord MONTAGUE took an opportunity to correct a

misstatement of what fell from him the other evening on
the subject of certain resolutions having relation to the
proceedings at the recent Synod of Thurles. He had been
made to say that when certain resolutions condemnatory
of the Queen's Colleges were passed at the Synod of
Thurles, such was the strong feeling evinced by some of
the Roman Catholic clergy and Ivity that these resolu-
tions bad not been forwarded to Rome. The observa-
tions he made ha&reference, not to the resolutions in
question, which had been forwarded to Rome, but to
counter resolutions which were passed after the original
resolutions had been agreed to.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH rose to move for a
copy of it repo-it from Mr. Alexander Glen Finlaison to
the Right Hon. H. Labouchere on the Merchant Sea-
men's Fund, dated March 18, 1850, and laid before the
House of Commons, and by them ordered to be printed
on the 26th of March, 1850; also any reports received
by the Board of Trade since the report of the Commis-
sion of 1848, relating to the present condition and pro-
spects of the Merchant Seamen's Fund. The Noble
Lord said he viewed with the greatest regret the mea-
sure introduced by her Majesty's Government for wind-
leg up the Merchant Seamen's Fund. He could not
hope to prevail on Government to desist from pressing
forward their measure, but he hoped he should be able
'to state reasons that would satisfy the Noble Lord con-
!nected with the Board of Trade that it would be un-

'wise to Carry the measure into effect according to its
provisions. The Noble Lord hero went into
a history of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, which
was established to provide pensions to worn-out
seamen, the widow 3 of seamen, and their children.
After reciting the various legislative changes which had
taken place since the first Act was passed, the Noble
lord brought down his statement to 1844, when the
'fund had so dwindled down that Government deter-
mined to wind it up, and to make new rules,
which hud been embodied in the Government
Bill. He proposed to draw attention to one or two parts
of this Bill, because the question was of much import-
ance,inasmucb as it affected the feelings and interests

of all the seamen in the merchant navy—seamen's
widows and seamen's orphans. The persons to be af-
fected by the Bill were of all others the most deserving
of kind consideration. Ono provision of the Bill was,
that no contribution was to be received from any person
after a specified period, Government only undertaking to
bear the weight of the pensions already incurred. Now
there were a number of persons who were entitled to
pensions, but to whom pensions had not yet been granted,
who had paid their contributions regularly, who had
thererefore an inchoate right to a pension, and yet who
would be deprived of their right by the careless way, he
would not say the insidious way, in which certain pro-
visions had been introduced into the Bill. The provision
he particularly wished to draw attention to was the one
which provided that seamen who had contributed for an
aggregate period of sixty months were required to con-
tribute continuously for two years more, otherwise they
would forfeit all claim to relief from the fund, their
widows and children. Now, it must be recollected that
a great dumber of seamen acquired right to these pen-
sions every year. These persons had contributed for five
years, and yet they were required by the Bill to con-
tribute tor two years longer. He would show
their Lordships how unjustly this provision would
work. From a calculation made in 1847, it appeared
about 800 seamen acquired yearly a right to relief from
this, they being worn out in the service. Of necessity
this number for two years would be deprived of pensions
because they could not comply with the conditions of
the Bill by contributing continuously for the next two
years to the fund. There would be at least 1,600 persons
thus unjustly deprived of their pensions. But this num-
ber would b 3 greatly augmented, because such a thing
as continuous payment was not known in the administra-
tion of the Merchant Seamen's Fund. The seaman only
paid during the time he was employed, and as he was only '
employed about nine months in each year, a young sea-
man would thus be seven years before he could work out
his five years' payments, and nearly four years before he
could work out his 24 months' continuous payment. The
operation of this provision would extend the number of
1,600 to which he had referred, to 3,200 and more, and
thus this large number of deserving persons would be
deprived of pensions to which they had a just claim. 'rho
provision for continuous payment was absurd, and would
practically deprive a vast numder of persons entitled by
right to pensions. The result would be that the con-
tinuouspaytmheenGt wo•voeurindmneontt wbecoounld ttinuhuedsbbe deprived of
ndthefive
allyears'and
resources for the payment of those pensions to sea-
men. There was mother provision of the Bill which
was equally objectionable—namely, that all pensions
to be granted hereafter should bo granted on a
uniform scale, according to the average rate of the pre-
sent pensions. At the present moment the pensions in
some ports were extremely liberal; Liverpool, for in-
stance, where it amounted to nearly 121. a year; but in
some of the smaller ports to which worn-out seamen
went, and whore the wages being less the contributions
were smaller, they did not amount to more than 12s.
Could anything be more preposterous than that they
should be all reduced to one level? Those who had been
in the receipt of the 12/. per annum had, moreover, es-
tablished their rights by usage, and yet the Bill pro-
posed to deprive them of those rights by establishing ono
uniform rate, which would average no more than 523.
the year. No doubt many seamen would obtain en ad-
vantage by this; but it would be entirely at the expense
of others. But that was not all. The average number
of pensions, it was provided, was not to exceed the aver-
age number granted at each port each year for the last
five years. This would be a manifest injustice and wrong.
A.t Liverpool, for instance, there were a greater number
granted last year than in the year before, and a greater
number that year than in the year preceding it; and the
.same held good at many other ports of the kingdom.
But taking the average of the last five years would be to
take a smaller number than that of last year of the pen-
sions given in each class, and consequently the injustice
and the wrong was made manifest. There was then a
provision that the aggregate amount of pensions should
not exceed the amount of the preceding year, until the
new rules came into operation—no doubt to place
a check upon the trustees; but how would this act? In
the first eleven months of the present year as many pen-
sions had been granted as in the whole of the past year;
and consequently, whatever might happen—however
much destitution might prevail—the trustees would be
wholly powerless to deal with it. These points he re-
commended to the attention of the Noble Earl and her
Majesty's Government. lie did not for a moment sup-
pose that her Majesty's Government would intentionally
or knowingly do wrong to the seamen, but he certainly
did thick that they had been guilty of a most culpable
error in the preparation of these propositions. It was
with a feeling of the deepest regret, humiliation, and
shame, that he saw the determination of her Majesty's
Government to wind up accounts in this affair. All the
other Governments of Europe—France, Austria, as re-
garded Venice, Rome even— made a fitting provision for
their worn-out seamen; while England, who depended
on that class for the dominion of the seas, and who in
the next war might have, as she had done before, to de-
pend upon them for her safety—for her very existence
—for all, threw the obligation of providing for them
in their old age and infirmity to the winds, and
commended them to the mercy of boards of guar-
dians to get relief as they best could from
an unwilling or indifferent community. He
could not bear to look at the possible event in this case.
Ho had been always taught to look on them as the fa-
voured children of the state, and he always considered
them in the same light as ho did seamen of ships of war.
According to old practice, and under the authority of
Acts of Parliament, the Crown had a right to call on
their servioel. He looked upon it, therefore, tt9 1111 se
.
• • ,