The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-15 00:00:00

punished under the enactment referred to; but the burden
of proof will lie on the seaman. He must establish the
unsearworthiness of the vessel.

3. Whether, if a seaman is apprehended on the ground
of dose rtion and alleges in his defence that the ship is un-
seaworthy, it is the duty of the court which hears the case
to exranin3 into the questions, and to receive such evidence
as it may be possible to procare of the truth of the allega-
tion ?—lf the seaman apprehended for desertion alleges the
unseaworthiness of the ship in his defence, it will be the
duty ,of the court which hears the case to examine into the
question, as it would so on any other disputed question of
fact that might arise before it.; and it must dispose of the
question on such evidence as may be laid before it, bearing
in mind, as we have before said, that the burden of proof
is on the seaman.

4. Whether, if the ship is not seaworthy, and the sea-
man refuses to go to sea in her on that ground, and the
master and owner refuse to deliver any clothes or effects
which the seaman has en board, tho seaman can bring an
action to recover them, or to recover" damages for their de-
tention ?—We think that the seaman is justified in refusing
to go to sea in the ship on the ground of her unseawor-
thiness, and may maintain an action to recover his effects
if detained.

5. Whether, if a seaman serves in a ship which is sett to
sea in an unseaworthy state, and the ship is lost in cense-
qaence, and the seaman thereby suffers damage by loss of
his clothes, or by injury to his person or otherwise, he has
any remed against the owner ?—On the authority of the
case "Prfstly v. Fowles" (3' M. & W., p. 1), we are of
opinion that a seaman proceeding to sea in au unseaworthy
ship, and sustaining injury in consequence, could not
maintain an action, and would be without a remedy
against the owner. ,
6. Whether, when a seaman is engaged, there is or is
not an implied condition on the part of the owner that the
ship shall be adequately manned (i. e., manned in such a
manner as would, under ordinary circumstances, be suffi-
cient for the safety and proper navigation of the ship on
the voyage on which she is to be employed); and, if so,
whether or not the non-performance of this condition is
attended by consequences similar to those which would
attend the non-performance of the implied condition that
the whip shall be seaworthy, assuming such last-mentioned
condition to exist ? We are of opinion that there is an
implied condition on the part of the owner that the ship
shall be manned by a crew sufficient to navigate her with
reasonable safety, and that if she be not so manned the con-
sequences will be the same as though the ship was unsea-
worthy.
It was clear, then, that the law already provided for the
safety of the seamen ; and it should be borne in mind
that crimps were always on the watch to seize sailors
and hand them over to other ships. If there must be an
inspection at the instance of every drunken sailor who
wished to excuse his absence from his ship, or of every
man who wished to get rid of his present engagement in
order to make a better one, it RS3 obvious that it must
lead to much delay in the sailing of vessels, and the con-
sequent loss of trade. While constrained toadreit the in-
crease in the yearly retuins of the number of wrecks, he
did not think that itqarose fromany increase in theactual
number of casualties, but from the greater care which
was used in reporting cases to the Board cf Trade. It
should be remembered, too, that the wreck of a single
emigrant vessel would swell the loss of life in a particu-
lar year without indicating any real increase in the
number of wrecks. A clause had been inserted in the
Merchant Shipping Act, giving the Admiralty courts
power to award salvage for lives as well as property
saved—an enactment which. worked well, and had given
great satisfaction. He (the noble lord) would not object
to the appointment of a committee, though he did not
think one was necessary. The suggestion of the noble
earl, that no vessel should be allowed to sail until it had
undergone aninspection, was well worthy of considera-
tion. ar

Lord COLCHESTER observed that the law, as stated
by Sir John Harding, appeared perfectly satisfactory,
except in one particular, namely, that the burden of proof
was thrown upon the sailor complaining of the unsea-
worthiness of his ,hip.
The Esrl of ELLENBOROUGH said it bad hap-
pened in one case that the seaman of a vessel, the
Swan, which was in the Tyne, came on shore, and cora-
p:ained that she was unseaworthy. They were treated as
deserters, and sent to prison, but it was proved after-
wards that their objec ion was well founded, for the ves-
sel, after going to s. a, returned after a few days, because
she was not in a state to proceed on her voyage.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said-12; trusted
that in future the magistrates would pay a more ready
attention to the eonsplaints of the seamen.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGLI said, the noble lord
seemed to forget that he had read as_ extract from a
report of thu Inspector of
,Prisons, who stated, with
regard to one prison, that a great proportion of the
prisoners were seamen who bad been committed for de.
sertion, and he held with the men.

. Lord STANLEY did not know that the Inspector of
Prisons had vny particular means of knowing whether
the ship wac unseaworthy or not.

The subject then dropped, and their lordships ad-
journed.

HOUSE OF COMMON:S.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
PETITIONS.

Mr. L. KING presented a rititiou from Surrey for
the consolidation of the statute law.
Mr. BA.LL presented several petitions against opening
the Crystal Palace on Sundays.
Mr. EVELYN presented a petition against opening
the British Museum 'n Sundays.
Mr. A. PELLATT presented similar petitions from
S outhwark.
Mr. HADFIELD presented a petition against the
Police Bill.
Mr. SPOONER presented several petitions against
opening the Crystal Palace on Sundays.
Mr. ALEX. HASTIE presented similar petitions
from Glasgow.
Mr. HORSFALL presented a petition against opening
the Crystal Palace, and also one pray►ng far a discon-
tinuance of the music in the park an Sundays.
Mr. COLLIER 'presented a
,petition from South
Devon, praying that the local dues ape' shipping might
be abolished.
Mr. BROWN presented 4 petition from Liverpool
against the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sundays.
S;r D. L. EVANS gave
„notice that he intended to
sostpone the motion standing in his name till that day
fortnight.
Mr. SPOONER, on the part of Mr. Muntz, postponed
the motion relative to the monetary laws till that day
fortnight.