The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-18 00:00:00

THE SUN,

MERCANTILE MARINE (Na. 2) BILL.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the
Mercantile Marine Bill.

On the motion that the 62d clause stand part of the
Bi 11,
Mr. HENLEY moved that, instead:of imprisonment for
three months, a penalty of 101. should be inflicted, or
twelve weeks' imprisonment. He thought the inser-
tion of the words he proposed would tend greatly to
enforce discipline, which could be the only object of the
Government in bringing forward the measure.
Mr. LABOUCHERE objected to•the propcniition of
the Hon. Member fur Oxford, because he believed that a
pecuniary fine would not check the practice that was
too frequent of a breach of discipline on the part of the
sailor. He believed that, generally speaking, in the co-
lonies of this country the leaning of the magistrates
was towards the sailors and crimps.
Mr. WAWN said the Right Hon. Gentleman had not
answered the questions whether the wages were to cease
during the imprisonment of the sailor, and whether such
imprisonment went to put an end to the contract?
Sir DAVID DUNDAS gave it as hie opinion that a
sailor, when convicted, would not be entitled to wages
during his imprisonment under the 43tli section of the
Bill; and that the imprisonment of the sailor would not
determine the character.
Admiral BOWLES said he could state, from his ex-
perience, that the sailor dreadel nothing so much as
imprisonment, and that without the power of imprison-
ment the imposing a fine would be almost wholly useless.
Mr. DUNCAN was of opinion that the clause would
be wholly inoperative unless the magistrate had the
power of imprisonment.
Mr. HILDYARD said he was of opinion that during
imprisonment the sailor would be entitled to his wages,
and therefore the shipmaster or shipowner would not be
at all likely to sue the sailor, and the sailor who had
infringed the Act would go unpunished, and the amend-
ment, if adopted, would thereby be made wholly in-
operative.
After a long desultory conversation the amendment
was negatived without a division, and the clause as it
originally stood was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 and 64 were agreed to without a division.
On clause 65 being proposed,
Mr. ANDERSON proposed an amendment at line
fourteen of the clause, that atter the word " forfeited,"
and before the word " and," to insert the following:—
" And no immediate or subsequent entry of such seaman
into her Majesty's naval service shall exert:fist him from
such forfeiture of wages." He proposed his amend-
ment because he thought it was but fair and just that,
in the event of seamen deserting the merchant service
and entering the royal navy, the shipmaster or ship-
owner should have some compensation for any loss or
inconvenience resulting to him from such desettion.
The Hon. Member cited several instances of the hard-
ships accruing to the shipmaster and shipowner from
their seamen, when abroad, volunteering on board men-

o t- war.
Sir F. BARING opposed the amendment, thinking
that the practice of men leavinz the mercantile marine
and volunteering into the Royal Navy did not press very
hardly on the merchant service, and that when such
desertions took place there were always two stories to be
told. He could state to the. House that during the lait
year the number of men who had deserted the mer-
cantile marine and volunteered into the Royal Navy
was only 289, and he apprehended that was a
proportion which did not press hardly upon the
mercantile marine. He thought, too, that if the House
interfered to prevent the merchant seaman from volun-
teering into the Royal Navy, they would deprive him of
almost the only remedy he had against the tyranny and
hardship to which be was often subjected on board the
merchant service. Under those circumstances he could
not give his consent to the amendment of the Hon.
Gentleman. .

Mr. FAGAN observed that some seamen in the em-
ploy of one of his constituents had deserted to join the
Royal Navy, and the consequence was that the vessel
to which they belonged was unable to proceed on its
voyage. That was a grievance which he thought
demanded some remedy at the hands of the Govern-
ment.
Mr. WAWN supported the amendment.
After a few wards from Mr. HENLEY and Mr. HASTIE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was well known that the object of sending men-of-war
to distant parts of the world was to protect
the trade aid commerce of the country, and that
could only be accomplished by having the Royal Navy
in a state of efficiency. It was, therefore, of more inte-
rest to shipowners that the Royal Navy should be
manned by British seamen than that the merchant
service should be so manned, and no facility which en-
abled the former to obtain a complete crew should be
done away with.
Mr. DUNCAN thought the commerce of the country
might be injured by abandoning the practice which had
so long existed, and which, as the Right Ilon. Gentle.
man stated, had tended to render the British navy more
efficient.

Lord JOHN MANNERS considered that the de-
sertion of merchant seamen for the purpose of entering the
Royal Navy was a real, sensible, and practical grievance,
and contended that the House was bound to remove it,
on the principle that since the navigation-laws had been
repealed they ought to allow no restriction to exist on the
free exercise of the trade and commerce of the country.
Mr. MACGREGOR did not think the House could
interfere to prevent the British seaman from leaving his
ship under circumstances of oppression, nor was he of
opinion that the Royal Navy should be permitted to receive
seamen deserting the mercantile marine without some li-
mitation. He knew the difficulty to get men to at•rve in
the navy was a much greater evil than de,ertion from the
merchant service.
After a few words from Mr. BROWN and Mr. FORSTER,
The gallery was cleared for a division, when there
appeared—
For Mr. Anderson's amendment 33
Against it
Majority against the amendment
The clausa was then agreed to.
Clause 66 was agreed to without a division.
Clause 6-7 was agreed to, whit a slight verbal amend-
ment proposed by Mr. A. HesnE, and agreed to by Mr.
LAnouertEnE, and also with an understanding that the
severity of the penalties should be modified.
Clause 68 was also agreed to.
On clause 69,
Colonel THOMPSON said that this clause was an

exemplification of the great deficiency of the pre;ent
Bill—an equal regard for both the classes fur whom it
legislated. He thought it would be beneficial
for the popularity of the Btll if there were
some demonstration on the face of it of more
interest for the sailor. They had seen many cases in

which sailurs had been cruelly:. ill-treated on board ship,
and had had very little facility of redressing themselves.
He thought some amendment might be introduced into
the present clause which would have that effect.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he had never at-
tempted to disguise it from the House that it was his
intention by this Bill to introduce a stringent system of
discipline into the merchant service; but he did Rot
think that there was any need for an amendment in this
present clause, which would scarcely meet the Gallant
Colonel's object.
The clause was then agreed to.
The House then resumed,.and
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave
to sit again to-morrow, at twelve o'clock.
Sir JOHN ROMILLY was then introduced and took
the oaths and his seat ler the borough of Devonport.
The House then adjourned until Five.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
DEATH OF THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.

Lord MARCUS HILL appeared at the bar of the
House, and stated that, in obedience to the order of the
House, he had presented the address of condolence on
this subject to her Majesty, to which her Majesty had
been graciously pleased to return the following answer:—
" I have received!with satisfaction, and as anotner gratify-
ing proof of your attachment to my person and family,
the loyal and dutiful address of condolence at the loss I
have sustained by the death of my beloved uncle, the
late Duke of Cambridge.
MONUMENT TO THE LATE SIR R. PEEL.
Lord MARCUS HILL also stated that he had had
the honour of presenting the address on the subject of
a monument to the late Sir Robert Peel, and her Ma.
jesty had been graciously pleased to return the follow-
ing answer:—
" I have received your address, praying me to give
direction for the erection of a monument in St. Peter's
Collegiate Church, Westminster, to the memory of the
late Sir Robert Peel, with an inscription expressive of
the sense of the country at the great and irreparable
lose which it had sustained by the death of that Right
Hon. Baronet, and I shall give directions accordingly."
thf
THE DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE.
Lord SEYMOUR appeared at the bar of the House,
alend nee to stated
be
aatrwhaerded to
had caused
sedDthuch
eeasdsdorefescaomf
Cambridge,
to which she had" b
•
een pleased to return the follow-
ing reply. am grateful to the Honourable
House of Commons for
address of condolence presenting to me an
the death of my late
lin:tented husband, and I beg
lion. House my heartfelt thank:
youf to convey to that
fur this honourable
mark of respect, and to assure the
nothing can be more consolatory to Hon. House that
than the knowledge that the characterme at this moment
of
hus-
band is duly appreciated." my late

ei:cd.oftl3ll:siLilLeration
(presentedapp
b.
CHIPPINDALL'S DIVORCF
Sir DE LACY EVANS moved
pthp
the petition of William chi
27th June), for permission to prosecute
dell's Divorce Bill in forma payperi.v. The VPI".
able and Gallant Gentleman adverted to the Honour-
able
of compelling parties whose means were limitedn :-
pay the enormous fees of the Rouse on Divorce Bills,°
and moved that the prayer of the petition should be
acceded to by the House.
Mr. W. PATTEN moved as an amendment that the
petition of William Chippindall be referred to the Coui-
mit:ee on Divorce BIN and the Judge Advocate. The
House would recollect that up to the present moment
Divorce Bills bad been treated strictly us private Bills,
and that it was the rule of the House to wake parties
pay certain fees when they sued fur any privileges cr
rights of a private nature. if that rule was deviated from
the result would bo that the House would be involved in
gteat difficulties in regard to these Bills. flaying paid
attention to the subject fora great number of years he
was perfect ly convinced that the time had come when
Phrliamont mutt take into its consideration the
law of divorce,iwith the view to alter the mode
in which Bills were now granted in that House.
lie proposed as an amendment that this petition be re-
ferred to•the Committee on Divorce Bills, for them to
consider, first, whether Mr. Chippendall was in the state
in which he described himself to be, and, secondly, what
course they should adopt with respect to that petition.
Sir GEORGE GREY hoped his Hon. and Gallant
Friend (Sir Do Lacy Evans) would at once consent to
that course, for he (Sir G.-Grey) thought there ought
to be some inquiry as to the facts of the case.

LONDON,

Sir F. THESIGER thought his Hon. Friend (Alr.
W. Patten) bad improperly treated this as a mere pri-
vate Bill, in which the party might be called on to pay
the costs cf the proceeding. He (Sir F. ThesTger)
thought if this House would not adopt the prayer of the
petition, and so enable the petitioner to get rid of a wife
who had violated her marriage vows, the consequence
would be th.t there would be an uneven and partial
distribution cf justice.
Sir DE LACY EVANS consented to withdraw his
motion, and to adopt the suggestion of the Hen. Member
(Mr. W. Patten).
WATERFORD, WEXFORD, WICKLOW, AND