The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-15 00:00:00

FREEMEN BILL.

On the motion that this B:il be read a second time.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY objected to the second read-
ing of the Bill on the ground that it wal calculated to
inflict groat injustice oa the poor in London in t:erkiett.
to alienate the finds which were the subject of the Bill
from the general por of the metropolis, and to devote
them t) a small class of freemen in London. He meved
that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Sir J. WALMSLEY arconded the amendment.
Mr. MAS f ERMAN supported the second reading of
the B 11.
Mr. C. PEARSON, in supporting the Bill, said this
was a fuild not now a:plcatile fir the r urposes f,r
which it NY:I3 intended, nruely, the setting the children
of the poor of the city (.f London to work. That being I
an cbjat not now necessa,y, this fund hal lain fur 'j
severat 3 ears without being applied to that or any other
purpo:.e. Toe corporation a London proposed that the
school should be built upon their own ground, and sup-
port dby their own funds, and that 100 children cfl
freemen should Le educated and clothed there com- I
pletely. The Bill had been introduced to the House of
Lords at the ir stance of the Corporation of London with
the full sanction of the Bishop of Loudon, and he trusted
that the Howe would not accede to the motion of the Hon.
Alderman, lock up the funds with which the scheme
was to be supported, and deprive the orphan children of
freemen of the benefits proposed to be conferred upon
them.

Mr. W. PATTEN supported the Bill.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hoped that the Hon. Alderman
would not press his amendment.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said, that as he considered
this a Bill fur the purpose of devoting the funds of the
many to the advantage of a few, ho could not withdraw
his amendar-nt. _ _

The House then divided, when there appeared—

... 45

For the second reading .._
.Against it .. ..• .
Majority
The Bill was then read a second time.
WATERFORD. WEXFORD, WICKLOW, AND

DUBLIN RAILWAY.
Mr. MEAGHER, in the absence of Sir W. Verner,
postponed his motion fora Committee of Inquiry into
the printed papers and petitions until Friday next.
PETITIONS.

Mr. C. PEAR-50.N presented ten petitions trom the
metrovlitan districts -in favour of the Marriage Bill;
also petitions against church-rates.
Several petitions were presented from various places
against the admission of Jews into Parliament.
MERCANTILE MARINE BILL.

The House then wont into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. BERNAL in the chair.
On clause 24. . . . . _

Mr. ANDERSON proposed an amendment, which ho
contended would remove curt Ain restrictions which had
weighed heavily for fourteen or fifteen years, both upon
the shipowner and the seaman. lie moved to strike out
clauses 24 and 25, and to insert the following :—" And
be it enacted, that, from and after the Ist January, 1851,
so much of the said ' General Merchant Seamen's' Act
as relates to the keeping of a register of seamen, shall
be and is hereby repealed."
Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that the present sys-
tem of registration gave rise to great abuses and
imperfections, but he was not prepared, with-
out further consideration, to do away with the
registration of seamen altogether. If registration was
abandoned, the msnsgement of the Merchant Seamen's
Fund would be rendered extremely difficult, and ship-
owners would be deprived of that beneficial cheek which
they now had over the desertion of their men. No doubt
great inconvenience arose from the registry being placed
in the hands of the Customs, but by this Bill it was to
be transferred to the B,ard of Trade, who would have the
advantage of consulting men of practical experience who
knew best how the defects of the present system might
be avoided. Ha hoped the House would not accede to
the amendment of the Hon. Gentleman.

Mr. RICARDO considered that the registration of
seamen was wholly unnecessary, and that it pressed very
injuriously on those connected with the merchant ser-
vice. As the Government had admitted that the system
was faulty and disadvantageous, it was the duty of Par-
liament to abolish it at once, and he trusted that the
amendment of his Hon. Friend would receive the sanc-
tion of the HOUS2.

Mr. BERKELEY opposed the amendment.
Mr. FORS reit said registration was very mischievous
in its effects, and ought not to be continued.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hid been assured that the Li-
verpool Sailors' Hume and Shipping-office could not
carry on its functions if the register were abolished.
Lord GEORGE MANNERS supported the amend-
ment, believing that the existing system was so defective
that it ought to be abolished at once. Again he must
express his regret that this Bill had not been referred
to the consideration of a Select Committee.

Mr. DUNCAN told the Committee that they should
have insisted upon this office being abolished before
they voted for the repeal of the navigation laws. He
should certainly vote for the amendment.
Mr. MACGREGOR advocated the amendment, but
not the abolition of the registration system. It was
useful for statistical purposes.
Mr. BROWN supported the amendment; as did also
Mr. W AWN and Mr. FORBES.

Mr. HASTIE opposed it, and strongly urged the
Committee to pass the Bill.
After a few words from Admiral BOWLES,
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 25
Against it ... 46
Majority ... —2l

The amendmen-t was consequently lost.
The clause as amended was then agreed to, as were
also clauses 25 and 26.

On clause 27 being proposed,
Mr. MOFFATT moved the omission of the clause.
Shipowners generally agreed that the Bill would neither
very much promote or injure their interests—that it
would leave matters pretty much the same
a 3 they were at present ; but they considered
that fresh restrictions were placed upon them
by some of the clauses in regard to the clearing of
vessels and the hiring of crews, which ought not to re-
ceive the sanction of Parliament.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the prinlipte which he
proposed by the clause was that at every considerable
port in the kingdom a respe,ltable person should be ap-
pointed by the shipowners residing there, to superin-
tend the making of contracts between the sailor and his
employer, instead of having, as heretofore, that duty
tendency among
the unanimous
ed t ore m
performed by agents licensed by the Board of
Trade. The system had a most demoralizing
he p
titnngser interest that
his
with !the merchant seamen, and it was
remedy
ytheevisupportl
by heshtihpep
clause in the Bill. The establishment of an office at each
port for superintending the contracts of seamen was the
most important part of the Bill, and he trusted, there-
fore, it would receive the
support of the House.
Mr. WA WN supported the amendment. *
Mr. BROWN considered that these offices would save
shipowners a great deal of time and
expense;
andpro-
tect the sailors from the imposition of
"crimps,,, and
such ether persons.

Mr. ANDERSON could see no good in establishing
a public officer to interfere between the sailor and his
employer. It was an intTrmedling that was most un-
jus!ifiable.
Mr. LABOTJOIdERE observed that the interference
wis by no means nftw, while it would have the effect
of rescuing ilia sailor from t'tc., extortions of crimps.
Mr. FONSTER still insisted that the proposed inte.r-
-f i.roncwas wholly uncillk-d for ; it was opposui by the
c.%g interest at large and ought not to be per-
severed in.
Mr. 4., STAFFORD should Tote for the amendment.

The shipping interest of this country was too mush ex-
posed to foreign competitions to admit of their standing
such an interference as this.
Mr. RICARDO supported the clauses, believing that
they would protect the sailor from the operation of
crimps. There was no interference in the matter, ex-
cept where it was perfectly legitimate.
Lord J. MANNERS announced his intention to vote
for the amendment. There was nothing in the present
state of things to call for the proposed interference.
Mr. WAWN moved that the Chairman do retort
progress.
Mr. CARDWELL hoped at this period of the session
the latter amendment would not be persevered in.
Mr. WAWN objected to having a division forced upon
them in that way, and as the question under discus,ion
had not been fully debated he should press his motion.
Ultimately, however, the Hon.. Member was induced
to withdraw it, and,
After a few words from Mr. ANDERSON,
The Committee divided on the original amendment,
when there appeared—
For the amendment ... „. 9
Against it ... ... 67
Majority „ ~58
The amendment was consequently lost.
The Chairman was then ordered to report progress,
and the House adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Usher of the Black Rid appeared at the table,
and summoned the House to the bar of the House of
Lords to hear the Royal assent given by commission TO
several public and private Bills (for which see Lords'
report). - The Speaker, accompanied iby many Hon.
Members, left the House accordingly; and on his return
he announced the Bills which had been assented to.
SUNDAY LABOUR AT THE FOST-OFFICE.
Lord MARCUS HILL, the Treasurer of her Ma-
jesty's Household, appeared at the bar, and stated that
he had presented the address on the subject of
Sunday labour at the Post-office to her Majesty,
to which she had been pleased to make the follow-
ing most gracious reply:—" I have received your
address praying me to cause an inquiry to be made
whether Sunday labour in the Post-office can-
not be reduced without abolishing Sunday deliveries, and
I have given directions that such inquiry shall be
made."