The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 15.
MERCAN FILE M:kRINE BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Oa clause 27 being prop aced,
Mr. MOFFATT moved the omission of the clause.
Shipowners generally egreed that the Bill would neither
very much promote or injure their interests—that it
would leave matters pretty much the same
as 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 principle which he
proposed by the clause was that at every considerable
port in the kingdom a respectable 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
performed by agents licensed by the Board of
Trade. The system had a most demoralizing
reederey among the merchant seamen, and it was
with the unanimous support of the shipping interest that
ho proposed to remedy the evil by the insertion of this
clause in the Bill. The establishment of an office at each
pert 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. WAWN supported the amendment.
Me. BROWN considered that these offiees would save
shipowners a great deal of time and expense, and pro-
tect the sailors from the imposition of "crimps," and
such other persons.
Mr. ANDERSON could see no good in establishing
a public officer to interfere between the sailor and his
employer. It was an intermedling that was most un-
justifiable.
Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that the interference
was by no means new, while it would hare the effect
of rescuing the sailor from the extortions of crimps.
Mr. FORSTER still insisted that the proposed inter-
ference was wholly uncalled for ; it was opposed by the
shipping interest at large and ought not to be per-
severed io.
Mr. A. STAFFORD should vote for the amendment.
The shipping interest of this country was too much 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
crimpy. There was no interference in the matter, ex-
cept where it was perfectly legitimate.
Lord J. MANNERS announced his intention to vote
far the amendment. There was nothing in the present
state of teings to call for the proposed interference.
Mr. WAWN moved that the Chairman do report
progress.
Mr. CARDWELL hoped at this period of the session
tf:e latter amendment would not be persevered in.
Mr. WAWN objected to having a division forced upon
them in that way, and as the qaestion under discus ion
had not been fully debated ho should press his motion.
Ultimately, however, the Hon Member was induced
to withdraw it, tend,
After a few cords from Mr. ANDERSON,
The Committee divided on the original amendment,
when there a?peare:l—
the amendment ... •,.. •
Against it ..• •••
Majority
The amendment was consequently lost.
The Chairman was then ordered to report progress
and the House adjourned till Five o'clock.

. 9
67

-58

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
ROYAL CO M MISSION.
The Usher of the Black Red appeared at the table,
sod summoned the House to the bar of the house of
L -rds to hear the Royal assent given by commission to
severe' puhlic and private Bills (for which coo Lords'
repent). The Speaker, accompanied by many Hon.
.tiemhers, left the House accordingly; and ou his return
he announced the Bilk which had been as;ened to.
SUNDAY LABOUR AT THE POST-OFFICE.
Lord ',MARCUS HILL, the Treasurer of her Ma-
st)'s Household, appeared at the bar, and stated that
had presented the address on the subject of
Senday labour at tho P..).31-ofE_T to her Majesty,
to which she had been pleased to make the follow-
ing most gracious reply:—
" I have received your address praying that I will
cause al ieviry to be made, whether the amount of
Sunday labour in the Post-office might not be reduced
without completely petting an end to the collection and
delivery of letters, &c., on Sundays, and I have given di-
rections that such an inquiry shall be instituted."
PETITIONS.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from certain printers
and pressmen, residing in Norwich, against the penny
newspaper stamp; also, one petition from Paisley and
six from Glasgow against any restriction on the increase
of Leer-shops.
Mr. LOCKE presented a petition from Lancaster
aeainst the recent regulations in the Post-cffice.
Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from a place in
Buckinghamshire in favour of a more general assessment
of the poor-rates.
Mr. ELLIOT presented -a petition from Hawick
against the Beer Biil.
Several petitions were presented against the admission
of Jews into Parliament.
Mr. SADLEIII preseated a petition from a place in
the county of Cork in favour of an annual division of
tithe rent-charges.
Mr. HUME prevented two petitions from Edinburgh
in favour of the Bill for the erection of a National
Gallery in Edinburgh.
BURGESS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. P. HOWARD, an address was
agreed to for a return of the number of municipal electors
on the burgess roll of each city and borough.
IRON VESSELS.
On the motion of Mr. WAWN, a return of all iron
ve sels was agreed to.
AUDITING OF RAILWAY ACCOUN rs.
Mr. H. BROWN asked the President of the Board of
Trade, whether the Government proposed to introduce
any other Bill for the better auditing of Railway Ac-
counts.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said all be could promise at
present was, that the subject should continue to engage
the attention of the Government, and he would very
much rejoice if ho should be enabled in the course of
next session to introduce some measure with reference to
the auditing of railway accounts.
Mr. BROWN gave notice, in consequence of the
reply of the Right Hon. Barone', that he would bring
before the House, on an early day next session, the
proceedings of the Government with reference to rail-
way affairs generally.
Mr. LOCKE gave notice of a motion on the same
subject.

THE ZOLLVEREIN.
Mr. STANFORD asked the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs whether her Majesty's Government has received
from the resident British Ministers at the several Courts
of Austria, Prussia, and the other German states,
any documents and dispatches on the subject
of the contemplated reconstruction of the Zell-
verein, or German Customs Union ; whether
such dispatches conveyed any opinion how far
such reconstruction of the Zollverein would affect
the commercial relations at present existing between
Great Britain and the several German states; and
whether there was any objection to lay such dispatches
end documents (if any) on the table of the House.
Lord PALMERSTON said a groat deal of correspon-
dence had taken place with her Majesty's Ministers in
difflrent parts of Germany on the subject to
which the question of the Honourable Gentleman
referral. The matter was not a reconstruction, but a
revision of the Zellverein, but it was at present
in that state which rendered it impossible for
him to lay before the House any papers which
would give any satisfactory result. The matter was
only beginning to be discussed in Germany; and he ap-
prehended that the only way in which the commercial
relations of this country could be affected would be in
increasing the duties now levied on articles of British
produce or manufacture. He was, however, at
present not able to say how far that was likely to be the
case; but her Majesty's Ministers abroad would be in-
structed to endeavour to persuade the Governments in
question not to adopt any increase of duties.
OCCUPATION OF ROME BY THE FRENCH.
Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to know whether the
Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had made any commu-
nication to the French Government with respect to their
continued occupation of Rome?
Lord PALMERSTON—No remonstrance has been
made by the British Government.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. PAGE WOOD, at the request of the Committee
on Public Salaries, wished to ask the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government whether he
could assure the House that every appointment made or
to be made by the present Lord Chancellor would be
subject to the approval of Parliament; and, secondly,
whether the Government intended during the present
session to introduce any Bill for the purpose of
paying the officers of the Court of Chancery by salaries
instead of fees.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that any appointment made
by the present Lord Chancellor would be subject to the
supervision of Parliament. With respect to the second
question he could not say whether in the present ses-
sion the Government would be able to introduce any
measure on the subject.
Mr. HENLEY wished to knoir whether the same ar-
rangement had been made with respect to the present
Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas as had been
made with the present Lord Chancellor when he held
that office?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had made no
arrangement with the present Lord Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, considering that as an inquiry was going
on the remuneration of that great officer wottid be sub-
thhea
dpßrteueskesensnt
RUSSELL
Lrede
sCashiudabnj
tceheclatl
to Chancellor snpytroersbeegenutLtoi 5,0001.
jfet to the approval of Parliament.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether the retiring
alrd
3 year?
Lso r°dn
JOHNChancellorof
that Parliament might make.

brepreparatyonfor thev u l
aY-
In answer to a question from Sir D. L. EVANS,
Lord ASHLEY said he hoped that a very consider-
r essepupt
tion in about ten days.
ao bf 1 ew
ap
taerrt
toof
tthbee
metropolisap pendix two e

THE SEWERS COMMISSION.
In reply to the following questions from Lord
DUNCAN,

1. Why the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers,
when on the 23d of Nov,mbr.r, 1849, they mide a by-
law emairg the office of rngi;,eer, aid charged the rate-
1-,a),:!rs with the sum off a year f...r the salary and
travelling expnses of such ofii,ler, publicly rinnounci•d
to the ratepayers that rhe name of the individual whom
they had selected was Mr. Frank Foster, and so con-
gutted this designation until the 11th of January, 1850,