The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-06-07 00:00:00

ARCHBISHOP OF TIJAM.

Lord WIIARNCLIFFE complained that, to-a requisition for
convening a meeting, in favour of the restoration of the pre-
sent government, there appeared the names of " John, Arch-
bishop of Tuam," and the Bishop of Tuam. Now, it ap-
peared that Dr. M'Hale set himself up above the Protestant
bishop, in a manner which he did not think that prelate should
allow, and which was clearly in contravention of the words
of the Emancipation Act.
Viscount MELBOURNE said that the question of allowing
Dr. M`Hale to assume the title which had been referred to,
was one for the consideration of the Irish Lord-Lieutenant
and government. He could not help saying, that supposing
the -Protestant bishop concurred in the object of the requisi-
tion, he did not think it would be a wise course to take a
punctilious objection to the erroneous title of the other indi-
vidual who had been alluded to.

BEER ACT REPEAL BILL.

Viscount MELBOURNE presented several petitions from
Salford, Manchester, Derby, Rochdale, and other places, in
favour of the present beer laws.
Lord Baou GUAM, after presenting petitions for the repeal
of the beer act, rose to move the second reading of the bill
for the part repeal of the beer act. He had no objection— '
on the contrary, he thought it quite right and proper—that
beer should be permitted to be sold in shops as freely as
bread or any other commodity. These were his opinions in
1830, when the beer act was passed, and he protested against
the measure then adopted at the time. It was true that
when, within a year of its passing, he was urged to move the
repeal of that measure, he had objected to do so, because he
thought that it, having once become law, should be permit-
ted to have a fair trial. It had now had a most sufficient
trial, the result of which was that, with few exceptions, all
the intelligent and respectable portions of the community
were loud in reprobation of its mischievous effect. The
noble lord referred to several printed documents on their
lordships' table, containing the evidence of ,magistrates,
clergymen, commissioners, constables, land proprietors, and
others. in all parts of the kingdom, who gave testimony
against the operation of the beer-laws, on a variety of grounds.
They generally alleged that the keepers of beer-houses pro-
inoted gambling, prostitution, and other vices of that cha-
racter. Many complained that the beer-houses in various
parts of the country were kept open all night, in spite of the
law to the contrary ; and if it were asked why the law was
not enforced to close them at proper hours, it was sufficient
to observe, that the constables upon whom that duty would
devolve were only appointed for a twelvemonth, had natu-
rally no desire to render themselves obnoxious to their neigh-
bours by an interference with their pursuits, and in many
cases were bribed by drinking their beer gratis as a return
for their complaisance. It was contended, in short, that
beer-houses were the great source of evil throughout the
country, that all the robberies were concocted at them, and
one witnest, stated that some dishonest people in his neigh-
bourhood were in the habit of stealing his fowls and his cab-
bages, and getting them cooked at the beer-house. These
statements did not come, his lordship observed, from one or
two districts only, or from any particular class of districts,
but equally from agricultural and manufacturing districts, and
from villages and manufacturing towns in every direction.
It was said that they could not interfere now with the beer-
shops, without compensating the owners in some way for the
loss of the capital which they had embarked in these concerns,
under the sanction of an act of parliament. Capital! What
did it consist of ? Very few of them had anything like
capital, and those few would be protected by his bill. The
average of their capital would, at the utmost, amount to £lO
or £l2 ; and, if he said 10s. or 125., he thought, in many,
instances, that would be near the mark ; at all events, £5
was a high average. What did it consist of ? A deal table,
a few extra chairs or benches, some mugs, a pair of fire-
irons, and a few glasses, and the beer that they expected to
consume in ten or twelve days. But be proposed, in order
to protect even this capital, that they should I tre ten months'
notice. The 16,000 beer-shop-keepers, who brewed their
own beer, and might have, on an average, a capital of £3O or
£4O invested in their business, did not object to his bill. He
proposed, in committee, to introduce a clause for the pro-
tection of this class of persons ; they were a reputable class
of men, and there would be no difficulty in letting them
continue as at present, for four or five years longer, in order
that they might turn about and get rid of their brewing ap-
paratus ; but the other £32,000, who had no capital, certainly
ought to be put down as soon as possible, and the detestable
nuisance eradicated from the land. _ _ .

The Duke of WELLINGTON stated that it was his intention
to support the measure proposed by the noble and learned
lord. He thought this would be a very useful measure, and,
thinking so, he came forward to support it. He earnestly
recommended the measure to the attention of their lordships,
and that they would, by a perfect attention to it in the com-
mittee, render it as perfect as possible.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER meant to propose that the
bill be read a second time that day six months. The bill, if
carried into effect, would be the ruin not merely of 45,000,
but unquestionably the ruin of 200,000 persons, who were so
ill able to defend themselves. The increase of crimes in this
country were not crimes, such as forgery, likely to have
originated in beer-shops. Notwithstanding his objections to
the bill, he thought it might, however, be permitted to pass,
if some corrections were made in it.
In the course of a short discussion, Viscount MELBOURNE
said. he had no objections to the course proposed in reference
to this bill, but he could not pledge the government here or
elsewhere to support it.
Lord BROUGHAM replied.
After a few words from the Marquis cf WESTMINSTER, in
explanation, the bill was then read a second time, and referred
to a select committee, to be named on Tuesday.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNDAY.

CANADA

On the motion of Lord J 1.--; RUSSELL, the Queen's mes-
sage to the house was again read by the clerk, and which was
to the following_ effect :—" Her Majesty thinks it right to
acquaint the House of Commons that it appears to her
Majesty that the future welfare of her Majesty's subjects in
Lower and Upper Canada would be promoted by the union
of the said provinces into one province, for the purposes of
leislation, from and after a period to be fixed by Parliament.
Her Majesty, therefore, recommends it to the house to con-
sider such measure as may be submitted to them for this
purpose. Her Majesty is persuaded that the House of Coni-
mons will combine a due regard for the peace and security of
these important provinces with such provisions as may be
conducive to the permanent freedom and prosperity of her
North American people."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that it was now his duty, as a
minister of the crown, to call upon Parliament to lay the
foundation of a permanent settlement of the affairs of Canada.
He thought that upon general grounds there were sufficient
reasons why parliament should at the present time be called
upon to take some steps that might indicate the policy which
they would in future pursue with regard to the complicated
and disturbed state of affairs in that country. The house had
had various commissions of inquiry on the subject, and vari-
ous reports from those commissions had been laid before them.
This circumstance, together with the abrupt termination of
Lord Durham's mission, would show the inexpediency of ap-
pointing any other person with similar authority to repeat
again with regard to the facts his own views and opinions,
and what steps that commissioner would take to be the best
means of solving the difficulties in which the subject was in-
volved. But thre were many and special reasons why par-
liament should declare its opinion now with regard to the
principle on which the future legislation of Canada was to be
carried on. The noble lord then took a review of the pro-
ceedings under Lord Durham's administration, and stated,
that it was the opinion of government, after the most mature
deliberation, that the course which he now proposed was the
best that could now be adopted, and moved Ist, " That it is
the opinion of this house that it is expedient to form a legis-
lative union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada,
on the principles of a free and representative government, in
such manner as may most conduce to the prosperity and
contentment of the people of the united province.' 2d.
" That it is expedient to continue till 1842 the powers vested
in the Governor and Special Council of Lower Canada, by
an act of last session, with such alterations of those powers
as may be deemed advisable."
' Mn T`Al F 1 was ptenared to obiect to almost all that minis-
ters proposed on this subject. What the colonists wanted
was not a mere union, though union in itself might be very
well, but what they wanted was a constitution under which
they could govern themselves.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that until the speech of Lord
John, he had supposed it the intention of ministers to pro-
pose, either on the basis of union or on some other general
principle, a legislative measure for the government of the
Canadas. It now appears that Ministers abandon the intent
of actual legislation by the Imperial Parliament, and yet ex-
pect the House to agree that the Assembly of the colonists
shall not meet till 1842. How could he give so distant a
pledge ? How anticipate what might happen meanwhile ?
His experience was unfavourable to abstract pledges, even
for an immediately ensuing session ; how much more for a
period so distant as 1842 ? By not legislating now, the Go-
vernment did not relieve itself from its responsibility, but,
in reality, increased its own difficulties. What had now been
propOsed was no more than had been proposed so long ago as
1822—that was the abstract principle ; this proposal of to-
night was but the same abstraction, not one step advanced.
He had the greatest doubt (though he would still reserve his
right to change his judgment after further time for reflection)
whether it could be right for a parliament, abstaining from
legislation, to give any such abstract pledge. He would act
on the principle he had originally professed. He would not,
for part, purposes, allow a colony to be in rebellion ; he
would not make such a question a party one; but he would
not be deterred by the mere dread of having party purposes
imputed to him from taking that course which in his con-
science he should think the interests of the colony and the
empire demanded.
Mr. C. BULLER insisted on the importance of having the
executive government responsible to the representative body.
He did not, however, care much, practically, about the present
- resolution ; for he was satisfied that, practically, the repre-
sentatives of the two united colonies would compel that
responsibility. But he looked with great alarm at the pro-
posed delay—at more summers of doubt, and more winters
of outrage—more rumours of plots and invasions—more
burnings and devastations.
After a few words from Lord J. Russell in explanation,

------ - --. ----, - -...-- . ,
the discussion was adjourned till Monday next.
The Metropolis Police bill, the Metropolis Police Courts
bill, and Summary Jurisdiction bill, were severally read a
second time after some discussion.

BOROUGH COURTS BILL.
On a motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, the house went
into, committee on this bill.
The several clauses having been agreed to, Mr. CRESS-
WELL moved the insertion of a new clause, with a view to
prevent parties from removing causes under £5O by writ of
certiorari into a superior court, without previously obtaining
a judge's order, and cause being shown thereon, and also
giving security for costs.
Mr. T. PARKER and Mr. JONES briefly opposed the clause,
and after a short discussion the committee divided :—For

r -N. NNNI • 4 I"IW

the clause'; against it, 1; majority, 56. The clause
having been inserted, the bill, with the amendments, was
ordered to be reported. The house then resumed, and the
report was ordered to be received on Tuesday.—The other
orders of the day were then read and disposed of.
PENNY POSTAGE.—THE BUDGET.—In reply to a question
from Colonel Sibthorp, who asked when the budget was to be
introduced,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that it was
his intention some day next week to move the house to agree
to a resolution, reducing the duties now paid on the postage
of letters, and affixing to all letters sent by post the invaria-
ble sum of one penny alone ; provided that the house would,
at the same time, affirm the principle, that any deficiency
which might take place in the revenue, in consequence of that
alteration, should be made good hereafter by the house. In
moving that resolution, he would lay before the house an ac-
count of the income and expenditure of the country. He
could not make that statement sooner, as he had only just
received an account of our expenditure in Upper and Lower
Canada. _ _ _ _ _

The orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house
adjourned at a quarter before one o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY-

The royal assent was given, by commission, to sundry
public and private bills. Among the former were the sedi-
tious meetings act amendment bill, designs copyright exten-
sion bill, British Museum buildings bill, &c.
The Marquis of NORMANBY, in answer to Lord Lynd-
hurst's inquiry, said there would be no objection to laying on
the table of the house resolutions, &c., passed in Upper
Canada, regarding the " union" of the Canadas.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of the
church discipline bill ; the discussions on which extended to
considerable length.
The Bishop of EXETER opposed it, and moved that it be
read a second time that day six months.
The bill, however, was eventually read the second time,
and ordered to be committed on Monday next. After which
their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY.
Mr. Gurney, the short-hand writer, presented his notes of
the judgment in the Queen's Bench, in the case, " Stock-
dale v. Hansard."

Mr. D. W. HARVEY gave notice of his intention to move,
June 18, for a bill " for the better administration of public
charities." _ _

Mr. PARKINGTON deferred the further proceedings on his
beer bill till June 19.

Mr. GODSON gave notice that he should, this day, move
that the merchants, &c., interested in trade with Jamaica,
be heard, on Friday, against the Jamaica bill.
Sir R. PEEL inquired, whether there would be any objec-
tion to produce information, to which reference had been
made by Mr. Labouchere on the preceding evening, regard-
ing the union of the Canadas, &c.
Mr. LABOU CHERE said that the information would be pro-
duced at the earliest possible period, and in a printed form.
Sir S. CANNING gave notice that, to-day, he would put a
question to the government regarding the blockade of
Buenos Ayres.

QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS.
Sir H. FLEETWOOD moved for leave to bring in a bill for
extending the qualification of voters for members of parlia-
ment representing English and Welsh counties to the occu-
piers of houses of the clear annual value of £lO, the same as
in boroughs. The hon. member said a more important sub-
ject, he believed, had never come under the consideration of
parliament ; extending the franchise for counties to £lO
householders was, in his opinion, extending it to a class of
persons far above many who now enjoyed the franchise, and
he thought when the reform bill passed, that class of persons
were omitted by accident. The class of £lO householders,
which he wished to extend the franchise to, were not persons
residing within a parliamentary borough, but who resided in
the rural districts. If a £lO privilege was sufficient for a
borough, he did not see why it should not be for counties.
There was no danger of such a creation of this class of voters
as to swamp the present constituency, therefore the objection
on that point he considered fell to the ground, (Hear, hear.)
He considered the measure he now proposed as one conser-
vative of intellect and property. (Hear.) In supporting
this measure they by no means vitiated the principles of the
reform bill : possession of a £lO house in the rural districts
must be in a person of respectable station in society. (Hear,
hear.) In bringing forward this motion he hoped to call
from the noble lord his opinion of the present state of the
reform bill. (Hear.) He hoped the country would be as-
sured by the noble lord that it was intended to extend the
reform bill—the public were most anxious on this subject.
(Hear, hear.) He hoped something would be said to allay
the anxiety and apprehension which now existed. The hon.
member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted, that if the argument for letting
in the £5O occupiers in counties had been a good one, which
he thought it was not, it would have applied to the case of
the occupiers of £lO. The £5O occupiers, however, having
now been let in, could not now be excluded; but it would
not therefore be expedient now to let in the ten-pounders too.
It could not be expected that at this period of the session the
government could, concur in so extensive a change ; but he
would add, that it was a change which at any time would be
objectionable. It would be regarded, by a large body in the
country who had taken up their rest upon the reform bill,
not as harmonizing with that measure, but as exceeding it.
With respect to those general intentions of government which
the mover had asked him to state, he would say, that there
are three views of the reform bill, taken by three respective
sets of persons. The first class adhered to the letter of the
reform bill, but sought to frustrate its spirit, working by cor-
ruption and intimidation. The second class regarded it as a
total failure, and wished to remodel it. With neither of
these parties did he agree : his opinions were those of a third
party, who desired to preserve the principle, amending the
details by such corrections as necessity and experience should
suggest ; as in the instance of the registration, which now
subjected the voters to many vexations, and of the payment
of rates and assessed taxes, the latter of which he should be
glad to see required no longer at all, while he would enlarge
the time allowed for the arrears of the former. The present
proposal, he admitted, was not an innovation of principle,
and he could hold out no prospect of the government's con-
currence in it, either now or on any future occasion.
Mr. WARBURTON intimated that if ministers would pro-
mise to bring in a general bill for amending the reform act,
the radicals, or, as he called them, the liberals, would not be
over-exacting nor impatient. At present, he did not well un-
derstand what the noble lord meant. Some evidence of pro-
gressive intention was wanted to raise the spirits of the re-
form party ; " and then," said he, " instead of our being al-
most afraid to meet a general election, and anticipating dis-
comfiture, as we do, we should be ready to confront our con-
stituents, ay, still readier than the tories are now. But if
things are left in their present state, they will be worse and
worse for the liberals at each succeeding dissolution. The
liberals are most numerous, wealthy and influential party, and
they will not submit to this inferiority." He asked for no
specific declarations ; he was willing that government should
have full time, on the present proposal, for ascertaining its
probable effects, by reference to the statistics of representa-
tion ; and if they would but take the subject into consideration,
he should advise his friend the mover to wait.

--
Sir ROBERT- PEEL began a short speech, of great strength
and spirit, by denying that Lord John was chargeable with
the obscurity just imputed to him. The noble lord had spe-
cified the alterations he would consent to—alterations which,
whether they might be approved of or not, were certainly sta-
ted in the most explicit manner ; and to this particular inno-
vation the noble lord had said, with equal distinctness, that
he would not give his concurrence now, nor hold out a pros-
pect of his concurrence in it hereafter. The noble lord, he
doubted not, would vote as he himself rbeant to vote ; for
himself, even if he had stood alone, he should have felt it his
duty to divide against the proposal. That the ten pound oc-
cupiers without the boroughs were as respectable as those
within, he well believed ; but his objection was, that to ad-
mit a great and indefinite number of new constituents would
destroy the finality of the reform bill. Lord John had sta-
ted three opinions respecting the reform bill, entertained by
three different classes of men, but had omitted a fourth opi-
nion, the most entitled to respect—the opinion of those who
had accepted the reform bill as a settlement and a final one,
in so far as finality is practicable, but who abominate the im-
puted corruptions and intimidations. The vague assurances
asked for by Mr. Warburton were such as a minister was
bound to refuse, for they would be assurances deceiving, mis-
leading and bewildering the country, and now asked for, not
to improve the constitution, but avowedly to give the ra-
dicals a better chance of fighting their own battles, and car-
rying their seats when they had lost the confidence of their
constituents. (Great cheering followed this reproof.) When-
ever ministers meant to alter the reform bill, he hoped their
alterations would be immediate, for he must protest against
the new mode of conducting public business by assurances for
the future instead of present measures—a system tending to
lower the character of parliament, and to confound the rela-
tions of the executive and the legislative bodies. Mr. War-
burton probably would be satisfied with a promise of reform
to commence (like the Canadian constitution) in 1842, for he
was disposed to accept the minimum that would enable him
to make a figure at the hustings. The present measure, if
carried, would not ultimately satisfy the radicals. (A cheer
from Mr. Warburton.) That cheer admitted that this mo-
tion was but a stepping stone. He should like to see mem-
bers, instead of busying themselves with new systems, try to
show themselves capable of faithfully discharging their duties
under the existing constitution.
Mr. HARVEY, having expected no advance in reform, was
not disappointed that none had been promised by the govern-
ment. He should have been pleased had they progressed,
but should have regretted, in that case, to see the noble lord
eat his own oft-repeated words. The assent of government
to this single measure would have done little to satisfy the
public ; far larger measures were needful for that purpose.
Still, even without reform, much useful legislation might be
accomplished, and the constituencies had to blame them-
selves that reform had not been more successful. He was
tired of hearing so many speeches, yet seeing nothing done.
He should like a strong government, able to command a
working majority. There was so little difference of opinion
between the opposite leaders, that he did not see why some
country gentleman should not address the Queen to form a
ministry which might possess the confidence of the house.
Colonel DAVIES opposed the motion, and Mr. Hume,
while he expressed his disappointment at the avowal of go-
vernment, yet protested against any thing so disgraceful as
the coalition suggested by Mr. Harvey.
Mr. SLANEY then rose amid great confusion, caused by
cries of " divide,". &c. He thought the noble lord had done
himself honour by the open and candid manner in which he
had spoken on this occasion ; and it would have been a mat-
ter of the deepest regret had he been obliged to vote against
the motion of his noble friend, as he was anxious that a set-
tlement should be made of this great question—a question
on which concessions had been made by many public men.
Had he broken away from the declaration of the ministry,
he should have been obliged to vote against it, and this he
should have regretted. He believed that the great body of
the public were satisfied with the measures involved in the
Reform Bill, as they were satisfied with the alterations in its
workings and changes, as to the particular points to which
the noble lord had alluded. He (Mr. Slaney) in expressing
his opinions, sought personally no favour, either from one
party or the other, but he stated fairly and honestly his
opinion, that he thought the noble lord did himself great
credit by the straightforward, manly declaration, which he
knew would bring on him the rebuke of the greater portion
of his opponents—(hear, hear.)
Mr. HOWARD said, if a concession were made to country
voters, without a corresponding concession to town voters,
no permanent satisfaction would be given. He understood
the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill, to have been
accepted, and, therefore, he considered the proposed exten-
sion uncalled for.
_

Sir H. FLEETWOOD, in reply, said if it were the general
wish of the house that the motion should be withdrawn, he
had no desire to press it ; but if the house determined to
proceed to a division, he wished, in justice to the noble lord,
to set right a point on which his statements had been misin-
terpreted. He certainly understood the noble lord to have
said that he coincided with him (Sir H. F.) in op.nion on
this subject, but to have also said that, at the present period
of the session, he could not support his motion, nor could he
promise to support it in any future session ; but the noble
lord had never said anything that ought to lead to the suppo-
sition that he had pledged himself to oppose it if it should be
brought forward at a future time.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion Bl
Against it
Majority against the motion
Sir H. FLEETWOOD obtained leave to bring in a bill to
limit the time of taking the poll at elections of coroners for
counties in one day, and for increasing the number of polling
places.
Mr. WAKLEY moved for copies of any correspondence
which may have passed between the poor law commissioners,
the board of guardians of the union of Dunmow, in Essex,

~`3r •

and John Barnard, Esq., late vice-chairman of the board,
concerning the erection of a workhouse in the union of
Dunmow.

Lord ASHLEY moved that the house be called over on Fri-
day, the 14th instant.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL seconded the motion, agreeably to
promise ; but said that it might not be requisite, as the go-
vernment did not intend to press the education plan to the
extent comtemplated.
This led to warm discussion, and loud complaints against
Lord John Russell ; but, as his lordship said that he still had
papers on the subject to lay on the table, the motion for the
call" was eventually agreed to, Lord Ashley undertaking
that, if there were nothing objectionable in the papers, he
would move the discharge of the call.
General JOHNSON moved for a series of returns regarding
the building of workhouses, the expenses of the poor law
commissioners, &c. They were ordered, and the house
shortly afterwards adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—WEDNESDAY.
The House of Lords did not sit to-day.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock, for the pur-
pose of facilitating the presentation of public petitions.
Sir R. INGLIS moved that Mr. Burge, agreeably to the
prayer of his petition, be heard, as agent for Jamaica, against
the Jamaica Bill when its second reading should be moved.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE said that he had no objection : he was
desirous that all should be urged that could be on the subject.
Sir STRATFORD CANNING instituted inquires respecting
the blockade of Buenos Ayres by the French, which had now
lasted 18 months, and asked whether there was any prospect
of its termination ?
Lord PALMERSTON answered that the blockade still con-
tinued ; but that her Majesty's government had used every
effort, both in Paris and Buenos Ayres, to bring about an
adjustment.
The Clerks of the Peace Bill' went through committee ;
and the Copyholds Enfranchisement Bill, and several orders
of the day were disposed of. _

- -
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER obtained a vote o'
£70,000. in committee, for the erection of new stables al
Windsor Castle.—Adjourned.

ADMIRALTY COURT-TUESDAY.

(Before Sir S. LUSHINGTON.)
THE BLAKE—WAGES.—This is a suit brought by a mari-
ner named William Kendall, for the subtraction of wages,
against the owner of The Blake, the payment of which was
refused on the ground that the party proceeding had been
guilty of mutinous conduct while the ship was lying at St.
Helena. The Blake proceeded in March, 1837, from Liver-
pool (Kendall having been hired for the' voyage out and
home) to Bombay, from thence to Whampoa, and on her
return voyage the then master and mate were tried for man-
slaughter, for having caused the death of a boy. They were
found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment. The second
mate was subsequently tried, and found guilty of perjury.
New officers were appointed to the ship, and she proceeded
to St. Helena, when, the day before she was appointed to
sail, Kendall and most of the crew became so intoxicated,
that they refused, on the following morning, to obey the
orders of the master and mate, to heave the anchor, with the
view of the ship prosecuting her voyage home to England.
The majority of the crew, on refusing to man the windlass,
declared they would volunteer on board of her Majesty's ship
Fair Rosamond, then lying off St. Helena. Two of the crew
did volunteer, and on a signal being given to the ship-of-war,
the commander of it sent a boat's crew to heave their anchor,
in order to enable the vessel to get under weigh. On the
arrival of the vessel in the port of London, Kendall and
others of the crew were directed to be put in custody, but
this was not done. The question before the court is, whether
Kendall had been guilty of such conduct as would render
him liable to a forfeiture of his wages.
Dr. Adams (with whom was Dr. Robertston,) for the ma-
riner, contended that this slight act of insubordination at St.
Helena could not go to a forfeiture of wages, as it arose from
drunkenness. It was not denied that, after The Blake left
St. Helena, the mariner had well performed his duty. It
could not be true, as alleged on behalf of the owners, that the
two men who had volunteered on board the Fair Rosamond
had been taken off as mutineers, as the commander had ob-
tained their wages from the captain of The Blake up to the pe-
riod of their quitting the ship. It might be true that the di-
cipline of the ship had become relaxed by the cruelty shown
by the former master, there having been instances before he
was tried of the crew refusing to obey orders, in consequence
of being placed on short rations. It was extremely impro-
bable if, as pleaded, that Kendall and those who acted with
him were sober, that they should have got up a mutiny when
a Queen's ship of war was within pistol shot. This was in-
credible. It was an ungracious act in the owners to attempt
to deprive the mariner of his wages for a single act of drun-
kenness and disobedience ; and the court would, he (D..
Addams) thought, pronounce that Kendall was entitled to his
wages.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE (who was assisted by Dr.
Nichol) on behalf of the owner, submitted that if conduct
such as Kendall had been guilty of was tolerated, the greatest
injury would be done to the interests of the mercantile
marine and to the navigation of the country. Here was a
vessel with a most valuable cargo left short of hands by the
mutinous conduct of a part of the crew, of which Kendall
was a ringleader. There could be no doubt but that the
order of the captain, as well as of the mate, had been dis-
obeyed, and there was no doubt as to the principles of the
law. There were laid down by Chief Justice Abbott and
Lord Stowell. It had been held by these authorities that a
disobedience of orders, a neglect of duty, or drunkenness,
would entitle the master to dismiss a seaman, which would
work a forfeiture of wages.
The COURT asked if the master would be authorised to
leave a seaman at St. Helena?

Dr. NICUOL thought so.
Sir S. LUSHINGTON.—Then why did not the master do so
if the principle contended for was correct ? The effect of not
doing so was to deprive the seamen of all wages earned in
fuluro. In this respect, the question was one of considera-
ble importance and of great difficulty.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE submitted that, under the cir-
cumstances of the case, the court must hold that the mariner
was not entitled to his wages. If the court held otherwise,
it was impossible to foresee how far the disobedience to or-
ders would be carried, and the navigation of the country and
the safety of property to an immense amount put in jeopardy.
The reply was adjourned until the next court day.