Glasgow Courier. — 1853-04-23 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

TRE MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.  We learn that the insurance companies and underwriters have taken alarm at the intended operation of this bill, clause 37 of which permits owners to send to India for Lascars or Coolies to bring their vessels home from Australia. They will not insure vessels navigated with such crews ; but the club system of gambling may get over this difficulty. The life of a captain or his officers are nothing in the eyes of Messrs. Grind-ern-down di Co. If the ship is burnt the club will stump up the money for a new vessel, and there the matter ends; though it is strange that a professing liberal government should give farther encouragement to murder on the high seas and the burning of ships. Other nations are more careful of the lives of their seamen; it is only the British government that can relax the law, and take part with the associations of owners against the men. They would not interfere with wages, not they, it is against their convictions; they will only swamp the labour market, that is all. As Radicals they are true oppressors. In the House W Lords, the other day, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Granville, and Earl Grey repudiated all idea of reducing the seamen's wages. Those benevolent noblemen of course could not be suspected of such a sinister froceeding, yet to what does their scheme amount ? Mr. Cardwell has such confidence in the worth and character of the British sailor, that he could fairly and successfully compete with the whole world, that, if he were a shipowner, he should give them the preference over foreigners.' Well then, if he believes in what he states, why does he give encouragement to the employment of an inferior body of men? When the owners ask him to give them the option of employing foreigners, does he not see through their motive? Can he not comprehend that it is not good seamen, but cheap crews that they want ? The Whig peers protest that British seamen are the 'best and cheapest in the world ;' and they farther declare that there is no fear of a dearth of mariners, for our insular position is favourable to the production of an over abundance of sailors. Then, N‘hat are they driving at ? Can they tell themselves? Is it not sufficient that a British owner may employ one fourth foreigners ? When they ask for permission to sail their vessels exclusively with foreigners, is not this an admission that they do not want good, but cheap seamen? And divest this matter of all circurolocn• tion, are not the ministers colleaguing with owners to beat down the wages of seamen? It may shock the susceptible nerves of the noble Duke and Earls beforementioned to tell them they are mixing themselves up with the shipowners' clubs and betraying he seamen, but it fairly amounts to that. As for the stupidity of prating about free trade in seamen, we should have thought that no sane man could have reasonably entertained such a preposterous notion. Free trade in seamen means, if anything, free trade in nationality, for we must wait till the arrival of the millenitun before other nations will consent to destroy the nationality of their shipping. There can be no trade in seamanship; if we exchange seamen we barter away our nationality. Wow the Emperors of France and Russia would smile at such an insane proposition! and if Messrs_ Cardwell and Co. cannot gain the consent of other nations to accept our seamen as well as our ships, then what becomes of our free trade in seamen? No; the abrogation of the existing most favourable system would injure owner as well as man; their interests are identical If viewed in a proper light. True, the passing of the new bill might enable owners to more easily rob seamen of their wages *brood; bet this is so part of the duty of the govern.