HC Deb 18 May 1824 vol 11 cc788-90

Mr. Curteis moved the second reading of this bill.

Mr. Monck

said, the bill was calculated to interfere with the law of settlements already one of the most perplexing questions that came before the magistracy. He would, therefore, move as an amendment, "that the bill be read a second time that day six months."

Mr. C. Wilson

seconded the amendment.

Mr. Hurst

supported the principle of the bill, and thought the objectionable parts might be new modelled in the committee.

Mr. Bright

said, the principles of the bill were so defective, and the rules on which it proceeded so contrary to law, that he felt it necessary to oppose the measure.

The Solicitor-General

expressed his intention to meet the bill with a direct negative.

Sir M. W. Ridley

said, that the bill was of the utmost importance to the maritime districts of the country. It would have the effect of overturning the law of settlement, so far as it regarded sea-faring individuals. It would operate a partial repeal of the Jaw of settlement with respect to mariners' apprentices. It might, perhaps, be proper to alter the law regarding apprentices; but if that law were to be interfered with, it would be wiser to take the whole law of apprentices into consideration, instead of confining their views to the law of maritime apprentices only. He objected to the bill being brought in at that period of the session.

Mr. Bourne

wished the bill to be postponed; but thought the settlement of the apprentice should be in the port where the ship was registered.

Sir E. Knatchbull

felt that the law as it affected the settlement of mariners' apprentices required revision, but thought it would be better to remodel it in the committee, and then let it remain over till next session."

Mr. D. Gilbert

said, there were under the law as it now stood evils that required correction. He, however, did not press its immediate adoption.

Mr. Curteis

did not feel disposed to press the measure. All he asked for was, that it should be considered in a committee. If it was found impracticable, let it be abandoned. He was inclined to think that the port where the ship was registered ought to be made the place of settlement for the apprentices of mariners.

Mr. Fyshe Palmer

observed, that if the place of register was adopted, it would be subject to great difficulties. Suppose the port of London, where there were twenty parishes, how was the difficulty of the settlement to be settled? There was no one question which so embarrassed magistrates as the question of settlement.

Mr. Monck

was so opposed to the measure in principle and detail, that he could not consent to withdraw his amendment.

The amendment was then carried without a division; and the bill of course lost.