§ The House went into Committee upon the Merchant Seamen's Bill.
§ The Clauses to the Seventh were agreed to.
§ On Clause Seven being proposed,
§ Mr. Carrutherssuggested, that absence from the vessel twenty-four hours before the ship sailed should be visited by the deprivation of a week's pay, instead of two days.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, that undoubtedly, where the interests of the owners were most deeply embarked, and exposed to the most risk, it would be right that the danger of desertion should be met by a very heavy penalty.
§ Mr. George F. Youngremarked, that in order to bring the Question to a definitive conclusion, he would submit as an Amendment, that after the words "period of time," in the twenty-first line, the following words should be inserted:—" or that the master shall be at liberty to hire two other men, and to deduct wages for the persons hired from the wages of the person so absenting himself."
§ Mr. Robinsonremarked, that the sailors would not mind sacrificing one day's pay to have their twenty-four hours on shore before the vessel sailed. If three days were inserted instead of two, it would satisfy him.
Alderman Thompsonwould remind the hon. Member what the state of the law 195 on this point was at the present time. If a seaman absented himself for one day while the vessel was loading or unloading, he forfeited the whole of his wages, whereas, as the clause would stand, he could only lose 10s. As the clause stood, it would be very prejudicial to the interests of the shipowners.
§ Sir James Grahamwas understood to deny, that under the present law seamen were liable to the forfeiture of the whole of their wages under the present circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. George F. Youngremarked, that though the law might not possibly enjoin it, it permitted this forfeiture to be exacted, and it was the universal practice in ships' articles to put in a clause stipulating that twenty-four hours' absence from the ship, while loading or unloading, should be considered as desertion, and be punished by the forfeiture of the whole of the absentee's wages.
The Solicitor Generalthought that the check to be imposed on seamen's quitting the vessel ought to be as small as was consistent with the safety of the owners. He did consider that the loss of two days' wages was sufficient to prevent absence. Eventually, it was agreed that words should be added to the clause enabling the owner to make the sailor re-imburse any expense occasioned by his absence.
§ On the Eleventh Clause,
Mr. Chapmanmoved as an Amendment, that the word "ten" should be left out, and the word "three" substituted in its place, whereby seamen would have a right to demand the full arrear of payment due to them within three days after their arrival at home, instead of within ten days, as was proposed by the original clause. The hon. Member considered that the evil of allowing sailors to wander up and down the streets for ten days after their arrival in England, exposed to all the temptations that beset them, before they could go to their friends in the country with their wages, or send their money to their friends, would be, in a great measure, avoided by this Amendment.
§ Mr. Youngobjected to the Amendment, on the ground that it was impossible for the captain to know for what embezzlement sailors might have to be answerable until after the cargo was discharged, and it was only in very rare instances that the cargo could be discharged within three days after arrival.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, this clause had been originally framed so as to prevent the evil effects which too frequently resulted from the sailor having the whole of his pay the moment he got on shore. Unused as he had been to all indulgence during a long voyage, the sailor joined often the first idle person he met, displayed his money, and became a dupe to persons who were always, of course, lying in wait for such inconsiderate persons. As to the danger there might arise to the captain who was answerable for everything on board to his owners, and whose best security against embezzlement by the sailors arose out of the sailor having to wait some time before his wages were handed over to him, which afforded time to investigate whether any embezzlement had taken place, he assured the hon. Member there would be found sufficient security in another clause in the Bill to which their attention would be subsequently directed.
§ The Clause was agreed to.
§ On Clause Seventeen being proposed,
§ Mr. Buckinghamobserved, that last year he had entertained, in common with the right hon. Baronet, the desire of seeing a system of nominal registration, or registration by name, established; but the present clause simply proposed a registring of the classes and numbers of the seamen. He (Mr. Buckingham) was anxious to see a system of nominal registration in operation, because it would form the basis of a system of ballot and do away with impressment.
§ Sir James Grahamwas most anxious to see a system of nominal registration. If adopted, he thought it would be successful, but, at the same time, what he now proposed would effect a most material object, by enabling the Government to ascertain the precise state of the maritime population, while it would be a step towards that more perfect system which would accomplish the important national object which he, with the hon. Member for Sheffield, had anxiously in view—the speedy and total abolition of impressment in the navy.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On the Twenty-ninth Clause, which provided that masters or owners of vessels of the burden of eighty tons and upwards should be required to take parish apprentices, or forfeit to the use of the parish the sum of 10l.
197§ Mr. Robinsonobserved, that he felt obliged, at the risk of disturbing the unanimity which prevailed in the Committee on the provision of the Bill, to object to the clause which had just been proposed. It appeared to be directed to the accomplishment of two objects; first, to oblige the owners and masters of vessels to employ a certain number of apprentices, with a prospective view of rendering them available, if required, for the public service. So far as the clause was meant to answer that purpose, he had no objection whatever to it; but the part of the proposed clause which he was opposed to was, where it gave to parish officers the power of applying to the Magistrates for an injunction to make it compulsory upon masters of vessels to take into their service parish apprentices, when they did not appear to have on board the number of apprentices provided by this Act. He considered such an interference with the right of the master to choose any apprentice he pleased to be altogether unjustifiable, and particularly when it was employed for the purpose of forcing him to receive into his service a class of persons whom it was most improbable that he would select if the matter were left to his own choice.
§ Sir James Grahamreplied that the hon. Gentleman who had objected to this clause seemed to think that it contained an innovation in the laws respecting the appointment of parish apprentices to serve in merchant vessels; but the fact was, that the principle was adopted in all Acts relative to this subject since the time of Queen Anne. By the 3rd of Anne it was provided that every master of a vessel of twenty tons burthen should be liable to take parish apprentices; and in case of his not complying with this provision he was liable to a fine of 10l. The clause which he (Sir James Graham) had introduced, only revived the principle of the Act of Queen Anne, and differed from it only in these respects, that it altered the liability of vessels from twenty to eighty tons, and directed that the amount of 10l. only should be levied on the master in case of his refusing to receive the apprentice selected by the parish; though from the change in the value of money since the time of Queen Anne, he should be justified in naming as high a sum as 18l. or 20l. The House could not, then, fail to observe, that instead of any infliction 198 being imposed on the masters of vessels, they must derive considerable advantage from the measure which he had brought forward.
§ Mr. George F. Youngwas of opinion that this clause was calculated to operate most injuriously, inasmuch as it forced on the adoption of masters of vessels parish apprentices, who were a class of persons whom the masters must be very unwilling to receive into their employment, when they could easily procure others of a much superior class, and more likely to give them satisfaction.
§ Sir James Grahamprotested against the supposition of this clause being considered compulsory on the masters of vessels with respect to the reception of parish apprentices into their service. They need not take those persons into their employment if they were willing to pay to the parish the sum of 10l. And if in this respect they could be said to suffer any hardship, they suffered in common with every Gentleman in England, who was liable to be called upon to receive parish apprentices into his service. The policy of England had been, since the time of Queen Anne, to encourage the employment of her seaport population in merchant vessels.
§ Mr. Humeobserved, that the only just ground upon which any alteration ought to be made in the old laws was, that they contained provisions which were not reconcilable to expediency and justice. He certainly considered that the clause in question was one which interfered with the free choice of the masters of vessels in a manner that was indefensible.
§ Mr. Charles Woodremarked, that the master of a vessel was placed, by this Act, on a superior footing to the country gentleman or shopkeeper; for the latter were subject to have parish apprentices forced upon them by the parish authorities whenever a vacancy occurred in their service; but the masters of vessels were exempted from the operation of the clause, in case their vessels had the number of apprentices required by the Act.
Mr. O'Connellre-called the attention of the Committee to the fourth clause, by which it was provided, that persons above the age of thirteen, and under the age of twenty-one, who should be found chargeable to the parish, or whose parents should beg, should be taken up and sent to sea. This clause applied, of course, to the 199 United Kingdom; and was one, he thought, of great hardship.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, that such had been the law in England for above a century, but there had been no instance of any grievous application of it.
§ Mr. Peaseobserved that if parish apprentices were to be forced upon the owners of ships in the way contemplated by the Bill, those owners would never be able to get respectable apprentices again.
Captain Berkeleysupported the clause. In an attempt to get rid of a great evil, a smaller one might well be endured.
Alderman Thompsonstated that the ship-owners, especially of Sunderland, objected to the description of apprentices which the Bill would compel them to take. They frequently sent their own sons to sea as apprentices, and would not like to have for associates such boys as those contemplated by the Bill. It was said, indeed, that the shipowner could get rid of the compulsion by the payment of 10l. But was not such an option destructive of the professed object in view, namely, to create a nursery for seamen? Why should the shipowner be prevented from selecting boys most fit for the service.
§ Sir James Grahamhad no objection to withdraw the 29th and 30th clauses, if it were understood that no objection would be made to the 51st, which was the most stringent one, as enabling authorized persons to go aboard vessels and see if they had a proper number of apprentices.
§ Mr. Youngthought that the shorter way would be to provide that the owners should show the indentures of their apprentices at the Custom-house, before the vessels were allowed to clear out.
§ The Clause was agreed to.
§ On Clause 45 being read, which permits sailors on board merchant vessels to quit them, and volunteer into the King's service,
§ Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that he could not help expressing his most decided objection to the clause. It involved the infraction of one of the first principles of justice, and tended to the demoralization of the seamen, whom it encouraged, after they entered into a solemn agreement with the shipowners to serve for a stipulated time, to break through their compact and volunteer into the Kind's service. He 200 would divide the Committee on the clause.
§ Sir James Grahamthought that the seamen should have the right of changing from the Merchants' to the King's service if they chose, or saw any advantage in so doing. As they entered voluntarily into the merchant service, they ought to have the power of quitting it when they pleased for the King's service. He called upon the House not to reject the clause, and stop the only avenue through which, on foreign stations, the King's navy could be manned. It was impossible to overrate the advantages of this clause, and he would rather renounce the Bill altogether than give up the clause.
§ Mr. Robinsonwas sorry to disagree in opinion with the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth. It certainly was a hardship on shipowners, that sailors should have the power of quitting their service, and entering the Royal navy, before the voyage which they agreed to perform was finished. Though he was a shipwowner, he would allow the clause to pass in consideration of the great question of public policy it involved.
§ Mr. Alsagerstated, it had often occurred to him to have a great portion of his crew, as many as thirty at a time, leave him in foreign ports, just at the time he most required their labour, and go on board the King's ships, induced to do so, by being told they would have less to do, and better recompensed. He thought the clause, if it passed, should be so framed as to compel sailors to finish their work on board merchant vessels, before they were allowed to engage in the Royal navy.
§ Sir E. Codringtonexpressed his approbation of the Clause.
§ Mr. George F. Youngopposed it, as calculated to demoralize the British seamen. He should wish, at least, to have it applied only in time of war.
§ Mr. Buckinghamopposed the clause, and again called on the Government to give some pledge from the Government against the impressment of seamen.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, that the only argument he had heard against the clause was, that it tended to the immorality of inducing breaches of contract. It should, however, not be forgotten that if the clause passed, it would be known to all parties, and it would be competent to them to frame their contracts accordingly.
§ Sir Edward Codringtonsupported the 201 clause, as being calculated not only to do away with the necessity of impressment, but also to make the King's service more attractive to seamen.
§ Admiral Adamsaid, that if the clause was given up, the Bill would entirely fail in one of its principal objects.
§ Mr. Humethought that some provision ought to be made, limiting the extent to which volunteers should be allowed to go away from a merchant ship into the King's service.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, that the Bill contained such a provision of limitation. According to the instructions of the Board of Admiralty, no officer could unnecessarily take men out of merchant ships.
Captain Berkeleycorroborated the statement of the right hon. Baronet, and added, that a proof was afforded that a preventive existed in the fact that Admiral Sir C. Paget had been proceeded against for taking men out of an East Indiaman, and had been cast in the costs of the trial besides damages.
§ Admiral Codringtonsaid, that were he the commanding officer, of an officer who had distressed a merchant ship by taking an improper number of men, he should direct them to be restored, and at least reprimand the officer.
§ Mr. Bagshawsuggested that the clause might limit the number to be taken, to all over three men to every 100 tons, which, as four men were counted the proper complement, would be allowing a deduction of 25 per cent.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that he would not do the naval officers of the country the injustice of supposing, that they would act improperly, but the House ought not by such a clause as this to place temptation in the way of seamen, to break through their engagements.
§ The Committee divided on the Clause: Ayes 47; Noes 15—Majority 32.
| List of the NOES | |
| Alsager, Captain R. | Pease, J. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Ruthven, E. |
| Bridgeman, H. | Thompson, Alderman |
| Buckingham, J. S. | Thorneley, T. |
| Ewart, W. | Trevor, A. |
| Gisborne, T. | Tulk, C.A. |
| Marsland, H. | Wallace, R. |
| Teller—Young, G. F. |
§ The remaining Clauses of the Bill were agreed to, and the House resumed.