Commons Sitting of 1 August 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° South Sea and other Annuities, Provision for Payment, &c. Crown Suits.
2° Sheriffs (Scotland); Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis); Ecclesiastical Leasing Act Amendment; Customs Acts Consolidation; Insurances on Lives.
3° Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Tenants Compensation (Ireland); Merchant Shipping; Crime and Outrage (Ireland); Burials (beyond the Metropolis); Lunacy Regulation; Duties on Horses let for Hire.

CLITHEROE ELECTION.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONbrought up the Report from the Select. Committee

1099
appointed to try the merits of this election.
House informed, that the Committee had determined—
"That John Thomas Walshman Aspinall, esquire, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Clitheroe.
"That the last Election for the Borough of Clitheroe, is a void Election."
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. ADDERLEY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that it was not his intention to press the measure beyond that stage this Session, and he only moved the second reading now in the hope that if the House affirmed the principle of the measure, Government would be induced to take the subject up the very first week in the next Session. The Bill was simply a measure of a permissive character, and it proposed to empower counties and boroughs to establish reformatory schools, to which young criminals should be sent, thus introducing a new treatment to a certain extent for such young criminals, namely, that of industrial training, and applying the principle of parental care and home influence to criminal children, instead of subjecting them to the process of imprisonment in gaols. That was the simple object of the Bill, and it would be seen that the evil which it sought to remedy was a great one. It was no less, indeed, than the existence throughout this country, but more especially in large towns, of a class of children who, being entirely destitute of parental care, were rapidly falling into dissolute habits. This class was not composed of children who had decent homes, nor of children who had parents to keep them in better ways than habits of crime, but was composed of orphan children and the children of infamous parents, or, as was most frequently the case, of children living under the root of a cruel stepfather or mother; or the children of sailors or miners, who were much absent from their homes. In fact, speaking generally, they were children who had no home but the wide streets, and who were likely to lapse into criminals as they grew up. Nobody could dispute that such a class of children existed, but it was said to be doubtful whether it led
1100
to an increase of adult criminals, because these children falling into crime were early disposed of by transportation. That was an objection, however, which, if ever admissible, could not be raised against this Bill, for they were about to abolish transportation. He rejoiced that transportation in such cases was now about to cease; but though he rejoiced at that cessation, it must be remembered that, at all events, now, these children, if not otherwise taken care of and reformed within the precincts of this country, would in the end augment the amount of adult crime. Of 28,000 committals in this country in one year, 13,000, or nearly 50 per cent, were of persons under seventeen years of age. This showed the pressing necessity for a measure of this nature. No one could deny the importance of this question, since it had for years perplexed and obstructed the Government in their attempt to establish a well-defined system of secondary punishment. But in addition to all that, the existence of this class of juvenile criminals was a loss to the country, not only of virtue and honesty but of good citizens also, while it was a reproach to the nation that such a lamentable state of things should be allowed to continue. He, therefore, entertained a confident hope that another Session would not pass without the Government making a strenuous effort to deal with this vast and important question. The evil which he had endeavoured to explain was bad enough of itself, but it was greatly aggravated by the mischievous manner in which this class of offenders was dealt with by the judicial authorities of the country. It was only in this country that guilty children were treated as adult criminals, instead of being looked upon as generally objects of a reformatory system; for, on the Continent, juvenile offenders were treated after the manner of lunatics in this country. They were treated not as criminals, but as irresponsible beings, and instead of being subjected to a vitiating process of imprisonment, they were taken care of and reformed by the State. In this country, however, the magistrates had no power to deal with children in that way; and although it was a recognised principle of our law that the will must go with the deed, which could not be the case with the majority of juvenile offenders, whose circumstances almost amounted to a compulsory state of crime, the magistrates were bound to treat theta as responsible criminals. Many magis-

1101
trates and judges had from time to time attempted to modify the administration of the law in this respect; and the consequence was that from the want of any recognised principle in the matter, the administration of the law, with regard to children, was arbitrary, capricious, and uncertain. These considerations, coupled with the fact that they were about to abolish transportation, fully proved the expediency of dealing with criminal children in the manner now proposed. Not that he thought the plan of this Bill was complete in itself; because, to be complete, it should embrace some modified system of juvenile prisons for the reception of children who really ought to be treated as criminals; but the one simple object of the Bill was quite enough to be disposed of in the first instance. It would apply to at least nine-tenths of all the juvenile offenders of the country, and the other tenth could easily be provided for at a future period, if, indeed. Parkhurst prison did not itself prove sufficient for the purpose. The House should, at the same time, remember that the theory of this Bill had already been adopted in this country. It was adopted by the Philanthropic Institution, which was first established in 1806, nearly half a century ago, by a private Act of Parliament; but, passing to more recent times, he found that the Criminal Law Commissioners gave up a whole volume of their report to this subject, and in 1837 they recommended that children should be dealt with differently to adults, and that where sureties could be obtained for their future good conduct, they should be dismissed without punishment. In 1838, the Act was passed for establishing Parkhurst prison, which, in one of its clauses providing conditional pardons, recognised the principle of this Bill, and in 1840 an Act was passed providing for the guardianship of infant felons. In 1847, a guardianship of the other House on the subject of the Criminal Law specially reported in favour of reformatory asylums, the cost of maintaining the children being imposed on the parents, wherever it could be done. Part of that recommendation was embodied in an Act which was passed the same year. In 1850, a Committee of that House, which sat upon the subject of prison discipline, recommended that juvenile offenders should not be sent to the common gaols; while in the same year the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), seconded by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Head-
1102
lam), introduced a Bill upon the same subject as this measure. Most of the leading organs of public opinion were favourable to the principle of this Bill; and from month to month and week to week, they bad been forcing it upon the attention of the Legislature, and he hoped they would continue to keep the subject well before the public during the recess, so that it should not be lost sight of at the very opening of the next Session. Nor was this advocacy confined to the newspaper press, since many able pamphlets had been written in its favour, while not more than a year and a half ago a conference of delegates assembled from all parts of the country was held in Birmingham, at which this subject was discussed for two days. He might, lastly, refer to the Report of the Select Committee presided over by the right hon. the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Baines), which this Bill is founded on, to show that the theory of the Bill was largely adopted in this House itself; but do not let the House suppose that the Bill rested upon theory alone, because the system had been successfully tried in France, and therefore in addition to its being supported by the numerous theoretical authorities to whom he had referred, it might be said that the Bill rested upon the solid basis of actual and practical experience; and the result of an investigation made into the subject by an eminent French Judge, who resigned his office rather than continue to sentence children to prisons, was the establishment of the institution of Mettray. In Belgium, in Germany, and other countries on the Continent, the same principles were in operation, and also in America. The principle was increasingly in operation in this country; but it was by means of private philanthropy, and not under the sanction of public law, and the petitions on the table showed that that was not sufficient. In Glasgow, there was a local Act to carry out the system, and in Aberdeen it was in successful application. Institutions were also in existence in Bristol and Birmingham, and from information he had received as to the working of the latter, he believed that similar institutions might be generally made self-supporting. In conclusion, he would most earnestly appeal to the Wing Members of the Government, who had more than any other class, perhaps, taken into their hands the question of primary education, of which this was a branch, whether they did not feel it incumbent on them to support their char-

1103
acter in the face of the country, by dealing with this subject before another Session was allowed to pass. Manchester had three years ago applied to tax themselves for the purposes of primary education, but they were met by the objection that the question was too large to be dealt with by a local Act, and that it should form the subject of a general measure. But up to this time no such measure had been brought forward, and Manchester was denied the privilege of providing out of her own funds the educational institutions which the Government neglected to provide from any other funds; and the feeling which had been strong in favour of such taxation three years ago had been allowed to cool down and almost expire by the Government. Was it their intention to act in the same way with regard to the nurseries of crime, and the reclamation of our outcast children? He trusted it was not, and that they would now pledge themselves early next Session to bring in a measure to carry out the principles which he was now advocating.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. BAINESsaid, as Chairman of the Committee which sat on this subject for two Sessions, he begged to express his perfect concurrence in the object which the hon. Mover of this Motion had in view. He felt strongly that there did exist such a want as the hon. Gentleman had referred to, to which it behoved Parliament to address itself with the least possible delay. At the same time, he did not think that the Government were open to any reproach for not having introduced a measure upon the subject, the Report of the Committee having been so recently presented on the 28th of June, that no Bill satisfactory in all its details could, by possibility, have been prepared upon it. He was glad to perceive that the principal recommendations of the Committee, before whom a large, number of witnesses were examined, had been embodied in the Bill of the hon. Gentleman. The first was, that there was no sufficient provision by law at present for that class of young offenders who were, as it were, just entering on crime, or who were found guilty of minor offences. This was a very important point, because he was convinced that imprisonment in gaol was perfectly inefficacious for the purpose of
1104
reforming juvenile criminals. He had heard suggested that the workhouse should be employed for the purpose of detaining and forming these children; but, with the experience which he had had of the working of the poor-law, he must say that he could never consent to the blending of pauperism and crime, or the converting of the workhouse into a prison. Another recommendation of the Committee, arising out of the evidence, was, that in any mode of treatment to be adopted with regard to these children it was of first-rate importance hat it should be of an industrial character. He was happy to say that the result of this industrial treatment, wherever it had been tried either in workhouses or in prisons, had been of the most beneficial description. Another suggestion of great importance, also, arising out of the evidence was, the necessity of insisting upon parental responsibility. He looked upon this as most essential point, and he was glad to find that this and the other points to which he had referred were included in the hon. Gentleman's Bill. He begged to suggest to the House that in the interval of the recess they should peruse the somewhat bulky evidence which had been taken before the committee. Much of it certainly was of in extremely painful character, and showed the necessity of some step being taken without delay; but, on the other hand, here would be found matter of great hope and encouragement, because it was quite dear that well-directed efforts in certain localities had been attended with perfect success. In Glasgow the result had been most satisfactory. The son of Chevalier Bunsen had borne testimony to what had been effected in his country; and the Committee were highly indebted to the American Minister for evidence of the most valuable description as to the system of reformatory treatment of the young adopted in the Philadelphia House of Refuge, as well as for the following extract from the Report if that Institution for 1851:—
"Of 4,397 boys and girls received into the New York House of Refuge previous to January 1,1849, it is believed that three-fourths have been saved from ruin, and reformed. Of the condition of the 2,250 inmates received into the Philadelphia House of Refuge previous to January 1849, quite as favourable a report would be fully warranted. The accounts received of many of them show, not only the uprightness and respectability of their character, but their enterprise as men of business, and their worth as contributors to the welfare and advancement of the communities in which they live. The evidence of this is drawn from a variety of sources—from the masters and mistresses of the

1105
children in various parts of the country, and from neighbours, whose knowledge is obtained from personal observation and general report; and though disappointment is sometimes experienced, and a reformation supposed to be radical turns out to be superficial, yet, on the whole, the known results of the system abundantly sustain its claims to public confidence."
He had no objection to the second reading of the Bill, provided it were understood that it was not to proceed further in the present Session.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the question was far too important a one to be left in the hands of private Members, and he would urge the Government to take it up. He did not, however, expect any good result from any system which should provide for the children for a short time only. In order to eradicate bad, and inculcate permanently good, principles, it would be necessary that the reformatory treatment should be continued. He also entirely concurred in the proposition that, wherever it was possible, the parents should be made responsible. He thought the present a peculiarly favourable time for commencing the experiment, either on a large or small scale, and hoped the Government would give a promise that they would in the next Session introduce some measure for that purpose.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, nobody can doubt the importance of the subject to which the Bill of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire relates; and I think the House will be unanimously of opinion that the Bill may be read a second time, if it be so read with the full understanding that the object is to have the Bill printed, that it may be read and discussed between this time and the next Session of Parliament. The object in dealing with crimes and offences may be said to be threefold—in some cases the object is example, in others the object is a combination of example and reformation, and in others it is altogether that of reformation. With regard to crimes of great violence and atrocity committed by full-grown persons, the interests of society require that the punishment should be exemplary and penal—that they should deter others from the commission of similar crimes. In such cases reformation is out of the question. The greater number of crimes committed by adults are of a mixed character, in the punishment of which example is required for the purpose of deterring others from imitation, but with respect to which hopes of reformation are not to be abandoned.
1106
With regard to them, therefore, the objects of punishment should be of a mixed and twofold character. But I am quite ready to admit, that, with regard to children, you must consider reformation to be your main object. The punishment of them, with the view of deterring other children from committing similar offences, is of secondary importance. I think that the general principle recommended by the hon. Gentleman, is one deserving the greatest consideration, and I trust that a measure upon the subject may be passed next Session. I agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Baines) that the details of the measure would require very mature consideration. I think that we might combine this with that measure—the Juvenile Mendicancy Bill—which came down from the House of Lords with respect to the treatment of destitute children. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will see that there is other business of practical importance before the House, and that it would not, therefore, be wise to prolong the present discussion. I think the best thing which hon. Members can do in this matter is to read, during the recess, the evidence taken before the Committee referred to by the hon. Gentleman. If they do that, we shall be able, when Parliament meets again, to enter into a discussion of the question, with a view to some immediate and practical measure.
Mr. HUMEsaid, he differed from the noble Lord as to the principle of this Bill. He regarded that principle as bad, and as adding another eleemosynary institution to those which already existed. He was one of those who considered the principle of the poor-law was bad, inasmuch as it tended to destroy the desire on the part of the poor to provide by industry and prudence for the maintenance of themselves and their families. He had opposed the extension of the poor-law to Scotland, and he believed the result of that extension had been a considerable increase of pauperism in that country, and almost the annihilation of that feeling which formerly prevailed generally there, that there was an obligation in every family to support their own poor relations, rather than allow them to be dependent on the charity of others. He believed that persons became paupers generally from their own imprudence—the want of self-command. What was wanted was that kind of education which inculacted self-dependence and self-command, by which persons were induced when they had it in their power to make provision for

1107
the future, instead of spending all their wages as they earned them, relying upon the poor-law for relief when they fell into difficulty. He objected to the clause which proposed a grant of the public money, as involving a principle he held to be wrong—namely, the maintenance of the poor out of the Consolidated Fund. Instead of providing reformatory schools in this country for children driven to crime by the neglect of their parents, they should consider whether the State, after they had been twice convicted, should not take them away altogether, and send them to the Colonies, under the care of Mrs. Chisholm, or in some other way to provide for their being taken care of and brought up to industrious pursuits in another country. He believed that a very large proportion of the crime committed by juvenile offenders arose from the dissoluteness and criminal habits of the parents, who profited by the crimes of their children, and whom the State ought to be careful of relieving of their duties. He hoped the House would not consent to the second reading of a Bill which involved the principle of a double poor-law establishment.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he regreted to be compelled to take a different view of this measure from that which had just been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. Up to the present time he did not think that the time spent in discussion had been misspent, and he was extremely glad that the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had had an opportunity of expressing his views upon this important subject. So far from agreeing with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, he thought that it was highly expedient that the House should affirm the principle of the Bill, which was, as its title indicated, for the better care and reformation of juvenile offenders. He could not believe that the House was at all prepared to negative such a principle. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose stated that he considered it part of the principle of this Bill, that if provision were to be made for the better care and reformation of juvenile offenders, it should be out of the Consolidated Fund. But neither he (Sir J. Graham) nor the Government were at all prepared to admit that particular provision, for he thought it entirely open to the House to consider from what source the expense of these establishments should be provided. In the case of Glasgow it was not paid by any public fund. He had
1108
had the honour, some time since, of proposing what he had not yet by any means abandoned—namely, a plan for having district schools in each Union, connected with the Union, and paid out of the rates. He did not see why reformatory schools might not be provided in each Union, and paid out of the rates; but these were details which it was not necessary to enlarge upon at the present time. What they had now to consider was, whether they would affirm the principle of this Bill—that the time had arrived, considering the number of destitute children who, from the misconduct of their parents, were thrown idle and led into crime, when, out of compassion for those unhappy children, they would do their best to prevent the growth of that evil. That was all they were asked to do, and he could not believe that the House would hesitate at once to affirm that principle. The Government were by no means pledged to all the details of this Bill in the whole of its machinery: but the general outline of the principle, as it was contained in the title, did appear to him to be well worthy of the adoption of the House. He by no means despaired that, next Session, they should be enabled to mature a measure in strict conformity with the principle of the Bill, which he hoped, without further delay, the House would now consent to read a second time.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESbegged to express his thanks to the Government for the attention which they appeared to have devoted to this subject, so different from the reception which a similar measure received some five or six years ago. The real way, he was convinced, to bring this question before the public, was not so much as a matter of beneficence as one of economy; for how much more economical must a reformatory principle prove than the lavish expenditure consequent upon the constant prosecutions and reprosecutions of these young children? He trusted that the Government would lose no time in remedying time crying injustice of the present system, which undoubtedly constituted the most defective portion of the legislation of our Statute-books.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he would suggest that when the Government should introduce this measure next Session, it should be made a general measure, applicable to Scotland as well as to England. He hoped it would be kept in view also that the Bill should not supersede, but should tend to stimulate, private exertions.
Bill read 2a, and committed for this day three months.

NAVAL COAST VOLUNTEERS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that he was about to make an acknowledgment to the Committee which he regretted that he had not had an opportunity of making in the presence of his noble Friend the Home Secretary, who had just left the House. He was about to say, that when the great question with respect to the militia had been brought forward six or seven months ago, he was one who had not been sanguine in the belief that voluntary enlistment for service on shore in the United Kingdom would take place to the extent which had been already witnessed. He did not then very firmly believe that the present generation, gallant as he knew them to be, were fired with that martial spirit for the defence of their native country which would immediately have induced them in such large numbers to come forward to volunteer for military service. He had heard upon a former occasion his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Mackinnon) refer to the system of naval service which existed on the opposite shores of the Channel. No doubt, there was a large population living on the shores of the Mediterranean, of the Atlantic, and the opposite shore of the British Channel, all of whom were brought under a system of compulsory service the most perfect which the ingenuity of man could devise. There was not a seafaring man on the shores of France who, within a certain age, was not compelled to serve in the public marine. It was a system as perfect as ingenuity could make it; but it was altogether compulsory. He (Sir J. Graham), however, was most anxious to adhere to the principle which had been laid down by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath (Captain Scobell), which was, that he should exert every endeavour to obtain the service necessary for the safety of this country by inducement rather than by compulsion; and, acting upon that principle, he had lately discussed the operation of it with respect to the regular service of the Queen's Fleet. He was now anxious to call the attention of the Committee to the extension of the same principle to enlistment for the defence of our shores by means of a system of naval volunteering, analogous to the system which had been established for the home defence
1110
by means of the militia. The present Bill was based exactly upon that principle. There was a very large number of men living upon our shores, such as fishermen, bargemen, lightermen, and men employed in the coasting service, who, he had every reason to believe, would not in a time of peace be unwilling, as the men who had joined the militia had not been unwilling, for a short period in each year to be trained to the use of great guns. These persons having more or less marine habits and experience, such training would be easy to them; it would accord with their habits of life, and would not be uncongenial to their past manners or present tastes. It was proposed in the Bill which was now about to be brought in to hold out to them exactly the same pecuniary inducement which was Altered to landsmen joining the militia service, and which had been found to work so successfully. The bounty would be 6l., paid in such sums, and distributed over such a period, as the Admiralty might recommend. The number of men that they proposed to raise in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and time Isle of Man, was limited to 10,000, and their period of training was to be limited to twenty-eight days. That training ought to take place either ashore or afloat, subject to the condition, if they were afloat, that they should not be taken more than sixty leagues from time coast of Great Britain or Ireland. It was proposed that their pay should be equal to that of able seamen in Her Majesty's service. The period for which the enlistment was to take place was not to exceed five years. Power was given to Her Majesty, in the event of an invasion, or of imminent danger of invasion, to call by proclamation for the services of those men afloat for a period not exceeding one year, except in case of the extension of that danger for a longer period, where, under the special circumstances specified in the Bill, and subject to those circumstances being laid before Parliament, the power of extending that service to two years was given to Her Majesty in Council. In this ease, however, an additional pay of 2d. a day would be given to each man. In the event of service afloat under those circumstances, there was a power, by proclamation, to extend the distance from the shores of Great Britain and Ireland from 50 to 100 leagues. In no case would the volunteers be asked to extend their services to a greater distance from their native country. There was also power taken by

1111
the Bill, under proclamation, to compel the service afloat of pensioners of the coast guard and of seamen riggers. In the event, which he hoped and believed was far distant, of any such danger as the Bill contemplated being either imminent or apprehended, he believed that a force could be readily provided of somewhere between 18,000 and 20,000 men, which, considering that they would be men trained to arms, in the prime of life, and partaking of the national character of British seamen, would, when combined with the advantages of a steam fleet, be amply sufficient for the defence of our native shores. He did not think that it was necessary to detain the Committee further in stating the general outline of this measure. He believed the clauses to be unexceptionable in their character, and he trusted that in the course of the morning he should be enabled to pass the Bill through Committee.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, when he suggested the other day that the example of France should be followed with regard to a rescription of seamen, it was far from his intention to recommend a forced contribution; but it struck him that in the event of volunteers not coming forward in the numbers required, whether it would not be as well to have a list of available seamen, who might be applied to—not to be forced, but to volunteer into the service; by which means there would be a tolerable certainty of finding a number of men who might be induced to enter the service.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that virtually the ballot, which had heretofore existed with regard to the land service, had been abandoned on account of the success which had attended the voluntary system. He was therefore anxious to try the same plan with respect to the coast defences, entertaining very little doubt that voluntary enlistment would answer every purpose.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he had often objected to the political government of the Navy; but as long as that system continued, he thought he might congratulate the country on having the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Navy. He had already done great service to the Navy; and he would remind him that he possessed great power, and if he only carried out the principle of encouragement to serve in the Navy, he would be placed in a proud position, for he would be known as one who had given encouragement to the British seaman; he would receive a reward
1112
while he lived, and his name would always be remembered in the naval service. He (Capt. Scobell) had doubted that volunteers could be found for the militia, and he was glad that they had come forward. It was, however, he believed, the bounty which caused it, and he believed it would have the same effect under this Bill. Though he did not object to this Bill, he should have preferred the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), which had received the sanction of the House, but had been laid aside by the late Government. That Bill referred only to seamen. This Bill spoke of "men," not "suitable men," so that landsmen might be taken. If so, twenty-eight days' training would have little effect in making them efficient. The men chosen ought to be first-class men, in the first instance, so as to form the nucleus of crews. He thought it would be better to enrol 20,000 than 10,000 men. The Bill, however, deserved a fair trial. As to the French plan, that could not be attempted in this country. The question was not how the French got the men, but the fact was that there were 60,000 seamen ready to embark at a week's notice. He thought that everything should be done to have the means for manning our ships, so that in the event of war we should not be outnumbered; as one victory over us, or even a drawn battle, would be fatal to our naval supremacy.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he had opposed the Militia Bill, and though he should support this Bill, he did not do so because its principle was the same as that of the Militia Bill. In the first place there was no ballot, and in the next place there was a less number of men and less expense, besides which it was the popular service, which the people of England would never say a word against. Although he always tried to keep down the estimates, this was an expense for which he would stand up.
Bill considered in Committee, and reported as amended.

DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. SPEAKER: Before the House proceeds to business, I have to announce that preparations have been made for carrying out the new mode of taking divisions in this House. I propose that the following rule shall be laid down, which I hope will prove satisfactory:—
"When the House is about to proceed to a division, the Speaker will direct 'strangers to with-

1113
draw;' upon which the Sergeant will see that the seats below the gallery, and in the front gallery, are clear; and the clerk will turn the sandglass. As soon as the sand is run out, the clerk will inform the Speaker, who will call 'Order,' preparatory to putting the question. The Sergeant will, upon the call of order, half close the door, and keep it half closed as long as there are Members in sight, approaching the door of the House. When Members are no longer in sight, the Sergeant will close the door, and will lock it upon the Speaker putting the question."

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Bill read 3°.
On the Motion "That the Bill do pass,"
VISCOUNT MONCKmoved the omission of the words "growing corn, grass, hops, and roots, fruits, and other produce," from the 71st clause. His object in proposing that Amendment was to prevent the reintroduction of the very objectionable right of distraining growing crops. That right had never existed in Ireland until the year 1816, and it had been abolished in the year 1846 in compliance with a recommendation of the Devon Commission. In moving that Amendment, he stood, therefore, on conservative ground, for he was for leaving things as they were. He admitted that there were many provisions in the Bill which would effect valuable improvements in the existing law; but he should rather see it lost altogether than carried with the words to which he was then objecting.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it was true that the power which landlords had formerly possessed of distraining growing crops had been repealed in the year 1846, in conformity with a suggestion of the Devon Commission, of which he had been a member. But landlords had been placed by that measure in a worse position than other creditors, who might seize the crops as well as any other goods of a debtor. The result was that many frauds and scenes of violence had arisen in consequence of tenants having entered into collusive arrangements with persons who obtained executions against them, and then seized their growing crops, so that the landlords had no means of recovering the rents to which they were entitled. The Bill now before the House contained many clauses of a mitigatory character as regarded the recovery of rent. For instance, under the existing law a landlord had the power of distraining for any amount of rent that might be due to him; but by that
1114
measure the power of distraint to be possessed by a landlord was limited to the amount of a year's rent. Again, a landlord had the power under the existing law of issuing a warrant of distress signed by himself or his agent; while under that Bill he would be obliged to make an application to a magistrate, who alone could issue such a warrant. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier), who had prepared that Bill, did not think it proper to deny altogether to the landlord the right of distraining growing crops; but he (Mr. Hamilton) had to state that his right hon. and learned Friend was prepared still further to mitigate that power. He proposed the introduction of an Amendment which would make that clause applicable to those cases only in which a landlord was prepared to swear before a magistrate that be had reason to believe that a tenant intended to cut the crop with the view to evade the payment of his rent. His right hon. and learned Friend wished that the clause should be further amended by the insertion of a proviso to the effect that a landlord who should distrain a growing crop should not be entitled to any expenses for watching the property beyond those which he might have incurred during a period of fourteen days. He hoped that the House would accede to those proposals, and would not adopt the Amendment of his noble Friend.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 94: Majority 24.
SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, he could not allow the Bill to pass without making an observation. He wished English Members to be aware of the true nature and character of this measure, as its objects were in accordance with the principles advocated by chartists and repealers, and they tended to put down the gentry of Ireland, and raise up the tenants in their places. In illustration of the objects of the advocates of the Bill, he would refer to the meetings which had been held by them out of doors, and particularly to an assembly at Kells, in the county of Meath, at which the hon. Member who represented that county (Mr. Lucas) attended, and declared that he and his coadjutors were pledged to oppose in Parliament any Government which did not make Cabinet questions of "religious equality" and of "tenant right," as embodied in Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill, and also complained that certain Irish

1115
Members connected with the present Government, who had centered into similar pledges, had taken the first opportunity that presented itself of breaking their plighted word. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland (Sir J. Young) had acted unfairly upon the subject, because he had placed upon the Select Committee which sat on this Bill the names of those hon. Members who were pledged in the manner he had just stated; end at the same time he had positively refused to allow two hon. Gentlemen to be put upon the Committee from that (the Opposition) side of the House. In conclusion, he denounced the policy of conciliation and expediency which had been pursued towards Ireland, for it was his opinion that as long as the Government continued that policy peace would never be restored to that country.
Bill passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Bill read 3°.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to propose a clause to the effect that where cases for salvage services are rendered by any ship belonging to Her Majesty, or by the commander or crew thereof, no claim shall be made or allowed for any loss or risk thereby caused to such ship, or to the stores or furniture thereof, or for the use of any stores or other articles belonging to Her Majesty, supplied in order to effect the salvage service.
MR. HUMEsaid, he regretted that the clause did not go further, and that Her Majesty's ships should not render assistance to vessels in distress without claim of any kind. He thought it was demeaning to the Navy of England that they would not do their duty without being bribed. The United States Navy made no charge, neither did the Navy of France, while the charge made by Sweden was greatly modified; but this country, which ought to set an example of liberality to all the world, proclaimed by this clause that her naval officers and men required to be bribed to do their duty. He would not divide against the clause, but he protested against its insertion.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, the British Navy had never been backward in the cause of humanity; but it ought to be remembered that the rescue of ships in distress was apart from the usual routine of naval duty; that it was accompanied fre-
1116
quently with loss of clothing, always with danger and personal suffering; and he was sure the merchant princes of England would not grudge them consideration. As to the United States Navy and that of France, he (Admiral Walcott) had reason to believe that a fund was provided for the relief of those who suffered in rescuing shipwrecked vessels, which was not the ease in England. He protested against it being said that British seamen required to be bribed to do their duty.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he was glad that the Admiralty had resolved to give up their own claims for salvage on the pretence of loss of stores, &c., and said that some gross eases of overcharge on the part of the Admiralty had led to the outcry against any charge whatever being made by the Royal Navy.
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he had oftened listened with regret to hon. Gentlemen when they condemned naval officers most unjustly and improperly, and without any feeling for a profession which had the real benefit of the country at heart. It had been too much the practice in that House to reprobate the officers of the Navy for acts which were not their own. They were bound by an Act of Parliament to claim salvage for the services they performed, and it was too bad to blame them for obeying the law of the land.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated, upon a former occasion, that under the new regulations it would be impossible for the officers of the Navy to bring forward an extravagant claim for salvage. Now the case of the Rosaline, which had ocurrred since the new regulations had been issued, and that, too, under the control of the Board of Admiralty, and which was now in a Court of Law, was one of the worst cases which had ever been brought against a merchant vessel by a ship belonging to the Royal Navy.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he would be sorry to renew a debate which he thought had been concluded; but the hon. Member for Bridport had referred to a particular case, which it might be as well to notice in a few words. It so happened that he had glanced at the official documents connected with the case of the Rosaline, and he believed that the right to claim was rightly granted in that case. Seeing, however, that the case was now, as the hon. Member had stated, in a Court of Law, he thought it would be highly inex-

1117
pedient to pursue the discussion further. The House would hereafter see what was the decision of the Court upon it; and—refusing to go at present into its merits—he was much mistaken if salvage would not be granted.
Clause added.
MR. HUTTsaid, this Bill proposed to renew the provisions of a former Act, by which sailors belonging to the merchant service were permitted to desert their ships in order to take service on board a man of war. Now he had himself presented several petitions against that law from some of the largest seaports in the kingdom, and he thought the House could not but view with great disfavour a provision which was in itself so hostile to the spirit of the time, so utterly subversive of the order and discipline of our merchant service, and so thoroughly opposed to the interests of morality. It had been said before, and would probably be repeated that evening, that the law in question had not been productive of any practical inconvenience. He could only say, in reply, that having himself been associated for many years with a maritime constituency, he hail received the strongest remonstrances against the present law, and had presented innumerable petitions against it. He could appeal to facts. Not many months ago a ship belonging to Mr. French, of Hull, happened to be in the port of Valparaiso at the same time with one of Her Majesty's frigates commanded by Captain Fanshawe. The frigate was in want of hands, and the merchant vessel, having completed her cargo, was about to leave the port when two of her men went off and joined the frigate. Next morning the master was required to appear before Captain Fanshawe, and pay the wages of the men who had left his vessel, and to hand them formally over to Her Majesty's service. He was then obliged, of course, to go in quest of additional hands, and the owner of the vessel had actually to pay 40 l. as extra wages, over and above the loss incurred by the detention of his ship at Valparaiso. Would the House sanction the contuance of a law so arbitrary and unjust, so hostile to the welfare of our mercantile marine, and so opposed to the interests of morality? Was it wise to tell seamen that they might break the most solemn engagements with impunity? The very able paper recently issued by the ship-owners of Sunderland, showed how the law operated to the prejudice and damage of the merchant service. He now asked the
1118
House to put an end to that state of things by adopting the clause which he proposed to insert in the Bill. He would move the omission of Clauses 33, 34, and 35, relative to seamen volunteering into the Navy, and the substitution in lieu thereof of his clause.
Clause—
"Whereas it is expedient that seamen should no longer be permitted to desert the vessels in which they are engaged for the purpose of entering into Her Majesty's service, Be it Enacted, that the fiftieth and fifty-first Sections of the Act of the eighth year of her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and twelve, shall be repealed; and it shall not be lawful for any officer in Her Majesty's service knowingly to permit or encourage any seaman to leave the vessel in which he is engaged: and every seaman leaving his ship and entering into Her Majesty's service shall be liable to all the penalties of desertion, any law or custom notwithstanding,"
Brought up, and read the First Time.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he hoped the House would bear in mind that every provision which this Bill contained was intended to benefit the shipowners. The only question which remained between the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) and himself, therefore, was, whether the power of receiving volunteers from the mercantile marine should be placed under strict regulations, or should be absolutely and entirely abolished. Let the House consider that the British Navy was spread over the most distant seas for the protection of the merchant service—that it often answered the convenience of the mercantile marine to receive assistance in the shape of additional hands from Her Majesty's vessels—and then let it say whether there should not be a power on the part of the Navy to receive from other quarters the men so given up for the benefit of the merchant service. The Bill did not propose that that power should be exercised arbitrarily and tyrannically; on the contrary, the regulations under which the Admiralty would permit it to be exercised were exceedingly strict. Again, the hon. Member complained that the merchant service had to pay the wages in advance, and that that operated as an inducement for the seamen to leave their vessels. This Bill remedied that evil, and therefore that objection no longer existed. Then the hon. Member complained that the shipowners had additional wages to pay in consequence of losing their hands through desertion into the Queen's ships. Now, as regarded that point, it would not be possible to give an indiscriminate power to the Law Courts to deal with the demands that

1119
might arise in such cases; but this the Government had done—they had furnished a machinery for the repayment of all the expenses that might be incurred by a merchant vessel in such circumstances. The House could not go further unless it deprived the Navy altogether of the power of receiving volunteers from the mercantile marine. The hon. Member had referred to a particular case, winch occurred on the west coast of South America a few years ago. Now, it so happened that the commander of the frigate in question, Captain Fanshawe, was a friend of his own, and he had no hesitation in saying that an officer more unwilling to interfere with the mercantile marine in any way did not exist. But he might be permitted to refer to a case on the other side. The House could not have forgotten the services rendered to the British mercantile navy at San Francisco by Captain Shepherd, commander of the Inconstant. A large number of the seamen had deserted their vessels in consequence of the gold mania; but Captain Shepherd immediately set to work, and in a short period the vessels were manned, and enabled to leave the port. The gallant officer parted with forty of his own crew, drafting them into the different merchant vessels; and was it not right and proper that, in such circumstances, power should be given to receive volunteers from other quarters, in order to make up for the assistance thus rendered to the mercantile marine? He did not consider this was a power to be habitually exercised, but to be limited strictly, and to be used with the utmost caution. For these reasons he trusted the House would reject the proposition of the hon. Member for Gateshead.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not sufficiently answered the objections against the clauses as they stood in the Bill. He had known instances in which men had been taken from merchant ships to join vessels of war, not because the men of war wanted them, but because they were allowed to volunteer. He would admit that in many cases the vessels of the Royal Navy had assisted merchant vessels; but in the majority of eases the men had left their legitimate employment, and had thus disabled the vessel in which they had engaged. He had himself known a case where a vessel had been deprived of twelve or fourteen of her hands by a man of war, and had afterwards been rescued from consequent shipwreck by another vessel of war, which claimed salvage for the
1120
Service. At the same time he was willing also to admit that the Queen's ships had in many instances proved of great service to merchant vessels. What was wanted was, that a man of war should not be allowed to take a man out of a merchant ship without the permission of the captain.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he was also of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not met the case fairly by stating that the Navy had a set-off on the ground of having done service to the mercantile marine. There was, however, a great difference between allowing a vessel of war to accept the men, and enabling her to take them. He believed, however, that the evil was not quite so great as many of the shipowners imagined, for it appeared by the returns recently published that the number of seamen who had been so taken was exceedingly small. The principal evil consisted in the fact of the seaman knowing that as soon as a man of war hove in sight he was at liberty at once to go on board her; and he had it upon the authority of masters of vessels themselves, that this frequently produced a degree of insubordination amongst their crews that hon. Members could have no conception of. He was certain that whenever a merchantman fell in with a man of war in want of hands which she could supply, she would gladly do so at all times; and he believed that there was such a good understanding between the two services that there was no necessity for a law of this sort.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he would remind hon. Members of the evidence of Captain Sir James Stirling, given before the Committee in 1848, which was strongly in favour of the views entertained by the hon. Member for Gateshead. He would support the clause, on the ground that the power now given to the Navy to take volunteers who might desert from or abandon the merchant service, tended to legalise breaches of contract on the part of the seamen, and promoted quarrels between masters and servants.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that in some cases the existing law was useful, as it enabled the master of a merchant vessel to put any troublesome hands on board a ship of war, He thought it would be better to substitute the words in the clause "to leave," instead of "to desert," without permission of the captain.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that it had been admitted that the shipowners had received a great deal of benefit by the pro-

1121
posals of the present Government, which the late Government had also contemplated bestowing on them; but there was another question to be considered also, and that was the efficiency of the Navy. It was true that men of war were placed on different stations for the protection of trade, and it was impossible for them to perform that duty if they were not sufficiently manned, and if there were losses among the crew the deficiency must be supplied. If it were necessary to maintain men of war in an efficient state in time of peace, it was doubly so in time of war, when it became their duty to convoy ships, and, in fact, to protect the commerce of the country. The shipowners should remember that a great concession had been made to them, inasmuch as a clause, which he had himself opposed, had received the sanction of the House, empowering them to man their ships entirely with foreign crews. The evidence of Sir James Stirling had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Digby Seymour); but he wished to remind the House that that gallant officer differed altogether in his opinions from every other officer, and he (Captain Scobell) did not feel disposed to place that officer's opinion above that of other persons whom he considered equally competent to judge of the matter. To him the opinion that the Navy could be manned without having recourse to the merchant service, seemed to be complete nonsense, and he should certainly support the clause as it stood.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he should support most cordially the proposal of the hon. Member for Gateshead. It seemed to him that the proposal was not only in accordance with the principles of strict justice, but that it would also be beneficial to the Navy itself. He would admit that no very great number of men bad been taken from the merchant service, but he still remained of the opinion which he had just expressed. He wished to call the attention of the House to the fact, that at present there existed no necessity for retaining a privilege based upon an unsound principle. He could conceive that in a time of necessity it might be found advisable, for the time, to violate the rights and privileges of British subjects, for, in point of fact, that was in reality what the operation of the clause really was; but it was not desirable in time of peace to confer a privilege of this kind on the Navy, and he was satisfied that it would be more for its advantage if it were to rely upon the volun-
1122
tary efforts of courage, rather than upon an obnoxious principle. A sufficient number of men could always be obtained for the service, and the ships amply manned by a course which would not excite the ill feeling which might otherwise be engendered. To support this privilege was in reality to support a system of pressing which ought never to be resorted to. When the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty brought forward a measure to regulate the enlistment of men in the Navy, he referred to the gallant response which the country had made to the Militia Bill, and stated that he anticipated the same feeling among the seamen of this country; and, if he exerted himself to make the condition of the sailors as good as it could be made, he had no doubt that ships of war would be amply and efficiently manned. By the course of conciliating the merchant service, the Navy would obtain more support than by the retention of an obsolete privilege, on which, he trusted, the House would place its veto.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he should be extremely sorry if the House, in an unhappy hour, were induced to part with the privilege referred to. When his hon. Friend spoke of the privilege as being obsolete, if he meant that it was a right of ancient date, long recognised by that House and the country, he was right in using the expression; but if he meant that it was obsolete in the ordinary sense of the term, he could only say that the privilege had been recognised by statute from the time of George II., and had since that period been in constant use. The abuses attaching to that privilege had been progressively modified, and, he believed, would be finally rectified by the present Bill. Among other remedies for existing evils, this Bill provided that where a seaman should volunteer into a Queen's ship from a merchantman, he should not be able to demand his wages on the day of quitting the ship, as had hitherto been the case, but that he should not be entitled to demand his wages until the ship returned home. The hon. Member spoke of the present question being one of right as well as of policy, and he would first consider it as a matter of right; and he must contend that the system of allowing men to volunteer from a merchantman into a Queen's ship was recognised by law as a right, and for one hundred years seamen had had the right of at once breaking their contract with the shipowner, to enter in a ship of war, and

1123
to demand at once their wages. So much for the question of right; he would now consider it as a question of policy. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member fur Bath (Captain Scobell), that it was necessary that there should be a degree of reciprocity in considering this question. Even in time of peace great services were rendered to trade by ships of war; and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had illustrated that position by the example of Captain Shepherd, of the Inconstant, while at San Francisco; and there were numerous other similar cases which might be adduced. Now, to render that service to trade effectual, it was necessary that the ships of war should be maintained in the most efficient state possible. In the West India Islands there had been a case in which a shin had been weakened by one-third of its crew in about six weeks; and in the China seas crews rapidly and suddenly became very much weakened; and, unless an opportunity were afforded of recruiting their strength, the Queen's ships in such cases would be compelled to return from their stations, or would be unable to render the services required from them. As a question of policy, then, it was necessary to maintain the power of obtaining volunteers from our merchant service. He wished to ask the House to consider how carefully checks to prevent the abuse of that power had been conceived. By a regulation of the Board of Admiralty, which he held in his hand, it was directed—
"That in future, whenever the captains, commanders, and commanding officers of Her Majesty's ship enter men from merchant vessels, they shall report the same to the commander in chief or senior officer; which report is to contain the following information, so far as it can be obtained:—1. The name and tonnage of the ship, the name of her owners and master, and the voyage on which she is employed. 2. The regular number of her crew. 3. The number of the men, and their ages, who volunteered for Her Majesty's service, and whether they had previously served in the Navy. 4. The cause of their leaving the ship; whether the master made any objection to their leaving, and, if so, on what grounds; and whether men could be obtained at the place to fill up the crew, 5. Whether the men, on joining Her Majesty's service, received their arrears of pay and clothing; and the amount of their pay per month to be stated."
The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Hors-fall) would perhaps excuse him for saying that he was mistaken in supposing that the captain of a Queen's ship had the power of taking men from a merchant vessel without
1124
control. He could not take men without stating in his return whether or not the captain of the merchant ship was a consenting party, and, if not, what were the reasons which had induced hint to consider that the service of the Queen required that the men should be taken without the consent of the captain. All those returns were made quarterly from every ship in Her Majesty's service. In cases of complaint made, the Admiralty looked to these returns, and so judged of the reasonableness of the complaint. He would inform the House to what extent the power of taking volunteers from merchant ships had been exercised. He had a return of the number of volunteers since the 1st of January, 1852, and the whole number throughout all the different stations of men who were received as volunteers from merchant ships was 170. Something had been said about the morality of the principle, and he wished to observe that the power of volunteering into Her Majesty's ships had a great effect in securing good treatment to the seamen on long voyages. He would inform the House of the reasons which had led to those 170 men volunteering into the Navy:—Wish to join the Navy, 61; bad usage, 12; bad provisions, 8; both bad usage and bad provisions, 7; quarrels with master or mates, 13; discontent, 61; ships foundered or wrecked, 6; no cause assigned, 2. With regard to the consent of masters of merchant ships, he found the state of the case to be:—Cases in which masters made no objection to the men leaving, 130; cases in which masters did object, 21; cases not ascertained, 13; ships wrecked, as before, 6. Considering, then, the importance of this privilege on the score of policy, the absence of any injustice in its effects, and the security which it gave to sailors for being treated on long voyages with kindness and consideration by their captains, he felt satisfied that the proposal to abolish the existing privilege ought not to be sanctioned by the House. He was obliged to the hon. Member for Gateshead for the facility which he had afforded for discussing this clause; but he was compelled to give his most strenuous opposition to any attempt to take away from ships of war the right of taking volunteers from merchant ships on foreign stations.
MR. G. THOMPSONsaid, he thought that the observation of the right hon. Baronet, that only 170 men had volunteered into the Navy during a period of

1125
eighteen months, was a very strong argument in favour of abolishing a principle which had produced so trifling a result towards maintaining the efficiency of the Navy, while, at the same time, it had operated to the injury of the merchant service. He felt bound to give his strenuous support to the Amendment.
MR. MANGLESsaid, he should also support the Amendment. He would mention a case which occurred in a foreign port, where a boat's crew, under the command of a lieutenant, took several men from out of a merchantman in a way that was extremely offensive. The ship was consequently greatly crippled for want of hands. As to the assistance said to be rendered by the Royal Navy to merchant vessels, it was not once in a thousand times that it was required. For the most part, the merchant service relied upon themselves, and their vessels were generally extremely well provided. It was only miserable undermanned ships that required assistance, except in extreme circumstances. At all events, if only 170 men had been obtained in eighteen months by this means, he submitted that it was not worth while to retain it.
MR. WILLCOXsaid, that the shipowner would derive but little advantage from the liberty now granted to him of manning his ship with foreigners, because the loss which the merchant ship sustained generally occurred at sea, where the master could obtain no recruits. The cases in which men usually volunteered from merchant vessels into the Royal Navy were when they had been twelve or fourteen months at sea, and when they had large arrears of pay to receive. They then hoisted the red shirt, their usual signal to a man of war, received their wages, and left the ship to shift for itself. He had good reason to remember an instance of this kind. A merchant vessel, called the Anna Robinson, bound from Calcutta to England, had been twelve months at sea, When off the Mauritius, her hands signalled to a man of war, which sent a boat on board, and took off twelve of her best men. A gale suddenly came on, and the vessel being crippled for want of hands, had her sails blown out of the bolt ropes. The next day there was a dead calm. A man of war steamer hove in sight, and a signal was hoisted. The captain came on board, and the master of the merchant vessel asked him if he would have the goodness to lend him ten or twelve hands to take him to the Cape? "Oh, we will do better than that
1126
for you; I'll tow you there," was the reg. He did so, and when they reached the Cape he immediately clapped the ship into the Admiralty. The amount of salvage awarded, with the costs, was between 2,000 l. and 3,000 l. Upwards of 5,000 l. worth of goods had to be sold to raise 2,300 l., and the vessel was moreover delayed six months. Surely if the Admiralty had only required 170 men in the time specified by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), they might safely afford to give up a privilege which led to such disastrous consequences to the mercantile marine.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, that hon. Gentlemen had entertained the House with instances of bad treatment which had been experienced by individual merchant ships; nit it would be perfectly easy to retort by adducing as numerous instances of cases in which seamen had been driven to volunteer by the harsh and cruel conduct of the masers of merchantmen. For example, he knew of an instance where the men of a Merchant vessel had hoisted the usual signal; but the captain of Her Majesty's ship finding that she was badly manned, instead if accepting the volunteers, endeavoured to make up the quarrel which he found existed between the master and his hands. What was the result? Why, another man of war round the ship soon afterwards, and the men, jumping overboard, swam to it and begged to be taken in. The House voted 14,000 l. a year for bringing home Englishmen who were in distress in foreign countries; but if they analysed that sum, they would find that it was made up for the most part of the expenses incurred by Her Majesty's Consuls in sending home British seamen who had deserted on account of the bad treatment they had received on board merchant ships. So lately as 1851, it had been ascertained that the masters of British hips were in the habit of applying to the Peruvian Government to punish their men; and that one of those punishments consisted in exposing them on a rock. If they assented to the proposition of the hon. Member, they would place a power in the lands of the masters of merchant vessels, with which he certainly considered it would not be safe to entrust them.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought that in a case of so much difficulty they ought to endeavour to steer a middle coarse; and he should, therefore, support the proposition of Her Majesty's Government. He was sure they would all be anxious to remedy what was really a seri-

1127
ous inconvenience to the mercantile navy; but if it came to the alternative of depriving Her Majesty's Navy of the exercise of its ancient privileges upon all occasions, however great and pressing the emergency might be, he thought that tin public service ought not to suffer. The Government proposed to introduce for the first time regulations which would interpose a safeguard against the improper use of the power which had always been possessed by the Royal Navy. Would it not, for in stance, be a great check upon the use of that power that a resort to it would involve the expenditure of the public money? He thought it would be far better to give the plan a fair trial, than to risk the efficiency of so important a branch of the public service.
MR. HUTTproposed to qualify his clause by introducing for "desert," the words "leave the ship," and after "leave the vessel in which he was engaged," to introduce "without the consent of his captain."
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 129: Majority 80.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, be had now a clause to propose, the object of which was to prevent ships from being inefficiently manned. He considered that some such enactment was necessary for the safety of the vessels and their crews, and for the security of the marine insurers. The Government had already adopted the principle of his clause with respect to transport and emigrant vessels, and he contender that the vessels for which he proposed to legislate were in still greater need of such a protection. In 1851, there were between 700 and 800 shipwrecks; in 1852, between 1,000 and 1,100; so that they were evidently on the increase. Owing to the change in the law as regarded apprentices, their numbers had diminished from 34,000 in 1849, to 14,000 at the present time. It was most essential to keep up the supply of young hands on board ships. Emigrant vessels were allowed to sail without apprentices; and the consequence was that many went without entirely, and there was only one apprentice, on an average, to between 500 and 600 tons of shipping. It might be said that they took boys without apprenticing them; but there were not more than 2,000 of that class. The clause he now proposed would tend to remedy the
1128
evil that had been caused by the Act of 1849. It was said that our commerce had spread immensely, and that our seamen had increased; but that was no reason why the existing law should not be improved. It had been stated in evidence before the Committee of that House that a due supply of apprentices was essential, not only for the mercantile marine, but for the Navy. His main object in proposing the clause was for the security of the country.
Clause brought up, and read a First Time.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he fully concurred with the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the necessity of encouraging, in every possible way, the aprenticeship system. So much importance did he attach to this point, that he thought the Government would be amply justified in offering a bounty to shipowners for the purpose of securing it. He recollected the time when the British Navy was principally manned from that source. He was well persuaded, also, that much of the melancholy loss of life accruing from shipwrecks and disasters at sea, arose from the insufficient manning of merchant ships. He must say that he had viewed with considerable dismay the introduction of a Bill into that House which took from the Royal Navy the advantages which it formerly enjoyed of looking to the merchant service as the nursery of her seamen, and which had enabled our fleet for two centuries to maintain our national honour and independence.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House at any length in reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Scobell), for he was sure the House would think it right that he should confine himself to the point immediately before them, instead of going over again the same ground as they went over in the recent discussion on the manning of the Navy. The House was not now discussing the manning clause; but another clause, which had been proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath, who seemed to think that the British shipowners were not likely to care for the security of their own ships, and who, therefore, for the purpose of benefiting the shipowners and insurers, thought it desirable that the Legislature should step in with a clause describing the number of men and apprentices that should be carried by each. The hon. and gallant Member had said very emphatically on a former occasion that there could be no better argument for

1129
letting a law alone than that it had worked well. The hon. and gallant Member had made that remark when speaking against the repeal of the law regulating the proportion of British and foreign seamen on board ship. He (Mr. Cardwell) would take time liberty of applying the same remark to the present case, for he contended it was not a sound principle to prescribe the precise number of men and apprentices to be carried on board ship. The Legislature had repealed the law which told the British shipowner how many men he ought to have on board of each of his ships. Had the new law worked well? It had worked so well that since the repeal of the provision to which he had referred, they had added 9,000 seamen to the whole number of the British mercantile marine within three years. His hon. and gallant Friend had told them of the absence of apprentices on board the emigrant ships. To his (Mr. Cardwell's) mind this would seem to argue how great a burden the shipowners would consider this clause as imposing on them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also spoke of the falling-off in the number of apprentices. He (Mr. Cardwell) admitted that the total number of apprentices was at the present moment smaller than at the time when the navigation laws were repealed; but hon. Members ought not to exclude this circumstance from their minds, that whereas there was at first a falling-off in the number of apprentices immediately after the repeal of the navigation laws, there had since that period been a continuous increase; and the number was now increasing more rapidly than at any former period. He believed that if the House were to adopt the clause now proposed, the result would be that the shipowners would evade the law—that instead of taking the best men at the best wages, they would take the cheapest landsman they could find. In short, they would merely comply with the letter of the law. He thought, therefore, that it would be better to leave the shipowners and insurers to those regulations with regard to the number of seamen and apprentices which it was their own interest to provide. The clause now proposed was not at all in conformity with the spirit which now guided the legislation of the House on this subject. He did not think it was at all likely either to promote the interest of trade or the safety of the shipping, and therefore he must respectfully ask the House to reject it.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he must most earnestly entreat the Government not to sanction the reimposition of those restrictions against which the shipowners had so long and so manfully fought, but rather to allow them every facility for the carrying on of the mercantile marine; and if they did so, he had no fear that they would be able to compete with any nation in the world.
MR. HUMEsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken with regard to the importance of removing every possible restriction from the mercantile marine, and he considered the Government perfectly right in resisting the present clause.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
The House divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 154: Majority 147.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he begged, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Collier), to move the following Clause:—
"That where any seaman or apprentice, who shall have committed any offence punishable under the Mercantile Marine Act, 1850, by summary proceeding before a justice of the peace, shall arrive or be found on shipboard within two miles of any borough in which there is a justice of the peace capable of exercising summary jurisdiction under the said Act, such offence shall, for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to such justice under the same Act, be deemed to have been committed within the limits of such borough."
He considered the clause was necessary, in consequence of the recent decision of one of the Liverpool magistrates.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERwould suggest that the question should be postponed till they could consider the different circumstances of different ports. He knew that the state of Plymouth was very much the same as that of Liverpool, and he thought that at some future period the subject was well deserving of consideration.
Clause negatived.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he wished to propose to amend Clause 4, so that from line 31, it should stand as follows:—
"And such aggregate fund shall be applicable to the purpose of the services in respect of which the said tolls, rates, fees, and payments are levied, and to the execution of works necessary or expedient for permanently reducing the expenses of such services; and save, as hereinafter specially mentioned, to no other purposes whatever."
The Ballast Board at Dublin had a balance of 100,000 l. in hand, which it was proposed should be withdrawn from its

1131
control and placed along with the aggregate fund, to which arrangement he did not object, because the objects to which these funds were applicable were not local but national. At the same time the Trinity House possessed a large sum in the shape of investments in the public funds, namely, between 120,000 l. and 130,000 l., which sum it was not proposed to bring into the amalgamated fund; and therefore he wished to know why there was to be this exception with regard to the funds in the hands of the Trinity House? He now came more particularly to the object of his Amendment. The clause as it now stood proposed to form an amalgamated fund to be applicable, under the superintendence of the Board of Trade, simply and exclusively to those services for which the separate funds were collected by the different existing bodies; and the effect of this would be that the hands of the Board of Trade and of the different other bodies would be tied up, to the application of the money strictly and solely to the building and repairing of lighthouses, and of what were called "marks of the sea." Now it had been the practice to build lighthouses on rocks in the middle of the sea, and yet it was sometimes the fact that one half of the expense of building and maintaining these lighthouses would suffice to pay for the blowing up altogether of the rocks upon which they were situated. He would illustrate this by reference to a case within his own knowledge. For example, there was a rock on the track from Ireland to England that was under water, and was indicated by a buoy which cost 100 l. a year; in tempestuous weather the buoy broke adrift, and when most wanting was not there at all; it was his belief that it would not cost 1,000 l. to remove that rock altogether.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, this was a question which peculiarly belonged to the representatives of the shipping interest to decide. It was proposed by a Gentleman representing one of the first ports in the kingdom, and who also conducted the business in which he took part in that House with such conspicuous ability as to render him an efficient representative of the shipping interest. To expend a stun of 100 l. a year on a rock which would be entirely destroyed for 1,000 l. was a very wasteful act, and the more especially because the buoy, according to the hon. Member's representations, on which it was expended, was a truant buoy. As the law then stood, it would be impossible for the Board of Trade
1132
so to apply the money, and he should leave the clause in the hands of the House. With regard to the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked him, he begged to say that the sum which was invested on behalf of the Ballast Board was invested under statute, and could be dealt with, therefore, by statute, without any question. He (Mr. Cardwell) had already referred to the figures to show that the Irish would be by no means losers on this imperial transaction; but as the hon. Gentleman had not expressed any doubt as to the accuracy of his statement, he need not again go over that part of the case. With regard to the sum invested by the Trinity House, it consisted of double dues levied under an ancient Act of Parliament on foreign shipping. Those investments were made by them more than twenty-five years ago under their charter, and in strict conformity with it. When, on the requisition of the Government, they agreed to surrender all rights of taxation, except for the purposes of this Bill, they entered into no engagement, nor were they asked by Government to enter into it, nor would they think it reasonable to enter into a negotiation for the surrender of a sum not levied on British shipping, and which was invested by them more than twenty-five years ago.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman, by adopting the Amendment, meant to blow up the rocks of the north coast? That, he thought, should come under a different clause.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. KIRKthen moved—
"That in Clause 5, line 12, after the words 'and the produce thereof' the words 'shall in the first instance be applied for the purpose of finishing any works commenced by those bodies respectively, or for the purpose of forming any Harbour of Refuge on the eastern coast of Ireland, and the residue of such monies, after such application aforesaid,' should be inserted."
He considered that the amount in the hands of the Irish Ballast Board and of the Trinity House might be applied with great advantage to the construction of a harbour of refuge at Carlingford, on the eastern coast of Ireland, and nearly opposite the important commercial port of Liverpool. He had ascertained that during the last five years 447 vessels had been wrecked on the eastern coast of Ireland, being at the rate of about ninety annually. Besides the lives which had been lost in consequence of these disasters, very valuable cargoes had also been destroyed. Now, he believed that, accord-

1133
ing to the estimate of an experienced engineer, the expense of removing the bar at the entrance to Carlingford Lough would not exceed from 40,000 l. to 50,000 l., and as by that expenditure a very efficient harbour of refuge would be provided, he therefore thought that a portion of the monies in the hands of the bodies to which he had referred might very properly be applied to such a purpose. If this project should be carried out, vessels, which of bad weather were unable to make the port of Liverpool would at all times be enabled to run to a harbour where they could remain in perfect safety.
MR. R. M. FOXsaid, he hoped the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Newry would receive the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and of the House. He must protest against any charge being brought against the Irish fund of 91,000 l., on account of any debt incurred in the formation of Kingstown harbour.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, he thought the arrangement proposed a very bad bargain for Ireland. He had heard nothing which could induce him to believe that that country would derive any benefit from it.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought, whatever gain might arise from the transaction contemplated, he might venture to assure his hon. Friend that Ireland would come its for her fair share of it. It did so happen that there was in Ireland a balance in hand of 100,000 l., but against that must be set the fact that the balance was subject to a debt of 171,000 l. Again, the Commissioners had already contracted for new works to be executed in Ireland, which would require an expenditure of 20,000 l. In addition to that, Ireland had hitherto maintained her own harbour lights, the expense of which it was now proposed to throw upon the general fund.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wanted hon. Gentlemen to explain how the Irish Board could have get possession of such a sum. He thought the Government should proceed immediately to reduce the Irish light dues.
MR. VANCEwished to call attention to a particular grievance affecting the harbour of Kingstown. At present foreign vessels bound to Dublin, whether they entered the harbour or not, had to pay large dues for the maintenance of that harbour, whereas if they were bound to Liverpool, and took refuge there, they had nothing
1134
to pay, nor had coasters anything to pay. He thought it extremely hard that foreign vessels bound to Dublin should be liable to this exaction, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would redress the grievance before the termination of the present Session.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to know how the debt of 171,000 l. was made out, as he did not think keeping up the lights could fairly be charged against them.
Amendment negatived.
MR. INGHAMmoved the following addition to Clause 29:—
"Excepting as to ships employed in a coasting voyage from one part of the United Kingdom to another, or in a voyage between the United Kingdom and the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, or Man, or from one of the said islands to another of them, or from one part of either of them to another of the same, or employed in fishing on the coasts of the United Kingdom, or of any of the said islands, in which cases, and every of them, the whole of the crew shall be British seamen."
The only arguments which he had heard against this Amendment were two. In the first place, that the clause would only extend to the shipowners the same freedom to employ whom they pleased that was already employed of labour on land; and in the next place, that his Amendment was one inconsistent with the principles of free trade. Now, with respect to the first point, he would ask whether any one would maintain that the temptation to foreigners to enter an employment on land was equal to that which might lead them to accept employment as sailors in British ships? With respect to the second point, he admitted that it would be best to abolish protection altogether as regarded the coasting trade, and to admit foreign as well as British ships. But while the restriction upon foreign ships was kept up for the benefit of the shipowners, he thought they should not abolish the restriction as to sailors. The effect of this clause would be to introduce foreign seamen into the coasting trade; and believing that this would be most repugnant to the feelings of British seamen, he hoped that the House would assent to his Amendment.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLseconded the Amendment. He said, that the admission of foreign seamen to the coasting trade was contrary to the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Manning of the Navy.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, there had been already so long a debate, and so decided a division on the question of the admission

1135
of foreign seamen to the coasting trade, that he should believe the opinion of the House upon this point was finally settled. He could conceive no good reason why, if foreigners were admitted to the foreign, they should be excluded from the coasting trade. He did not think that the British shipowners would object to the coasting trade being thrown open to foreign ships. He believed that the restriction which at present excluded them was based upon grounds very different from those to which the hon. Member seemed to ascribe it. The subject was now under the consideration of those who were responsible for the collection of the revenue; nor did he (Mr. Cardwell) pretend to vindicate protection in this any more than in any other instance.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 104: Majority 69.
Bill passed.

HACKNEY CARRIAGE DUTIES BILL.
This Bill was brought up to be considered as amended.
MR. LOWEbrought up a clause, which, he said, he believed to have been framed at the request of the cab proprietors themselves, and which would undoubtedly benefit the public. The object of the clause was, that where a cab was hired by time, after the first hour the cabman could demand for every quarter of an hour 6d., instead of 2s. for the whole hour.
Clause agreed to.
MR. F. SCULLYbrought up a clause which was intended to prevent the cab proprietors again suddenly withdrawing their cabs from the streets, by giving power to the Commissioners of Police to withdraw or suspend the licences for cabs in the event of their being withdrawn two consecutive days, without a notice of ten days having been given by the proprietors, or to the magistrates to inflict a fine not exceeding 20 s. for each carriage withdrawn each day.
MR. LOWEbegged to state that the clause met with the approval of his hon. Friend (Mr. Fitzroy).
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he objected to the clause, because it left everything to the decision of a magistrate. He should, on the third reading of the Bill, move a clause, giving the power of appeal from the decision of the magistrate or Police Commissioner in every case fall-
1136
ing under the Act. It had been his intention on a previous occasion to give notice of the clause which he proposed to move; but at that time the proprietors of cabs had withdrawn them from the streets, and under those circumstances he felt that it would not have been in accordance with his duty to give any notice on the subject.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he considered the clause to be a specimen of inconsiderate legislation, and he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
MR. I. BUTTthought that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. F. Scully) was out of order in proposing a clause at the present stage of the Bill of which he had given notice for the third reading. He should wish to hear Mr. Speaker's opinion on that point.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was of opinion that, as the hon. Member had given notice of his intention to move the clause on the third reading, it was not competent for him to move it at the present stage of the measure.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. FREWENsaid, he objected to the radius of four miles from Charing-cross. The House ought to know that this was called a West-end clause and a House of Commons clause. If the clause stood as at present, it would include Wandsworth-common and the end of Streatham, where there was very little chance of a back fare, and would exclude the populous districts about Mile-end. He would propose as an Amendment, that the outside boundaries of the metropolitan boroughs should be adopted as the limit beyond which the increased charge should commence.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 4, to leave out the words "circumference of a circle, the radius of which shall be four miles from."
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he had received many representations from the inhabitants of the east end of the metropolis protesting against Charing-cross being selected as the centre of the four mile circle. The four miles would just go beyond Whitechapel, and would exclude the hundreds of thousands who lived at Mil-end, Limehouse, and parts adjacent, while it would include Chelsea, Lambeth, and the country districts beyond them. He would propose St. Paul's, which was adopted as the central point of the metropolis in some recent Acts of Parliament.
MR. LOWEsaid, he had been requested by his hon. Friend (Mr. Fitzroy) to propose

1137
Temple-bar as the best point from which to measure the four mile circle. The General Post Office had been thought of, but that would omit Chelsea, while the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Frewen) would extend to some country districts. He understood, for example, that the borough of Marylebone went up nearly to Hampstead.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 14: Majority 74.
MR. LOWEthen moved the substitution of the words "Temple-bar" for "Charing-cross" as the centre of the circle from which to calculate the four miles.
MR. FREWENsaid, that whatever point the circle were taken from, it would be unfair to certain districts. The further end of Eaton-square, and probably part of Hackney, would be beyond the circle now proposed.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.