Lords Sitting of 26 July 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention; General Board of Health; Metropolitan Sewers; Consolidation Fund (Appropriation); Treasury Instruments; Customs.
2a Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Collection of Rates (Dublin); Dublin Improvement; Pilotage; New Forest and Waltham Forest.
Reported.—Dublin Improvement; Bankruptcy (Ireland); Royal Pavilion (Brighton); New Zealand Land Conveyances; Judgments (Ireland); Chapels of Ease (Ireland).
3a House of Commons Offices; Joint Stock Companies Act (1848) Amendment; Regimental Benefit Societies; Militia Pay; Trustees Relief; Enlistment (Artillery and Ordnance).
PETITIONS PRESRNTED. By Lord Wharncliffe, from Northumberland, for the Adoption of Measures to prevent Explosions in Coal Mines.—By Lord Beaumont, from the City of London, for the Adoption of Measures to secure the immediate Recognition of the Government of Hungary.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
LORD CAMPBELL, in moving the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Commons' Amendments to their Lordships' Amendments on this Bill, and the reasons which they assigned for insisting

961
on their Amendments, observed that this was a Bill which had received very much consideration. On coming up from the House of Commons, it was referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, where considerable alterations and amendments were introduced. When the Bill went down to the other House, he must say that there was every disposition to accept the Amendments of their Lordships; and the Government did all in their power that these Amendments might be adopted. Of the numerous Amendments introduced by their Lordships, the Commons adopted all, without any modification, except two. These two were so very different from each other that it would be much more convenient to consider them separately, and therefore he should begin with the first Amendment made by the House of Commons on the Amendments of their Lordships. They had substituted the word "net" for the word "gross" in the clause relating to estates where part of the land was subject to a receiver, or in the possession of an encumbrancer. The Commons were almost unanimous on that point; and he thought that his noble and learned Friend would agree to that Amendment, because otherwise the object of the Bill would be defeated altogether. As the clause was framed by their Lordships, an estate might produce nothing, and yet it could not be sold. He moved, therefore, that their Lordships do agree to this Amendment of the Commons.
LORD STANLEYcould not say that he thought the Amendment made by the Commons an improvement in the Bill. At the same time, as very great improvements had been made in the Bill in its progress through Committee, and as the Commons adopted the principle laid down by their Lordships, and the alteration related to a matter of detail, he should not move their Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD BROUGHAMentirely agreed with what had just fallen from his noble Friend, and should offer no opposition to the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the second Amendment which had been introduced in to the Bill, was to the effect that no "Usher's poundage" should be received upon the payment of money into the Court of Chancery, which was the product of the sale of estates sold by order of the Commissioners under this Act. When this clause came before the Committee of their
962
Lordships, he was informed that the present usher of the Court of Chancery held a patent, by which he was entitled to poundage upon all moneys whatever paid into the Court of Chancery, and the clause was accordingly struck out. He had, however, since learned, upon the highest authority, that all moneys paid into the Court of Chancery, arising from the sales of estates sold under the decrees of that court, were exempted from the payment of this poundage. He had, therefore, to move that their Lordships agree to the Commons' Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

THE WAR IN HUNGARY.
LORD BEAUMONTpresented a petition, signed by David Salomons, Alderman, the chairman, on behalf of a public meeting held a few days since in the city of London, on the subject of the war in Hungary. He did not wish, in presenting the petition, to say anything which might lead to a discussion upon the subject at the present late period of the Session. Every person must be of opinion that the war in Hungary was a subject of deep regret, and that whoever of the parties might come out of the contest the conquered or the conqueror, the effect upon them would be to weaken the two Powers engaged in it—the empire of Austria and the kingdom of Hungary—which, when united, formed a great element in the balance of power in Europe. The prayer of the petitioners was, that this country should immediately recognise the existence, de facto, of the kingdom of Hungary, and that this step was no less demanded by considerations of justice and policy, and the commercial interests of the two States, than with a view of putting a stop to the effusion of human blood, and of terminating the fearful atrocities which had marked the progress of the Austro Russian armies.
LORD BROUGHAMthought the noble Lord who had just sat down had exercised a sound discretion in not entering at all upon the merits of the dispute between Austria and Hungary. The noble Lord had said that the balance of power in Europe was endangered by the war between Austria and Hungary; but he (Lord Brougham) thought it was more likely to be affected by the fact that at the meeting at the London Tavern, a great public agitator had threatened to crush Russia. He had said that he could tear Russia to pieces. Russia, containing sixty millions

963
of people, he had said he could crush as easily as the piece of paper which he held in his hand on the occasion. And how did the hon. Gentleman propose to crush Russia? Why, by peaceable means, by agitating the city of London against that nation. The public agitator to whom he (Lord Brougham) referred, proposed to destroy Russia by preventing any loan being made to her as long as Russia was Russia, because the hon. Gentleman undertook to say that he could prevent any man in the city of London negotiating a loan with Russia, whatever might be the amount of interest offered. He (Lord Brougham) ventured to say there was not a man on the earth, or even under the earth, who could not get in the city of London a loan for our own country at 6¼ per cent interest if it were offered, and at 6½ for another country.
Petition to lie upon the table.

RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.
The EARL of GRANVILLE The EARL of GRANVILLE moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which was to enable railway companies to abandon any portion of their undertaking by means of a cheaper process than that which at present existed.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNsaid, he thought that this was one of the many Bills of which the House had a right to complain being forced on their attention at so late a period of the Session, when there was no possibility of giving it proper consideration. The Bill proposed to abrogate a power which had hitherto belonged to their Lordships' House, and to vest it in the hands of Railway Commissioners. He would not express any opinion about the advisability of such a step; but he thought that where the House was about to do so important a thing as to place a power which it had hitherto exercised, in other hands, some time for discussion ought to be allowed. He objected to the present Bill, because it went farther than a similar measure which had been projected and passed by the Earl of Dalhousie. It was provided by that Bill that the whole of the shareholders in a company must agree to its dissolution, and to the winding up of the concern; but by the present Bill it was only necessary to obtain the consent of three-fifths of the shareholders in order to abandon an undertaking. He also objected to the Bill, because it enabled parties to do that by a side wind which their Lordships had objected to after consideration. The
964
noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read that day three months.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he entertained some very strong objections to the provisions of the Bill, in consequence of the position in which parties would be placed who might have railway works loft in an unfinished state upon their property.
LORD BEAUMONTthought that there was a great difference in the case of railways being abandoned where no works had been commenced, and in other cases where the works had commenced. In the one case, he considered it advisable that every facility, consistent with the interests of all parties, should be given for enabling them to got rid of speculations into which they had entered, perhaps too rashly. But, in dealing with the latter class of cases, great caution was necessary, as the injury sustained by the abandonment of the railways could not be decided by the amount of compensation which had been originally given for the land, that amount having been received on the supposition that a railway would be made upon the land.
The EARL of GRANVILLEobserved, that there had been many propositions for enabling joint-stock companies to settle their affairs outside the walls of Parliament, but generally it had been thought not expedient to take authority of so grave a character out of the hands of Committees of that or the other House of Parliament. The present Bill, however, had been regarded as an exception to that rule; and it was likewise thought by those who were best qualified to form a judgment on such subjects, that the Railway Commission would be an extremely fit body to decide upon the conflicting claims with which the measure now before their Lordships was intended to deal. He was sure every one would agree with him in thinking it highly advantageous to all parties concerned, that railways should be abandoned in every case whore the companies which undertook them did not possess sufficient capital for carrying out the works. In such cases it would be highly desirable to have all claims settled before it became too late; and let it be remembered that the Bill was not one to settle the affairs of railway companies, but merely a measure to enable them to apply to the Railway Commissioners for leave to settle their affairs.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid: I know nothing of this measure except what I have heard since the commencement of

965
the discussion upon it; but, my Lords, it appears to me, that if you pass this Bill, you will at once, in effect, repeal that vast number of Acts which you passed during the last few Sessions, and which involved the outlay of millions of money, and the interests of vast numbers of persons—and you will wipe away the whole of the property which has been invested on the faith of those Acts of Parliament. Great powers may have been given to the Railway Commissioners by former Acts of Parliament; but, my Lords, I believe that when those Acts were submitted to your Lordships, time was given for their consideration. But no time has been allowed to us for the consideration of this measure. Here is a Bill which was only introduced three days ago, and now, within three days of the prorogation of Parliament, your Lordships are asked to give it a third reading. Are we to decide at so short a notice to give to a Government Board and to individuals personally interested, the power of, in fact, repealing many of the Acts which were deliberately passed a few Sessions ago? We have not had time to look through this Bill, nor to consider the condition and security on which the Railway Commissioners are to adopt the course proposed by it. I am sure, then, that your Lordships will feel that this is a measure which you ought not to pass at this late period of the Session.
LORD STANLEYentirely concurred with his noble and gallant Friend who had just sat down in the objection he had made to proceed with the Bill at this time. If their Lordships were not determined on the last days of the Session to pass every Bill brought up from the other House of Parliament—if they meant to put an end to the vicious system of thus disposing, without time for consideration, of the measures brought before them, there was no measure to which they could apply the rule so wisely and judiciously as the present one. There was no necessity for the Bill in point of urgency—there was no reason why it should not have been brought under their consideration a long time ago; and he saw nothing in the Bill to prevent it originating in their Lordships' House, and being subsequently discussed in the Commons. He found on their Journals a Standing Order that was very applicable to the present proceeding. On the 5th of May, 1668, there was a report of the Lord Chamberlain in regard to a Bill that was very long, and consisted of many paragraphs,
966
coming from the House of Commons so near the time of adjournment; and he stated that he was commanded to enter upon the Journals of the House that no such argument should be used hereafter as had been then used, namely, the shortness of the time for the passing of a Bill as a reason for precipitating the passing thereof; and upon due consideration the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled agreed to the report, and ordered it to be entered upon the roll of the Standing Orders of the House. He (Lord Stanley) hoped that the Peers of the present day would bear in mind the objection that was taken in 1668, when it was laid down as a Standing Order that no such argument should be used in regard to any Bill for the future to precipitate the passing thereof in a short time before the rising of Parliament. It might be quite right to facilitate the abandonment of railway speculations; but at the same time he entertained a great doubt whether they should give those great facilities for the abandonment of projects undertaken for the benefit of the public, and for the performance of which extraordinary powers were obtained at the hands of Parliament. It might be right to save those parties from the expense of separate Bills in each particular case, and by one Bill to divest their Lordships of the power of judging in a Committee of the House of the expediency of abandoning the works in each particular case; but surely it was most important, when they were passing such a general measure, that they should have the fullest opportunity of discussing the provisions under which they gave up that power to the Railway Commissioners. He would not then pretend to discuss the merits of this Bill; but, considering the number of petitions against the Bill—considering the great interests involved—considering also that this was, in point of fact, a measure to permit the railway companies to abandon projects which were sanctioned by Parliament, and likewise that their Lordships were divesting themselves of the power of judging in each particular case—he hoped the Government would not press the Bill in the course of the present Session; but that, if a general power was given, it would be given under circumstances in which the House might give full consideration to the details of the Bill, so that it would meet the object that was sought to carried out.
The EARL of HARROWBYalso considered

967
that the measure required the most mature deliberation, and it would be a public detriment to hurry it forward this Session.
EARL GREYsaid, if their Lordships intended to persevere in their opposition to the Bill, of course the Government could not expect to pass it this Session. At the same time he thought that its rejection would inflict great injury on those very parties in behalf of whom the noble Earl (the Earl of Eglintoun) and other noble Lords had addressed their Lordships. If this were a Bill to give a general and indiscriminate power to railway companies to procure an order for dissolution from the Railway Commissioners, it would be an extremely objectionable measure. But, on the other hand, it was perfectly clear that there were many cases in which railway companies had commenced their operations without any adequate means. It was most desirable that such parties should be allowed to dissolve after making compensation to the landowners whose land they had cut through. The Railway Commissioners would, under this Bill, have to consider each individual case of dissolution which might be brought before them, and notice of the intention to apply for leave to dissolve would have to be inserted in the newspapers; and parties concerned would be heard against the proposed dissolution. Their Lordships must assume that the Railway Commissioners would exercise their powers rationally and judiciously. Due care would be taken to carry out the clause giving compensation to the landowners and other parties affected by the undertakings. If their Lordships rejected the Bill, their doing so would be prolonging the existence of insolvent and ruined companies, and driving them to further expense—amongst other things driving them to the expense of an individual Act of Parliament, and thus materially diminishing the funds that might remain to them for the payment of their debts. It was, therefore, manifest that such a measure as this ought not to be objected to. He was far from denying that the Bill was open to the objections taken by the noble Duke, and admitted that. Parliament having, a few years ago, authorised by Bills railways to be formed, it was a great inconvenience to give those Railway Commissioners the power of setting aside those Bills. That inconvenience resulted, however, from the careless manner in which Parliament had passed those Bills. Little or no inquiry
968
was made as to the necessity of those railway measures, or as to the solvency of parties promoting them. Having got into this difficulty, the question now was how they were to get out of it. He believed that the best course, upon the whole, was to adopt the simple machinery provided by this Bill for investigating individual cases, and enabling those companies who could not go on to distribute their funds to the best advantage. Although he admitted that noble Lords had the power of delaying the measure by pressing their objections, yet he could not disguise it from himself that by doing so they would inflict injuries on the very parties they professed to serve.
The EARL of GRANVILLEsaid, that the Bill had been very carefully considered, not only by the Solicitor General, but by many other Members of the House of Commons. As the Bill was important, and not lightly brought forward, he did hope their Lordships would at least allow the debate to be adjourned till To-morrow, He admitted there were certain defects in the measure. If between that time and To-morrow those imperfections could be remedied, he should bring the subject again under their notice, otherwise he should not press the measure during the present Session.
LORD REDESDALEdid not admit the claim of parties who had entered upon these speculations to be allowed to get out of their difficulties by dissolving their respective companies, without the slightest reference to the localities for whose benefit the scheme purported to have been designed. He suggested that, instead of this proposal, companies unable or unwilling to prosecute their schemes, should be enabled to sell their lines to some other company disposed to buy them.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsupported the Bill. They had never beard that the powers of the Railway Commissioners were abused, and if they looked to the clauses of the Bill, they would find it only provided that, after hearing and considering the circumstances, the Commissioners were to pronounce their judgment. When they looked to the responsibility of their position as regarded both Parliament and the public, they could hardly doubt that the decision of the Commissioners would be a sound one.
LORD BROUGHAMfelt very strongly the argument of his noble Friend at the table, and his noble Friends behind him, as to the impropriety of passing a Bill of

969
that nature without due discussion; but at the same time he should deeply lament the necessity for stopping the measure for this reason—he could not help thinking that Parliament was responsible for passing those Bills so easily, and with a degree of facility that was surprising. He should most deeply regret if it were found impossible to pass it, but only for the reason he had just stated.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthought the proposition made by his noble Friend was a perfectly fair one, namely, that the second reading should be postponed to the following day for the purpose of procuring further information. If this Bill were rejected, it might have very ill consequences, and more especially as it related to a Bill that had already passed their Lordships' House.
LORD STANLEYhoped it would be understood, after the discussion that night, that the Bill, in its main provisions, was not to be persisted in by Her Majesty's Government.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNconsented to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the Government would state To-morrow evening, whether they thought it expedient to proceed with the Bill during the present Session.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

PILOTAGE BILL.
The EARL of GRANVILLEhaving moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, the object of this Bill was to give facilities to shipowners, with the view of relieving them from certain expenses to which they were at present subject; but he confessed that he doubted much whether the measure would afford them the relief from expense which they anticipated. But what he was chiefly apprehensive of with regard to this Bill was, that it would have the effect of putting down a certain ancient establishment which had existed time out of mind, and which had been most useful in the difficult navigation of the narrow seas, and most particularly in communication with this great commercial metropolis. Under the existing law, all vessels coming up the Channel were under the necessity of taking pilots on board, and of making signals that they were in want of pilots; but the object of this measure was to relieve those vessels from making such signals which might have on board a person certified to be competent to take charge of the ship in these
970
narrow seas; and he was fearful that the consequence of the measure must be to put down that body, the fellowship of pilots, who had hitherto contributed by their labours to the safety and the usefulness of; the navigation. The fellowship of Cinque Ports pilots existed under the provision of; the Act of Parliament. Its duties were carried on under the superintendence of the Privy Council. No alteration could be made in its number, except by the consent of the Privy Council; and its remuneration had been fixed by Act of Parliament. Under these circumstances, therefore, he said that Parliament had formed and patronised this institution; and he entreated their Lordships to consider well before they adopted any measure that might have for its effect the putting of it down. He had held the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports for the last twenty years—from 1829; and during the ten years from 1829 to 1839, there were 3,800 ships brought into the river in each year; and there had been only twenty-two complaints of any misfortune or misconduct on the part of the pilots during these periods. These complaints were all inquired into, and it turned out that only nine of them out of the twenty-two had any foundation. In the following ten years, from 1839 to 1849 (with 3,800 ships in each year), there were only fourteen complaints, and of these fourteen only six were found on inquiry to warrant any cause of complaint against the pilots. Now, considering the number of ships In the course of three years carried in safety by means of this fellowship of pilots, and that in the course of each of these periods of ten years so few complaints had been made, and every one of them inquired into, he thought their Lordships might reasonably suppose that they were a very useful institution, and that very great care ought to be taken in taking any steps that might tend to destroy it. The pilots were 120 in number; and if more were wanted, he (the Duke of Wellington) as Lord Warden, could apply to the Privy Council for an addition. Now, it certainly did seem to him that under this Bill it was placed in the power of any individual holding the position of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports to give licenses to masters and mates of ships to undertake to navigate them in place of the fellowship of pilots; and he certainly, as Lord Warden, should not give a license to any individual to take charge of a ship unless he should prove himself, by examination, such as

971
was required by the Act of Parliament to which he had referred, to be completely competent to all the dangers of the navigation, and capable of taking charge of a vessel, and bringing her in safety to the port. But the moment he signed a certificate for the master or mate, the ship would be immediately exempted from the necessity of taking on board a pilot. Therefore, it might depend upon the act of a single individual holding the office of Lord Warden, whether this fellowship of pilots should be put down or not; and he did not think it would be very desirable for the interests of the shipowners themselves to put down that institution, and to have instead a person on board of each ship who should have a knowledge of the pilotage. There was now a sufficiency of pilots to convey in safety 3,800 ships annually; and he thought it more desirable to the commercial interests to have the advantage of such an institution to perform this duty, than to be compelled to leave a pilot on board every one of these vessels to make the whole voyage. He confessed he did not see what advantage such an arrangement as that would offer in point of expense. He begged to observe, that, according to the best calculations that he could form, the average expense for these pilots was from 3l. to 4l. for each ship; and how could it be supposed possible that each of these pilots put on board of one of these ships, and going a long voyage, would not get more than 4l. by way of wages? That was the sum paid for a pilot at the end of the voyage, under the Act of Parliament; but if that man was put on board of a vessel and performed the voyage, he would have to receive his wages; and could any one suppose that they would not come to as much as 3l. or 4l., or even to 10 l., or perhaps as much as 20 l? He confessed to their Lordships that he doubted the advantage of such an arrangement, even in point of economy, to the shipowner; and he was sure that, for the commercial interests of that metropolis, it was advisable to refrain from taking any measures that might have the effect of putting down the fellowship of pilots.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that this Bill had for its object, and for its sole object, to relieve the shipping interests of this country from an existing burden which was strongly felt by individuals. At the same time that he must contend it was found to be a burden by
972
numerous classes, and had been strongly represented by them to be such, he would be the last person in the world who would wish to proceed even to remove that burden, by doing anything that threw contempt or disparagement upon existing authorities whom we were bound to respect, not only on the ground of their antiquity, but for the long and efficient administration of the important duties committed to their charge. But he begged the noble Duke and the House to recollect that this Bill, so far from being founded upon disrespect for these existing authorities, was founded rather upon the most entire confidence in and respect for them, because it was a permissive Bill, and nothing but a permissive Bill; and under it the noble Duke, who discharged his functions as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports with such great ability, would be left entirely at liberty either to preserve the existing system entirely as it stood, or to introduce into it such modifications, and such modifications only, as he might think expedient. But, further, this Bill certainly did give to other parties who had long exercised the same functions, and who were in a position which rendered them competent to judge how far the existing compulsory enactment could be judiciously dispensed with—it conferred upon them the privilege of dispensing with the compulsory enactment under such circumstances and under such limits as they thought fit, and believed most conducive to the safety of the public interests. At present the case of steamers was felt to be one of very great hardship, as, although possessing far superior knowledge and facilities as regarded entering port, compared with other vessels, they were yet subject to all the burdens which existed long before steam navigation was introduced. He could not help thinking that such corporations as the Trinity House and others enumerated in this Bill, were likely to exercise this particular duty, or rather relaxation of duty, cautiously and safely for the public advantage. The noble Duke himself had stated the conditions which he would require before he admitted any one to be pilots, even for their own ships; and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had no doubt but other corporations would use the same caution; and he hoped the system of licensing the masters and mates of ships would be beneficial in its consequences as affecting their character, and would prove—what it was very necessary, in the present state of our mercantile marine,

973
should be proved to those connected with it—that sobriety and regularity of conduct would entitle certain men to privileges, which others, pursuing' a different course of conduct, would be deprived of; showing that those masters and mates who were competent to do the duty of a pilot, being acquainted with the navigation, and possessing the other requisite qualifications, would enjoy advantages which others less sober and less acquainted with the place, would not be able to obtain. Upon the whole, he thought this Bill one which their Lordships could safely pass, and particularly at a period when the burdens of the shipping interest should be lightened as far as possible; and he had no doubt that the other bodies mentioned in this Bill, would all discharge the functions it entrusted to them as wisely and judiciously as he was sure the noble Duke who had just addressed them would perform his.
LORD STANLEYwas averse to retaining any burdens, especially under existing circumstances, that pressed upon the shipping interest; but with regard to this Bill, he must say it appeared to him, both by the statements made elsewhere, and by the noble Duke, that no pecuniary burden or practical inconvenience arose under those parts of the system of pilotage which this Bill sought to amend. This Bill was only introduced into the other House on the 12th of July, as a measure the importance of which he believed to have been greatly exaggerated by the Government; and he (Lord Stanley) had only just received a petition from the port of Hull, and from persons interested in the navigation of the Humber, praying that the Bill might not be allowed to come into operation; but owing to the haste with which the measure was pressed through the other House, the petition had not been able to reach town in time for presentation. There was nothing very urgent or pressing with regard to the passing of this Bill; and why did not the Government allow it to stand over till the whole of their scheme with respect to the mercantile marine was brought under the consideration of Parliament? By the present law a steady supply of pilots was kept up in each of the jurisdictions, adequate to meet the wants of the traffic; but if this Bill were passed, the number of masters and mates licensed would be uncertain and fluctuating, the amount of the payments realised by the corporations would become uncertain and much diminished,
974
and the consequence would be that the fellowships would be obliged largely to reduce their staff, being dependent upon the uncertain and fluctuating number of licenses granted to masters and mates. The noble Duke, whose official acquaintance with the subject rendered him a high authority on the question, so far from believing the Bill would be a relief to the trade, or a benefit to the shipping interest, had expressed his conviction that it would only enhance their existing burdens, and be otherwise injurious in its results. It was true, as the noble Marquess said, the Bill was only permissive; and therefore, after the declaration of the noble Duke as to the course which he would individually pursue if the measure were to become law, the Bill would be practically a dead letter so far as the functions of the noble Duke were concerned. But if the Bill might lead to mischievous and inconvenient consequences in its effects upon the shipping interest and trade of this country, then he (Lord Stanley) concurred with the noble Duke that it ought not to be loft to the discretion of one individual authority, who besides could adopt one system in one part of the kingdom, while a totally different system might be practised in another. But, further, he wished to ask, did they intend to confine these licenses to British vessels and British men? Did they intend, by sanctioning the admission of British vessels with licensed masters and mates, and thereby relieving them of an expensive pilotage, to give them an advantage over foreign masters and foreign mates? If they did, it appeared to him that it would be inconsistent with those obligations which bound them to put the trade of our own and other nations upon an equal footing. But if we said that we meant to grant foreign masters and mates licenses to bring their ships into British harbours, he would ask whether it was wise or safe—in a national point of view—to adopt that course? If, as had often of late been represented to be the case, although for his part he very much doubted it—but if it were true that foreign masters and foreign mates were much more intelligent—or even merely as intelligent as British masters and British mates, was it wise or prudent, by holding out the premium of exemption from pilotage charges, to induce foreign and naval seafaring men to acquire that knowledge of the difficulties and intricacies of our harbours and rivers

975
which might be certainly very useful in time of peace, but which in time of war it would be very undesirable that they should possess? So that by this Bill either they must put foreign shipping upon an unfair footing, or else they must induce, by holding out an unfair footing in violation of our treaties and obligations, by holding out a pecuniary premium in the shape of exemption from pilotage charges, to acquire a knowledge of our navigation, which in time of war they could turn to account in a manner very injurious to this country.
LORD COLCHESTERgave his testimony in favour of the fellowship of pilots, over whom the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) presided, and opposed this Bill, as likely to produce very injurious effects. He should also anticipate much advantage from the establishment of sailors' homes.
The EARL of GRANVILLE, in reply, said he did not think there was any point in connexion with this Bill which had not been anticipated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne). With respect, however, to the permissive power given to the Trinity Masters with respect to treaties with foreign nations, he did not think that our treaties with foreign Powers would compel us to admit as pilots the seamen from foreign vessels; but he was of opinion that if a French vessel had a man on board both ready and competent to be examined by the Trinity-house, it would be unfair to deny him the privilege. He anticipated no difficulty from permitting foreign nations to become acquainted with the technicalities of our harbours and rivers. At present the ships of Holland, France, and the United States, under 60 tons burden, were allowed to enter our harbours without pilots; and it was notorious that smugglers on the opposite coast were as well acquainted with all the ins-and-outs of our coast as any licensed pilots could be.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHbelieved that this Bill had been introduced at the present moment, and was now being hurriedly passed through the House, in order to meet the demands of the owners of steam vessels regularly plying between this country and the neighbouring coasts. But in modern legislation, the remedy for a grievance, instead of simply acting as a cure, led to evils greater than the malady sought to be removed. A certificate once given, testifying to a
976
man's knowledge of a particular locality, lasted for a year. A man might proceed on a long voyage, but on his return he would be necessarily unable to navigate a coast whose characteristics had changed. Whilst he felt every confidence that neither the Trinity-house nor the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports would give a certificate improperly, he could not place the same reliance on those other authorities in whom this Bill would vest the power of giving certificates. He saw danger in certificates being granted by the Trinity-house, merely because a man showed himself acquainted with a particular locality; and he should say that no certificate should be granted except for competency to ply between our own and the neighbouring coast. He objected to leaving with the Trinity-house the power to decide with respect to reciprocity treaties; and, generally, he saw considerable risk attending the operation of this measure. He thought it would diminish the inducement to enter the pilot service, and by so far increase the danger of navigating the shores of this country. Legislation on the subject should have been preceded by a searching inquiry. He doubted whether this Bill would be productive of economy. A few pounds might be saved by employing mates instead of pilots; but the charge for insurance would be found to advance, for in proportion as the insurance companies saw risk from the employment of incompetent persons to navigate the vessels insured, would they increase the rate of premiums. Thus, what was saved in the pilotage of a vessel would be lost in the charge for insurance. Entertaining these objections to the measure, he moved as an Amendment that the Bill be road that day three months.
On Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Motion,"
The House divided:—Content 15; Not-Content 10: Majority 5.

List of the CONTENTS.

MARQUESSES.

Strafford

Lansdowne

BISHOPS.

Anglesey

Manchester

Clanricarde

Hereford

EARLS.

BARONS.

Suffolk

Say and Sele

Carlisle

Byron

Grey

Campbell

Minto

Monteagle of Brandon

Granville

List of the NOT-CONTESTS.

DUKE.

EARLS.

Wellington

Warwick

977

Powis

BISHOP.

Nelson

Chichester

Harrowby

BARONS.

St. Germans

Stanley

Ellenborough

Redesdale

Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a
House adjourned till To-morrow.