land, a large majority of the clergy of other denominations of Christians, and many other excellent persons, both lay and clerical, had declared their belief that the marriages which this Bill contemplated were neither against the law of nature nor against the law of God; that the prohibition of them by Parliament had led to great moral and social evils; and that the prohibition ought no longer to be continued. He reminded their Lordships that a Commission, composed of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, Sir S. Lushington, the head of one of the ecclesiastical courts, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Mr. Justice Williams, the late right hon. Sir Anthony Blake, a sincere and pious Roman Catholic, and Mr. Stuart Wortley, who introduced this Bill into the other House, had examined into the whole bearings of this subject, and had in the report which they submitted to Her Majesty, declared that it had been proved before them that the existing law required redress, and that it had failed in its purpose. They showed that in every other Christian country in Europe marriages of this kind were permitted; and that in the United States Mr. Justice Story, the great American lawyer, had testified that they were considered as the very best sort of marriage which a widower could make. It was not correct that there had been continually decreasing majorities in favour of this Bill in the House of Commons during the present Session; but on the contrary, they had been gradually increasing. In the year 1849 the second reading of this Bill was carried by a majority of thirty-four only. In the year 1850 it was carried by a majority of fifty-four. It was true that, on the third reading, the majority was only ten; but that was owing to the larger at tendance of the Scotch Members, who had been specially summoned to oppose it. They had heard something that evening of the feeling of Scotland against this Bill. He admitted that a vast majority of the clergy and laity of that country were adverse to it; but since the Bill had undergone discussion in Parliament, there had sprung up a strong current of opinion the other way. If it could be satisfactorily shown to him that the majority of the opinions of Scotland were adverse to the measure, he thought that it would be worthy of consideration whether Scotland should not be exempted from its operation. For himself, he rejoiced sincerely at the postponement of the further consideration

of the Bill till the next Session. He trusted that at that time his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellesmere), who had been prevented from taking charge of it this Session, would be restored to health, and would then submit a similar, if not the same, Bill to their Lordships' consideration.

His

The BISHOP of SALISBURY felt, that it was not quite regular to get up a discussion on the Motion to withdraw a Bill; but he felt bound to make an observation on what had fallen from the noble Earl. object in rising was to correct a mistake in point of fact, into which the noble Earl had fallen. The noble Earl had referred to the report of the Commissioners, as if that was in favour of the present measure; and, further, he connected the name of a right rev. Friend of his who was a member of the Commission (the Bishop of Lichfield), with the subject in such a manner as might lead the House to infer that he was in favour of the Bill. He did not know whether the noble Earl had any authority to draw such an inference, nor did he (the Bishop of Salisbury) distinctly know what the feeling of his right rev. Friend was on the subject; but if he was to adopt an inference, he should say his right rev. Friend was decidedly opposed to it.

The EARL of ST. GERMANS had not said that the report recommended this specific measure, but that it pointed out the defects in the existing law relative to this description of marriages. They also said that the existing law had failed to fulfil the purpose in view, and recommended that some alteration should be made in it.

The BISHOP of OXFORD said, he believed that a distinct majority of all the Members of the other House had voted at different times against the Bill. It was merely owing to the accident of Members not attending that the Bill had been allowed to struggle through the other House. There was one suggestion of the noble Earl in which he fully concurred. The noble Earl asked their Lordships to consider this measure during the coming recess. He (the Bishop of Oxford) hoped they would do so; for, in the first instance, he was himself inclined to regard the measuse favourably, but subsequent consideration had induced him to change that opinion, and he had no doubt that noble Lords, if they adopted the suggestion thrown out, would come to the conclusion to which he had come-namely, to oppose this contem, plated change in our marriage law.

board their ships; and they had stated their opinion that any interference of the kind was unadvisable, and that enforcing the performance of divine service would, in many cases-he hoped not generally-lead to scenes of profaneness, rather than of sanctity. But he also objected to the extreme vagueness of this clause, which was altogether too general. Even on shore it was often difficult to define what was and what was not a proper observance of Sunday; but on ship-board the difficulty would be far greater; for how was it possible to lay down what a sailor must and what he must not perform, and what was exactly and strictly a work of necessity. That must depend upon the state of wind and weather, the position of the vessel, and a variety of contingents impossible to foresee and define, and impossible for the House to consider. Such a provision would lead to nothing but the most vexatious effects, and so far from causing a reverent observance of the Sunday, he believed it would tend in a direction exactly contrary to that object which the hon. and gallant Admiral was desirous to attain. He repeated that the result of his communications with the most respectable shipowners had convinced him that the proposal was impracticable.

ADMIRAL BOWLES said, that all he wished was that the seaman should have a day's rest: he had said nothing relative to divine service; but, considering the long time which this Bill had occupied, and the opposition now offered to his proposal, he should be sorry to cause unnecessary delay by an ineffectual persistance in the clause. At the same time, he must add that he was extremely sorry to see so many Members ready to vote against a resolution having such an object as this.

SIR G. PECHELL said, he was most auxious to record his vote against the clause. He begged to remind the gallant Admiral that upon a former day he had implored him not to persist in moving an impossible clause.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. ANDERSON then, pursuant to notice, moved the adoption of a clause to relieve shipowners from a serious grievance. The Merchant Seamen's Act provided that a seaman deserting his ship on a voyage should be subjected to certain penalties, among which was the forfeiture of wages. But by two other clauses it was provided that if a seaman quitted a merchant ship, and went into one of Her Majesty's ships,

then he gained a complete impunity. The master of the merchant ship was compelled to pay the wages up to the day the man left the ship, and the shipowner had no remedy. He (Mr. Anderson) had on a former occasion moved a clause to the effect that the going on board a Queen's ship should not be an exemption. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that he divided it on that Amendment, the result of which division he considered entitled him to say that he certainly had the sense of the Committee with him, although owing to certain Ministerial arrangements, to which he need not more particularly allude, the physical force of it was rather too strong for him. He hoped, however, now to obtain this small concession of relief to the shipowner. It was then argued that this privilege was necessary for the public service; but now it should be recollected that the shipowners no longer belonged to the protected classes, and therefore their claim was now more just than ever. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that no complaints had been made, and that if any representations of hardships had been sent to the Board of Admiralty they would have been attended to. But he apprehended that the Lords of the Admiralty had no power to give redress under the Act of Parliament, and it was to give them that power that he proposed this short clause. Clause

"And be it enacted, That if in the course of a

voyage any scaman' shall quit his ship' without the consent of the master, to enter into Her Majesty's Naval Service, and shall be received into such service, and the owner shall thereby incur any additional expense, loss, or damage, it shall be lawful for the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, to indemnify the owner for such additional expense, loss, or damage, to such extent as to them may appear just and reasonable." Brought up, and read 1°.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."

MR. LABOUCHERE said, that the question had been already discussed and decided, and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not now press his clause. If there were special circumstances that had caused loss or damage to the owner, he should think the Admiralty would entertain the case. But he really thought it would be unwise for the House of Commons to pronounce opinion in this manner by a clause in a Bill upon a matter of this

kind, which, in fact, involved a great question of national policy. It was a question affecting the public service in regard to the manning of the Navy, and should not therefore be decided in an incidental man

ner.

MR. CLAY said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would say that the Admiralty had the power of granting compensation in cases of serious injury, he had no doubt his hon. Friend would be satisfied, and withdraw the clause. But it had been brought forward in the belief that in cases of damage there were no means of relief.

SIR F. T. BARING said, that the proposed clause gave no additional power to the Admiralty. To effect its object it should have specified the funds from which the Admiralty was to take the compensation. At the same time the Admiralty might find the means of compensation in very extraordinary cases if they thought fit.

LORD J. MANNERS said, it might be true that the clause did not practically carry out its object; but, nevertheless, the subject demanded consideration, and he gave notice that he would have a clause drawn up in the form which the right hon. Gentleman had just described, and which he should propose on the third reading.

MR. ANDERSON said, it would be most satisfactory to hear the opinion of a legal Member connected with the Government upon the point.

MR. ALEXANDER HASTIE said, that the grievance in question was much felt by the shipowners. He could understand the necessity in extraordinary cases. for a ship-of-war taking a seaman from a merchant ship; but it was fair when the act was done, that the owner should have compensation for loss and injury sustained. It would seem that the Admiralty had power to make compensation, but no funds to pay it from.

MR. HENLEY said, that this was a subject which should receive more consideration from the Government than they had yet bestowed. The shipowner was now in a very different situation from that in which he had been. By this Bill considerable restriction was imposed upon the shipowner, and the Government refused to give any countervailing advantages, and refused to consider the strange position in which they would be placed under the new regulation. The question was, whether,

when the Government took seamen from merchant ships for the public service, they were not bound in common justice to give compensation for loss and injury sustained by that act. He doubted, indeed, if this clause would carry out its avowed object; but still if the principle were recognised by the House of Commons, the Government would be compelled to find the means of carrying it into full and active operation; and he was happy to hear that if this clause was withdrawn, the noble Lord the Member for Colchester would raise the question, and the Government might be assured that the question would be raised again and again until a just settlement was made.

MR. FORSTER said, that to allege that the Admiralty had the power of compensation, but no funds to pay it from, was a mere evasion of the question, and nothing else. A great deal was heard about the necessity of a large navy to protect our commerce; but he confessed that so far as his own experience went, he was not able to discern those great services it rendered, especially to merchant ships. It was made the special duty of merchant ships to supply men to the Queen's ships, under a special necessity. It had been suggested that the Government should take one man and give another; but what would be the result of that? Just that that they would take a good man away, and give a bad one in return.

ADMIRAL DUNDAS opposed the clause, and defended the Admiralty from the insinuations thrown out by the hon. Member. He considered that the law which enabled a seaman to resort to a man-of-war, was a great protection and valuable privilege to seamen, for it enabled him to escape from a ship where he might have been ill treated, to one where he would be well treated. The House divided :-Ayes 25; Noes 48: Majority 23.

66

MR. ANDERSON then moved after the word "characters" to insert the words and when thereto required by any owner or master of a ship." The object of this Amendment was to limit the interference of the shipping masters with the ordinary business of shipowners. By the provisions of this Bill all agreements with seamen were compelled to be entered into before the shipping master. This, in the case of men leaving a vessel, as they often did, at the first place at which the ship touched after leaving her port, would occasion great delay. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade