Page 4 Advertisements Column 2

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 714, 16 February 1853, Page 4

( Copy.) Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, 2nd June, 1852. Sir—l am directed by the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade, to request that you will inform Secretary Sir John Pakington that my Lords have been informed by a letter, a copy of which is enclosed, that some of the Authorities at Poit Philip have, in construing the Acts which relate to Merchant Seamen, acted upon the opinion that if a' Sailor is once convicted and imprisoned for desertion, his engagement is at an end, and that he cannot., at the conclusion of his punishment be compelled to return to his ship. As this course appeared to my Lords to be questionable in Law, and injurious in its tendency, they have taken the opinion of the Law Officers upon it, from which it appears that a Sailor is not released fiom his Articles by being once punished for Desertion. A copy of this opinion is enclosed, and I am to request you will move Sir John Pakington to consider whether it is not desirable that it should be communicated to the Government of the Colony. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (Signed) James Booth. H. Merivale, Esq., &c., &c., &c., Colonial Office. ( Copy.) 35, Albert Square, Commercial Road East, 24th May, 1852. Sib, —I have the honour of addressing you on a subject which materially affects the interest of the British Shipping trading to the Australian Colonies, having to contend with the difficulties that have arisen in Melbourne, Port Philip, since the discovery of Gold in that Colony ; —while there in the ship “ Melbourne,’ 1 of Glasgow, some of my crew, with that of other ships, deserted ; six I caught <on their way to the Diggings, three of which I took before the sitting Magistrate at Williams Town, they were sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment, and by working overtime while in gaol, they were released at the end of 10 weeks, without notice being given to me. When ready for sea, with a valuable cargo of wool and gold, I went to Melbourne from Geelong;, and waited on his Excellency the Governor, who sent orders to the Sheriff to deliver the men up to me, and on applying to the Sheriff I obtained an order from him on the gaoler ; but on waiting on that functionary was told that the seamen had been discharged some days before, he stating that he was not obliged to give notice to the Master when their time was up, and that the ship had no right to the seamen after having performed their time of punishment. This opinion is also held by the Magistrates at Williams Town, much to the annoyance and cost of the Ship-masters, grounding their argument on the Mercantile Marine Act, because it does not say they shall be returned to the ship,, As I am about to return to that colony, I should wish much to have the opinion of the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade on that point, as I am not aware that although a seaman may be imprisoned under the Act, that it does release him from his engagement with the ship, yet such has been the practice followed up by the Authorities of Port Philip since I have been trading to that Colony. Begging their Lordships will give this matter their early consideration, and favour me with a reply, I am, &c., (Signed) Samuel Pickin. To the Secretary of the Board of Trade, Naval Department. ( Copy.) Temple, May 31st, 1852. My LoiiDS--We were favoured with Mr. Farrer’s letter of the 28th instant, in which he stated that he was directed by your Lordships to enclose the accompanying Case, and to request our opinion thereon. The Case, after reciting the 6th and 7th section of Bth Vic., c. 112, and the .70 hj section of the 13th and 14th Vic., c. 93, proceeded to state that from statements made to the Board of Trade, it appears that under the latter section, certain deserters were arrested at Melbourne, in Australia, and were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and that upon the conclusion of the imprisonment, the Master of the ship being still at the port, and requiring their services on the homeward voyage, was informed that the Articles (which contained, as usual, a stipulation to serve on a voyage to the colony and back to England) were put an end to by the punishment, and that his right to the seamen’s services had therefore terminated. That It further stated that this is the prevailing opinion among the Magistrates at Port Philip. That the point is one of very great importance to the shipping interest, since, if a seaman is, after having been once convicted of desertion and punished, to be considered as released from all further duty to the ship, great encouragement would be given to desertion in places such as the Colony in question, where the temptations to desert far out- hal an pp tbp ot a short imprisonment. The question submitted to us for our opinion is, “ whether, if a man has been convicted of desertion and punished, either under the 7th and Bth Vic , c. 112, s. 6, or 13 and 14 Vic., c. 93, s. 70, he is thereby released from his Articles or whether, when the punishment is at an end, he can still be treated as belonging to the ship, and compelled to rejoin her and perform his duty in her according to the original Articles,” In obedience to your Lordships’ request, we have taken the same into our consideration, and have the honour to report that we are of opinion that a seaman who has been convicted of desertion and punished under the Acts in question, is not thereby released from his articles ; and as they remain in force, notwithstanding his conviction and punishment, we do not see why he may not be guilty of another offence by again neglecting or refusing to join his ship, and again be dealt with under the 70th section of the 13th and 14th Vic., c. 93, by another imprisonment, or by being conveyed on board the ship. Clearly, if instead of being imprisoned in the first instance he had been conveyed on board, or had voluntarily joined the ship after such imprisonment, and had again deserted, he would have been amenable to a second proceeding for such desertion, and we cannot see any distinction between .these cases and that of a second neglect or re-