The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

.

hon. member said. that u it had been intimated that to
give all the above returns would involve greet trouble, he
would not press fir theatre, that extent, hut simply ask fur the
return (as was understood) from January last year. He
wished by the information obtained to do credit to those
officers who had inflicted the least amount of punishmeut.
He desired not to go into put proceedings, but to obtain the
means of preventing improper proceedings in future.
Capt. BERKELEY thought this constant endeavour to
excite the feeling of the public on a subject which the British
sailor had never complaiaed of himaelt was lik-ly to subvert
the best interest, of the navy and bring the service into dis-
repute.
Admiral BOWLES thought such a return would bring
the navy into disrepute, although he was convinced that
the kindest treatment was adopted by British naval officers
to their Crews.
Mr. WARD said, the Admiralty were quite prepared to
do what had been agreed to be done as to the army returns ;
the officers of the navy ought to be prep tred to do what the
officers of the army were ready to do. (Hear, hear.)
He believed that publicity was a wholesome practice,
and Its did not think it would at all make the good officers
timid, but it might tend to make the hasty more cautious.
Sir C. NAPIER acquiesced in the motion for the returns,
but was sorry the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty had
objected to make them retrospective on the grounti that the
officers could have hod no notice—(heal, hear)—as
he was sati-fled the greatest kindoeio and humanity had
always been exhibited by them to their crews. (Hear.)
As to reportiug to the senior officers all cotes of punishment
to be inflicted, how was that, be should like to know, to be
done at sea ? What was the captain of a ship in the Medi-
terranean to do with his admiral lying snug in the Tagus ?
What was the meaning of these sort of returns he was sure
be did not know. If the hon. member for Montrose was
popularity hunting—(loud laughter) —he begged of him, at
any rate, to hum for public approbatioa by some safer
method than by depicting all the captains in the navy as
tyrants, and exciting all their crews to mutiny. (Loud
opposition cheers.)
Admiral DUNDAS explained, that it was not intended
that the order as to reporting punishments to admirals should
apply to ships at sea.
Mr. WILLIAMS was astonished to hear the galls,*
member fur Marylebone argue as if flogging in the nu,
was an essential part of the British entstitution. (Lora
ministerial cheers.) He was thankful to her Majesty's go
vernment for conceding this motion.
Mr. S. HERBERT thought it as well to advise certain
hon. gentlemen opposite that these were discussions better
suited to a board than to that house, and that it would be
well that they should make up their minds as to what they
really intended as board before they came down there to
explain their views. With respect to ft egging the re was no
state of society in which, according to his view of the case,
corporal punishment was not under some circumstances de-
sirable ; and the soundness of this view had been confirmed
by the house when they passed bills under which
such puniehtnentt were ordered to be inflicted in
the cases of persons wantonly attacking her Majesty,
in cases of wilful damage of public property, and
in the cases also of juvenile incendiaries. Such being the
case he must say that he very much objected to returns
being made of corporal punishments inflicted.
Mr. F. MAIJLE said that when he considered under what

;M;tan the question of corporal punishments had
been brought f orward in the house last session, and what
excitement wrs occasioned in the public mind upon the ques-
tion generally, he could not help thinking that the house and
the government ought cheerfully to consent to the production
of any returns of punishments in the army and navy, which
were so framed as not to be calculated to do injury to the
services. (Hear, hear.) Ile must say also that he adhered
to the opinion he had previously expressed, that punishments
in the army ought to be submitted to the test of public
opinion. (Oh! oh!) He said it not only as • member of
the house, but as an officer who had served in the army, that
it was highly desirable that the public should be
made acquainted, as far so possible, with the
facts relating to corporal punishments in both services.
Sir R. PEEL thought that the subject of military disci-
pline was one which was very fit fur consideration. It wail
said that they should know what progress was made with re-
spect to the abolition of punishment, which they were all
most desirous to see. Though he agreed with his
hon friend to the extent that if the members
of her Majesty'a government, having considered the
matter, saw no objection to the returns being made, that
they should not be interfered with, yet he thought that
the modification proposed by the hon. g °Semen would be a
dangerous one, He would much rather have a retura re-
trospective thin a prospective return. The Secretary of the
Admiralty said that he would not give a return for the two
plat years as he would for the future, because the *Blurs
had not been cautioned that their names would appear be-
fore parliament. He thought that that implied • great reflec-
tion first on the naval service, and next on ohe Board of Ad-
miralty, under whose direction it was placed. He wu now
saCilikTilp;:instramleltyito. f desiretlie,ere
cases in ow7ihcish nwaivoyngto.
headed individuals had carried the principle of corporal pun-
ishment too far, hut he protested against judging of them by
these isolated ca-es. Ile was sure that that must be
the desire of the Board of Admiralty, and they had the
means of most effectually checking an act of impropriety on
the part of a naval officer. (Hear.) y There were some cases
in which that cliscipliue may be carried to too great a length,
but in those rases the admiralty could mark their disap-
proval by removing their confidence from the officers. There
was no better means of dealing with them. If they
taught the naval service to look up to the House
of Commons, instead of to the crown, for favour
or approbation they would do a great deal of injury. (Hear,
hear.) He thought that was a dangerous principle to act
upon, which refund a return for the last two years which
would be given fur the futur,‘, in order that the names of
the officers should not be given before they were made aware
that such would be done, and that then the House of Com-
mons would have the power of judging of them. Ile
thought that that indirectly implied that the House of Com-
mons should have some immediate controul over the
navy. Thee should throw overboard the whole matter
rather than establish that principle. (Hear.) If the govern-
ment thought that there would be no inconvenience in pro-
ducing the returns, why of course they were the best judges.
He hoped that in justice to the service, and in justice to the
i Board of Admiralty, that the secretary of the board would
not say that returns would be given in future which were
now refused.

Mr. W. COWPER said that the return agreed to be
given by the government differed essentially from that of
the hon. member for Montrose, in so much no the former did
not contain the names of the officers nor the nature of each
separate offence. His kon. friend could frame a return, no
doubt, which would not be liable to the objections made by the
right hon. baronet opposite. Is his opinion they should
have the same legislation for the nary as they had for the
army.
Mr. GOUI.BURN said that there seemed to be among
the very members of the Board of Admiralty such a differ-
ence of opinion as to the retina which they were prepared
to give and the return moved for by the hon. member
for Montrose that he thought that before the house came to
any conclusion on the question the Board of Admiralty ought
to be prepared to state to the house what were the returns
they were prepared to give. When they bad that before
them they could then see how far it was liable to the objec-
tion made.

---
Lord J. RUSSELL said that before the motion was made
he understood from the President of the Board of the Admi-
ralty, that he had the concurrence of the board in thinking
that there would be no objection to giving a return of the
punishments on hoard ships, as they were given with regard
to regiments iii the army. Haring had that information
from him who was responsible for the conduct of that de-
partment, and having no doubt that he seriously considered
the matter, he expected that there would be no objection to
giving returns of that nature. That did not imply that he
was ready to grant them in the shape they were moved for,
but that h • was ready to agree to the return of the
number of offic rs and punishments in each ship.
When the immediate and total abolition of punishment
was urged last year his right hon. friend agreed to the re-
turn which was moved for by the member for Winchester.
He was of opinion that there was more mischief done, and
a greater feeling of jealousy created by discussions on
such matters t• an by any refusal to produce such returns. He
thought that his noble friend at the head of the Admiralty
was quite right in consenting to the production of
the returns. He saw no objection to their production.
There was a short time ago an impression entertained by
the Board of Admiralty that Captain Stopford had been
guilty of undue severity, but when the matter was brought
before a court-martial, that feeling was quite removed. lie
trusted that his noble friend would withraw his motion,
which ended with proposing to give the names of the com-
manders under whom corporal punishments have been in-
flicted for the lest two years. Ile trusted that the house
would not object to a similar return to that
which would he given with regard to punishments in the
army. The noble lord concluded his observations by stating,
that it was his firm conviction that if corporal punishment
wan to be maintained in the navy, it was desirable that there
should be no concealment of the facts connected with each
CU., which, if published, would, he was sure, throw any-
thing but discredit on the officers.
After a few words from. Col. T. Woon, Capt. Haunts, and
Mr. realism),
Mr. HU tdE said ahat after what had fallen from the right
hon. gentleman, he would not press his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
RAILWAYS.
Mr. STRUTT postponed his motion for leave to bring in
a bill for regulating the proceedings of the commiesioners of
railways and for amending the law relating to railways.
BREWING FRUIT SUGAR BILL.
On the report on this bill being brought up, the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in answer to an
hon. member (whether suns, naannfactured from beet-root
would be admitted 1 that the question was one of very con-
sidernble importance, and which would require much con-
sideration.
NAVY ESTIMATES.
Mr. WARD laid on the table the Nivy Estimates.
The house adjourned St 20 minutes after twelve.

NEW RECteRD OFFICEO.—We have reason to believe
that the site of a new building Lir the general custody of the
Public Records, is all but fixed, on the Rolls Estate in
Chancezy-lane—and the plans for the structure hare, we
believe .been preparcd.—.4t/sesontat.
SALT VERSUS TUE POTATO DISEAnE.—AIIow me
to suggest to those whose po•atoee are already forward
enough, or as soon as they ere so. to try the effect of a slight
top dressing of salt, and to publish the result. It would be
interesting to know from correspondents residing near the
sea if they can confirm or refute my statement in your
paper of Deo. ii, that potatoes grown in the neighbourhood
of enit-wafer were entirely or in most cues free from the pre-
vailing epidemic.—Gardeners' Gozette.