The Express.
London, England, 1860-08-22 00:00:00

(Stamped, ld. Additional.)

by the noble lord. His noble fitted told them that the
discipline of the navy was as good new as it had ever been,
if not better. He must give a direct contradiction to that
statement. He believed the discipline of the navy was
very much relaxed indeed. Drunkeneess had increased
lamely, and he bad been told that the drunkenness which
had gone on on board the Edinburgh was shocking. He
thought, however, what the Admiralty had done
now in bringing forward these new articles of
war would tend more than anything else to improve
the discipline of the navy. The manner in which punish-
ment had been changed by the bill would have a moat ex-
cellent effect—substituting penal punishments for various
other punishments would check offences to an extraordinary
degree. He was not, however prepared to my that corpo-
ral punishment could safely be entirely done away with,
sad be would even la farther, and my that if it were alto-
balled the discipline of the navy would be altogether
destroyed. At the same time he thought corporal punish-
ment ought not In he inflicted upon petty officers, who
would feel a paratpunishment much more.

Clauses tram 1 were agreed to.
On clause 5, Which was to the effect that every person
subject to *oast, and not being a commanding officer, who
should not use his utmost exertions to carry oat the orders
of litg mmelkies when preparing for action, or who was
guilty of cowardice, should suffer death,
$z C. HINER said he could not conscientiously ap-
prove of lite whole of this clause. He held that it was
unjust Millinkoper, after having pressed a man one day
into ties Jervioe, to hang him, perhaps, the next day on
' going lite'sction because his nervesi were not strong enough
testildoseofleis fighting the enemy. He thought this was
=common sense, as well as ton limon. He should
*a words " death for wardice" be left out of
the dame. nave was sot the malest necessity for their
insertion, for if there we/ an lot ih a man, the fear of
being hanged would not make hip fight.
Hr. WILLIAMS thought it ime so difficult to define
what was cowardice, that in his opinion the penalty ought
to be struck oat of the clause.
Lord C. PAGET said that although it was probably only
ih sa extreme Came that the court would indict death for
cowardice, yet such cases might trim, and therefore he did
not see how they could exclude that penalty from this
clause.

Eitz J. PARINOTON hoped his hon. and gallant friend
would accept the answer given by the noble lord.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clime was agreed to, as were clauses 6,7, and 8.
On clause 9, which was to the effect that any person
found asleep at, or deserting from, his poet, should be dia.
mimed the service.

said he waa disposed to think that the
punishment of death ought to attach to the offence of leaving
one's pot. There sus no knowing what frightful oonse-
guineas might result From sleeping at or deserting an im-
tair Jt.
PSA post
KINGTON said it seemed to him that what.
ever their maximum punishment ought to be, that maxi-
mum punishment should be inflicted upon a man who de-
serted his post.
Sir F. SMITH en.d they had a very serious and a very
alight offence placed in the same clause. He wished to
know what description of pineihment would be awarded for
the offence of sleeping at one's post.
Sir M. SEYMOUR was disposed to adhere to the penal-
ties under the old code for these two offence, namely,
psin of death, or such other punishment as the Admiralty
might award.
. .

After some further discussion, the clause was agreed to.
On Clause 45,
Mr. BRADY said be should like to bare some amuriume
that corporal punishment would be limited to a certain
number of stripes, as it was in the army.
Lord C. PAGET said he would agree to limit the punish.
meat to fifty lashes
Mr. WILLIAMS understood that by the existing rule it
was limited already to 48 lashes in the navy, but from the
mode in which the lashes were laid on, it was much more
severe than in the army. It was usual to strike with
force, and take time between the Whet He bad
greater force,
that 50 lashes in the navy were equal to 100 in
the army.
Sir C. NAPIER did not see why two more lashes should
be added to the 48. It was true, as the hoe. member for
Lambeth had said, that the flogging was much more severe
in the navy.
The clause was agreed to.
On clause
Mr. HAALD said the system of corporal punishment
wee altogether a great mistake, and contrary to the spirit of
the age and the present state of society. It was not vow
so much lnflicted by the civil magistrates as formerly, and
milder punishments were found to operate better. In the
county of York it had been abolished, and the cat was
never used there, but in Lancashire, he regretted to say, it
was still prevalent ;and he would produce some returns to
show the comparative results. In schools too, flogging,
which was formerly mortised to • shameful extent, was
now less resorted to. He found in the clauses of this bill
much confusion as to the infliction of corporal punishment,
and he wished to provide more distinctly against repeated
floggings for one and the same offence.

ford C. PAGET mid the punishment for one offence
would be limited to 48 lashes, by a proviao which he would
insert at the end of the clause. It was a mistake to sup-
pose that the government ware about to extend the sphere
of corporal punishment by this bill. They only intended to
control it, and to define the cases in which it might be
awarded.

Mr. WILLIAMS objected to that portion of the clause
which allowed judgment of death to be given by a m►jo-
rite eonsisting of four-fifths of the members of the coma•
martial. What he desired was, that in order to par
judgment of death the court should be unanimous, am m
the criminal procedure in our courts of common law the
whole of the jurymen were required to agree in their ver-
dict. lie would, therefore, move that the second paragraph
of clause 46 be struck out.

V~Lord C. YAGf:T raid
it was a mistake to propose, with
take most philanthrope views, to strike out this part of the
clause, for then the matter would he left as it now stood,
and sentence of death might be given by the decision of a
bare majority of the court. It was therefore from motives
of humanity that this clause, as he proposed it, required
that where the court-martial did not exceed five members,
four of them should concur in the judgment of death, or
five if the oourt consisted of seven.
. . .

The amendment was negatived without a division, and a
proviso was added, that in any cue of corporal punish-
ment not more than 4R lashes should be inflicted.

Mr. K'HITE still thought it was repugnant to civilian
nations that a man should be put to death without the
unanimous judgment of the court which tried him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL mid it was not required in
a court-martial that the members should be unanimous, in
the same manner as a jury were required to be. It would
be impossible to maintain discipline on board a ship if they
were required to be unanimous.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 47.
(in clause 48,
Sir J. GRAHAM mid he had hitherto abstained from
discussing any of the clauses of this bill, because he felt
with Sir John Pakington that this was a matter that was
much better left to those who had professional experience
and legal knowledge ; but having been somewhat orievenaat
with naval affair. and taking the deepest interest in the wawa
and p rep it of that noble profession, and entertaining an
opinion, which he was afraid would not be acceptable to the
ocitumittee generally with regard to a portion of the clause
they were now discussing,. he should fail in his duty if he
did not express that opinion. So far as his sympathies
went, he should wish the utmost limit to be put upon the
infliction of corporal punishment. He would not discuss
the question in the abstract, because the committee had
adopted corporal punishment. He thought Lord Melbourne
and the late Sir GeorgeCockburn introduced a most salutary
check on corporal punishment in the navy, by issuing a re-
gulation that it should not be inflicted, except in the case d
mutiny, until 48 hours after the offence, and that
there mast be a record in the shape of a war-
rant of each punishment, which warrant was sent
to the Admiralty. And one of the moat important duties
of the Board of Admiralty was carefully to revise, that
list of punishments, and if there was any ground for be.
larittliat it had been inflicted unnecessarily or on unjust
go
the Admiralty could call for an explanation. If
the ship was in good order and the infliction of the punish-
ment of flogging was infrequent, they might conclude that
the captain was a good captain, but if the infliction of the
punishment was frequent, and the explanation of the
captain was cot satisfactory, in his humble judgment that
captain ought to be superseded without paying off the ship.
Saving only the non-exercise of this power, be did not think
'that any check was wanting against any abuse of the
'power of the commanding officer. Now, this clause three—
The CHAIRMAN here observed that they were upon
clause 48, and the right hon. baronet sat down.
Clause 48 was then agreed to.

On dense 49,
Wu J. GRAHAM said at present, saving the restriction he
had already mentioned, the commanding officer alone had
the power of inflicting corporal punishment. In most ease
be premed/id on the report of an inferior officer ; but by
this clause an investigation was required, except is the
case of mutiny. The effect of this, he thought, would
be prejudicial to discipline. If a captain saw an
offence committed be could not act on his own
judgment and knowledge, bat must delegate the inquiry to
inferior officers, and if those officers should wish to gain
popularity in the ship at the commanding officer's expense
they could do so, and the commanding officer would have
to inflict the punishment against their opinion, which would
destroy his influence over the crew. If they made this con-
cession once it was irrevocable, and it might have a fatal
effect, but he had the grc.ite,.t confidence in the noble dub
at the heed of the Admiralty. and in the noble lord the
Secretary. His judgment would be materially influeneed by
the opinion of the two admirals sitting below the gangway.
Sir O. NAPIER said he looked upon this clause as the
mod important in the bill. A captain was now the judge,
the jury, and the executioner. If an officer complained to
him, be had always a feeling towards the officer and against
the matt, sad if he did sot take the pert of the officer the

[TWOPENCE.

men believed that he did. The inferior officers were always
more inclined to severity than the captain. Be thought
that if there were cotuis•martial thed;ptain might to award
the Punishment, exactly as • judge =Jibe*, he ought
ha sot to be pmeent when the Mires indicted, but
the
tt
secon it ought to d
officer. be kali under the superintendence of
Sir M. SEYMOUR segpstedthat the pro Posed regulations
should be accompanied by rules for the guidance of the
officers who would have to carry it into ect. He sub.
mitted, also, that in small weasels, gunboats for instance,
there would be great difficulty in forming • court.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the hon. and salient member for
Southwark evidently contemplated a court-martial, sworn
evidence, and • decision that would be binding upon the
captain ; wherem the clause provided for none of those
things. Again, the gallant admiral did not seem to
bear in mud the possibility of the captain himself
witnessing a man's misconduct, as for example, if with
his own eyes he saw • sailor skulking in a gale
of wind when he ought to be going aloft. In • case like
that, the commanding officer himself would be the best
judge of the offender's culpability. He (the right hoe. b...
ronet) altogether diseented from the reasons given by the
gallant sandral why the captain should not be present at
the infliction of the punishment. Surely a man ought not
' to be compelled to undergo an amount of Fein which the
captain, bad he been present, would have thought unne-
cessarily severe. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not forget that the clause
came before the hoses recommended by a bard of admi-
ralty, which comprised several eminent officers, and by the
noble lord who had himself bad practical experience of
commanding ships. The object of the proposed regulation
was, he presumed, to give the captain every possible moral
sap Pert is the discharge of his difficult and important
dutum ; and at the same time to hold out to the sailor the
utmost possible guarantee for his being treated with jus-
tice. He believed that the clause would tend to secure
both those objects, bat he would suggest that its details
should be ear4ully reomaidered before the report.
Sir C. NAME. thought that if there was not to be a
regular court-martial the inquiry had better be dispensed
with, for it would be regarded by the men m litre better
then a farce. As for offences comnutted under the personal
eamaisairce of the captain, he had to remark that • colonel
had no power to flog • soldier for anything that he might
see him do.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS begged to move the omission of this
part of the clause, in order to substitute a provision for a
proper court martial.
Sir J. GRAHAM observed that the language of the
clause was certainly very ambiguous, the pronoun " his"
being sometimes so sued as to reader it dot/fitful whether
it applied to the captain or to the offender.
Lord C. PAGET admitted the importance of the sugges-
tion of Sir James Graham and the grave difficulty of the
question. Ho should be sorry to take away from the cap-
tain of a ship the least responsibility. Were this done
there would be an end of discipline. Supposing • captain to
notice a man not laying out as he ought, he would send for
his second in command and Erect inquiry to be made so as
to ascertain whether the man was guilty of the offence wil-
fully. He did not think that the responsibility of the cap-
tain would be in the least affected by the course proposed
by this clause. He would still have the power of over-
ruling the opinion morseled by the officers. There was
grad difficulty in dealing with this question ,•
bat he was convinced that the alteration proposed
would operate to the improvement of discipline. The res-
triction referred only to corporal punishment, and in any
serious cease, such se mutiny, the captain had the power of
setting snide the decision of the other officers.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved the omission of certain
words from the clause, with a view to the adoption of a
court-martial in all cases of punishment.
Sir G. C. LEWIS recommended the hon. member to pro-
pose • new clause of his own on the bringing up of the
report.
Mr. AYRTON said that the proposal of Mr. Williams
was utterly impracticable.
The amendment of Mr. Williams was negatived without
a division, and the clause was agreed to.
On clause 50,
Lord HOTHAM said that much inconvenience might re-
sult from there being no one oo the spot qualified to con-
vene • court-martial.

Lord C. PAGET mid that the commanding officer of any
squadron or detachment would have that authority.
Wherever there were three ships under one command, there
would be power to order a court-martiaL
Clauses 50 to 67 were agreed to.
Open clause 70,
Mr. HENLEY said he hoped some provision would be
made for the ease of the gaols being full. At present a
governor was under a penalty of 1001. for refusing to receive
a , to be recovered in a summary meaner.
c.II7IIES recommended the insertion of the words
" without lawful excuse" after the word " refuse."
Mr. HENLEY said that in country prisons they were in
thie difficaltygovernors of prisons were obliged to have
single cells for each prisoner, whereas formerly they were
enabled to double and treble the number of occupants of each
cell. _ _ .

The amendment was agreed to, and the wonis added to
the clause.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill passed
through committee. •
The house resumed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.
The adjourned debate on this bill was resumed.
Upon the question that clause I should part of the bill,
Mr. HENN MY asked the Attorney-General to give the
house bis construction of this clams.
Sr G. C. LEWIS said that it was so long since this de-
bate was adjourned, that be did not know whether he was
entitled to address the house or not.—(Several boo. mem-
bers said " Spoke," upon which the right hon. baronet re-
sumed his seat.)
Sir G. Bovrrsit rose, but
The SPEAKER said the hon. gentleman had already
spoken, whereupon
The house immediately divided on the question, and the
numbers were :
For the clause
A,pinst
On the question that the dame be read a third time,
Mr. H.M.4 NKE3SY said his name was on the back of the
bill; but after the division which had just taken place, he
wished to disclaim say further connexion with the measure.
A long discusioe ensued, originated by Sir G. Bowrui,
in which he strongly animadverted upon the conduct of the
government, stating that he had been deceived and betray-
al in reference to the clause. In the course of his observe-
tions be was called to order by the SPEAKER for certain
language which he used. His argument was that the clause
as it stood was injurious to the interests of the Roman
catholic,.
The ATTORNET-GINERAL and Lord PALMERSTON expli-
citly denied that there had been any breach of faith on the
part of the government, who only supported a clause which
had been the result of an arrangement acceded to by the
whole house.
THE COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.
The •house then went into committee on the Court of
Meamayßill. A division took place on a clause proposed
by Ma Hadfield, relating to the appointment of certain ad-
ditional clerks in the chief clerk's office, which was carried
by 38 to 32.
A division took
_place on a clues proposed by Mr. Kie-
l:wird, giving an adclitional clerk to the registrar the same
salary as the other clerks, and it was rejected by :Si to 32.
The house then resumed.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMIKSTON BILL.
On the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the
Ecclesiastical Commission Bill,
Mr. B. OSBORNE made an attack on the commission
with reference to the mode in which they had dealt with
the funds in their charge, and moved an amendment to the
effect that any augmentation to the stipends of any cede.
sisatical dignitary should be laid before this house six weeks
prior to its bang submitted to her Majesty in Council.
Sir G. C. LEWIS urged that this amendment was not re-
levant to the Ler& amendments, and could not be moved.
The SPEAKER agreed in this view.
The Lords' amendments were agreed to.
The other business having been diapered of, the house
adjourned at ten minutes to 2 o'clock.

Hum or LONDON.—The weekly return issued
by the Registrar-General states that the deaths in Loudon,
which were 999 in the previous week, rose to Lon in the
week that ended last Saturday. If the deaths from epi-
demic cholera in the thirty-third week of 1864 are excluded
from the returns of previous yews, it will be found that the
average number of deaths in corresponding weeks of the last
ten years is 1,091. With this average, corrected for increase
of population, the present return may be compared, in which
care tt will appear that the deaths of last week were less
than the maculated number by 171. The births ye.
gistered last week exceeded the deaths in the same period
by 656. Diarrhos, which had been increasing slightly
during the previous five weeks and in the week ending the
11th instant was fatal in 90 oases, exhibited no iocreese last
week, in which the deaths from it were 87. There were also
in the week 6 deaths from choleramd choleraic diarrlima, all
of which were those of infanta except one. A warehouseman,
aged 46 years, died on the 15th instant, at 68, Havelock-
street, Islington, of cholera, after 47 hours' illness. Not
more than 7 cams of smallpox were fatal ; of scarlatina there
were 37, and of diphtheria 6. Three girls died in one
family of scarlatina, within three days, at 3, Letchfield-
street, Soho. A master butcher, aged 31 year., died of
delirium tremens, the result of "intense anxiety and losses.'
An o6ner of the Indian Civil Service died of elephantimie.
A man and a woman died at the advanced ages respectively
of 97 and Oran. last week the births of 829 boys and
MI6 girls, in all 105 children, were registered in London.
In the ten corremoadink weeks of the years 1880.59 the
average number was UM.
SOUTH EASTMAN RAILW AT. —The directors of
this company have resolved to recommend the proprietors
sttrig to
ck.beiugorderatpaytzrantteofota
adiutTid.thlueetr,d4elndsperluingu.ceohalfnut..zpeeeerlhr
ilannymeeum..