The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-21 00:00:00

THE LOSS OF THE ORPHEUS.

The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGII called attention to the
wreck of the Oi pheus and the loss of upwards of 200 hands.
The ship was not sailing against the directions of the Admi-
ralty charts, but in accordance with them. The telegraph
flag was flying to cross the bar ; the ship did attempt to do
so, and was lost. The chart was dated in the year 1853,
but since that time the sands had shifted three-quarters of
a mile, and the ship, instead of going into the
open sea, ran immediately into the sand. He wished
to knew what steps the Admiralty had adopted to ascer-
tain the changes that took place in the shoals and sand-
banks, and what means were taken to convey the informs,
tion to commanders of ships.

The Duke of SOMERSET said the subject was indeed a
very painful one, and that feeling would be increased if
any carelessness could be proved against the Admiralty.
The change in the chart of 1853 was brought
under the notice of the Hydrographic officer, and the
necessary corrections were noted, and copies of the notice
was sent to the New Zealand station. Not only was this
done, but the Orpheus had a copy furnished to her, and in
the Hydrographer's Department at Portsmouth there was
a receipt from the ship for it at the time it was furnished.
The noble lord was also understood to say that, from infor-
mation supplied by one of the survivors from the wreck,
the captain had a copy of the corrections of the chart in
his hand when the ship struck. The noble lord made vari-
ous other (illusions to the steps taken by the Admiralty
relative to the keeping of commanders of vessels well ac-
quainted with alterations in their charts, and resumed his
seat by paying a very high tribute to the bravery of the
crew who perished with the unfortunate ship.
DRAINAGE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

The report of amendments on this bill was brought up,
and, after a short discussion, agreed to.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Lord CHELMSFORD objected to the bill, on the ground
that it was merely a declaratory act, which gave an erro-
neous construction to the one that was already the law.
After a short discussion the bill was read a third time
and passed.

COURTS OF INQUIRY.
The Earl of HARDWICKE rose to put a question to
the First Lord of the Admiralty in reference to courts of
inquiry in her Majesty's service. The noble lord said the
system of administering justice at present in existence in
the Royal navy was of the most objectionable nature, and
one which it was of the utmost importance should be im-
proved as speedily as possible. There were three modes in
which, in the navy, it had been the practice to carry on pub-
lic duty with reference to justice. First, the appointment of
certain officers, where the crime was not culpable, to meet
and ascertain whether there were grounds for trial. Such a
court usually consisted of three officers, who sat very much
as a grand jury, took one-sided evidence, and reported that
evidence to the Admiralty, If the Admiralty thought there
was ground for trial, there was then a court-martial ordered,
consisting of certain officers, before whom the prisoner was
brought, and the case was heard. In a court-martial the
prisoner had the opportunit y of examining and cross-exa •
mining witnesses, and making his defence, before sentence
was passed on him. He regretted, however, to state that a
practice was growing up which in the interests of the ser-
vice required checking; it was that of turning a court of in-
quiry into a court of trial and sentence. The Admiralty
also now took upon themselves the power of setting aside
the sentence of courts-martial to such an extent, that some
interference on the part of Parliament was required. The
consequence of this interference was that the respect which
the naval service had entertained for these courts had very
much abated. In support of his proposition of the despotic
character of the Admiralty, the noble earl quoted the case
of Lord Elphinstone, who was in 1862 in command of H.M.S.
Vigilant. In October of that year, while in charge of a pilot,
the vessel got on shore on the Gunfleet Sand at the month
of the Thames, under circumstances reflecting no blame on
the captain or master. The Admiralty directed a court of
inquiry, before which the captain made his statement. He
was not, however, allowed to hear the evidence brought
against him, although the court sat for five hours. A few
days afterwards he received a memorandum from the Ad-
miralty informing him that the Vigilant was placed in the
third division of the reserve at Sheerness—equivalent to
being dismissed his ship—and nine days later he received
a severe censure for having got his ship ashore under cir-
cumstances with which their lordships were highly dis-
pleased. Such a method of trying, sentencing, and execut-
ing a man he would venture to say was unheard of in Bri-
tish jurisprudence. The noble earl proceeded to criticise
the Autther proceeding of the Admiralty in the matter, who,
when applied to by Lord Elphinstone for a court-martial,
replied that before acceding to his request they would for-
ward to him a copy of the proceedings of the court of in-
quiry, wLten, if he thought he could controvert any of the
statements therein contained, the court-martial would be
granted. Knowing that the courts-martial were as rotten
as the courts of inquiry, Lord Elphinstone had declined the
offer on the ground that a court-martial could not restore to
him his ship or remove their lordships' censure.
The Duke of SOMERSET disclaimed in the fullest man-
ner. any desire or intention to make a quarrel with Lord
Elphinstone, and proceeded to justify the finding of the
court of inquiry. Nothing could be more clear than that,
with a pilot on board, with officers supposed to be superin-
tendino, the course of the ship, with charts showing the po-
sition of the bank, and with a lighthouse and signal buoys
within sight, her Majesty's ship Vigilant had been run
upon a 'honk in the broad daylight, where, after remaining
for 11 hours, she was so injured as to require very extensive
and expel sive repairs before she could be sent to sea. It was
an act that the merest novice of a yachting club would be
guilty of. A court of inquiry had been held in the ordinary
way, and when Lord Elphinstone had written demanding
a court-martial, a copy of the depositions before the other
court had been forwarded to him, with an offer that if after
reading them he still desired it, a court-martial should be
held. His lordship, finding he should not be able to answer
the case brought against him, with much judgment declined
the court-martial. Singularly enough, he was not satisfied
with what had been done, but appealed to the House of
Lords, which was not the most convenient place for offi-
cers ha the navy to come to have their characters
whitstned. (Hear, hear.) The fact was that in years
gone by the custom had been, in cases of that description,
to throw all the blame upon the master, and let the captain
go free. Public opinion was very properly opposed to a
continuance of that system, and the general idea was that
the captain should be compelled in a cas: of that kind to
share the blame.

The Marquis of TOWNSIIEND thought that Lord
Elphinstone was right in not going before a court-mar-
•tial ; and
The Earl of COLCHESTER said the court of inquiry
1928 not a very well constituted tribunal for the purpose of
eliciting truth.
The Earl of HARDWICK E said the captain ought not
to be held responsible when there was a pilot on board, and
he ,could not approve of the noble duke's having again
CE tamed Lord Elphinstone in that house —a censure
ich he was confident did not find an echo in their lord-
ships' hearts.

Et
xrl GRANITILLB thought Lord Elphinstone had
most cause to complain of his own injudicious friends,
lookin g at all the circumstances of the case.
The Earl of DERBY wished particularly to call atten-
tion to the fact that Lord Elphinstone had never bees
heard in his own defence.
Lord CHELMSFORD (referring to a comparison that
bad been instituted between the court of inquiry and a
grand jury) said he did not think a prisoner would have
much chance if the judge were to say, "Now, Prisoner, I
have read all the evidence, and I am persuaded you are
guilty; but you can have a trial if you like."
Lord CRANWORTH thought the court of inquiry
system ought to be got lid of as soon as possible, even
though Lord Elphinstone might have no particular reason
to ,complain. (Hear, hear.)

After a few words fr'm Lord DENMAN the subject
dropped,

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.
The earl of SHAFTESBURY said, as he had been in-
formed by the noble Foreign Secretary that he had not
yet received the answers to certain despatches, he would
p6stpone his observations upon this subject to the ear-
ent date after the answers had been received.
Best conveni

COURTS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
Their lordship; adjourned at 25 minutes past seven.