The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-17 00:00:00

THE EXHIBITION BUILDING.

Lord ENFIELD gave notice of his intention to ask the
noble lord at the head of the Government whether he had
not received a report from the Treasury to the effect that the
value of the Exhibition building was only £30,000 less the
cost of pulling it down ; and, if :so, whether there was any
objection to lay the report upon the table before the discus-
sion was taken on the proposal to purchase the building.
Mr. AIL RTON gave notice that when the vote for the
purchase of the building was brought forward he should
move a resolution to the effect that, in the opinion of the
House, the sum of £67,000 voted for the purchase of the
land at Kensington should be applied to the discharge of
the liabilities of the commissioners of 1851, and that the
property of the commissioners, subject to any charges upon
it, should be vested in the Commissioners of Works. (Hear,
hear.)
THE COURT-MARTIAL ON CHARLES THOMAS•

Mr. HADFIELD asked the Secretary to the Admiralty
whether his intention had been called to the proceedings of
a court-martial held on board her Majesty's ship Victory,
at Portsmouth, on Charles Thomas, a seaman, charged
with insubordination and using offensive language to a
boatswain, who had ordered the liberty-boat to leave before
its appointed time, when the prisoner was returning to his
ship, after the expiration of his leave of absence to get mar-
ried ; and if so, whether it was true that, under the circum-
stances of that case the prisoner was adjudged to be reduced
to the second class, to receive forty-eight lashes, to be im-
prisoned in Winchester Gaol for two years, and then to be
discharged with disgrace from her Majesty's navy ; and
whether he would lay the proceedings of the court upon
he table of the house.

Lord C. PAGET said the hon. member was misinformed
with respect to some of the particulars of the case. In the
first place, the hon. member was mistaken in his assump-
tion that the sailor Charles Thomas was prevented merely
by accident from returning to his ship ; that was not so, for
according to the evidence of the other sailors in the boat,
they did not quit the shore until the appointed time, and
Thomas was not down in time to go on board. However,
he afterwards found his way to the ship, and then he showed
himself very indignant towards the boatswain in charge of
the boat, and used most violent, offensive, disgusting, and
insubordinate language towards that officer, and towards
the captain of the ship. His offence was so grave that it
was naturally thought requisite he should be tried by court-
martial, and accordingly he was so tried. The second in-
accuracy of the hon. member was in stating that the prisoner
had been on leave of absence to get married. Now, the pri-
* liar himself set up no such defence ; he stated that he had
,een 0
on shore to see his brother, and had got intoxicated.
But the evidence of the other sailors was that he was sober
when _
'" melee use of the very gross language charged
correet7ate,„ sentence of the court-martial, it had been
g, Rear, be:::;. by the hon. member. (Ironical cries of
like individuals Reims bound to say that courts-martial,
criesof Rear:v.7_7.e occasionally liable to err—(ironical
leniency, and 60702 —sometimes erring on the side of
(Hear, hear.) At urea "ling on the side of severity.
courts-martial came and% laraer time, the proceedings of all
and it not =frequently happenecii4e revision of the Admiralty,
able to exercise the blamed pri,,,,...tbete the Admiralty were
tigate the sentences upon inii,o7eni;
and :3:1 iheartiercyit, rivdeartoedratoi,,
them sentences were too harsh
the present case the Admiralty would bheavaeno doubt that in
of exercising their mitigatory privilege. gi...the°l,Portunity
he believed the house would agree with InEn—durtr.) But
arrangement the Admiralty might make, t' Whatever
gation of the sentence might be enforced, it s 1
_6Z mica_l. be
clearly understood that that mitigation was not the result
of the interference of that house. For it certainly would
not conduce to the discipline of the navy if that house were
turned into a court of appeal from decisions of courts-mar_
tial. (Hear, hear.) Such being the circumstances of the
case, he hoped the hon. member would not press for a pro-
duction of the proceedings ; and the more especially as,
under the Naval Discipline Act, the prisoner would be en-
titled, after an interval of three months, to a copy of the
sentence and the proceedings of the court.
Mr. HADFIEL D expressed a hope that some means
would be devised for preventing the publication of such In-
accurate statements.
Lord C. PAGET said he sincerely wished he could pre-
vent misrepresentations of the kind appearing in news-
papers ; and, as he was on the subject, he might observe,
in reply to a question put to him by the right hon. member
for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), that there was not the '
slightest foundation for a statement which had appeared the
other day in the papers relative to a sailor having been or-
dered to prison for three years, and as having committed
suicide in consequence. The only suggestion he had to offer