The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-23 00:00:00

RECRUITING.

Mr. CORRY asked the Secretary to the Admiralty what
measures had boon adopted with the view of meeting the
difficulty which he had stated to exist of obtaining effi-
cient recruits for the Royal Marines, in consequence of
which the numbers borne were reduced to about 1,000
men below the number voted for the service of the finan-
cial years 18G3-1 and 18G4-5.

Lord C. PAGET said the matter had boon mot by lower-
ing the standard from sft. Tin. to aft. Gin.
TIIE CASE OF LIEUT.-COL. DAWKINS.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH brought the case of Lieut.-Col.
Dawkins, of the Guards, under the consideration of the
house. He said he had given notice to the noble marquis
opposite of his intention to ask a question relative to
the harsh treatment which Col. Dawkins had just received.
This gallant officer had been kept illegally under arrest
because ho refused to shake hands with his superior
officer. The matter had been referred to a Court of In-
quiry, and the result of that was that Colonel Dawkins
had been told to sell his commission, or, in the event of his
not doing so, he would bo placed on half-pay. He should
like to know whether there would be any objection to lay
on the table of the house the proceedings, together with
the Court of Inquiry. Ho had brought the matter forward
thus hurredly, because to-morrow Colonel Dawkins' name
would appear in the Gazette, and because no other member
felt disposed to do so.

Col. NORTH said he had read papers of Colonel Daw-
kin's, and he had not brought the matter foward because
he felt that the House of Commons was not the place to
discuss the discipline of the army. However, if the
assertions of Col. Dawkins were to bo relied on, then ho had
been heartlessly treated.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said he had received
tho notice of the question of the hon. member, and it was
the opinion of the Secretary for War, Earl de Groy, that
it would not be for the benefit of the service that the
proceedings of the court of inquiry should be made public.
With respect to the latter part of the hon. gentleman's
question, he could not answer it without its appearing in
the paper in the usual manner.

Sir J. FERGUSON thought that Col. Dawkins had been
hardly treated, and that he ought to bo allowed his request
for a court-martial.

Mr. HEADLAM said, with respect to what had boon
imputed to him, that it was quite devoid of truth..
Col. KNOX asked whether it was not illegal to put an
officer on compulsory half-pay, except from some physical
incapacity, without trial by court-martial.
Sir L. PALK thought that the case of Col. Dawkins
had been subject to gross perseoution.
Lord PALMERSTON thought it exceedingly unfair and
irregular to raise a discussion in that house without giving
notice to the persons whose conduct was the subject of
fault-finding. It was unfair to proceed to discuss the mat-
ter in a one-sided manner.

Mr. BRIGHT did not feel disposed to submit to the
learned and noble lord. A case of injustico had been stated,
and the House of Commons had the power, in his opinion,
to do whatever was right in the matter.

A somewhat stormy diseusion followed, when Mr. D.
Griffith said as the Government would give no promise
in the matter ho should move the adjournment of the
house.

The house divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment of the house ll2
Against it
Majority against the adjournment —6o
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL.
Mr. DISRAELI said he believedit Iva.; possible to arrive
at a solution of this question which would be satisfactory
to all sound and tempemte minds, and appealed to the noble
lord at the head of the Government to fix a morning sitting
for taking the committee on the bill. Ho would suggest the
morning of to-morrow (Tuesday) week for the purpose.
(Hear, hoar.)
Lord PALMERSTON said he was willing to assent to
the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. NEWDEGATE, while rejoicing that full opportu-
nity would be allowed for discussing the bill, said he did
not intend to withdraw his amendment, on the motion for
going into committee, that the committee on the bill bo
postponed for six months.
Mr. WHALLEY said the discussion would interfere
less with the progress of other business if the committee
was fixed for Monday morning instead of Tuesday.