The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-27 00:00:00

The house then went into committee on the bill.

Lord SEYMOUR, said he had voted for going into
committee after the strong appeal of the noble lord, but
as he thought the house ought to have the opinions of
the law officers of the Crown upon the bill before it pro-
ceeded further, he would move that the chairman do
report progress. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON supported the motion for re-
porting progress.
Mr. W. A. WILKINSON observed that if the noble
lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department
was right in his principle, it was equally as applicable
to hemp and tallow as money, and therefore further
time should be allowed for considering the hill.
Lord PALMERSTON said there was a difference be-
tween directly lending money to the Russian Govern
went to enable them to carry on the war, and paying
money to a Russian subject in exchange for his produce.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. V. SMITE had voted for going into committee,
because the Secretary of State for the Home Department
told him that he would be guilty of high treason if he
did not do so ; but while they were disposing of an in-
ternational measure like this, they should have the as-
sistance of the law advisers of the Crown ; and he must
now vote for reporting progress. (Hear, hear.) •
After some further discussion,
Lord D. STUART said he had already submitted the
bill to both the law officers of the Crown, and they saw
DO objection to it. (Hear, hear.)

The committee then divided, when there appeared--
For reporting progress 32
Against it
Majority

Sir J. V. SHELLEY, one of the tellers, reported to
the committee that an hon. member who was in the
house when the division was called had bolted up stairs
—(3 laugh)—and abstained from voting. (Cries of
"Name, name.") He referred to Mr. Lowe, the lion.
member for Kidderminster, and Secretary to the Board
of Control. (Hear, hear.) . . .

The CHAIRMAN said the hon. baronet must bring
the hon. member to the table.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY—But I don't know where to
find him. (Roars of laughter.)
The subject dropped, and the consideration of the bill
was proceeded with.
Considerable discussion took place upon clause one,
but ultimately
Sir J. PAKINGTON moved that the chairman report
progrdss as it was impossible to go on without i.he aid of
the law officers of the Crown.
Lord PALMERSTON assented, as did also Lord D.
STUART, and the bill was postponed until to-morrow at
twelve o'clock.

had been done which was in anyway contrary to the
law

Mr. HENLEY, without going into the merits of this
e, which he believed reflected no discredit on the
noble lord, argued that the lunacy law required amend-
ment, so as to prevent persons from being locke 1 up
against their will, except upon competent authority and
atter the fullest public examination.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY was glad to hear from the noble
lord that steps would be taken to render the black-holes
attached to the Metropolitan Police-courts more fit for
the reception of human beings. (Hear, hear.)
The subject then dropped.
THE EREBUS AND TERROR.
Sir G. PECHELL wished to ask the right honour-
able baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, what re-
gulations had been made for the payment of the wages
due to the representatives of the officers and seamen of
her Majesty's ships Erebus and Terror ? He understood
that although the engagement with respect to double
pay had been adhered to, the representatives of the
()facers who had been promoted to higher ranks, after
the ships left England, were only to receive the pay of
the ranks wLich they respectively held at the time of
their going out. He thought that the wages of those
officers should be those of the ranks to which they had
been raised, and he also expressed an opinion that there
had been something like sharp practice in reference to
the time to which the wages were to be paid—the 31st
of March.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he was quite sure that the
house and the country would be most anxious that the
case of the representatives of the officers and seamen
who had been lost in the Erebus and Terror should be
dealt with with every consideration for their just claims;
and be had been somewhat grieved to hear the hon- and
gallant officer say, that he thought there had been some
sharp practice.
Sir G. PECHEL—I said with reference to the 31st
of March.

Sir J. GRAHAM—WeII, with reference to the 31st of
March. What were the facts of the case The officers
the crews of the Erebus and Terror were last heard
of in July, 1845 ; and for nine years from that
time double .pay had been allowed to their repre-
sentatives—that was to say, from. July, 1845, to March
1854,- those representatives had been entitled, upon pro-
clueing on the part of commissioned officers letters of
probate or of administration, to double pay up to that
time, subject only in their case to the single condition
that they should give a bond of indemnity to the public.
This bond had been drawn by Mr. Justice Crowder
When the Admiralty had the advantage of his assistance
as their law officer, and whick was intended to indem-
nify the public in case those officers should appear ; for,
however distant the time might be, in case they should
ever return, the debt, of course, would be due to them.
The representatives of the petty officers and seamen had
also received double pay up to the same time, but with-
out being put to the expense of probate, and without
entering into a bond. The number of commissioned
officers in the two ships he thought was 24, and of the
other classes 102 ; and of these, 19 representatives of
commissioned officers, and 83 representatives of petty
officers and seamen, had already received the full
amount which was due to those whom they represented.
There remained only the question of the officers who
had been promoted during the interval ; they were few
in number, but their case was strictly regulated by an
article in the Queen's instructions. The payments had
been calculated in conformity with that article—which
applied to officers promoted while serving, but not ap-
pointed to any ship in commission--and he thought they
had been properly so calculated; especially when it was
considered that they were dealing, not with the officers
themselves who had been promoted, and who had ren
dered the service for which that promotion had been
given ; and if they should happily ever return, it might
be open to consideration whether in their favour the
strict rule should not be relaxed ; but in the meantime,
and as between the public and their representatives, the
Admiralty had not hesitated to apply the rule as they
found it.
Captain SCOBELL thought his hon. and gallant
friend could not do better than leave the matter in the
hands of the Admiralty ; hut he trusted that the right
hon. baronet would reconsider the claims of the repre-
sentatives of that class of officers to which he had last
referred, for he could not believe that the regulation he
had read could have been intended to apply to the case
of ships locked up in the ice, as these had been, so as to
render it impossible for the officers promoted to come
home and claim the benefit of their promotion.
Sir T. ACLAND expressed his conviction that the
right hon. baronet would not stint the representatives
of these gallant officers and seamen of their fair remune-
ration, and that he might rely on the indulgent consider-
ation of the House of Commons for any appeal that he
might make on behalf of persons who had been exposed
to such great sacrifices.