The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-19 00:00:00

~ i 7
c.,~
dr r r

~2-~~~

-, ...(4,i_.4 ,it•
,
- . • :v4,4 - • „via -
A
4111111111Ihlik.NN.:.--'
e 4:
Arif' ..•. • 0.17 1 . -4 • .
,1,.,A._
~. ~;„ -, ,1t.,, ..,.. 4 -,
tr,..:., ..,. 4' t. -z.,,, '. ' 'II',- . t:-tt:- .4*/ _ ix- 44 . 1 ' --'' 4. .., ,
.. i - ~ .* 4e4t.' i \',4;rt .N. r•
1
IllktA flit '''.
• , ,
• ..., • f , -,,tii„,1:4., .0 A :: 7/ ;
,:y.'5...; -:^ ~ ' , • ' 14 `,...-, ,'''
.1 , ~ '•: i.ll '' . I ,
4. ..„, . z 0. Nt:lll4l.r 411, 4.)1 ~.31. mik....
0- , # - , ' ,, r.,. .-
1:
_-,ta-,, • tr4L4-- .', -..., 4 -ro. •-• . 4.', , -,;-..104, . ~:,....,„ -,31
. . -'.z/ ,1714 '
' - .4 ,(4., Dit--t- ~,.., fi,;--.....i. , , ~,z...----- ~,---
..40„..---,:j....... .
~,_ is •4 N ,
~ , ,„1", 14,
.-...!,
......., ,F. Zyn .„, . \ , T-N
44 411-01 0
* ~.c

LONDON,
_WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 19, 1854.

R. ALBERT SMITII'S MONT BLANC,
-LVJE_ including the BEIINESE OBERLAND and the SIMPLON,
THIS EVENING, and Every Evening at Eight o'Clock, (except
Saturday) ; and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Mornings, at Three.
Stalls, 3a. (which can be taken at the box• offlco every day from 11
till 4; area, 21. ; gallery, la.—Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly.

ectionable parts in the bill. He .therefore suggested
that it should he referred to a select committee.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that the objections urged
were objections more fitted for the •bill in committee
than on the second reading. He objected to the arbi-
trary power of taking land, and thought it far better
that the magistrate should be selected by the Lord Chan-
cellor in the first instance than that he should be merely
invested with the power of a veto.
The Earl of EGLINTON could not vote for the
amendment, because he thought that a bill of this kind
was necessary in Ireland. There were, however, some
objectionable provisions i❑ it, which he thought ought to
be amended. lie thought the bast course would be to
refer the bill to a select committee. •
The Earl of RODEN thought that a bill of this kind
was most necessary, but the present one was liable to
great objection.

trators, stating that if it had not been for the restric-
tions placed on the arbitrators, he should have awarded
a much larger sum. On these grounds he trusted that
the house would agree to the production of these papers,
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said he thought this was an
extraordinary motion. The matter had been settled by
arbitration, and the arbitrators awarded Dr. Reid 3,2501.,
which he brought forward in the estimates of last year,
which the house then agreed to, and which had since
been paid. The evidence which was taken in the case
occupied 5,000 folio pages, and if they printed it it
would cost in all probability 1,0001. He was convinced
no one would ever read it ; but if any bon, member were
disposed to read it, and would go to his office, he should
have an opportunity. With all due respect to the hon.
gentleman who had brought forward this motion, he
must oppose it altogether.
The motion was then negatived without a division.
CASE OF MR. STURGEON.
Mr. BOW YER then moved fir a select committee to
inquire into the claims of Mr. Edwardes (as representa-
tive of Mr. William Sturgeon) to the funds allotted by
the French Government at the peace, to compensate for
confiscation of the property of British subjects.
Captain SCOBELL seconded the motion, believing
that the hon. and learned gentleman had shown reason-
able grounds for inquiry.
Mr. WILSON thought the house should pause before
they appointed this committee. Mr. Sturgeon did not
make his claim in time to come within the treaty of
1815 ; but the Government allowed his claim to go
before the commissioners who acted under the treaty, by
whom it was disallowed. It appeared to the commis-
sioners that the property of Mr. Sturgeon had not been
confiscated ; but destroyed ; and the commissioners
having no funds to meet such a case they dismissed it,
as not corning within the treaty.
After a few words from Mr. BOWTER and Mr.
MALINC,
The house divided, when there appeared— •
For the motion 39
Against it
The motion was accordingly negatived.
THE CLAIMS OF CAPTAIN DICKENSON.
Admiral WALCOTT moved for a select committee to
inquire into the claims of Captain Dickenson, R.N., on
behalt of himself, the officers, and crews of her Majesty's
vessels employed on the subject of salvage, &c., con-
nected with the recovery of treasure in the wreck of her
Majesty's ship Thetis, off Cape Frio, on the coast of
Brazil. The gallant admiral entered into a lengthened
explanation of the case, from which it appeared, that
through the exertions of Captain Dickenson and his
crew, treasure to the extent of 150000/. was recovered
from the Thetis, besides 2,000/. worth of her stores, and
for these services they were awarded 29,000/. as salvage.
The admiralty, however, put in a claim for 13,5221. for
seamen's wages, stores, &c., and the wear and tear of
the Lightning, which Captain Dickenson commanded
while recovering the treasure, and to that extent the
salvage was reduced. Captain Dickenson, however,
contended that the admiralty had no right to make the
reduction and the ordinary tribunals having failed to
render him justice he now as a last resource appealed to
the House of Commons to investigate his case through
the instrumentality of a select committee.
Sir G. TYLER seconded the motion, and observed
that if the inquiry were granted it would be shown that
it was entirely through the extraordinary ability of Cap-
tain Dickenson and the great exertions of his crew that
the treasure of the Thetis was saved. It was, therefore,
unjust to deprive them of any portion of the salvage, and
he trusted the house would have no hesitation in grant-
ing the committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM need not assure the honourable and
gallant admirals who had moved and seconded this mo-
tion that he was fully sensible of the generosity of the
motives which had induced them to bring this subject
under the notice of the house, while, if he thought that
justice demanded the appointment of this committee, he
should be the last person to resist it. But he was bound
to say that he had come to a different conclusion to that
which the two gallant admirals had arrived at. The
subject was by no means new, for he first became ac-
quainted with it 20 years ago, when he had the honour
of being at the Admiralty. There was no dispute about
the facts of the case, which were these : the Thetis hav-
ing a large amount of treasure on board belonging to
British merchants, was lost under circumstances more or
less accidental, but in the opinion of the Board of Ad-
miralty there had been some neglect on the part of the
commanding officer, and they therefore allowed Captain
Dickenson to employ his vessel and crew in attempting
to recover the treasure. Contrary to the expectation of
the Board of Admiralty no less than fourteen months were
occupied in that endeavour, and as a natural consequence
a considerable amount of the public money was expended in
stores, and the wages of the seamen of the Lightning.
When, therefore, the salvage was awarded, the Admi-
ralty put in their claim for 13,8001., which was allowed
by the High Court of Admiralty, but Captain Dicken-
son disputing the claim carried it before the Privy
Council, who confirmed the decision of the court below.
But supposing that had not been so, he should still have
contended that the salvors were not entitled to a farthing
of this 13,800/. ; the money would rather have been due
to the merchants who had lost their treasure in the
I Thetis ; but be that as it might, he could only repeat
now the same answer that he had given on a former oc-
casion—namely, that the case had been repeatedly con-
sidered by various Boards of Admiralty, :led the Trea-
sury, and in every instance they had come to the deci-
sion that the claim of Captain Dickenson could not be
allowed ; because it was founded neither in justice nor
equity ; a decision which had been confirmed alike by
the Court of Admiralty and the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council.
Sir G. PECHELL considered that notwithstanding
the statement of the right hon. baronet, the case still
required investigation. The bill of the Admiralty con-'
tained items of so extortionate a character, that although
twenty years had elapsed, so monstrous a case ought
not to be passed over without notice.
Capt. SCOBELL said that the services of the Light-
ning, her captain, and crew, had been the admiration of
the profession, and the fact that several boards of the
Admiralty had discouraged the claim was of little im-
portance, for one board always supported the decisions
of its predecessors. The gallant admiral did not ask
for money, but for an inquiry whether the claim was
just. As for Captain Dickenson being in Greenwich,
that was of itself a claim, and not a reason why the
motion should be rejected. (Hear.)
Admiral BERKELEY expressed an opinion unfa-
vourable to the claim of Captain Dickenson.
Mr. WILKINSON warned the house against the
practice into which the house had lately fallen of bring-
ing up questions which had already been decided by a
competent division.

NATIONAL FESTIVAL, in Celebration of the
UNION between ENGLAND and FRANCE.—A MEET-
ING- of the GENERAL COMMITTEE for conductinz this Festival
will be held, by permbsion of the Lord Mayor, at the Mansion-
house, on FRIDAY NEXT, fcr the purpose of taking into consider-
ation the most convenient period for holding the same. A full attend-
ance is desirable.

The LORD I.I.AYOR will take the Chair at 2 o'clock precisely.
By order, GEORGE SE DGIVICK, Sec.

NATIONAL FESTIVAL, in Celebration of the
UNION between ENGLAND and FRANCE.—The object of
tilt• proposed i,estival is to cultivate the amicable relation,: now ex-
isting with the French nation, by inviting to this country some of the
most distinguished men connected with legislation. arts, science,
literature, commerce, and agriculture, and facilitate their acquaint-
ance with what is worthy of their observation and admiration, and
demonstrate to the world the great advantages of the alliance now
happily subsisting between the two nations, an alliance the con-
tinuance of which is eminently calculated to accomplish and to pro-
mote, in all coun•ries, the permanency of peace and its consequent
blessings, ordet, Prosperity, anti happiness.
Subscriptions already announced, 4,750/. 103.
The arrangements for the Festival must depend upon the amount
of the subscriptions, which will he received by the Right Hon. the
Lord Mayor (the Treasurer), and by the following Bankers :—.Mastcr-
man and Co. ; London and Westminster Bank ; Smith, Payne, and
Smiths; London Joint Stock Bank; Hanburys and Lloyds; Davies
and Co.; Twining and Co.; Berries, Farquhar, and Co.; Scott and
Co. ; the Royal British Bank ; Williams, Deacon, and Co. ; and the
National Rank of Ireland ; also at 20, New Bridge-street, Blackfriars,
where every information of the proposed Festival may be obtained.
By order, GEO. SEDGWICK, Sec.

- Earl GRANVILLE thought that the practice of re-
ferring bills to a select committee 'had been carried too
far in their lordships' house. The provisions of this
bill had been carefully settled, and any further improve-
ments could be effected in committee, of the house. It
would not be necessary to refer the bill to a committee
up-stairs. _

After a few words from the Earl of DONOUGHBIORN,
the amendment was withdrawn and the bill read a
second time.

TO NERVOUS SUFFERERS.-A. RETIRED
CLERGYMAN having been restored to health in a few dam
after many years of great nervous suffering, is anxious to make
known to others the means of cure. He will, therefore, send free, on
receiving a stamped envelope, properly addressed, a copy of the pre-
scription used.

Direct the Bev. E. Douglass, 18, Holland-street, Brixton, London.

THE CHOLER A!!!!
Prevented by the destruction of all noxious effluvia.

CREWS'S DISINFECTING FLUID, recommended by the Col-
lege of Phys!clans. The Cheapest and Strongest CHLORIDE of
ZINC. Quarts, 25., Pints, Is., Half-pints, 6d. Sold by all Chemists,
Druggists, and Shipping Agents, and at Commercial Wharf, Mile-end,
London.

N.B.—CREWS'S CULORIDE of ZINC is a cheap, powerful, and
finer preparation.—Medical Circular.

Admiral WALCOTT having said a few words in
reply,
The house divided—•

Ayes
Noes
(Laughter.) The motion was therefore lost.

THE CASE OF THE STAR.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that some time ago, in
consequence of a statement which appeared in the public
papers he brought before the house a case, the like of
whiceh he hoped had never occurred in the history of her
Majesty's navy. It was stated that nearly all the crew
of the sloop of war the Star, Commander Warren, had
been flogged—some of them two, three, or four times—
that many of the petty officers had been disrated, in
order to place them in a position in which they might be
flogged, and that many of the able seamen had been
degraded into ordinary seamen. When he asked the
right hon. baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, if
that statement were true, the right hon. gentleman said
that only a few of the men had been flogged, and those
because they had stolen a cask of wine and got drunk
with it. That statement went forth, and he (Mr. Wil-
liams) received a communication from the crew of the
Star, indignantly denying the charge. In short he
(Mr. Williams) was convinced that the right hon.
baronet had been entirely deceived. He (Mr. Williams)
had, therefore, asked for a return of all the punish-
ments which had been inflicted under Commander War-
ren, but the right hon. baronet refused to accede to his
request on the pretence that the House of Commons
was not a fitting body to have anything to do with the
discipline or management of the navy. Why, the
House of Commons had done far more for the navy
(and the army too) than the right hon. baronet or
any of his predecessors, or any commander-in-chief.
Time was when the minimum punishment in the army
was a thousand lashes ; but in consequence of the
opinions expressed in the House of Commons, the Duke
of Wellington reduced it to 50. So in the navy, the
practice of flogging men through the fleet had been
abolished, and instead of a thousand, the number of
lashes had been brought down to 48. So much for the
exertions of the House of Commons and the press.
(Hear, hear.) And what had been the result of the
change ? In the army, there were flogged during the
year 1845 and six months of 1846, 341 men, who re-
ceived 38,500 lashes, or an average of 113 each. Last
year 45 men only were flogged, and they received 1,900
lashes, or an average of 46 each. (Hear, bear.) In the
year 1852, there were no fewer than 101 regiments in
which there had been no corporal punishment whatever;
where 20 years ago there was probably not a regiment
in the whole service of which that could be said.
flogged;in
the navy, during the year 1842, 2,170 men we
in the year 1852, there were only
each. more
578. (Hrer•)The
punishments in the navy, however,
cruel than those in the army. Indeed,w were much
mhadu been
both,
as-
surred by an officer who had frequently
that 43 lashes in the navy were infinitely witnessedrse than 200
in the army. Did the right hon. hart. mean to say that
the House of Commons, which had, without a murmur,
d in his hands 13 millions, and the large patron-
agep ace ,
expenditure of that vast sum,
dependent upon the
no right to interfere ? Besides that amount, the
house, had granted a large sum for rewards, to entice
men into her Majesty's service ; although the only thing
in the navy that sailors objected to was the cat•o'-hine.
tails ; for the service had otherwise many advantages
over any other in the world. (Hear.) After
the
wstataes-
ment which he had made in the house, an inquiry
instituted by Admiral Perry, who at its close reprimanded
Commander Warren, and also reprimanded the crew.
After a long hesitation the right hon, baronet at last re-
moved Commander Warren. As for the men, the lan-
gune they used wao quite noble. They said they were

r

[PRICE 5.D

ready anywhere to shed their blood in the service of the
Queen, but that they did object to have it shed by the
cat-o'-nine-tails of this Commander Warren. No won-
der that frequent desertions had taken place, or that the
ship had gone to sea in such a state of disaffection that
no one could prognosticate the result. What were the
I crimes for which men were now flogged? Telling un-
truth, foul language, disrespect, insult, fighting, going
to an officer contrary to orders, quarrelling, smoking
when at their post, and other trifling matters. (Hear.)
There was no flogging in the French army or navy.
Now that the allied forces were together, what must the
French think when they heard the groans of their bre-
thren under the lash ? What, but that "ley were a
disregarded set of beings ? If the right ho s. baronet
refused this return it must be because he was
ashamed to make it. He had evidently been mis-
informed. He said there bad been little or no
flogging; the crew said they had all been flogged, and
some of them more than once. The right hon. gentle-
man concluded by moving for "a return of the number
of petty officers, seamen, and marines respectively, who
were flogged on board her Majesty's sloop Star, while
under the command of Commander F. P. Warren,
stating the alleged offence, the number of lashes in-
flicted on each ; the number who were flogged more
than once, and the number of lashes inflicted in each
flogging; also the number of petty officers disrated, and
of able seamen reduced to ordinaries.
Sir J. GRAHAM—The house may suppose from the
statement of the hon. member that I am under some
obligation to him on account of the courtesy which in-
duced him, on more than :one occasion, at my request,
to postpone this motion ; and I am not slow now to
acknowledge that courtesy. But I had hoped that the
delay which, at my request, he had allowed to take
place, would have led him to make a dispassionate state-
ment to the house, and one which was perfectly accu
rate. I will not go through the various inaccuracies of
that statement, but will just give a sample. The hon.
gentleman says there was a time when 1.000 lashes were
inflicted in the navy. I deny the accuracy of that state-
ment altogether ; there never was a time when that
number was inflicted.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS— Mention the highest number.
Sir J. GRAHAM—Then he stated that 13,000,0001.
had been placed at the disposal of the Admiralty in
the present session. It is no such amount. Then,
again, he says that there is a fondness on the part of
the Admiralty for the infliction of corporal punishment.
The statement he has himself produced shows that,
during the last 12 years, so far from there being a fond-
ness for this species of punishment, there has been a
constant and progressive diminution of it ; and happily,
within the last two years, that reduction has been
brought to the smallest amount. (Hear, hear.) Then,
again, the hon. gentleman, even in the very terms of his
motion, wishes to be informed what number of petty
officers have been flogged on board the Star. I thought
I heard him say incidentally that petty officers, by the
rules of the service, could not be flogged ; but, by the
terms of his motion, he would lead the public to sup-
pose that this had been done in defiance of regulations.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS—I beg your pardon. No such
thing.
Sir J. GRAHAM—Read the motion. "Return of
the number of petty officers, seamen, and marines re-
spectively, who were flogged on board her Majesty's
sloop Star." That clearly points to petty officers on
board the Star being flogged.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS—After they were disrated.
Sir J. GRAHAM—The hon. gentlemen takes credit
to himself, that it was in consequence of some question
which he put to me in this house that the Board of Ad-
miralty instituted an inquiry into the discipline on board
the ship Star. So far from that, before the question was
put, upon a representation made to the Admiralty, from
one of the crew of the Star, an inquiry was instituted by
direction of the Board of Admiralty. Then, again, he
says that, in consequence of that question, and in conse-
quence of the inquiry instituted, as he imagines, at his
instigation—which I deny altogether—Commander
Warren was removed by the Board of Admiralty from
the comet and of the Star.
Mr. WILLIAMS—I did not say by my instigation.
Sir J. GRAHAM—Commander Warren was not re-
moved at all from the command of that ship. On the
contrary, the Board of Admiralty was prepared to allow
Captain Warren to go out in command of the Star ; and
it is in consequence of his own ill health that he is not
now in command of that ship. Then again, the hon.
gentleman says that there was the greatest unwillingness
on the part of the ship's company to serve under Cap-
tain Warren. The fact is, that two-thirds of them ex-
pressed their perfect readiness to go with Captain War-
ren to any part of the world. Then, again, he says that
desertions were very nu merous.
Mr. WILLIAMS —No. I said that desertions took
place.

Sir J. GRAHAM—I cannot speak positively ; but
my belief is, that there were not more than two deser-
tions from the whole of the ship's company after the cir-
cumstance to which the hon. gentleman refers. On the
last occasion when I addressed the house, I had to appeal
against the house constituting itself into a tribunal of
review upon decisions of courts of law, and was glad to
find that, along with others, the hon. member for Lam-
beth thought that that was not a proper function for the
house to assume. The hon. gentleman has referred to
a private conversation which he had with me about this
motion. I was certainly not prepared for his producing
before the house what passed between us in private ;
but in public I am quite prepared to repeat what I then
said to him. He mistakes me if he thinks I said that
it was not one of the highest functions and duties of the
house to lay down principles for the guidance of every
branch of the public service. And if it should be the
opinion of this house, deliberately taken and deliberately
pronounced, that corporal punishment shall cease in the
navy, then, though I demur to the correctness of such
an opinion, still if it were deliberately pronounced, after
full discussion, in a full house, I think the executive
must adopt that opinion. But, on the other hand, I
say, if, apart from laying down principles, it should as-
sume all the details of the executive in the administra-
tion of discipline, such a course would be quite fatal to
all the interests both of the army and the navy. (Hear,
hear.) In this particular case of the Star, the matter
Las been investigated—first, by Admiral Percival, than
whom a more humane and able officer does not exist in
her Majesty's service ; and he fully reported on the facts
of the case. That report was carefully considered at the
Board of Admiralty, in the presence of myself, two ad-
mirals, and one captain. We did come to a conclusion
that there had been indiscretion and misconduct on the
part of the commander, but not of such a character as
to justify his being tried by a court-martial or removed
from his ship. His errors of judgment were pointed
out to him, and he was admonished to be more cautious
for the future. With respect to the crew, there was
much want of discipline, and much insubordinate con-
duct. There was a particular transaction, for which
four men were flogged in one day, and where, I repeat,
it was distinctly proved in evidence on that occasion,
that a case of wine was broken open—that four sailors,
who were proved to be parties to the theft, were grossly
insubordinate and drunk on the occasion, and in my
opinion were properly punished. There were more in-
stances of similar insubordination and intemperance,
which were punished from time to time ; but it is a gross
exaggeration to say that two-thirds of the ship's com-
pany were punished. It is also quite wrong to say that
petty officers—for it is contrary to the rules of the ser-
vice—had received corporal punishment on board that
ship. Again I say, I shall be very sorry if this house,
on a matter of discipline, which has been carefully re-
viewed by the competent authorities, should erect itself
into a tribunal of appeal in a special case ; and until the
house shall decide that corporal punishment shall no
longer be inflicted in the navy, I hope the house will
allow justice to be administered in mercy by the execu-
tivethe government, and, in justice to the authority of
executive government, will not institute inquiries lightly
into what it does. I may express the opinion, which
am sure will be shared by the great majority of this
house ,
eithera t corporal
witnesspunishment e
rth iismapmo
impose.
t (Hpainfulear, h e
hear.)
punish-
mentrooßut, as I have frequently stated, though instances of
breach of discipline are very few, yet it is absoautedly
nceasrsraerwy,awehpeareee,awviatsht baoildythoefirmdienffaerreewnchton
feelings, and other circumstances t
refer, that authority, to be upheld, must ehg
be congregated
characterspl needae e in
nn
andsoinot
summary
hmaanrdys
and
done
decisivem n—; that t o
that,b e
aeffective samerni tttilms ett,hbe
tt
but
entdheoveeerrlvoioekeeids:elxlciaevpet
until the
inflictedpu nis.h
smtautsetdbteoetahreefluiolluysegutpheartinthteenrudeled
corporal
in caseso requiringfplininuiteiiiiimy,entsh al
lapse of twenty-four hours l.frnopiotnrthoatinbthepetthceofm mission of the
offence. A warrant, showing acts of the case
justify the infliction has to be submitted to the Ad-
miralty ; all these warrants are reviewed by a regular
Board of Admiralty, and in cases of doubt each case is
separately investigated by the board. When this is
known, I hope the house will not think that wo are
wanting in the common feelings of humanity. It is our
duty, with a very scrutinising eye, to look into all these
cases. I assure the house it is a more painful duty, but
it is one which we feel incumbent upon us, not to relax
too unduly the discipline of the service. I hope that the
house on the whole will be content with the statement I
have made, and will not call for the production of this
return. The matter has been thoroughly investigated ;
Commander Warren has left the ship ; another captain
and another lieutenant have been appointed ; the crow
of the ship have now gone cheering to a distant station ;
the matter of dissatisfaction is settled, and it would not
be for the benefit of the public service should the house
agree to an inquiry into that arrangement, which has
been perfectly satisfactory to the Board of Admiralty,
and for which they are responsible.
Mr. L. HEYWORTH said he was led to believe,
from a letter of Admiral Dundas's, which he had seen,
that the best way of abolishing flogging would be to dis-
continue the supply of rum in the navy. Sir John Ross
had found that he could do very well without it in the
Arctic regions.
Mr. W, WILLIAMS, in explanation, said the right
hon. baronet, instead of meeting the question, had had
recourse to special pleading. He knew that petty
officers, as such, could not be flogged ; but the moment
they were disrated they were flogged, and this had been
done for the purpose. The right hon. baronet, . b
0 n
et
L formor occasion, said that a cask of wino had