The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—True, it was a constitutional
question, and this inquiry might add to an amendment of
the constitutional law ; but could any time be better than the
present for the alteration, the modification, or the repeal of
these navigation laws. Having a great mass of important bu-
siness to bring before Parliament, he thought this was the best
time to introduce a modification of those laws. He thought
that this was what was required. He trusted that the shipping
interest would not be overlooked, and prevent the alteration of
this most important law. The shipowners had d nibtless made
out a case, and their grievance was evidently hardly inflicted
and as hardly borne, and he did think that when his Hon.
Friend behind him proposed this inquiry, in his very temperate
and guarded speech, he thought that a sufficient case for in-
quiry had been made out. Besides, he did not think that
any impediment should be placed in the way of his mo-
tion, and for his own part, he believed that no
Minister of the Crown ought to proceed to the alte-
ration of such important measures as this without inquiry.
He thought it was probable they would derive great advan-
tages from the appointment of this Committee. With regard
to any measure that might result from the inquiry, he could
only say that it should be founded upon principles which were
likely to produce the greatest possible good, with the least
possible injury.—( Hear, hear.) Hitherto it had been said
that the change they had made in the navigation laws had
affected various interests, arid, amongst those, it was said
those ehanges had greatly affected the interests of the colonies.
Some Hon. Gentlemen, in times gone by, had urged that it
was hardly fair to make large commercial alterations and
leave the colonies subject to the navigation laws. Now, here
would be an opportunity for those Hon. Gentlemen to adduce
reasons in support of their statements. There was another part
of the subject which also invited inquiry. It was with regard
to the state and condition of the shipping interest
itself. Hitherto several committees had been appointed to
inquire into that question, but they were appointed with the
view of going back again to restrictive laws. Protection was
then supported on the ground of the expense of building and
fitting out ships in this country being so great. that British ship-
owners could not hear competition. Let them hear now what
these restrictions were, and let the shipping interest state
how it was they found their expenses so heavy, that
they might make the most practicable modification of
the existing laws, and keep up the stability of an
interest to which this country was bound to look as one
of the great sources of her political greatness, and by which it
could be improved, and its prosperity promoted.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not altogether agree with the argument that would
carry them back to a system of protection; but if they were
to do away with freedom, it was desirable that every interest,
which wished for protection, should be heard, in order thus to
see whether it would not be much better to extend the bene-
fits of freedom to all who were in any way connected with the
shipping interests. For these reasons he should cordially give
his support to the motion for a Committee; and although he
had not intended himself to propose any Committee on the
subject, he was glad that an independent Member of Parlia-
ment, of so much intelligence and information, had brought it
forward.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. RICARDO replied that he had waited for years in the
hope that some Hon. Gentleman would bring forward the ques-
tion, but as he was connected with a manufacturing interest who
felt that they were greatly injured by these laws, he could not
resist making this motion any longer. Still, however, if any
other Hon. Gentleman more conversant with the question
would take the inquiry under his control he should only be too
ready to give way to him.—( Hear, hear. )
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 155

Against it
Majority in favour of the motion -- 94
CATHOLIC PAINS AND PENALTIES BILL.

Mr. WATSON moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the
further repeal of enactments imposing pains and penalties upon
her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects on account of their re-
ligion. The measures contemplated in the Bill were founded
upon the strictest justice, and not upon party feeling or pre-
judice.
Sir R. INGLIS said that if one or two divisions of the
House were to be considered as having any weight, then the
last division, defeating by a large majority the motion of the
Hon. Member, ought to be considered as decisive of the feel-
ings of the House on the subject. In the present age any
measure which would at all produce the slightest change was
sure to find numerous supporters, even if no other ground of
support were wanting, they would support it solely upon the
ground of change. He hoped the House would not allow,
piece by pieee, the constitution of the country to be destroyed
by the passing of such measures as those now proposed.
Sir G. GREY thought the better course would be to allow
the Bill to be read a first time, and take the discussion of the
merits of the measure upon its future stages.
Mr. SHAW wished to know what was sought in the present
measure beyond the provisions of the Act passed last session
upon the same subject.
WATSON said, the Act loaned last session repealed
those penal statutes against the Catholic clergy in particular ;
the present went beyond that, and applied to other classes of
Catholic subjects.

Colonel SIBTHORP would oppose the introduction of
every measure of this nature; he could not stand quietly by and
see the constitution of the country--( Hear, haar)—undermined
by any Government, or other Popish manceuvre.—(Laughter.)
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
TENANT RIG II T.

Mr. PUSEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the im-
provement of Agricultural Tenant Right.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.
IRISH ABSENTEES.

Mr. GRATTAN said that he had given notice of his intention
to move to-day for a return of the absentee, from Ireland,
stating their names, and annual incomes derived from property
therein ; specifying the counties in which their estates are
situate, and distinguishing such as are temporarily or more
than six months absent from Ireland; and that the guardians of
the poor-law unions should furnish an account of the annual
value of the property of all absentees in their respective unions
assessed to the poor-rate ; that the commissioners, under the
Act 5 and 6 Viet., c. 35, should furnish an account of the
aggregate amount of all property in Ireland taxed under the
provisions of that Act, and other Acts continuing the same.
Al>o, a return of the number of persons residing in England,
or temporarily absent therefrom, charged under the Act 5 and
6 Viet., c. 35, and the Act for continuing the same, in respect
of profits and gains arising from any allowance, annuity,
stipend, or trade in Ireland ; together with the total amount of
the duties levied in respect of such profits and gain. That
the governors and directors of the Bank of Ireland should
furnish an account of the amount of all annuities, dividends,
and shares of annuities payable by the said company out of the
public revenues of the United Kingdom to or to the use or
benefit of any persons not resident in Ireland. In consequence,
however, of the lateness of the hour, and considering that the
subject might probably raise some discussion, he begged to
postpone his motion until an early day.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE NAVY.
Mr. HUME moved for a copy of the returns of corporal
and other punishments on board each of her Majesty's shies in
the Royal Navy, in each year, from the Ist day of January,
1844, to the 31st day of December, 1846, stating the name,
rating, nature of the offence, date of punishment, the number
of lashes, and remarks of commander-in-chief, or senior
officer, as to any excess of punishment or otherwise, accord-
ing to the schedules published, and ordered in the Admiralty
instructions, dated the Ist day of January, 1844, for the
government of her Majesty's naval service; stating also the
number of seamen and marines employed in each year, and
the average number flogged, distinguishing those with, and
those without, trial by court-martial distinguishing
the number of commissioned and warrant and petty
officers, also specifying the names of her Majesty's
ships and vessels, and the name of the commanders,
in which no corporal punishment have been inflicted in any of
Ukase years. These returns were highly important, and he
hoped the House would grant him the returns.
Captain BERKELEY could assure the Hon. Member that
he did not wish to refuse the returns moved for by him, at the
same time he was bound to say that this system, if persevered in,
would be likely to subvert the best interests of the British navy.
He denied that the case of the navy was the same as
the army—they were not analogous. The Hon. Member stated
that he wished for this return, to show those who inflicted severe
corporal punishment, and those who conducted the discipline
of their ships without resorting to it. If this House was
made an appeal from the Admiralty, they would be putting a
man on his trial again who had been honourably acquitted by
a court-martial. With regard to the returns moved for, the
Admiralty would have no objection to grant them, but enly for
the first year.
Admiral BOWLES protested against the Government giving
up the authority which they exercised with regard to the
discipline of the navy. It was impossible, after the manner
in which gentlemen holding the opinions of the Honourable
Member who moved for these returns, proceeded—and seeing
the unscrupulous and unconstitutional means employed of
poisoning the minds of the public against any officer who en-
deavoured to do his duty properly—it was impossible to regard
them with any other feelings than the strongest jealousy and
suspicion. He protested most strongly against this proceeding,
and, if he went out alone, he should divide the House against
the motion.

Mr. WARD said he was bound to state that the opinion of
the Board of Admiralty had been expressed, though with
somewhat of professional warmth, by the Hon. and Gallant
Gentleman who had spoken last. He (Mr. Ward) could
quite understand his feelings—they were very natural. He
(Mr. Ward) had been untortunately absent when the sub-
ject had been brought on, not thinking that the question
would be brought forward ; but he was bound to say
that it was the feeling of the Board of Admiralty
that whet the army did the navy could and ought to
do ; and as the returns of corporal punishment in the army
had been granted, he did not see how they could refuse similar
returns for the navy, and he did not understand why
the naval officers should not be prepared to submit to
the same ordeal. He had no doubt, if these returns were
produced, that they would have a most wholesome and salutary
effect. He believed that they would have an influence on hasty
and impetuous men, and make them have a greater command
over their feelings. He had been directed, therefore, to assent
to the motion, and to state that returns would be granted simi-
lar to those granted for the army, and would be laid upon the
table of the House by the Admiralty. He had no fear of the
consequences, though it was a great change ; but he did not
think they would have an injurious effect, for the good officer
would not be made timid, but the hasty man more circum-
spect. He had a letter from the admiral of the fleet off Ire-
land, who had thirteen or fourteen ships under his command,
and 430 supernumeraries, and though they frequently had oc-
casion to go from one place to another in the transit of the
provisions for the different depots, not a single offence had been
committed worthy of capital punishment during the last quar- j
ter.—( Hear, hear.) In the returns made out for the previous
quarter, ending September, there had been only one offence.—
( Hear, hear.) He therefore had no objection to grant the
motion, under the restrictions as far as he had intimated.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER said, that when the Hon. Mem-
ber
for Montrose brought forward a similar motion on afofor-r
for-
mer occasion, he had promised to support him if he moved
a general return. He objected to the return of the punish-
ments
unanimously acquitted; every one of the officers oncha_
_e ;
by
martial agreed that his conduct had been irreproachable bl
present
on board the Amazon, as Captain Stopfordthhaodeobueretn.
1 reason of that promise he was bound to nonced
He did not
motion, which he very" much regretted.
in giving a return of the punishments
the officers
year, as
Ist of January in the present. _
(Hear, hear.) From
had no intimation of such a proceeding.
perfectly object to having his
was not an officer in the navy
wouldwhheeHouse.
by any means agree with the Secretary of the
from
mmiratlhtye
hislists
of knowledgepunishmentof t h the
us
be rinviitctee,dhteo wast
'Mr. WARD—I should be sorryid not be sorry. As to seeing
Sir CHARLES NA PIER would
he was aware that
part of the officers, .
any severity on the
instances, a too great leniency,
there existed in many, many it done. certain
dueand in
severity.in aiiycreptsay}u saying
n so, fro ma }
tah
owuagnht oi
it
placing him in a very bad po-ition with
might have the effect
he
ould desire to remain in a good one.
persons with whom .
eehwad existed in representing captains in
But a very bad practice to see
Secretary made use of another ex-
pression,the navy as tyrants.h
i ; he would advert. He said, that before
to which b
the station.
to the senior officer of
Fa—No. no.
An HON. MEm2 'R Good God the Secretary for the
Admiralty CHARLES NAPIE ~
ships
li e rioth ada no and disorder
hesitation
aidn
How could could such a thing be possible.
Admiralty said so.
because
punishments should inflicted,. that they should be submitted
the vessel was not able to reach the senior officer of
com-
mander of
through a stress of weather, or a hundred other
the station,
? The British officers were most willing to do away
obstacles
Should they allow a man to go unpunished the