The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-22 00:00:00

the House had progressed through two stages without any
discussion. He thought that, although it was understood that
the discussion of the Bill would be taken to-day, yet
that his Honourable Friend had taken this opportunity,
most unfairly, to make a general attack upon the service at
the moment when the Admiralty were taking means to
remedy the very evils which he bad so glowingly
described. His Honourable Friend had taken a wrong
view of the whole object of the Bill, for, instead of being in-
tended to oppress the sailor, it was meant to benefit him, by
substituting in some cases a period of imprisonment instead
of a corporal punishment. Some stringent measures were
absolutely necessary to keep up the discipline which was es-
sential on board her Majesty's vessels, and yet it was the de-
sire of the Admiralty to save the sailors themselves from un-
necessary and too severe punishment. There were quarterly
returns made of all the punishments inflicted in the navy,
and these returns were jealously scrutinised by the Admi-
ralty, and in cases were that punishment appeared to be too
severe, an immediate reprimand followed. By this Bill he
only wished to substitute imprisonment, without court-
martial for corporal punishment, without at all increasing
the means of severity now placed in the hands of captains.
With these observations he might safely leave the Bill in the
hands of the House, confident that it would receive its
sanction. _ _ _

After a few words from Colonel Thomas Wood, Admiral
Dundas, and Captain Plumridge,
Captain PECHELL said that these punishments properly
carried out would in some time entirely cease. It was
really impossible to carry out discipline on board
ship without the power which the Government placed
in the hands of the authorities. He was serving
off Toulon at the very time which was referred to, and when
he considered how badly fed and clothed the sailors were, he
was not surprised that there should be mutiny ; he only
wondered how patiently the men bore their privations.
But the time was now very diffitrent ; the sailors were bet-
ter taken care of, and, by a proper exertion on the part of
the officers, no such circumstances as those alluded to would
again occur.
Captain FITZROY wished to bear his testimony to the
zee' shown by the Admiralty to raise the condition of the
men in the service. He was perfectly willing to assist is
carrying out the measure, as he believed it was framed
as much as possible to do away with corporal punishment.
He only begged that those in authority would take due pre-
caution lest the discipline of the navy should be destroyed.
They had only to go slowly in order to go securely.
Captain Bgßli." ELM- said that desertion had become very
common, and the Admiralty, in order to put it down, had
is two instances ordered court martials, the sentences c.f
which were more severe than usually would have been in-
flicted by the captAl the vessel.
Mr. 110 WARD said that the frequency of desertion arose
from the circumstance of the pay in the American service
being much higher than in the English, and he hoped that
no false delicacy would prevent the Government from
taking the question of pay into consideration.
Mr. WILLIAMS had no objection to the Bill if they
would strike out the first part of the preamble.
Mr. WARD said it was not possible for him to strike out
the paragraph inserted. No one could doubt but that, as
declared by the preamble, the authorities of the Admiralty
had had hitherto the power to inflict corporal punishments.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER agreed with the Hon Member
for Gloucester (Captain Berkeley) as to the superior treat-
ment of the American seamen. The sailors in the Ame-
rican navy were much better paid than those in the
British service ; the consequence of which was,
from 40,000 to .50,000 British sailors were in the
American service. If they could not increase the pay of the
sailors at present, they ought at least to increase the pay of
the petty officers, beginning with those officers of the first
class. He thanked the Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the
Admiralty for the present Bill, as it would be a substitute
for corporal punishment, which he had long seen the evil
of. It was a measure which was much required. He quite
agreed with the preamble and the first clause. With regard
to the 9th clause, he called the attention of the
Admiralty to it, in order that better measures
might lee taken to prevent desertion. Ile could
not agree that the power of punishing a deserter should be
left to the captain of the ship; but the eeserter should be
left to be tried by a court-martial.
Admiral DUNDAS thought the clause ought to stand as
it was, as it was more practicable than any other
arrangement.

Sir-CHARLES NAPIER could not agree in that conclusion.
Mr. HUME believed that one of the greatest defects in
the system was that there was not an equality between the
army and the navy with respect to rewards. By an order
of the Ordnance Council it appeared that 48 lashes could
still be inflicted; but should the question come to be raised
it would be shown that this punishment was against law.
lie thought the system that had for its object encouragement,
rather than punishment, would be found the more cffitient.
Such a system prevailed in the army; for instance, sergeants
received rewards for good conduct and for activity in the dis-
charge of their duty; but he would wish to know what
encouragement was given to officers of the same rank in the
navy? He did think that some reward ought to be
held out to them ; and he would wish to E.ee an increase
in the pay of the petty officers, which might act as
an inducement to those who were placed beneath them.
He trusted that the House would well consider a measure in
the execution of which there was no law except the will of
the captain, who might, perhaps, be rather too warm upon
some trifling offence.

Mr. WARD wished to remind his Hon. Friend, in bring-
ing forward this question, that a :plan for the proper pro-
vision and rewards to petty officers in the marine service was
at present under consideration, by which these officers would
be most materially benefited, so as entirely to disarm the ob-
jections of his Hon. Friend.
Captain HARRIS wished to know whether the expense
attendant upon the operation of the Bill by increasing the
pay of the petty officers would be about 40,0004 or 50,0001.?
Mr. WARD—Not so much.

Captain HARRIS said that if the Bill would only cause
an addition of so small a sum, he could not see any ob-
jection to its introduction. He thought that the law
regulating the punishments mentioned in this Bill
ought to be read to these officers at least once a month.
He thought that the officers in her Majesty's service would
receive this Bill with pleasure, as they were as anxious as
any other persons in the country for the reduction of punish-
ment.

Captain PECHELL said that the time was getting very
short, and he hoped that there would be an opportunity
afforded to the promoters of the Bill of giving an
explanation on the first clause. He wished to. know
whether, after the commander bad made an order
for imprisonment, that order was subject to the ap-
proval of the Admiralty, and if it were so, what was to be
done with the man until the decision of the Admiralty was
known ?

Mr. WAIM said, that the punishment of imprisonment
was intended to be inflicted under precisely the same
regulations as those under which corporal punishment
was at present inflicted. As twenty-four hours must elapse
before the man could be brought up to the gratings,
so must twenty-four hours elapse before the man was con-
signed to imprisonment.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, that in the case of these punish-
ments the captain was the witness and the judge, and he
sealed and ordered the sentence. He thought that such a
power ought never to be entrusted into the hands of one man.
agreedl E C ItI: LaLs
Clauses 1,2, 3,4, and 5 were then agreed to.
s
agreed to.
Clause 6, after a few words from CBawptaasin
Clause 7 was also agreed to.
alsAofctlearusseosinfle, werewa
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and
the report ordered to be brought upon Friday.
The House then resumed.
Lord GEORGlco:BavneEdrsNalTtlil.oNn,CK then withdrew the following
motions An Address for copies of any correspondence or
communications which may have taken place at
any time, between the Foreign-office and the Go-
vernment of Spain, upon the subject of the ar-
rears of pay due from the Government of Spain to
the British Legion formerly serving in Spain." Also, "An
Address for copies of any correspondence or communications
which may have passed between the Foreign-office and the
Government of Portugal, upon the subject of the military
pensions at any time due from Portugal to the Duke of
Wellington and Viscount Beresford, or either of them,"
as Lord Palmerston had promised to give him private memo-
randums, which would enable the Spanish bondholders to
prosecute their claims.
The House adjourned at Six o'clock.