The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-22 00:00:00

,THE SUN, LONDON, 'WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST A 22, 1860.

/

which had been taken respecting the bill. He could only
say that as soon as the Government had decided upon with-
drawing the bill a telegram was sent to the right hon.
gentleman, acquainting him with the fact.
Mr. ADDERLEY expressed his gratification at the with-
drawal of the bill, but he thought it of great importance
that the statement of the Government in withdrawing it
should have been more explicit. The colony ought to know
distinctly whether the bill had only been dropped with the

intention of introducing it another session, or whetlier it
:had been abandoned because it failed to command the sup-
port of the House of Commons. His own impression was
that it would have been impossible to have carried such a
bill, than which a more dangerous measure could not have
been devised. It dealt with local questions, which ought to
be settled on the spot, and he did not believe that any man
who had the slightest knowledge of colonial matters would
be found willing to support it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entirely
concurred with the right hon. gentleman in the necessity
of applying the principle of self-government, so far as our
colonies were concerned, in as largo a sense as possible.
Indeed he was not aware that any Government had ever
committed any error in snaking that principle too large.
His right hon. friend seemed to apprehend that the bill
being dropped might be resumed at an early date next ses-
sion. He thought from that remark that his right hon.
friend had not understood the effect of the statement of his
hon. friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. His hon.
friend certainly surrendered none of the rights of the Go-
vernment to renew any application to Parliament which
they might think to be required by their public duties, but
he pointed out quite clearly that he had no such intention
as his right hon. friend opposite seemed to suppose, t ecause
his hon. friend said that the CI over nrnent would frankly en-
deavour to apply the powers orf the constitutional act and
proceed in the spirit of those powers, and that they would
endeavour to obtain their object by a judicious use of those
powers in connection with the Colonial Government.
(Hear.) When, therefore, the declaration of his hon. friend
was read in the colony of New Zealand it would afford no
ground for uneasiness. (Hear.)
The order was then discharged.
NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1,
Lord C. PAGET said that the house having permitted
him to read this bill a second time without giving any ex-
planation of its object, he should avail himself of the pre-
sent opportunity to do so. He believed that no measure
could be considered of greater importance than one which
affected the well-being and discipline of the navy. (Hear.)
The act of Parliament which ho trusted this bill would
supersede, and which at present regulated the discipline of
the navy, was as old as the reign of Charles II , and although
some amendments had been introduced in the reign of Geo.
11., he thought it would be admitted that it was high time to
consider whether this old act of Parliament might not be
remodelled, and a more merciful code of regulations adopt-d
for the discipline of her Majesty's navy. The first great de-
fect of the present act was that it was ext.:en-rely difficult to
hold courts-martial under it, because as the law stood no
court-martial could be held unless five ships were in presence.
This had also the disadvantage of keeping ships together
when it might be for the good of the public sera ice that they
should be dispersed. Another inconvenience was that how-
ever large the fleet was, a second c ourt-martial could not be
held till the first was concluded. They proposed to remedy
both of these inconveniences by providing that the presence
of three ships would in sufficient for the holding of a court-
martial, and by allowing the lieutenants, who were hitherto
excluded, to sit upon such courts. (Hear, hear.) It would
be impossible to ever-estimate the importance of this one
improvement, because it continually happened in the navy,
that prisoners had to wait for months for their trial in cosi-
sequence of the difficulty of getting a sufficient number of
ships together. With regard to the punishments to be in-
flicted on the men, he begged the committee to bear in mind
that many of the men whom they had to deal with in the
navy were men without morals or principle, that they were
confined in a small space—in a kind of box, for so he might
call a ship—and that, unless they maintained the discipline
of the fleet, the fleet would no longer do honour to the coun-
try. (Hear.) Their first object was to melte a classification
of crimes, and the bill gave the court-martial power to lessen
the degree of punishment wherever they might think fit to
do so, without detriment to the public service. As the law
stood at present, crimes were dealt with without reference
to the motives as ith which they were committed. Every
person would remember the trial of the unfortunate Admi-
ral Byng. The court-martial which tried him acqultted
him of cowardice and disaffecron, and found him guilty of
only an error of judgment ; and although they sent a peti-
tion to the Admiralty conveying their sense of the enormity
of the punishment to which he was liable he suffered capital
punishment, end it was not all many years afterwards that
courts-martial got the power of inflicting a lesser punish-
ment. By the present bill they went farther than that, end
did not permit the court to award the extreme punishment
of death, except the motives of the crime were such as de-
served capital punishment. They proposed to deal with the
three categories of offences " before the enemy." The first
was that of treachery, and to that they awarded the penalty
of death. He believed that no one would object to the
penalty of death for treachery before the enemy. For the
crime of cowardice they said that the person guilty of it
might be either sentenced to death or imps:soned or
dismissed from the service. But if the person had been
guilty from negligence or di ankenness, or from other
kinds of circumstances which might incapacitate him
from doing his duty, they awarded him a punishment
of a lesser degree. His hon. friend the member for Lambeth
said that there was nothing but death, death in the code.
But if he looked into the bit' he would find that there were
only three cases in which they proposed to inflict the penalty
of death. Under the present law the courts-martial, though
they had the power of awarding the punishment of death,
hadno power of awarding the punishment of penal servitude,
which he considered to be a great raomaly. They record-
ingly proposed to give courts-martial the power of inflicting
the penalty of death or penal servitude, and a variety of
other punishments, which might be seen by looking to the
category of punishments in the bill. The next point had
reference to the crime of mutiny. The legal authorities had
some difficulty in defining what mutiny was ; whether it
was an'offence that could be committed by one individual or
required a combination of more than one person to constitute
the offence. He admitted that the bill as it originally stood
attempted to define the crime of mutiny, but after the bill
had been long and c Irefully considered in the House of Lords
and by a select committee of the other house, it was consi-
dered better not to define the crime. But every mutinous act
was dealt with under the head of mutiny and insubordination,
and various punishments weee awarded for the offences
under that head. The next part had reference to desertion.
There was ro doubt that a man might have left his ship
with the intention of deserting, and be brought back the
next day; whereas another man who had been absent from
his ship for 20 or 30 days might have the intention of re-
turning. The present bill gave the court power to take all
such circumstances into their consideration. In one in
stance the present bill proposed to give the court greater
power than they had at present. At present the courts-
martial had no power of dealing a% ith offences committed
on shore within her Majesty's dominions. This led to
great inconvenience, and officers who had taken their men
on shore might be charged with an infringement of the
law. Power was given in the present bill to remedy this
defect, which, he believed, would prove of •great advantage
to the men. The bill gave the court power not only of
finding the prisoner guilty of a lesser offence, but of inflict-
ing a lesser punishment. These were the principal provi-
sions of the bill with regard to the greater crimes. He now

wished to say a few words with regard to the punishment
of flogging, which he knew excited a great deal of interest
in the country and in the house. In the navy, he need
scarcely say, that there was not an officer who did not suffer

personal pain when he felt himself bound to award thepu-
nishment of flogging. But considering the class of men who
entered the navy, that many of them belonged to the lowest
grade of society, who were operated on solely by the prin-
ciple of fear, he did not believe it possible to do away with

the punishment of flogging altogether. The house was
aware that the Duke of Cambridge established a new sys-

tem in the army by which every soldier was considered a
first-cuss man, and it was only after being degraded from

that first class by misconduct that he became liable to cor-
poral punishment. They proposed to copy that principle in
the navy. (Hear, hear.) And every man who now entered

the naNy knew that in doing so he was not liable to corpo-
ral punishment tillhe forfeited his place as a first-class man.
(Hear.) He begged that hon. gentlemen would not run
away with the idea that because there had been unfortu-
nate disturbances in the fleet the discipline of the navy was
gone. No such thing. So far from it, their fleet, which
had been creAted in a marvellously short space of time, got
10,000 men within the last year, and he maintained that so
far from their being cause for alarm at the disturbances
which had taken place, it was most creditable to the offi-
cers that the fleet was in so good and so admirable a state
as it was. (Hear, hear.) Ix this bill they proposed that
whenever a sailor or marine should be accused of such an
offence as would make it necessary on conviction to subject
him to corporal punishment, there should be an inquiry by
one or more officers of the ship into-the guilt or innocence
of the party. The captain would still have power to over-
rule the decision of the officers whichever way it went.
This was perhaps an extreme power, and could only bo
exerci-ed in case of open mutiny, when it was necessary
that the captain of a ship should possess the most undis-

puted power. In connexion with this measure he had the
pleasure of reading :a few statistics respecting capital
. .

punishment, which would show that this degrading custom
was year by year dying away at such h rate that if the

house continued to give its support to the Government as
it had done; he felt sure that it would soon disappear alto-
gether. In 1855 there were 55,000 men in the navy liable

;o be flogged, and the number who underwent the punlsh-

merit was-1,397, being about Ito 39; in 1856 it was lin ;

in 1857, in 48; and in 1659, out of 64,000 mon only 951

were punished, being lin 67. (Hear, hear) They were

now educating boys for the service, who would be attachod
to it, and they were improving the pay and comforts of the

men, so
.that taking everything together he thought that
the total abolition of flogging would be an affair of no dis-

taut date. He felt great confidence in ',leaving the bill in

the hands of the house.

Sir J. PANINGTON said that ho had listened to the
statement of his noble friend with the greatest pleasure.

He approved of the proposed changes in naval courts-mar-
tial, the present constitution of which was very defective.
He bad himself, when in office, requested Sir Richard Dun-
das to draw a scheme of revision, and he had no doubt his
noble friend had also availed himself of the talent and ex-
perience of that distinguished officer. He did trust that
henceforth the naval officers would be released from the
hardships which arose from the present system of courts-
martial.
Mr. WILLIAMS regretted that so important a subject
should have been brought forward at so late a period of the
session, and also that the question of flogging had not been
more directly dealt with. They should not forget that in
the last naval war one of our frigates was taken by an
enemy's ship, 'manned by Englishmen, all of whom had
left our service in consequence of having been flogged.
Sir C. NAPIER could not agree with all the points stated
by the noble lord. Ills noble friend told them that the
discipline of the navy was as good now as it had ever been,
if not better. He must give a direct contradiction to that
statement. He believed the discipline of the navy was
very much relaxed indeed. Drunkenness had increased
largely, and ho had been told that the drunkenness which
had gone on on board the Edinburgh was shocking. He
thought, however, what the Admiralty had done now in
bringing forward these new articles of war would tend more
than anything else to improve the discipline of the navy.
The manner in which punishment had been changed by
the bill would have a most excellent effect—substituting
penal punishments for various other punishments would
check offences to an extraordinary degree. He was not,
however, prepared to say that corporal punishment could
safely be entirely done away with, and he would even go
further, and say that if it were abolished the discipline of
the navy would be altogether destroyed. At the same time
he thought corporal punishment ought not to be inflicted
upon petty officers, who would feel a penal punishment
much more.
Clauses from 1 to 4 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 5, which was to the effect that every person
subject to the act, and not being a commanding officer, who
should not use his utmost exertions to carry out the orders
of his superiors when preparing for action, or who was
guilty of cowardice, should suffer death,
Sir C. NAP [ER said he could not conscientiously ap-
prove of the whole of this clause. He held that it was
unjust and improper, after having pressed a man one day
into the service, to hang him perhaps the next day on going
into action because his nerves were not strong enough to
allow of his fighting the enemy. lie thought this was con-
trary to common sense, as well as to religion. He shovid
move that the words "death for cowardice" be left out of
the clause. There was not the smallest necessity for their
insertion, for if there was no fight in a man, the fear of
being hanged would not make him fight.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought it was so difficult to define
what was cowardice that in his opinion the penalty ought
to be struck out of the clause.
Lord C. PAGET said that although it was probably only
in an extreme case that the cor7t would death for
cowardice, yet such cases night arise, and ho did not see
how they could exclude that penalty from this clause. .
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped his hon. and gallant friend
would accept the answer given by the noble lord.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to, as were clauses 6,7, and 8.
On clause 9, which wa 3 to the effect that any person found
asleep at, or deserting from, h's post, should be disre'ssed
the service,
Sir C. NAPIER sa'd he was disposed to think that the
punishment of death ought to attach to the offence of leav-
ing one's post. There was no knowing what Ctightful
consequences might result C:om sleeping at or deserting en
important post.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it seemed to him that what-
' ever their maximum punishment ought to be, that ma:zi-
mum punishment should be inflicted upon a men who de-
serted his post.
Sir F. SMITH said they had a very serious and a very
slight offence placed in the same clause. He wished to know
what description of punishment would be awarded for the
offence of shaping at one's post.
Sir M. SEYMO UR was disposed to adhere to the penal-
ties under the old code for these two offences, namely, pain
of death, or such other punishment as the Admiralty might
award.

After some further discussion, the clause was agreed to,
as also were the subsequent clauses up to 21 inclusive.
On clause 22, which provided that the punishment for
the offence of absence without leave should be imprison-
ment for a period not exceeding ten weeks, with or without
hard labour, or " such other punishment as the case might
requ're,"

Mr. W. WILLIAMS complained of the wide discretion
which was given by the last words as to the nature of the
punishment to be 'nfl;cted.
Sir C. NAPIER said that desertion had got to such a
pitch in the Dl::;'sh navy that it was absolutely necessary
some severe punishment should be imposed in order to cor-
rect the evil. Now that such a great outcry was made
against corporal punishment, he believed that nothing less
than penal servitude would deter seamen from deserting,
and enable officers to preserve discipline in their ships. He
therefore' hoped that Government would consent to that
punishment being added.
Lord C. PAGET observed that, in addition to imprison-
ment, there was stoppage of pay, and the oourt had also
power to award corporal punishment.
Sir C. NAPIER was opposed to corporal punishment,
and felt it his duty to move the insertion in the clause of
the words, "and penal servitude."
Sir G. C. LEWIS reminded the gallant admiral that sea-
men wen?, after all, but human beings, and that it was very
important to have a graduated scale of punishment accord-
ing to the degree of crime which they might have committed.
If they imposed the same punishment for absence without
leave as they did for desertion, they destroyed all the ordi-
nary motives for abstaining from the worst crimes. (Hear.)
He trusted the hon, and gallant gentleman would not per-
severe with his amendment,
After a few words from Mr. AYRTON,
Sir C. NAPIER again urged the necessity of adopting
his amendment in order to put a stop to desertion, which
had reached to on alarming extent, and said that although
penal servitude might be inserted in the clause, that punish-
ment need not be inflicted unless the other punishments
should prove ineffectual.
The amendment was, however, negatived without a divi-
sion, and the clause was agreed to.
Clauses up to 38 isclusive were also adopted.
Mr. AYRTO-2f observed that clause 39 appeared to make
a serious change in the law, for it would enable a naval com-
mander to send his warrant ashore to apprehend a sailor
who had cosaisitted any offence on land ; and the man
would be taken on board ship for trial under his summary
jurisdiction instead of being brought before the ordinary
civil tribunals. This would extend to the colonies, so
that if a sailor went ashore and committed an assault
upon a shopkeeper in the town of Sylney, the captain
might insist on hying the man bycourt-martial, and oblige
the shopkeeper to go on board the ship to give evidence.
It would be convenient to put in a clause at the end of the
bill, providing that wherever civil courts existed, they
should have the primary jurisdiction over offences com-
mitted on land.
Lord C. PAGET said that such was the intention of the
Government, and within the United Kingdom the power of
dealing by court-martial with offenders on land would only
apply to military ()fences, such as mutiny ; but out of the
United Kingdom to other offences also. He was obliged
to the hon. gentleman for his valuable suggestion.
Sir G. C. LEWIS observed that a similar question might
arise in foreign countries with respect to consular jurisdic-
tion, but if any other than military offences were committed
byasai
39
rotno
4l 4 wereand,o agreedfcour course
to,
etribunals of the country
would have jurisdiction.
Clauses
On clause 45,
Mr. BRADY said he should like to have some assurance
that corporal punishment would be limited to a certain
number of stripes, as it was in the army.
Lord C. PAGET said he would agree to limit the punish-
ment to fifty lashes.
Mr. WILLIAMS understood that by the existing rule
it was limited already to 48 lashes in the navy, but from
the mode in which the lashes were laid on, it was much
more severe than in the army. It was usual to strike so ith
greater force, and take time between the lashes. Ile had
been told that 50 lashes in the navy were equal to 200 in
the army.

Sir C NAPIER did not see why two more lashes should
be aided to the 48. It was true, as the hon. member for
Lambeth had said, that the flogging was much more severe
in the navy,
The clause was agreed to.

On clause 46, -
Mr. HADF lELD said the system of corporal punishment
was altogether a great mistake, and contrary to the spirit of
the age and the present state of society. it was not now
so much inflicted by the civil magistrates as formerly, and
milder punishments were found to operate better. In the
county of York it had been abolished, and the cat was never
used there, but in Lancashire, he regretted to say, it was
still prevalent; tend he would produce some returns to show
the comparative results. In schools too, flogging,
which
was formerly practised to a shameful extent, was now less
clauses of this bill much resorted to.. He found in theh con-
.

fusion os to the infliction of corporal punishment, and he
wished to provide more distinctly against repeated floggings
for one and the same offence.

Lord C. PAGET said the punishment for one offence
would be limited to 48 lashes, by a proviso which he would
insert at the end of the clause. It was a mistake to suppose
that the Government were about to extend the sphere of
corporal punishment by this bill. They only intended to
control it, and to define the cases in which it might be
awarded.

Mr. WILLIAMS objected to that portion of the clause
which allowed judgment of death to be given by a majority
consisting of four-fidhs of the members of the court-mar-

tial. What he desired was that in order to pass judgment
of death the court should be unanimous, as in the criminal
procedure in our courts of common law the whole of the

jurymen were required to agree in their verdict. He would,
therefore, move that the second paragraph of clause 46 be
struck out.

Lord C. PAGET said it was a mistake to propose, with
the most philanthropic views, to strike out this part of the

clause, for then the matter would be left as it now stood,
and sentence of death might be given by the decision of a
bare majority of the court. It was therefore from motives
of humanity that this clause, as he proposed it, required
that where the court-martial did not exceed five members,
four of them should concur in the judgment of death, or
five if the court consisted of seven,
The amendment was negatived without a division, and a
proviso was added, that in any case of corporal punishment
not more than 48 lashes should be inflicted.
Mr. WHITE still thought it was re pugnant to civilised
nations that a man should be put to death without the una-
nimous judgment of the court which tried him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was not required
in a court-martial that the members should be unanimous,
in the same manner as a jury were required to be. It would
be impossible to maintain discipline on beard a ship if they
were required to be unanimous.
The clause was then agreed to, as wry; also clause 47.
On clause 48,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had hitlsJerto abstained from
discussing any of the clauses of this bill, because he felt
with Sir John Pakington that this was a matter that was
much better left to those who had profe scion al experience and
legal knowledge; but having been somerwhat conversant with
naval affairs and taking the deepest i aterest in the welfare
and prosperity of that noble profession a, and entertaining an
opinion, which he was afraid would mot be acceptable to the
committee generally with regard to :a portion of the clause
they were now discussing, he shoul d fail in his duty if he
did not express that opinion. So far a.s his sympathies went
he should wish the utmost limit to 'be put upon the inflic-
tion of corporal punishment. lie would not discuss the
question in the abstract, because the .committee had adopted
corporal punishment. He thought Lord Melbourne and
the late Sir George Cockburn introduced a most salutary
check on corporal punishment in the navy, by issuing a
regulation that it should not be inflicted, except in the
case of mutiny, until 48 hours after the offence, and
that there must be a record in the shape of a war•
rant of each punishment, which warrant was sent to the
Admiralty. And one of the most important duties of the
Board of Admiralty was carefully to revise that list of
punishments, and if there was any ground for believing
that it had been inflicted unnecessarily or on unjust grounds,
the Admiralty could call for an explanation. If the ship
was in good order and the infliction of the punishment of
flogging was unfsequent, they might conclude that the
captain was a good captain, but the infliction of the
punishment was feequent, and the explanation of the cap-
tain was not satisfactory, in his humble judgment that cap-
tain ought to be superseded without paying off the ship.
Saving only the non-exercise of this power, he did not
think that any check was wanting a gainst any abuse of the
power of the commanding officer. Now, this clause three—
The CHAIRMAN hero observed that they were upon
clause 48, and the right hon. baronet sat down. •
Clause 48 was then egress' to.
On clause 49,
Sir J. GRAHAM said at present, caving the restriction
he had already mentioned, the commanding officer alone
had the power of inflicting corporal punishment. In most
cases he proceeded on the report of an inferior officer ; but
by this clause an investigation was required, except in the
case of mutiny. The effect of this, he thought, world be
prejudicial to discipline. If a captain saw an offence com-
mitted he could not act on his own. judgment and know-
ledge, but must delegate the inquiry to inferior officers, and
if those officers should wish to gain popularity in the ship
at the commanding officer's expense they could do so, and
the commanding officer would have to inflict the punish-
ment against their opinion, which would destroy his in-
fluence over the crew. If they made this concession ojce
it was irrevocable, and it might have a fatal effect, but
he had the greatest corfldence in the noble duke at
the head of the Admiralty, and in the noble lord the
Secretary. Hls judgment would be materially influenced by
the opinion of the two admirals sitting below the gangway.
Sir C. NAPIER said he looked upon this clause as the
most important in the bill. A captain was now the judge,
the jury, and the executioner. If an officer complained to
him, he had always a feeling towards the officer and against
the man, end if he did not take the part of the officer the
men believed that he did. The inferTtor officers were always
more inclined to severity than the captain. He thought
that if there were courts. martial the captain ought to award
the punishment, exactly as a judge did, and that he ought
not to be present when the punishment was inflicted, but
that it ought to be inflicted under the superintendence of
the second officer.
Sir M. SEYMOUR suggested that the proposed regula-
tions should be accompanied by rules for the guidance of the
officers who would have to carry them into effect. He sub-
mitted, also, that in small vessels, gunboats, for instance,
there would be great difficulty in forming a court.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the hon. and gallant member for
Southwark evidently contemplated a court-martial, sworn
evidence, and a decision that would be binding upon the
captain ; whereas the clause provided for none of those
things. Again, the gallant admiral did not seem to bear in
mind the possibility of the captain himself witnessing a
man's misconduct, as, for example, if with his own eyes he
saw a sailor skulking in a gale of wind when he ought to be
going aloft. In a case like that the commanding officer
himself would be the best judge of the offender's culpability.
II& (the right hon. baronet) altogether dissented from the
reasons given by the gallant admiral why the captain should
not be present at the fnfliction of the punishment. Surely
a man ought not to be compelled to undergo an amount of
pain which the captain, had he been present, would have
thought unnecessarily severe. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not forget that the clause
came before the house recommended by a Board of Admi-
ralty, which comprised several eminent officers, and by the
noble lord who had himself had practical experience of
commanding ships. The object of the proposed regulation
was, he presumed, to give the captain every possible moral
support in the discharge of his difficult and important
duties; and at the same time to hold out to the sailor the
utmost possible guarantee for his being treated with jus-
tice. He believed that the clause would tend to secure
both those objects, but he would suggest that its details
should be carefully reconsidered before the report.
Sir C. NAPIER thought that if there was not to be
a regular court-martial the inquiry had better be dispensed
with, for it would be regarded by the men as little better
than a farce. As for offences committed under the personal
cognisance of the captain, he had to remark that a colonel
had no power to flog a soldier for anything that he might
see him do.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS begged to move the omission of
this part of the clause, in order to substitute a provision fur
a proper court martial.
Sir J. GRAHAM observed that the language of the
clause was certainly very ambiguous, the pronoun " his"
being sometimes CJ used as to render it doubtful whether it
applied to the captain or to the offender.
L Ord C. PAGET admitted the importance of the sugges-
tion of Sir James Graham and the grave difficulty of the
question. He should .be sorry to take away from the cap-
tain of a ship the least responsibility. Were this done
there would be an end of discipline. Supposing a captain to
notice a man not laying out as he ought, he would send for
his second in command and direct inquiry to be made so as
to ascertain whether the man was guilty of the offence wil-
fully. He did not think that the responsibility of the cap-
tain would le in the least affected by the course proposed
by this clause. He would still have the power of over-
ruling the opinion expressed by the officers. There was
great difficulty in dealing 3ith this question; but he was
convinced that the alteration proposed would operate to the
improvement of discipline. The restriction referred only to
corporal punishment, and in any seriou3 cases, such as
mutiny, the captain had the power of setting aside the de-
cision of the other officers.
Mr. W. 'WILLIAMS moved the omission of cm ;ain
words from the clause, with the view to the adoption of a
cor- t-ma•.-Lial in all cases of prnisluatent.
Sir G. C. LEWIS recommended the hon, member to pro-
pose a new clause of his own on the bringing up of the
report.

Mr. AYRTON said that the proposal of Mr. Williams
was utterly impracticable.
The amendment of Mr. Williams was negatived without
a division, and the clause was agreed to.
On clause 50,
Lord HOT HAM said that much inccnvenience might re-
sult from there be'ug no one on the spot qualified to con-
vene a court-nsm iial.

Lord C. PAGET said that the commanding officer of any
squadron or detachment would have that authority.
Wherever theie were three ships under one command,
the-e would be power to order a court-martial.
Clauses 50 to 69 were agreed to.
Upon clause 70,
Mr. HENLEY said he hoped some provision would be
made for tho case of the gaols being full. At present a
governor was under a penalty of £lOO for refusing to receive
a prisoner, to be recovered in summary manner.
Mr. JAMES recommended the insertion of the words
" without lawful excuse" after the word "refuse."
Mr. HENLEY said that in country prisons they were.* this difficulty—governors of prisons were obliged to have
single cells for each prisoner, whereas formerly they were
enabled to double aml.treble the number of occupants of each
cell.

The amendment was agreed to, and the words added to
the clause.

The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill passed
lireugh committee.
The house resumed.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.
This bill was ordered for a third reading to-morrow (this
day.

COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Mr. HADFIELD mov,d the insertion of the following
clause, iu reference to the salary of the chief clerks ap-
pointed since Nov. 2, 1855 : " As regards the said John
Arthur Buckley and the chief clerks to bo appointed under
this act, and also as regards the chief clerks of all the judges
of the said court, appointed since the second day of Novem-
ber one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, and to be
hereafter appointed, it shall be lawful for the Lord Chan-
cellor, if he shall so think fit, upon the certificate mentioned
in the 44th section of the said act of the 15th and 16th years
of her Majesty, chapter 80, to order and direct their salaries

respectively to be increased to the full amount authorised
by such act at any one period."
Mr. MALTNS opposed the amendment.
The committee then divided,—
For the clause
Against it
•
Majority
The clause was accordingly added to the bill.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c., BILL.
Upon the order of the day being read for considering the
Lords' amendments to this bill,
Mr. B. OSBORNE complained that those amendments
had the eltect of increasing and perpetuating the power of
the Ecclesiastical Commission, which the other night
had run a great chance of being abolished by a vote of the
house. It was notorious that under the commission there
had been a great waste of church property. The salaries
of rich deans had been increased, while the claims of the
working clergy had been overlooked. (Hear, hear.) If
the house wanted any proof of that fact it need only refer to
the blue-book of seventy pages which had been laid on the
table. It there appeared that on the occasion of the pay-
ment of £.5,000 on the renewal of a tithe rent-charge within
the living of Whitby, the incumbent, whose income was
only £2OO a year, with a population over 12,000, applied to
the commission for a small augmentation of his salary.
Although his application was supported by the late Arch-
bishop of York, it was unsuccessful, and the result was a
strong feeling of irritation in the parish. There were
hundreds of cases to show that the Ecclesiastical C,,mmis-
sioners paid no attention to the augmentation of poor liv-
ings. But the great job which they had recently performed
was to raise the salary of the Dean of York. That was a
transaction which marked the character of the Ecclesiastical
Commission. By an Act of Parliament passed some time
ago the salaries of those deans, with some special excep-
tions, were fixed not to exceed £l,OOO a year. Two years
ago, when the deanery was vacant, some objection was
taken in the House of Commons to the appointment of an
excellent gentleman, the present dean, than whom a better
man did not exist, and who had expended large sums of
money for the benefit of the church and people. The
right hon. gentleman, then Home Secretary, however, then
stated that this gentleman was appointed because he was a
teat of very large property, the income of the deanery
being limited to £l,OOO a year. That statement was
accepted. Now, the Dean of York has made no applica-
tion to have his salary raised above £l,OOO a year ; he
had taken no part in the matter, and stood fully ac-
quitted. But the Ecclesiastical Commission had gone to
the Home-office with a memorial, and got an order in
council passed, by which the income of the Deanery of
York was raised to £2,000 a year. This had been done
without the consent of Parliament, and contrary to the
settlement made by Parliament. He doubted whether such
an act was legally done". Instead of such an act being done
by the will of an irresponsible body, the correct thing would
have been to have come before Parliament for a declara-
tory act. It was a matter which required explanation.
The SPEAKER said the question before the house was
the consideration of the Lords' amendments to this bill.
Mr. B. OSBORNE intended to move an amendment.
No explanation had yet been given of that order in council ;
but when this bill was before the House of Lords, notice of
an amendment was given by Lord Stanley of Alderley,
which was approved by Lord Derby, and which he was
surprised not to see now among the Lords' amendments to
the bill. He would now move the same amendment as an
addition to one of the clauses of the bill:—" That in all
cases where any schemes are proposed by the Ecclesiastical
Commission, by which the income of any ecclesiastical dig-
nitaries are altered or increased, the same shall be laid before
the two Houses of Parliament six weeks at least before they
are submitted to her Majesty in Council."
Sir G. C. LEWIS objected that this amendment could not
be moved. The rule was, in amending the Lords' amend-
ments, that the amendments so made by this house should
be relevant to the words which were amended. Now, the
clause to which the hon. gentleman would append this pro-
viso related simply to the adjustment of the estates or in-
comes of the bishops on the avoidance of their sees.

Mr. KINNAIRD regretted that the Home Secretary had
not condescended to give some explanation of the affair of
the Deanery of York alluded to by the hon. member for
Liskeard. That was a case which, taken in contrast with
the case of Whitby, supplied an excellent specimen of the
proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission. was it cor-
rect that applications had been made for the increase of the
stipends of the two deaneries.

The SPEAKER was of opinion that the amendment was
not relevant to the amendment of the Lords, and could not,
therefore, be put.
Sir 11. WILLOUGIIBY wished to know who was to
pay the expenses of the arbitrations that would be re-
quired to settle the value of the estates to be assigned to
sees ? The Lords' amendment appeared to him to exagge-
rate the mischief.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said the Lords' amendment applied
only to disputes, on the avoidance of a see, as to the value
of the estates which should be allotted to it.

The first amendment was then agreed to:
the second,
Mr. OSBORNE wished to know whether ho could now
move his amendment ? Ho was very anxious to Gring it
forward. (A laugh.)

The SPEAKER ;tiled that he could not.
Mr. AYRTON moved that the amendment be not
agreed to.

After a few words from Mr. Whalley, Lord Palmerston;
Mr. Craufurd, and Sir G. C. Lewis,
The house divided on the question of agreeing to the
Lords' amendment--
For the amendment 35
Against it
Majority .. —l7

The remaining amendments were agreed to.
PARTY EMBLEMS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was ordered to be read a third time to-day.
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
The following bills also passed through committee :--
Coast of Africa, &c., Act Amendment Bill; Offences within
her Majesty's Possessions Abroad Bill.
CHANCERY EVIDENCE COMMISSION BILL.
The bill passed through committee, and was read a third
time and passed.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL.
Some of the Lords' amendments to this bill were agreed to,
GAS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
The Lords' amendments were agreed to.