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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 22,
_lB6O,

which had been taken respecting the bill. lie could only '
say that as soon as the Governmentohad 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

transacted.
Mr. ROLT agreed with the right hon. baronet in the im-
portance of having judicial matters disposed of by jnd ges,
and introducing such legislative provision as would pre-
vent, as far as possible, referring such questions to the offi-
cers of the court. He did not think the equity judges could
satisfactorily preside at chambers disposing of accounts,
which would unfit themfor theirjudicial business. If a ques-
tion of law were at chambers the chief clerk might express
an opinion, and if the parties were dissatisfied they might
appeal to the judge. He did not think the time had arrived
when a new judge would be necessary, for although the
judges were fully occupied there were no arrears, and he
was not aware that any business had been referred to cham-
bers which ought not to have been transacted there. Mr.
\Buckley had been acting with the Master of the Rolls for
three years, and if they did not accede to the clause pro-
posed by Mr. Hadfield they would be limiting his judicial
staff. It should be remembered, too, that the Master of the
Rolls had strongly recommended this appointment, and
that representation he thought should be attended to.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he should like to know in what
manner the Master of the Rolls has obtained the assistance
of Mr. Buckley during the last three years.
Mr. MALINS agreed in the main with Sir J. Graham,
and said that unless it could be shown that an additional
clerk was necessary for the Vice-Chancellor, he could not
agree that it was necessary to give another clerk to the
Master of the Rolls. The Vice-Chancellor's clerks did quite
as much work as a single judge could superintend, and if
another chief clerk were appointed for each of the courts
there would be more work than the Vice-Chancellor could
adequately supervise. He was not of opinion the time had
come for the appointment of a new judge, but he did not mean
to say that it was far distant, inasmuch as by a bill now be •
fore the house, which would enable viva voce evidence to be
taken, the Chancery Court business would greatly increase.
In reply to Sir J. Graham's question, the hon. and learned
gentleman had said that Mr. Buckley was clerk to Master
Blunt, who died in 1856. He was entitled to £l,OOO a-year
as such clerk, and three years ago one of the clerks of the
Master of the Rolls having become ill, Mr. Buckley offered
his services without any additional salary. Since that he
had discharged the duties, and if he continued to discharge
them he would not receive any additional salary to that to
which he was at present entitled. He thought that under
the circumstances the services of Mr. Buckley might be re-
tained.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, from the language
he frequently heard in the courts he could not help think-
ing that a portion of the duty of the courts strictly judicial
was transferred from the judges to the chief clerks, and he
should object therefore to adding another chief clerk to the
establishment of the Master of the Rolls. But the Master
of the Rolla, having pledged himself to the performance
of certain duties, he was disposed on that ground, and that
ground alone, to assent to his continuing to receive Mr.
Buckley's assistance, so long as the Lord Chancellor
might think fit, on the condition that if the business de-
creased he should be dismissed, and have no claim to
compensation, and if business increased he might be trans-
ferred to the office of one of the Vice-Chancellors if neces-
sary. The hon. and learned gentleman moved a clause, in
which he embodied those views, as an amendment to the
clause proposed by Mr. Hadfield.
Mr. HENLEY thought all judicial business of import
ance should be transacted under the immediate supervision
of the judges. He suggested that the Attorney-General
should allow Mr. Hadfield's clause to be negatived, and then
to have his own printed, in order that it might be brought
up with the report. .
Sir J. GRAHAM said he viewed the amended clause
with great jealousy. He thought it would be well to add to
the clause that if a fourth judge were appointed Mr. Buck-
ley should be transferred to him as his chief clerk.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should have no
objection.
It being 10 minutes to four, the Cualumirr reported
progress.
The other orders on the paper were postponed, and the
sitting was suspended at four o'clock.
At six o'clockjthe house resumed.
RETIRING ALLOWANCES IN THE NAVY.
Sir J. PAKINGTON asked the Secretary of the Admi-
ralty whether it was true that the officers on the 14s. 6d.
list were to be exempted from the application of the system
of retirement which applied to the other lists, and if so,
what was the reason of that exemption, and also whether
the noble lord had received any representation from the
officers of the navy on the subject ?
Lord C. PAGET said the captains on the 14s. 6d. list
had the alternative given them of remaining in the same
position as they were then, or accepting the permanent al-
lowance. In the 10s. 6d. list retirement was compulsory.
CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER.
Sir J. SHELLEY gave notice that early in the next ses-
sion he would move for leave to bring in a bill to form a
corporation for the city and liberties of Westminster, and
also that he would ask for leave to bring in a bill to amend
the Gas Clauses Act of 1847.
ROMAN CATHOLICS IN PRISONS AND WORK-
HOUSES. _ _

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 whether 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

martial.

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 large a sense as possible.
Indeed he was not aware that any Government had ever
committed any error in making 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, tecause
his hon. friend said that the Government would frankly en-
deavour to apply the powers of the constitutional act and
proceed in the spirit of those powers, and that they would
endeavour to obtain their obj set 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 Now 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 bilra 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 he 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 adopted
for the discipline of her Majesty's navy. The first great de-
fect of the present act was that it was extremely difficelt 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 goodof the public service that they
should be dispersed. Another incenvenienc,e was that how-
ever large the fleet was, a second court-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 'oe 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 con-
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 make 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 with which they were committed. Every
person would remember the trial of the unfortunate Admi-
ral Byng. The court-martial which tried him. acquitted
him of cowardice and disaffection, 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, and it was not till many years afterwards that
courts-martial got the power of inflicting a lesser punish-
ment. By the present bill they went farther than that, and
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 oflences " before the enemy." The first
was that of treachery, and to that they awarded the penalty
of death. Ho believed that no ono 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 imprisoned or
dismissed from the service. But if the person had been
guilty from negligence or drunkenness, 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 bill 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,
had no power of awarding the punishment of penal servitude,
which he considered to be a great anomaly. They accord-
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 carefully 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 were awarded for the offences
under that head. The next part had reference to desertion.
There was to 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 with offences committed
on share 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 int crest
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 the pu-
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-class min, 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 navy knew that in doing so he was not liable to corpo-
ral punishment till he 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 cre tted 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 disturbance;
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.) Ii 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 extrenie power, and could only be
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
MO year by year dying away at such a 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
to be flogged, and the number who underwent the punish-
ment was 1,307, being about 1 to 39; in 18:6 it was 1 in 42 ;
in 1857, in 48 ; and in 1859, out of 61,000 men only 951
were punished, being lin 67. (Hear, hear ) They were
now educating boys for the service, who would be attached
to it, and they wore 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-
tant date. He felt great confidence in ',leaving the bill in
the hands of the house.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he bad listened to the
statement of his noble friend with the greatest pleasule.

Sir J. ACTON gave notice that early next session he
would call the attention of the house to the condition of
Roman Catholic inmates of prisons and workhouses in
England.

NEW ZEALAND BILL.
On the order for the second reading of this bill,
Lord PALMERSTON said it was not the intention o.
her Majesty's Government to press this bill any further at
this late period of the session. (Hear.) It was not that
they were doubtful, if there was time for a fair and full
discussion of the measure, that they should succeed in re-
moving the objections which many hon. gentlemen felt
to the proposed bill, but the present state of the session
prevented that ; and therefore the object of the bill having
been to protect the interests of the aborigines of New Zea-
land, her Majesty's Government were of opinion that the
powers which the constitution. of New Zealand gave
to
the Crown of making regulations bearing upon those
interests, would, if properly used, be sufficient
for the accomplishment of the objects which
her Majesty's Government had in view; but if it should
appear that those powers were inadequate it would then re-
main for the Government at some future period to have re-
course to further legislation on the subject. He begged
therefore to move that the order far the second reading of
the bill should be discharged.
Sir J. PAKINGTON regretted that he could not say of
this bill, "De mortuis nil nisi bonum." He thought that
both personally and politically he had very great reason to
complain of the conduct of the Government in respect to it.
He had come up from Worcestershire that morning, having
received a letter from the Secretary to the Treasury on the
subject, stating that the noble lord at the head of the Go-
vernment was quite determined to proceed with the bill.
Under these circumstances he felt he had some reason to
complain of the conduct of the Government in this matter,
and that they could not have made up their minds a little
sooner on the subject. He had reason to believe that even
in the present state of the House of Commons the Govern-
ment found they could not pass this bill, and he believed
that was the reason why the noble lord had taken the un-
expected course which he had taken that evening. He was
the more surprised at the conduct of the noble lord after
having received a despatch within the last few days from the
Governor of New Zealand, in which his excellency referred
to three memoranda, from the bishop of the colony, the late
Chief Justice, and Mr. Swainson, on the policy which ought
to be pursued in the future management of the Maori race.
The opinions of those gentlemen were adverse to the bill.
The despatch referred to was received on the 10th August,
and ordered to be printed on the 15th. The letter f
o the
Secretary of the Treasury which summoned him (Sir J.
Pakington) to town was dated the 17th, so that the
Government ought by that time to have made up their
minds as to what course they intended to pursue in
regard to the bill. He could hardly conceive any great
department of the country venturing to proceed with the
bill after having received such a despatch. He was con-
vinced that if the noble duke the Secretary for the Colonies
were now in England he would not, after having seen that
despatch, have ventured to press this measure forward. It
would not, however, now be becoming in him (Sir J. Pak-
ington), after the bill had been withdrawn, to enter at any
length into it ; but he would observe that it would be im-
possible for the legislative council which the bill proposed
to work with the present legislative body. The bill would
create a bad feeling between the colonists and the colonial
Government, and the colonists and the Imperial Govern-
ment, and the Europeans and natives.
Mr. HADFIELD wanted to know why the right hon.
baronet was absent when this bill was under discussion be-
fore the house, considering the very small borough which
he represented. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He (Mr.
Hadfield) had been there day by day, and he could not see
that the right hon. baronet had any right to complain.
(Hear.) He had read this bill, and he honoured the noble
lord for introducing it. (Hear, hear.) It was a good bill,
and was calculated to confer great benefit. He only hoped
the noble lord would not listen to the bishops and clergy—
(a laugh)—but that in all parts of her Majesty's dominions
he would restrain that political ecclesiastical dominion
which was calculated to endanger the safety of the colo-
nies. We had enough to do with ecclesiastical quarrels in
this country ; let us not transplant them to New Zealand
or Tndia.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE was sorry that the right hon. gen-
tleman (Sir J. Pakington) should have any reason to com-
plain on this subject on the ground of personal inconve-
nience ; but if he had been in the position of the Govern-
ment he would have better understood the difficulty which
the Government found in making up their minds upon this
subject. He denied that the bill violated in the slightest
degree the spirit of the New Zealand constitution. The
only question was whether the colonists should govern
themselves or should govern others. The only object
of introducing the present measure was to enable
the Crown, without the violation of existing
rights, to deal with very dangerous and delicate
questions, but it had been found thAt the powers now
existing were ample for that purpose without any further
,_!egialatien, and therefore the Government had come to the
Qb,....at"mr_oneltmtthetil'of withdrawing the bill.
°lr L+. C. LEWIS said he was sorry the right hon.
ember for Droitwich should have been put to
"Y Pers°"l inconvenience in consequence of the ere.

He approved of the proposed changes in nasal courts-mar-
tial, the present constitution of which was very defective.
He bad hime lf, 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 t hat distinguished officer. He did trust that
henceforth :03 naval officers would be released from the

hardships whdch arose from the present system of courts-

Mr. VII ,lAMS regretted that so important a subject
should have I seen brought forward at so late a period of the
session, and :dso that the question of flogging had not been
more directly dealt with. They should not forget that in
the last nave I war one of our frigates was taken by an

........ ____ ___ .
enemy's ship, manned by Englishmen, all of whom had
left our servie in consequence of having been flogged.
Sir C. NA.I 'IER could not agree with all the points stated
by the noble. lord. His noble friend told them that the
discipline of il le navy was as good now as it had ever been,
if not better. He must give a direct contradiction to that
statement. II e believed the discipline of the navy was
very much r 6 taxed indeed. Drunkenness had increased
largely, and ha had been told that the drunkenness which
had gone on cue. board the Edinburgh was shocking. He
thought, how e ver, what the Admiralty had done now in
bringing forwn rd these new articles of war would tend more
than anythinu: else to improve the discipline of the navy.
The manner En which punishment had been changed by
the bill would. .have a most excellent effect—substituting
penal punish nents for various other punishments would
check offences to an extraordinary degree. He was not,
however, prep mt ed to say that corporal punishment could
safely be entir el y done away with, and he would even go
further, and s ay that if it were abolished the discipline of
the navy would be altogether destroyed. At the same time
he thought cor porel punishment ought not to be inflicted
upon petty °Rem, who would feel a penal punishment
much more.
Clauses from a to 4 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 5, which was to the effect that every person
subject to the a et, and not being a commanding officer, who
should not use luis 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. NAPIER 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. He thought this was con-
trary to common sense, as well as to religion. He should
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 nut of the clause.
Lord C. PAGET said that although it was probably only
in an extreme case that the court would inflict death for
cowardice, yet such cases might arise, and he 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 was to the effect that any person found
asleep at, or deserting from, his post, should be dismissed
the service,
Sir C. NAPIER said 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 frightful
consequences might result from sleeping at or deserting an
important post.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it seemed to him that what-
ever their maximum punishment ought to be, that maxi-
mum punishment should be inflicted upon a man 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 sleeping at one's pelt.
Sir M. SEYMOUR 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

reqr;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 inflicted.
Sir C. NAPIER said that desertion had got to such a
pitch in the Bi:ash navy that it was absolutely necessary
some severe punishment should be imposed in order to cor-
rect the evil. Now that such reat 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 adied.
Lord C. PAGET observed that, in addition to imprison-
ment, there was stoppage of pay, and the court had also
power to award corporal punishment.
Sir C. NAPIER was opposed to corporal punishment,
E
and felt it his duty is move the insertion in the clause of
the words, " and penal servitude."
Sir G. C. LEWIS reminded the gallant admiral that sea-
men wero, 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. acid gallant gentleman would not per-
severe with his amendment,
After a few words from Mr. AYILTOIV,
Sir C.
N AP
to i
an
gain urged the necessity of adopting
his
order to put a stop to desertion, which
had
amendmentreached
in R
alarminga
extent, and said that although
penal servitude might le inserted in the clause, that punish-
ment need not be inflicted unless the other punishments
should prove ineffectual.
The amendment wag, however, negatived without a divi-
sion, and the clause was agreed to.
Clauses up to 38 inclusive were also adopted.
Mr. AYRT ON observed that clauso 39 appeared to make
a serious
hasd change
o,im in
tt
e the law,
com-
mander to send his warrant ashore to apprehend a sailor
who s offence on land; and the man
ocan for it would enable a naval
d
jurisdiction instead of being brought before the ordinary
civil This extend to the colonies, so
that if
a tribunals.a k i
leonr (m board ship for trial under his summary
went ashore and committed an assault
would be tsa
upon a shopkeeper it the town of Sydney, the captain
might man bycourt-martial, and oblige
theboard 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
shopkeeper insistopkeep oe n r
t tryingo go
on the
should have the primary jurisdiction ov©r 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 offences, such as mutiny ; but out of the
United Kingdom to other offences also. He was obliged
to the hon. gentleman for hie 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
by a sailor on land, of coarse the tribunals of the country
would have jurisdiction.
Clauses 39 to 44 were agreed to.
On clause 45,
Mr. BRADY said he sllculd 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
mere severe than in the army. It was usual to strike w th
greater force, and take time between the lashes. He 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 added 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. HADFIELD 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 ; and 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
resorted to. lie found in the clauses of this bill much con-
fusion as 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 43 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*. 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-firths of the members of tho 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 m philanthropic views, to strike out this part of the

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 II AM said that much inconvenience might re-
sult from there being no one on the spot qualified to con-
vene a court-martial.
Lord C. PAGET said that the commanding officer of any
squadron or detachment would have that authority.
Wherever there were three ships under one command,
there 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
wade for the 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 a summary manner.
Mr. JAMES recommended the insertion of the words
" without lawful excuse" after the word " refuse."
Mr. lIENLEY said that in country prisons they were in
this difficulty—governors of prisons were obliged to have
single cells for each prisoner, whereas formerly they were
enabled to double.axdtreble 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
through committee.
The house resumed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CIIARITIES 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. iIADFIELD moved the insertion of the following
clause, in reference to the salary of the chief clerks ap-
pointed since Nov. 2, 155 : "As regards the said John
Arthur Buckley and the chief clerks to be 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

clause, for then the matter would be left as it now stood, respectively to be increased to the full amount authorised
and sentence of death might be given by the decision of a by such act at any one period."
bare majority of the court. It was therefore from motives Mr. MALINS opposed the amendment.
of humanity that this clause, as he proposed it, required The committee then divided,—
that where the court-martial did not exceed five members, For the clause
four of them should concur in the judgment of death, or Against it 32
five if the court consisted of seven, Majority
The amendment was negatived without a division, and a The clause was accordingly added to the bill.
proviso was added, that in any case of corporal punishment ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c., BILL.
not more than 48 lashes should be inflicted.
Upon the order of the day being read for considering the
Mr. WHITE still thought it was repugnant to civilised Lords' amendments to this bill,
nations that a man should be put to death without the una-' Mr. B. OSBORNE complained that those amendments
nimous judgment of the court which tried him, had the effect of increasing and perpetuating the power of
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was not required the Ecclesiastical Commission, which the other night
in a court-martial that the members should be unanimous, had run a great chance of being, abolished by a vote of the
in the same manner as a jury were required to be. It would house. It was notorious that under the commission there
be impossible to maintain discipline on board a ship if they had been a great waste of church property. The salaries
were required to be unanimous, of rich deans had been increased, while the claims of the
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 47. working clergy had been overlooked. (Hear, hear.) If
On clause 48, the house wanted any proof of that fact it need only refer to
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had hitherto abstained from the blue-book of seventy pages which had been laid on the
discussing any of the clauses of this bill, because he felt table. It there appeared that on the occasion of the pay-
with Sir John Pakington that this was a matter that was ment of £5,000 on the renewal of a tithe rent-charge within
much better leftto those who had professional experience and the living of Whitby, the ineurebent, whose income was
legalknowledge; but having been somewhat conversant with only £2OO a year, with a population over 12,000, applied to
naval affairs and taking the deepest interest in the welfare the commission for a small augmentation of his salary.
and prosperity of that noble profession, and entertaining an Although his application was supported by the late Arch-
opinion, which he was afraid would not be acceptable to the bishop of York, it was unsuccessful, and the result was a
committee generally with regard to a portion of the clause strong feeling of irritation in the parish. There were
they were now discussing, he should fail in his duty if he hundreds of cases to show that the Ecclesiastical C,.rarnis-
did not express that opinion. So far as his sympathies went sioners paid no attention to the augmentation of poor liv-
he should wish the utmost limit to be put upon the inflie- ings. But the great job which they had recently performed
tion of corporal punishment. lie would not discuss the was to raise the salary of the Dean of York. That was a
question in the abstract, because the committee had adopted transaction which marked the character of the Ecclesiastical
corporal punishment. He thought Lord Melbourne and Commission. By an Act of Parliament passed some time
the late Sir George Cockburn introduced a most salutary ago the salaries of those deans, with some special excep-
check on corporal punishment in the navy, by issuing a tions, were fixed not to exceed £l,OOO a year. Two years
regulation that it should not be inflicted, except in the ago, when the deanery was vacant, some objection was
case of mutiny, until 48 hours after the offence, and taken in the House of Commons to the appointment of an
that there must be a record in the shape of a war- excellent gentleman, the present dean, than whom a better
rant of each punishment, which warrant was sent to the man did not exist, and who had expended large sums of
Admiralty. And one of the most important duties of the money for the benefit of the church and people. The
Board of Admiralty was carefully to revise that list of right hon. gentleman, then Home Secretary, however, then
I punisisments, and if there was any ground for believing stated that this gentleman was appointed because he was a
that it had been inflicted unnecessarily or on unjust grounds, man of very large property, the income of the deanery
the Admiralty could call for an explanation. If the ship being limited to £l,OOO a year. That statement wa's
was in good order and the infliction of the punishment of accepted. Now, the Dean of York has made no applica-
flogging :was unFrequent, they might conclude that the tion to have his salary raised above £l,OOO a year ; he
capta'n was a good captain, but if the infliction of the had taken nu part in the matter, and stood fully ac-
punishment was frequent, and the explanation of the cap- quitted. But the Ecclesiastical Commission had gone to
Min was not satisfactory, in his humble judgment that cap- the Home-office with a memorial, and got an order in
tain ought to be superseded without paying off the ship. council passed, by which the income of the Deanery of
Saving only the non-exercise of this power, he did not York was raised to £2,000 a year. This had been done
think that any check was wanting against any abuse of the without the consent of Parliament, and contrary to the
power of the commanding officer. Now, this clause three— settlement made by Parliament. He doubted whether such
The CHAIRMAN here observed that they were upon an act was legally done. Instead of such an act being done
clause 48, and the right hon. baronet sat down. by the will of an irresponsible body, the correct thing would
Clause 48 was then agreed to. have been to have come before Parliament for a declare-
On clause 49, tory act. It was a matter which required explanation.
Sir J. GRAHAM said at present, saving the restriction The SPEAKER said the question before the house was
he had already mentioned, the commanding officer alone the consideration of the Lerds' amendments to this bill.
had the power of inflicting corporal punishment. In most Mr. B. OSBORNE intended to move an amendment.
cases he proceeded on the report of an inferior officer ; but No explanation had yet been given of that order in council ;
by this clause an investigation was required, except in the but when this bill was before the House of Lords, notice of
case of mutiny. The effect of this, he thought, wou'd be an amendment was given by Lord Stanley of Alderley,
prejudicial to discipline. If a captain saw an offence corn- which was approved by Lord Derby, and which he was
mitted he could not act on his own judgment and know- surprised not to see now among the Lords' amendments to
ledge, but must delegate the inquiry to inferior officers, and the bill. He would now move the same amendment as
if those officers should wish to gain popr'arity in the ship addition to one of the clauses of the bill :—" That in a.
at the commanding officer's expense they could do so, and cases where any schemes are proposed by the Ecclesiastica.
the commanding officer would have to inflict the punish- Commission, by which the income of any ecclesiastical dig-
ment against their opinion, which world destroy his in- nitaries are altered or increased, the same shall be laid before
fluence over the crew. If they made this concession once the two Houses of Parliament six weeks at least before they
it was irrevocable, and it might have a fatal effect, but are submitted to her Majesty in Council."
he had the greatest cor fidenee in the noble duke at Sir G. C. LEWIS objected that this amendment could not
the head of the Admiralty, and in the noble lord the be moved. The rule was, in amending the Lords' amend-
Secretary. Ms judgment would be materially influenced by meats, that the amendments so made by this house should
the opinion of the two admirals sitting below the gangway. be relevant to the words which were amended. Now, the
Sir C. NAPIER said he looked upon this clause as the clause to which the hon. gentleman would append this pro-
most important in the bill. A captain was now the judge, vise related
of the
elatedsitzips on theplloytothea avoidancedjustme oftheir
nt of the estates or in-
t]) e jury, and the executioner. If an officer complained to co
Mr. KINNAIRD regretted that the Home Secretaryes had
him, he had always a feeling towards the officer and against
not condescended to give some explanation of the affair of
the man, and if he did not take the part of the officer the
men believed that he did. The inferior officers were always the Deanery of York alluded to by the hon. member for
more inclined to severity than the captain. He thought Liskeard. That was a case which, taken in contrast with
that if there were courts-martial the captain ought to award the case of Whitby, supplied an excellent specspecjmqu of the
rooeedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Was it cor-
the punishment, exactly as a judge did, and that he ought p
not to bo present when the punishment was inflicted, but rect that applications had been made for the increase of the
that it ought to be inflicted under the superintendence of stipends of the two deaneries.
the second officer. The SPEAKER was of opinion that the amendment was
Sir M. SEYMOUR suggested that the proposed regula- not relevant to the amendment of the Lords, and could not,
tions should be accompanied by rules for the guidance of the therefore, be put.
officers who would have to carry them into effect. He sub-
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know who was to
mitted, also, that in small vessels, gunboats, for instance, pay the expenses of the arbitrations that would be re-
there would be great difficulty in forming a court,
quired to settle the value of the estates to be assigned to
Sir J. GRAHAM said the hon. and gallant member for
sees ? The Lords' amendment appeared to him to exagge-
rate the mischief.
Southwark evidently contemplated a court-martial, sworn
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the Lords' amendment applied
evidence, and a decision that would be binding upon the
only to disputes, on the avoidance of a see, as to the value
captain ; whereas the clause provided for none of those
of the estates which should be allotted to it.
things. Again, the gallant admiral did not seem to bear in
The first amendment was then agreed to.
mind the possibility of the captain himself witnessing a
On the second,
man's misconduct, as, for example, if with his own eyes he
Mr. OSBORNE wished to know whether he could now
saw a sailor skulking in a gale of wind when he ought to be
move his amendment ? He was very anxious to bring it
going aloft. In a case like that the commanding officer
forward. (A laugh.)
himself would he the best judge of the offender's culpability.
The SPEAKER ruled that he could not.
He (the right hon. baronet) altogether dissented from the
Mr. AYRTON moved that the amendment be not
reasons given by the gallant admiral why the captain should
acsreed to.
not be present at the infliction of the punishment. Surely
After a few words from Mr. Whalley, Lord Palmerston,
a man ought not to be compelled to undergo an amount of
Mr. Craufurd, and Sir G. C. Lewis,
pain which the captain, had he been present, would have The house divided on the question of agreeing to the
thought unnecessarily severe. (Hear, hear.)
Lords' amendment—
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not forget that the clause For the amendment 35
came before the house recommended by a Board of Admi- Against it
rally, which comprised several eminent officers, and by the Majority —l7
noble lord who had himself had practical experience of The remaining amendments were agreed to.
commanding ships. The object of the proposed regulation PARTY EMBLEMS (IRELAND) BILL.
was, he presumed, to give the captain every possible moral This bill was ordered to be read a third time to-day.
support in the discharge of his difficult and important DEBTORS AND CREDITORS ACT AMENDMENT
duties; and at the same time to hold out to the sailor the BILL.
utmost possible guarantee for his being treated with jus- This bill passed through committee.
tics. He believed that the clause would tend to secure The following bills also passed through committee :
I, both those objects, but he would suggest that its details Coast of Africa, &c., Act Amendment Bill; Offences within
should be carefully reconsidered before the report. her Majesty's Possessions Abroad Bill.
Sir C. NAPIER thought that if there was not to be CHANCERY EVIDENCE COMMISSION BILL.
a regular court-martial the inquiry had better be dispensed The bill passed through committee, and was read a third
with, for it would be regarded by the men as little better time and passed.
than a farce. As for offences committed under the personal TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
cognisance of the captain, he had to remark that a colonel (IRELAND) BILL.
had no power to flog a soldier for anything that he might Some of the Lords' amendments to this bill were agreed to.
see him do. GAS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS begged to move the omission of The Lords' amendments were agreed to.
this part of the clause, in order to substitute a provision for NEW BILLS.
a proper court martial. Mr. CARDWELL obtained leave to bring in bills relat-
Sir J. GRAHAM observed that the language of the ing to fisheries in Ireland and county surveyors.
clause was certainly very ambiguous, the pronoun " his" The house adjourned at ten minutes to two o'clock.
being sometimes so used as to render it doubt:ul whether it -,..---
applied to the captain or to the offender.
Lard C. PAGET admitted the importance of the sugges-
tion,of Sir James Graham and the grave difficulty of the
question. Ile 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 aseer;,ain whether the man was guilty of the offence wil-
fully Ho 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 with 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 serious 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 certain
words from the clause, Kith the view to the adoption of a
court-martial in all cases of punishment.
Sir G. C. LEWIS recommended the hon. member to pro-
pose a new clause of his own on the bringing up of the
report.

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, TUESDAY MORNING.
THE CONVICT HOLDEN.

A deputation waited on the Lord Lieutenant
yesterday, and presented memorials praying for a
commutation of the sentence of death passed on
Holden, who was convicted at the last Donegal
assizes of the wilful murder of head constable
M'Clelland. His Excellency stated that he appre-
ciated the motives of the memorialists, but he would
consider what it was his duty to do, and prayed he
might be guided to perform it aright. His Excel-
lency afterwards most kindly admitted to an audi-
ence the wife of the unfortunate man, who carried
her infant child in her arms. One of the memorials
presented in favour of Holden is signed by ten out
of the twelve jurymen vt ho tried him, and the other
two only withheld their signatures on the ground
that the jury having unanimously recommended
the prisoner to mercy, there was no need for any
memorial from them.

George Cass was executed at Carlisle gaol yester-
day at noon, for the wilful murder of Ann Sewell,
at Embleton, on the 26th of March last. The cir-

cumstances of the case have before appeared in The
sun. At the end of last week the prisoner made
another statement, which, though of a somewhat
unsatisfactory character, tends to clear up some
doubts as to the manner in which the murder was
committed, and what was the motive for such an
atrocious crime. It will be remembered that in

the prisoner's original statement he said that the
girl had asked him to mend her clog; he refused
to do so, and she threw a knife at him ; he threw it
back at her, and it stuck in her throat, and then,
after she had requested him to " put her away
altogether," he went and inflicted the wounds which
caused her death. He now states that a quarrel
arose between him and the girl, in the kitchen,
about a half-crown which he had lent her ; he

rushed at her in a passion, and pursued her along
the passage to the outer door, where he caught her.
A scuffle ensued at the door, he then dragged her
down the passage (which accounts for the streaks
of blood found on the wall), and at the end of the
passage, where the body was afterwards found,
murdered his victim. Yesterday morning, three or
four hours before the time of execution, groups
of people—men, women, and children—assembled
in front of the scaffold, which was erected
at an angle of the gaol wall. Trains from the
west, the district in which the murder was
committed, brought a great number of people ;
but excursion trains from the town were run at
cheap rates to induce as many persons as possible
to be absent during the execution, and to these a
remarkably fine day served as an additional in-
ducement. Soon after 11 o'clock the number of
people in front of the gaol began to increase greatly ;
the windows commanding a view of the scaffold
were occupied, and children of the tenderest years
might be seen mingling in the crowd. At a quar-
ter before 12 thousands had assembled. They di-
vided themselves into two portions, one on each
side of the scaffold, the scaffold having been so
placed behind a projecting parapet of the gaol wall
that the gallows could not be well seen from the
front. When the clock struck twelve a still-
ness seemed to come upon the spectators ; children
who had been running about in the open space in
the centre ranged themselves with the crowd; the
chapel bell began to toll, and amid the most pro-
found silence the criminal, accompanied by the
chaplain and the hangman Calcraft, ascended the
platform. The chaplain read the usual texts of
Scripture, the hangman placed the white cap upon
the head of the unfortunate criminal, and, having
shaken hands with him, adjusted the rope and re-
tired ; the chaplain also shook hands with him and
left the platform. About five minutes past 12 the
bolt was drawn, and the criminal was launched
into eternity. At the same instant a loud moan
passed through the whole crowd. The murderer
struggled but for a few seconds, and the crowd then
began to disperse immediately. While the body
hung only the head and shoulders were visible from
the street.
and

COUNTRY MARKETS.

NEWCASTLE-UNDER •LYNE—Auct. 20.

At this corn market there was but a small show of
wheat for the season, but the 'demand was firm, and prices
advanced is per quarter—white making 63s to 68s, and
red 58s to 645. The samples of barley shown were few,
but prices held firmly. Oats in small supply, and the turn
dearer, from 29s to 34s per 24 stone. Beans made is over
former values.