It fused to receive them, they would thent be called a smuggled commission. The wiser course was, to go on in the ordinary practice under such circumstances. certainly had occurred in the progress of the deliberations of the commission to consider, whether or not they should make separate reports from time to time on the facts as they occurred, or whether they should wait until they had investigated the whole subject. The lord chancellor had declared himself in favour of the first proposition; so that if there had been any improper delay it was not attributable to the noble and learned lord. Other members of the commission, however (and he was one of them), were of opinion, that it was better to wait a few months, until they were able to make one connected and satisfactory report. Dr. Lushington explained. He believ- | ed he might state it as a fact, that the lord chancellor had been present only on two out of the forty days of the examination. Undoubtedly, the point to which his learned friend principally adverted had not yet been considered in the commission. The reason was, that it was necessary to follow up the investigation in the order of the instructions to the commission, commencing with an inquiry into the practice of the court of Chancery, and then seeing if, on any public ground, the conduct of the lord chancellor could be justly made a subject of separate consideration. The inquiry was not closed; and when that part of the question came to be investigated, he could assure his learned friend, that no cause papers, which might be necessary for its illustration, should be wanting. His learned friend had adverted to a question put to a witness, who was then ordered to withdraw, and to whom, on his return, the question was not repeated. He was not aware of such an occurrence. But, the question of the cause of the delays in judgment had been put over and over again. On that point it was impossible to go further, without changing the investigation from a fair, honest, impartial inquiry, into an inquisitorial proceeding. Mr. Tindal claimed, for the commis. sioners, the credit of an honest, faithful, and careful inquiry into the merits of the case. They had gone on gradually, but surely; and they were still going on. Although it was impossible that they could say they would make their report on any given day, yet it certainly was his own entire belief, that the report would be ready to be presented to his majesty before the commencement of the next session. What was there, then, to induce the House to accede to a proposition so completely at variance with all precedent, as to call for the evidence on which a report was to be founded, before the report itself was in readiness? If the present motion were agreed to, how could the commissioners proceed unbiassed and unfettered? There was another important consideration. If the evidence were now to be proclaimed to the world, such a step would provoke communications from all quarters; some in the shape of answers to the evidence, others in the shape of statements of opinion. If the commissioners were to receive these communications, where would be the end of their labours? If they re Mr. Secretary Canning said, he was desirous of shortly stating the grounds on which his vote in opposition to the motion was founded. Throughout the whole of the very able and very entertaining speech of the learned member for Winchelsea there prevailed one error. It was of such a nature that, when exposed, the whole fabric of the learned gentleman's argument must fall to the ground. The learned gentleman seemed to think, that the commission was instituted by the House, and that it was considered by the country, as a criminal inquiry. No such thing. He was sure that no man in that House voted for the appointment of the commission with that view; and he was equally sure that it was not considered in that view by the members of the commission themselves. The learned gentleman had talked of its having been in former times the usage of the House and of the country, cautiously to avoid all inquiry into systems, and to look for errors in men alone; and of its being the usage in the present times to avoid all inquiry respecting men, and to search for errors in systems only. He (Mr. Canning) was quite convinced, that there was no desire in any quarter, to shield any man if guilty of improper conduct. But, what he and the House and the country understood it to be the duty of this commission was, not to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of individuals, but to put the House in possession of the result of their inquiries; in order that the House might determine whether it was the system itself, or the administration of it, which was faulty. The learned gentleman assumed, that it was to compensate the House for thus suddenly putting an end to an inquiry so far advanced, and throwing a stigma on an assembly of honourable men ;—a stigma which no one could say any individual member of the commission deserved singly, and which therefore it was not likely they would deserve in their incorporated shape? In order to avoid a little further delay, it was proposed to nullify all the proceedings that had hitherto taken place, and to stultify the indivi was taken for granted, that the fault must be in the man, and recommended the most severe and unsparing scrutiny by the commission into the administration of the court. It was plain, from what had been stated by the members of the commission themselves, that the learned gentleman had misconceived this point. If the commissioners thought they were to consider, that the fault must lie in the administration of the system, and not in the system itself, they would not have adopted the course which had been ex-duals who had concurred in those proplained by the learned member for Ilchester, with an ability which did him great honour, and with a candour which did him more. While that learned gentleman remained a member of the commission, it was impossible that any one could think the conduct of the commission liable to imputation. If the fault of the adminis tration, and not of the system, had been the object of the labours of the commission, then the speech of the learned member for Winchelsea would have been in its proper place. The dissection of the commission by the learned gentleman would, indeed, have been a powerful one, if he had been justified in setting out with the assumption, that it was a criminal inquiry in which they were engaged. But, if the object with which the commission was instituted, was a fair and impartial investigation, in order that the House might see from the result if there were any grounds of criminality or not, then the commission was not liable to the imputations cast upon it by the learned gentleman. It was, indeed, impossible that the commission could be justly liable to any such imputation, while it contained a single individual under whose eye all the proceedings must pass, and who had no disposition to screen any one to whom a charge might appear properly to apply. But, it was evident that, whatever might be the constitution of the commission, or with whatever intention it might have been formed, after the speech of the learned gentleman, to agree to the motion would be at once to abolish the mode of inquiry which had been commenced, and to condemn the commissioners for the manner in which they had conducted that inquiry. If that motion were acceded to, it would be impossible, that to the seventy days on which the commission had already sat, a seventy-first could be added from which the public would derive the slightest advantage. And what ceedings! It was proposed to the House to start afresh; and so to start at the conclusion of a session, when there would not be even time for the printing of the evidence. And this, too, when the alternative was a pledge on the part of the commission, to lay the report and evidence before the public by the commencement of the next session. He had no difficulty in adding, that if that pledge was not redeemed, he should not feel himself capable, as an honest man, of resisting the institution of some other course of inquiry into the subject. But he must say, that he trusted implicitly to the assurance of the commissioners, that the report and the evidence would be prepared by the commencement of the next session; that was as soon as, if the evidence were on the table at that moment, any proceeding could be instituted upon it. What he protested against was, rashly destroying the labours of the commission as far as it had gone, and rendering its future labours useless. As to the precise course of the commission and the progress it had made, he was uninformed with respect to the one, and incapable of judging of the other. It was with a view to information that he wished to have the evidence, not in a disjointed state, but classified, and accompanied with the inferences and recommendations of the commission. He did not pledge himself to admit the justice of all the inferences of the commission, or to concur in all its recommendations. But, ignorant and unlearned as he was in all that related to the court of Chancery (which ignorance and want of learning, however, he shared with the great majority of those whom the learned gentleman wished to persuade to take the inquiry out of the hands of the present commission), he looked to the report of the commission as the means of enlightening himself on the subject; persuaded as he was that the com mission was composed of men incapable | intention was, to move for leave to bring of wilfully misleading the House. Above in a bill to do away with the practical all, when honourable men had undertaken an arduous task, he would not consent, without just cause, to render their labours useless; nor would he be a party to consign them to undeserved infamy [hear, hear!]. The House then divided: For the motion 73; Against it 154; Majority 81. List of the Minority. FLOGGING IN THE NAVY.] Mr. Hume said, that having, in the course of the last session, called the attention of the House to the subject of Flogging in the Navy, he had intended to follow the same course, but in a different form, at an early part of the session, but was prevented by the pressure of business. Instead of a com-mittee to consider the subject, his present abuses he complained of. All he proposed was, to obtain permission to bring in a bill now, to have it printed, and to do nothing further with it till the next session. From the communications he had had with several persons in the navy, he was induced to think, that it was in the power of the government to provide a remedy for preventing impressment, and dragging men from their homes and families. The cause of the unwillingness to enter into the navy was the extensive power of arbitrary punishments. No man in the army was subjected to the punishment of flogging until his alleged crimes were decided upon by a court-martial. Why were seamen deprived of that legal protection? Again, how was it to be explained, that in large vessels of the navy, such as the Bulwark and the Dictator, there was no flogging for months together, while in comparatively small ships it was almost daily inflicted? The contrast was almost inexplicable. He believed that the only explanation was, that it depended upon the arbitrary caprice of the commanding officers, without any reference to the offences of the seamen. No such capricious power was vested in the officers of the army. By parity of reasoning, then, why was not the same legal security against the abuse of punishment afforded to the seamen of his majesty's fleet? He could not understand how government could reconcile the continuance of such a revolting practice, with their efforts to relieve from arbitrary flogging the slaves in the West-Indies. In their order in council of the 10th of March 1824, directions were given to prevent a slave in Trinidad from receiving more than twenty-five lashes, and such lashes were not to be inflicted until twenty-four hours after the commission of the alleged offence. Were not our seamen worthy of being placed on an equal footing with the slaves of the West-India colonies? The hou. member here read a statement referring to the arbitrary infliction of flogging, beginning from a period of twenty years past, down to the last year. It took place, in one instance, where a marine received four dozen lashes by the order of his commanding officer, captain Cockburn, merely for his musket missing fire; and in a second instance, where an old seaman, of thirty-five years standing, received the same number of strokes, for declaring that he never witnessed so barefaced an act of cruelty as flogging the marine for such an offence. The punishment of starting was frequent; and he found that when a captain of a ship was brought to a court-martial for a violation of the orders on that point, which violation was established by evidence, the only punishment inflicted on that officer was an admonition, and a command to be more circumspect in future. Was it too much, then, to call for the interposition of parliament, to put an end to such an improper practice? In bringing in a bill, it would be his object to provide, by strict enactments, against its recurrence. It would be said, how was it, if all these abuses existed, that the naval officers in that House did not take the question up? The answer was easy. Some, from early impressions, were prejudiced in favour of such a mode of discipline; while others seeing the view the lords of the admiralty took of the question, dared not interfere. It was one of his objects, to limit the services of seamen, on the principle acted upon by the late Mr. Windham towards the army-to seven or ten years-protecting the seamen, who served so long from future impressment. Indeed, that provision, under his system, would be unnecessary; as impressment itself could then be dispensed with. With regard to the necessity of impressment, he would ask the gallant admiral opposite where the necessity existed, when he found no difficulty by bounties, and ordinary recruiting, to obtain the necessary supply of mariners? The rate of wages paid to the navy was not commensurate with the wages given to the other branches of the service. How was it to be expected, that when the pay of the merchant service was 31. 10s., and that of the navy 34s. a-month, seamen would be induced to enter our ships of war voluntarily? If small pensions were given, after a certain number of years' service, to our seamen to sustain them under the afflictions of premature old age, too frequently the result of a life of severe toil, it would operate as a great inducement. If so small sums as 77. or 101. annually were held out as a boon, it would be productive of the most beneficial effects. Even the trifling grants of the Trinityhouse, from five to six shillings a-month, were received by that class of men with gratitude and satisfaction. He would give them small pensions proportionate to | the period of service, and alter the present system of distributing prize-money. Was it right that a captain of a ship should receive as much prize-money as all the crew together? The officers of the navy ought not to consider prize-money as an object, but should give it up to the men. He would propose that six-eighths of the prize-money should be allotted to the men, and two-eighths to the officers. The officers of the Indian army, when under the marquis of Hastings, had set a noble example in that respect, by giving up their prize-money to the men. He was quite satisfied, that by this and other means, such a change might be produced in the feelings of seamen towards the naval service, that volunteers might be obtained whenever they were required. Still, however, as an emergency might arise, he would provide against it, by having a register of seamen on the plan which was begun 150 years ago, but which was not prosecuted as it ought to have been. He would accompany that plan with a provision, that no seaman should be excused from the service of his country in the navy; just as no landsman was now excused from the service of his country in the army, he being liable to be drawn as a militia man, and to serve five years. He would now move, "that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the 22nd of Geo. 2. ch. 33, and to make provision for the encouragement of Seamen, and for the better manning of his Majesty's fleet." Sir F. Burdett seconded the motion. Sir G. Cockburn thought he had some reason to complain of the hon. gentleman's want of courtesy, in not apprizing him that it was his intention to introduce into this great national question a personal charge against himself; in which case he would have been prepared to rebut it. He really could not recollect all the circumstances that occurred to him five-andtwenty years ago, but he remembered that it was about that time that a reform was beginning to take place in the discipline of the navy. Previous to that period, it was the practice for the boatswains and boatswains' mates to carry sticks, for the purpose of immediately starting any of the men. The only point that he recollected, with reference to the subject, was, that he had given instructions that that practice should be discontinued on board the ship which he commanded, and that a lieutenant who had disobeyed those instruc tions, was compelled to quit the navy | the commanding officer was invested with in consequence. If the hon. gentleman the power of arbitrary punishment; of punwould bring forward any specific charge ishment without any previous trial by a he would meet it. All he could say court-martial. Now, our ships were always was, that he had never ordered any pun- in motion. A man of-war frequently went ishment except when he thought it abso- round the world by herself. In such cases lutely necessary. The hon. gentleman it would be impossible to have a courtasserted, that one reason for his bill was, martial; and a man who behaved ill might that, at present, seamen were so ill treated remain a prisoner for three years, before in the navy, that they disliked the service. he could be tried. Of this he was sure, Some of the facts stated by the hon. gen- that should the House take away this tleman led, however, to a very different power from the officers, they would go conclusion. If, while merchantmen give far to destroy the discipline of the navy. 37. 10s. a-month, sailors could be found The Admiralty had done every thing they willing to enter the king's service for 34s. could to prevent the improper exercise of a-month, it was a proof that that service that power. It was one thing to possess was not distasteful to them. But the a power, and another to make an imhon. gentleman proposed a system of proper use of it. The Admiralty never pensions to induce men to enter early sanctioned an excess of punishment; but into the navy. Pensions were granted always signified their approbation of those at present. If a sailor, after 7 years' officers who managed their ships without service (or before in some cases), was dis- punishments. These two considerations abled by debility or accident, he received united had produced such an effect, that a pension. After a service of 14 years, as many blank returns were now received, that pension was increased; and should he as returns stating the infliction of any punhave served 21 years, and for any consid-ishment. This was a great advance. So erable part of that time with so much credit as to be rated as a petty officer, he became entitled to a pension of 451. ayear. The hon. member had entered into a comparison of the army with the navy in this respect. The fact was, that the sailors were better off than the soldiers. The army enlisted for life; the navy never did. At the end of a certain service the sailors were paid off; and it was no great proof of the dislike of the sailors to the service, that the men who were paid off, were generally the first to enter again. So unfounded was this alleged dislike to the service, that the owners of merchantmen in all parts of the world, had written to the Admiralty, to beg that they would restrain the officers of the navy from receiving their men ; and in consequence of those applications the Admiralty had written to the officers on the several stations, not to receive men from the merchantmen to an extent that might distress them. In this last point they went further than they were required to do by law; for there was a statute which annulled all the engagements of a sailor with a merchant vessel on his entering on board a king's ship. The hon. gentleman also wished to take from the officers of the navy the power of punishing the men without a court-martial, and in that point to assimilate the navy to the army. But, the hon. gentleman forgot that when the army was in the field, necessary, however, was the power of inflicting punishment felt to be, even in the merchant service, that in the papers of that very day there was the report of a trial, in which one of the crew of a merchantman had brought an action against his captain for punishing him; but in which the judge had stated, that he could have no doubt that every captain of a merchant-vessel had a right to inflict corporal punishment on such of his crew as deserved it. Would the House take from the navy the power that was considered indispensable even to the merchant service? It was a matter of vital importance; for he was convinced, that to withdraw the power in question would be to shake the very foundations of our navy. With respect to impressment, there could be no doubt that it was desirable to do without the practice as much as possible; but in some cases it was inevitable. It was true, that all our seamen who had pensions were liable to be called upon in an emergency. But the business of a seaman was like any other business. Dexterity in it required that the hand should always be kept in. The moment a declaration of war took place, it was desirable that we should have the means of sending out a fleet; and to effect this, it became necessary to lay hands on every seaman that could be found. It was quite impossible to put an end to the practice |