MARINE MUTINY BILL. (Hansard, 19 March 1846)

§ SIR C. NAPIER
wished to ask, if there was any intention on the part of the Government to revise the articles of war. By the articles of war, no man had a right to be punished except by sentence of a court martial; and yet men were constantly brought up for punishment without a trial. It was true, that at the end of the articles of war, there was a clause enacting that all crimes which were not capital should be punished according to the customs of the service. He really was ashamed to read this to the men. But the whole of the articles of war wanted revising, for the punishment of death was almost the only 1269 one inflicted by them. Take as an instance the sleeping of a man on his watch, which was punishable by death; why, it was a notorious fact, that the men came on deck to sleep, and yet they were liable to suffer death for it. It was proper now, in a time of peace, to revise these articles of war, and humanise them a little; and if the Government did not take up the matter, he should think it his duty to do so.

MR. CORRY
said, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to alter the articles of war. It was a subject which required to be treated with great delicacy.

§ MR. HUME
complained that this was a very unsatisfactory answer.

MR. CORRY
moved the following clause:— And whereas certain marines who have here tofore been duly enlisted, and who have voluntarily taken the Oath of Allegiance and fidelity, and are now receiving Her Majesty's pay, have been sworn and attested; but doubts have arisen whether the justices before whom the said marines have been so sworn and attested, were duly qualified to administer to such marines the oaths prescribed by the several Acts passed for the regulation of Her Majesty's Royal Marine Forces while on shore: be it enacted, that in every case where any such marine, having been duly enlisted, shalt have been so attested and sworn, and shall nol have claimed to be discharged from Her Majesty's Royal Marine Forces on or before the 17th day of March, 1846, he shall not be entitled to his discharge by reason of such informality, but shall be liable to all the provisions of this Act and of the Act passed in the last Session of Parliament for the regulation of Her Majesty's Royal Marine Forces while on shore, where in force, and shall be entitled to the full benefit of his past service, and to all pay and pension in respect thereof, to all intents and purposes, and in like manner as if he had been duly attested and sworn.

§ MR. HUME
said, that unless some assurance was given that the question of the articles of war would be taken into consideration, he should move that the Chairman report progress.

§ SIR G. COCKBURN
said, although the punishment of death was generally inflicted, yet every article contained the proviso that any such other punishment might be awarded as the custom of the service directed; and it was usual in the case of minor crimes for the captains to deal with them, and inflict such minor punishment as accorded with the nature and degree of the offence. If the offence was of a grave description, then a court martial decided on the punishment.

§ SIR C. NAPIER
had never, during the whole time he had been in the service, heard of a man who was about to be 1270 punished and asked for a court martial, who got it. It was generally thought a very impertinent thing, and he got a heavier punishment for it. It would be easy to insert in the articles of war specific punishments for some offences, and leave others to be dealt with by courts martial and the custom of the service. He thought it was high time for the Admiralty to take the thing seriously up, and adopt some stringent steps to show that desertion was a crime. He saw men pass his house every day whom he knew to be deserters. The fact was, there was no proper system adopted for retaking deserters.

§ SIR G. COCKBURN
said, there was no fault with the Admiralty; for those deserters who had been retaken had been tried by court martial and severely punished.

§ SIR C. NAPIER
said, the punishments were too severe to have the proper effect; and if something was not done to remedy the evil, he should feel it his duty to bring the subject before the House, though he thought it would be much better dealt with by the Admiralty.

§ CAPTAIN LAYARD
objected to the power which a captain in the navy possessed of ordering a man a dozen lashes, without being tried by a court martial. There was this anomaly in the navy, that if a man had sold his necessaries he might be punished; but if he deserted and sold his necessaries he could not.

§ SIR G. COCKBURN
contended that the power of punishment vested in the captain, was absolutely necessary for the good order of the service. He objected to Gentlemen who knew nothing of the naval profession getting up and stating that this thing or the other ought to be done; he had much rather discuss the matter with an experienced naval officer like the gallant Member opposite.

§ SIR C. NAPIER
said, this was a question which the Government would be compelled to take up before long; and they could not have a better opportunity than the present, when there was no excitement on the subject.

§ CAPTAIN LAYARD
said, he had just been informed that a captain in the navy could order a man four dozen lashes without the sentence of a court martial; and he thought that much too extensive a power to be vested in any one.