NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL. (Hansard, 9 July 1860)

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,
in moving the second reading of the Bill to amend the laws relating to the government of the Navy, said that it was nearly a century since the Act was brought in which at present governed the discipline of the navy, and the changes of the law and the progress of public opinion with regard to the service, rendered it very desirable that Amendments should be introduced and the law revised. Neither offences nor punishments were clearly defined. A paper which was in their Lordships' hands showed the spirit in which it was intended by this Bill to deal with the subject. It was proposed to deal with it on principles of justice and humanity, without relaxing in any degree the discipline of the navy. The men would know what punishments they incurred, and that the object was to keep good order among themselves, without which they could have no comfort or safety on board ship. With an ill-disciplined crew, the insubordinate and disorderly shirked 1613 work, and, as the work must be done, it fell upon the orderly and subordinate. It was, therefore, in the interest of the orderly men that the disorderly should be punished. It was proposed to diminish the almost universal punishment of death which stood in the old code. It was never inflicted in a great many cases, and it was desirable the men should know what in those cases their punishment really would be. He had received a great many suggestions from officers who were competent to form a sound opinion upon several of the details, some of which he intended to adopt. After the second reading he should propose to go into Committee pro formâ, in order to introduce those Amendments, and the Bill might be debated and re-considered on going again into Committee on a future day. There were many reasons why it was desirable to pass the Bill this year. They had heard with regret of disturbances in vessels both at home and abroad, and he was told that one great fault of the present law was that the petty officers, who stood between the officers and seamen, and on whom good discipline in great measure depended, though protected on board ship, were not protected sufficiently on shore. They were often injured and insulted on shore by the men, whose conduct they had found fault with on board ship. The Bill, therefore, contained a clause by which martial law would be extended to protect the petty officers on shore, as well as on board ship. The continuance of corporal punishment in the navy was a question which he had considered very carefully, and had heard fully and fairly discussed among naval officers. The conclusion at which he had arrived was, that to transfer the power of inflicting corporal punishment from the captain to a court-martial would be to diminish the authority of the captain and to endanger the discipline of the service. The nearest approach which could safely be made to such a system was to provide—as was done in the present Bill—that, except in the case of open mutiny, no man should be subjected to corporal punishment by the commanding officer until the case had been inquired into and reported upon by one or more officers appointed by the commander. By that means the responsibility would be to a certain extent divided between the captain and one or more of his subordinates. He proposed that arrangement rather for the protection of the captain than of the men, as it would re- 1614 lieve him of that personal odium which he was at present apt to incur if he inflicted corporal punishment. Their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that seamen were now grouped in two classes, and that first-class men were not liable to corporal punishment at all till they had been reduced to the second class. Every precaution, therefore, had been taken to place corporal punishment on a safe footing. He was certainly not prepared to give up this mode of punishment, as certain persons who called themselves the "friends of the sailor" demanded. He believed that its abolition would be a positive misfortune to the well-behaved men, and would lead to great inconvenience at sea, as confinement would be almost the only substitute.

§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKE
agreed with the noble Duke as to the importance of the subject; but he was of opinion that the discipline of the navy was equally, if not more, dependent on the character and conduct of the officers in command than upon the code of laws under which they acted. Informing an opinion on this question, the public had not made sufficient allowance for the peculiarities of the naval service, and had been too prone to consider the Articles of War on the same ground as the general law of the land. The effect of popular opinion acting on the successive Boards of Admiralty had been to render it extremely difficult for officers to carry out the naval code of laws and to maintain the discipline of the service; and that influence could only be met by the establishment of a detailed system of discipline, and by the personal example of commanding officers in sharing the same privations and restrictions as their men. Let the officers show that they were determined to maintain discipline; but at the same time let them make it apparent that they themselves took their share of that discipline. He owned that the language of the existing Act of Parliament, which had been in force for a hundred years, was too general and comprehensive, and that it was desirable that the particular offence and the punishment attached should be clearly defined. He had, therefore, no objection to the measure of the noble Duke as a whole, although there were points in which it I might be improved. He highly approved the manner in which the noble Duke proposed to deal with the distinction which prevailed between offences committed on shore and on board of ships. The exemp- 1615 tions from martial law which a seaman at present enjoyed when he quitted his ship certainly tended to unsettle him on his return on board, and not unfrequently petty officers who attempted to enforce very strict discipline were assaulted by the men when on shore. A marine who misconducted himself on shore was liable to the same punishment as on board. Not so the seaman, who was amenable only to the civil law for his conduct on shore. One result of this was, a threat to a petty officer to retort upon him when he landed has the effect of deterring him from discharging his duty. The Bill gave power to the Lords of the Admiralty to suspend, annul, or modify any sentence passed on any person subject to the Act, except the sentence of death, which could only be remitted by Her Majesty. He objected to any proposal to constitute the Lords of the Admiralty an appellant court. The naval officers who composed a court-martial were generally quite as good judges as the Lords of the Admiralty, if not better. An appeal from a court-martial was always open to the Crown, and, although he wished to see an appellate jurisdiction established, it ought to be entrusted, he thought, to men learned in the law, and not to the Admiralty. Great objections were properly entertained to the 15th section of the 49th clause, which set up within the walls of the ship a court for the judgment of offences. The clause said:— Except in case of open mutiny no man shall be sentenced by the commanding officer to corporal punishment until his offence has been inquired into by one or more officers appointed by such commanding officer, and the guilt or innocence of the prisoner reported to such commanding officer. He objected to this clause, thinking it desirable to retain in the hands of the captain the sole power, conduct, and management of the ship from first to last, together with the full responsibility of such command. The captain might himself see an offence committed, and yet under this clause he would be unable to punish the offender until his guilt had been inquired into by these officers. Such a regulation would diminish and injure the authority of the captain, and have a prejudicial influence upon the discipline of the ship. At present an interval of forty-eight hours elapsed between the sentence of corporal punishment and its infliction, so that ample time existed for inquiry and reconsideration. He trusted that the House 1616 would not agree to this inquiry by junior officers; there were several clauses in the Bill which required the most careful consideration, either before a Select Committee or in Committee of the Whole House.

§ LORD COLCHESTER
said, this Bill proposed to remodel the whole law upon this subject. He did not object to many of the alterations; indeed he approved of some of them being made, but others would require some notice in Committee. In his opinion it was absolutely necessary, for the good of the ship, that the captain should have complete command over all persons in the ship.

VISCOUNT MELVILLE
objected to that part of the Bill by which an officer might be dismissed the service for what was called an "error of judgment." He thought this a very severe penalty.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
would consider the various suggestions that had been made, with a view to their adoption in Committee if they were deemed advisable. If the Bill was sent to a Select Committee upstairs, and noble Lords attended to it for a day or two, he had no doubt that it might be considerably improved.