sheer-hulk, or coal depôt, barge or a boat, either of which is not a ship, nor is a raft a craft-that Fenian would inevitably escape the punishment due to the atrocity of his offence, in the absence of a supplemental provision to the effect that "ship" shall include any vessel, hoy, barge, boat or other craft, or a raft. His counsel would prove a flaw in the indictment by a technical objection, as the Attorney-General did in the coroner's inquest on the Road murder. "But beyond that there was this technical objection to the inquisition, the record had been drawn up on paper, and not on parchment, as was distinctly directed by the statute in all cases of murder and manslaughter. However trifling this objection might appear, he insisted on it as sufficient to invalidate the inquisition and to obtain his object in getting it quashed."

Therefore, the serjeant-at-sea-law submits to their lordships the technical objections to a ship being a fort or fortification, or a ship being a brig, hoy, barge, boat, &c., or seaman being a marine, no more than paper is parchment.

Again under heading

"Desertion and absence without leave."

19. Every person subject to this Act who shall absent himself from his ship or from the place where his duty requires him to be, without any intention of returning to such ship or place, or who shall at any time, and under any circumstances when absent from his ship do any act which shows that he has not any intention of returning to such ship or place, shall be deemed to have deserted and shall be punished accordingly, &c."

For reasons aforementioned, any person so offending from any vessel, brig, &c., not being a ship would escape sentence and punishment for his offence by a flaw in the indictment, as the late Captain S-G- did when a lieutenant who was tried for leaving his ship (a frigate) without leave. His only defence to the charge suggested by a captain of marines, was, "May it please the president and other members of this honourable court, I did not leave my ship the but her hulk the on board of which the officers and crew were hulked whilst my ship was in dock." "A legal objection," the judge-advocate submitted in the prisoner's behalf. "The court is dissolved, haul down the signal," the president ordered; and the prisoner, by the technical objection walked out of court with the insignia of an officer's honour, his sword by his side, which had been temporarily resigned to the court-martial table. But ye chivalrous aspirants of the gunroom ever remember that a flaw in the indictment is a flaw of dishonour.

"Penalty for entertaining a deserter," Article 21. Every officer in command of any ship of Her Majesty, who shall receive or entertain any deserter from Her Majesty's military or naval forces, &c. Any officer in command of a vessel, or craft, not being a ship

would escape the punishment due to his office for the previous reasons, and so would any person for a much graver offence specified in Article 25.

66

Penalty for suffering a ship to be improperly lost.”

"25. Every person subject to this Act who shall either designedly or negligently or by any default lose, strand, or hazard, or suffer to be lost, stranded, or hazarded, any ship of Her Majesty or in Her Majesty's service shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's service with disgrace, or suffer such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned."

The 27th Article of War is new, "Master of merchant vessel to obey orders of convoying officer."

27. Every master or other officer in command of any merchant or other vessel under the convoy of any ship of Her Majesty shall obey the commanding officer thereof in all matters relating to navigation or security of the convoy, and shall take such precautions for avoiding the enemy as may be directed by such commanding officer; and if he shall fail to obey such directions, such commanding officer may compel obedience by force of arms, without being liable for any loss of life, or of property, that may result from his using such force."

Query, professionally-If a commanding officer of a "gun-boat," as so separately classed in the Navy List, were by force of arms, to take life, or canse loss of property on board a vessel under his convoy, how would he stand in a Court of Justice, if indicted for manslaughter, or destruction of property, on board such vessel, as the 27th Article exonerates only the commanding officer of a "ship," who might, as occasion required, to resort to force of arms to compel obedience of the master, or other officer in command of any merchant, or other vessel under his convoy?

Let a commanding officer of any vessel of Her Majesty, not being a "ship," be tried for manslaughter under the circumstances mentioned in the 27th Article of War, the Q. C's and Serjeants-atLaw would soon convince the unfortunate prisoner at the bar of the Civil Court of Justice, "that he had taken upon himself a fearful responsibility in causing death by force of arms on board of the merchant vessel under his convoy, as his gun-boat, or other vessel of war was not a ship so classed in the Navy List, according to the letter of the law, made and provided in the aforesaid 27th Article of War, of 27° and 25° Vict. cap. 119."

Similar objections might be taken to clear an offender for breaches of the 28th Article of War, "Penalty for taking any goods on board other than for the use of the vessel, except gold, silver, jewels, &c." The 36th. " The 36th." Penalty for not sending to the Court of Admiralty all papers found on board prize ships;" and of the 39th Article of War, "Penalty on commanders capturing as prize by collusion, or collusively restoring ships or goods."

The express wording as to "ships" and "vessels" in the 30th Article of War, fully elucidates the necessity of enacting a supplement provision, to the effect that, the word "ship" in the Naval Discipline Act, shall include any boat, barge, craft, or other vessel."

"30. Every person, subject to this Act, who shall unlawfully set fire to any dockyard, victualling-yard, or steam-factory yard,arsenal, magazine, building, or to any ship, vessel, hoy, barge, boat, or other craft, or furniture thereunto belonging, not being the property of an enemy, pirate or rebel, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned."

Here it is irrefragable that an incendiary, subject to the Naval Discipline Act, could not escape the punishment due to his crime by any pettifogging loophole, or technical flaw in the indictment, as the yard, arsenal, magazine, and building on shore, and the description of the ship, vessel, barge, or boat is specified.

Every person subject to the said Act should bear in mind, that the crime of unlawfully setting fire to any dockyard, place, or building on shore, or to any ship, vessel, boat, &c., afloat or ashore, is not confined to the property of Her Majesty, but it includes the property of any person not being an enemy, pirate, or rebel, and that such offender, subject to the said Act, would be tried by a Naval Court-Martial, and if guilty, sentenced to be hanged at the yard-arm of one of Her Majesty's ships, or vessels of war, flogged, or imprisoned according to the degree of the offence.

In the old Articles of War, the offence of "oppression" was mentioned, viz., "33. If any flag-officer, captain, or commander, or lieutenant, belonging to the fleet, shall be convicted before a court-martial, of behaving in a scandalous, infamous, cruel, oppressive, or fraudulent manner, unbecoming the character of an officer, he shall be dismissed His Majesty's service;" but in the present 24th Article of the Naval Discipline Act, the word "oppressive" is omitted.

"24. Every officer, subject to this Act, who shall be guilty of cruelty, or of any scandalous, or fraudulent, conduct, shall be dismissed with disgrace from Her Majesty's service; and every officer subject to this Act, who shall be guilty of any other conduct unbecoming the character of an officer shall be dismissed with, or without disgrace, from Her Majesty's service.

No doubt the word "oppression" was omitted after the word "cruelty" in that article, as in the marginal note, the word oppression is inscribed "Penalty for cruelty or oppression."

The 32nd Article is wholly new, "Every person, subject to this Act, who shall wilfully do any act, or wilfully disobey any orders, whether in hospital or elsewhere, with intent to produce, or to aggravate any disease or infirmity, or inability to perform his duty, shall suffer imprisonment, or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned." The Article was greatly required, as the offence

of malingering in the Navy was very grave, and entailed extra duty on the willing and well-disposed.

Penalty for offences punishable by ordinary Law."

Article 41, enacts that every person shall receive similar punishment for certain offences, as they would receive by sentences of Civil Courts on shore, namely: for murder, manslaughter, unnatural offences, indecent assaults, robbery or theft; and "if he shall be guilty of any other criminal offence, which, if committed in England, would be punishable by the law of England, he shall, whether the offence be, or be not, committed in England, be punished either in pursuance of the first part of this Act, to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline not otherwise specified, or the offender shall be subject to the same punishment as might be awarded by any ordinary Criminal Tribunal competent to try the offender if the offence had been committed in England."

The introduction of this article in the Naval Discipline Act, is a most essential and judicial amendment, as every person, subject to the said Act for several offences, is, in respect to his offence punished by Naval Martial Law, as he would be by the ordinary laws of his land, if found guilty of any of those offences committed in England.

As it is probable, that further amendments may be made to perfect as near as possible "The Naval Discipline Act," passed by the urgent recommendation of the present Admiralty, it is requi site to copy the entire of the 42nd Article, in order to call attention to some doubtful points, or to omission therein.

"42. For all offences specified, or referred to, in this Act, if committed by any person, subject thereto, in any harbour, haven, or creek, or on any lake or river, whether in, or out of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in any of Her Majesty's dockyards, victuailing-yards, steam-factory yards, or on any gunwharf, or in any arsenal, barrack, or hospital belonging to Her Majesty, whether in or out of the said United Kingdom, the offender may be tried and punished under this Act; and for all offences herein-before specified under the headings "Misconduct in the presence of the enemy," "Communications with the enemy," "Neglect of Duty," "Mutiny," "Insubordination," "Desertion, and absence without leave," or "Miscellaneous offences, if committed by any person subject to this Act at any place on shore, whether in or out of the said United Kingdom, the offender may be tried and punished under this Act."

The omission of the words (at sea, or), before "in any harbour, haven or creek, or on any lake or river," might lead to important consequences which suggest themselves, as in the absence of the twelve judges to decide the law of the question, the members of a naval court-inartial would be in doubt whether offences committed U. S. MAG. No. 446, JAN. 1866.

E

at sea were cognizable by the "Naval Discipline Act." In the old Articles of War, from 1749 till 1860, the words main sea preceded the words, "rivers, haven, or creek," hence the question, why the omission of those words in the present "Naval Discipline Act?”

"What officer knows the extent of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty? But supposing that it claims jurisdiction over all oceans, and all seas, White, Black, Red, or Yellow," it cannot claim jurisdiction within three miles of the shore of any foreign kingdom or state. Then should any one of the numerous offences specified in the 42nd Article, be committed by any person subject to the said Act, on any sea or water within three miles of any foreign kingdom or state, or on waters without the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, the offender would inevitably escape punishment by a technical objection, as a harbour, haven, or a creek, a lake, or a river, is not the sea, no more than "paper is parchment."

The comments on the first forty-two Naval Articles of War may be incidently concluded by something imitative of the Hudibrastic style.

As the dangers which environ

The ship that's built of old iron ;*
So dangers will the British fleet,
If "sea" isn't in its martial sheet.

Part III. Regulations as to Punishments.

"49. Section (2). Judgment of death shall not be passed on any prisoner, unless four at least of the officers present at the CourtMartial, where the number does not exceed five, and in other cases a majority of not less than two thirds of the officers present concur in the sentence."

This is a most merciful amendment, as by the old Articles of War, a majority of only three in five, or seven in thirteen of the members of the Court-Martial carried the sentence of death.

And under those Articles of War which existed more than a hundred years, and the "Laws and Customs used at sea," hundreds of lashes were in too many instances inflicted on the bare backs of the offenders going "round the fleet;" but in August, 1860, under the beneficent reign of Victoria, our "Queen's most Excellent Majesty," who tempers justice with mercy, the number of lashes to the greatest criminal is reduced to "48," and the cruel custom of "going round the fleet" obsolete.

The seamen and marines of the fleet are indebted to Vice-Admiral Lord Clarence Paget for taking off two lashes. The maximum number fifty lashes, as inflicted in the Army, was submitted in the draft of the "Naval Discipline Bill," to the House of Commons,

* Five iron-vessels have sunk within these last five weeks-by violent collision with other vessels-near the shore and in smooth water. No time for the persons on board to escape in the boats.