Lord PALMERSTON continued to say, that Mr. Bright
had found fault with him for having said something on a
former occasion which the hon. member thought offensive
to persons belonging to the Peace Society. Upon
the occasion alluded to he stated what he certainly could
not retract—namely, that he thought the course pursued
by those persons was a grave offence. It was evidently
their intention to obstruct the public service, and to
deprive the country of the defence which Parliament
thought it ought to have. The hon. member talked of
"gagging the press," and said that the proceedings
instituted by the late government were calculated to
have that effect. No doubt, this was a free country,
and a man might publish what he pleased, provided it
did not involve an offence against the law; but if the
government saw anything published which they were
advised was not only against the law, but against the
interests of country, it was the duty of the government
to put a stop to it. It was not his wish to say anything
hostile to the Peace Society; he looked upon the
persons composing it as a set of well-intentioned fanatics.
They were much too good to be intrusted with political
functions in this wicked and sinful world.

The house then went into a committee of supply on
the Navy Estimates, and a number of sums belonging
to that department were voted after various discussions,
of which the most important was on the subject of
Flogging in the Navy.—Mr. STAPLETON urged upon
the government the importance of considering this
punishment, with a view to its entire abolition, and the
substituting of some less revolting and demoralising
mode of maintaining discipline. He observed, that
the subject affected the character, not of the Royal
Navy only, but of the merchant service; as, unless
corporal punishment was abolished in the former, the
condition of the latter, in regard to the liability of the
men to the same infliction, could not be ameliorated.
When this species of punishment was first introduced
into the navy, it prevailed in schools, prisons,
workhouses, and similar establishments; but in these it had
long since been abolished, and, as experience proved,
with the most beneficial results. The question was a
social as well as a military one. Suppose it was necessary
to resort to a conscription for the purpose of
manning our navy or recruiting our army, and persons
belonging to the middle classes were subjected to this
degrading punishment, the consequence would be, he
believed, mutiny, if not rebellion; and it would never
do to apply one system of punishment to one class of
persons and a different one to another. He suggested
that solitary confinement, with bread and water diet,
might in almost all cases on shipboard be found an
effective substitute for flogging.—Sir J. GRAHAM said
that he was desirous that every possible check upon the
undue exercise of corporal punishment in the navy
should be imposed. The subject had occupied the
attention of all the different Boards of Admiralty that
had existed during the last ten years, and the result
was, that every check that experience could devise had
been established, and was rigidly carried into effect in
the administration of this description of punishment.
In the first place, care had been taken that it should not
be inflicted in hot blood, by requiring that twenty-four
hours should elapse between the sentence and the
punishment. Then the number of lashes was limited
to forty-eight, and it was required that all the
circumstances of the offence and the punishment should be
recorded and returned to the commanding officer of the
station, and remitted to the Admiralty, to be then
revised by the naval officer of the board, and to be
brought by him periodically under review by the head
of the department. And for some years past it had
been the practice of the Admiralty, in forming their
opinions of the merits of commanding officers, to be
guided very much by the efficient discipline they had
maintained with the smallest amount of corporal punishment.
With regard to the substitution of imprisonment,
it should be remembered, that in ships not over-manned,
to imprison any of the crew would be to increase the
labour, and thus inflict unmerited punishment on the
rest. He should rejoice if corporal punishment could,
consistently with the maintenance of discipline, be still
further restricted, but he entreated the house to weigh
well the danger that might result, before they
pronounced in favour of its total abolition.—Mr. W.
WILLIAMS thought it should be a rule on board a man-of-
war as it was in a regiment of the line, that corporal
punishment should not be inflicted except on the
sentence of a court-martial.—Sir G. PECHELL observed
that it was often the case on board a man-of-war that a
sufficient number of officers could not be obtained to
form a court-martial, but in a regiment of the line that
difficulty could never arise.

Lord D. STUART put some questions to the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs respecting the Case of Edward
Murray. He asked the noble lord whether he had any
hopes of obtaining any further extention of clemency
to this unfortunate man? Whether he had received
any information of a character to enable him to form
an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner
in respect to the heinous crime laid to his charge?
Whether he would state that opinion or communicate
that information to the house? and whether he had
taken, or intended to take, measures to prevent the
commutation of Murray's sentence from death to perpetual
imprisonment, from resulting in the wasting of the
body, the sinking of the spirits, the weakening of the
mind, which are but additions to the capital punishment,
which a long close confinement too often involve?
—Lord J. RUSSELL said, with regard to this case. Lord
Malmsbury directed Sir Henry Bulwer to make
representations, with a view to the commutation of the
sentence. He himself had since directed that those
representations should be continued, and they were
continued while Sir Henry was at Florence. Sir Henry
had lately come away, but representations would
continue to be made by the British minister at Florence.
As to the guilt or innocence of Edward Murray, he
could only say that the Roman government denied that
if the trial had taken place in an English court the
result would have been different.

On Tuesday, February 22, a number of private bills were
before the house, one of which, Her Majesty's Theatre
Association Bill, was of general interest. Its second
reading was moved by Mr. PHINN, who explained its
nature. It was well known (he said) that for many
years it had been found extremely difficult to carry on
the opera—in consequence of a succession of persons who
had taken that establishment having discovered that it
was inadequately supported by the public. The result
was that no person who had the requisite amount of
capital, would embark in the enterprise; and the object
of this bill was to invest a large body of gentlemen,
who had taken great interest in the cultivation of
the fine arts, especially of the dramatic and lyrical
art, with the rights and privileges of a corporation.
Her Majesty, in her speech at the opening of the session,
recommended to parliament the promotion of the fine
arts, and it was in accordance with the spirit of that
recommendation that he now asked the house to read
the bill a second time, with a view to its being
afterwards referred to a select committee. In almost all
the great European capitals, the opera was supported
to a great extent by the government. Our own operas
had for some time been in a state of notorious
insolvency; and it was for the house to consider whether
it would invest a large number of noblemen and
gentlemen with power to provide a remedy for such a state
of things. In order to effect this object the parties were
ready to contribute nearly £198,000, and he asked the
house to concede to them the usual courtesy of a reference
to a select committee, in order that the matter might
be discussed calmly, and the opposition, if there were
any, removed. It had been objected to the bill that it
was contrary to public policy. He believed the real
objection was that it was contrary to the private interest
of certain parties, who felt that if the bill were carried
there would be a chance of the opera being conducted
with efficiency and success. The object of the bill was
to continue at the old site the lyrical and dramatic
entertainment which had for the last 150 years been
carried on at her Majesty's Theatre, which had received
royal and distinguished patronage, and which every
sovereign of this country during that period had
considered essential to the cultivation of the fine arts; and
further to afford those who might be trained in the