APPENDIX B.

Average Annual Expenses of a Militia Regiment 1,000 strong,
embodied for 28 days.

Average enrolment expenses for one year :

300 volunteers, at 20s.

Training expenses for one year :—

£300 0 0

1 Lt.-Col. (less income-tax) 28 days, at 15s. 11d.

21 12 9

1 Adjt. (difference of disembodied pay) 3s. 9d.
1 Surgeon, ditto

5

11s.

4d.

15

1 Assistant-Surgeon, ditto

1 Quartermaster (difference of dis-
embodied pay)

78.

6d.

10

1 Sergeant-Major, ditto

1 Quartermaster-Sergeant, ditto

1 Paymaster-Sergeant, ditto

1,044 Volunteers allowance of bounty, each, 21s.

Allowance to 300 recruits for necessaries, viz.:2 shirts, at 2s. each, and 2 pairs of socks, at 10d. 10 Captains' contingent allowances, each 2s. 964 Mens' billet allowances

2,775 Marching allowance going and coming, at 1s. 1d.

0004386

33

08

10 10 0

6 8

2 11 0

0

6 8/1/20

Allowance for officers' mess

Hire of drill-field

Hire of Hospital

31 10 0

10 0 0

Fitting-up of ditto, proportion

Allowance for 3 officers attached to Line

Total Training per 1,000 Men

30 0 0

4 0 0

21 0 0

£3,700 0 0

MARTIAL AND CIVIL LAW COGNIZANT OF MURDERS IN THE FLEET.

THE laws of naval discipline for the government of her Majesty's forces by sea, as administered according to the several acts of Parliament, called the "Naval Articles of War," appear to be imperfectly comprehended by the contributors to the press, because they will not refer to the opinions of the judges who have decided on the most important and questionable cases submitted to their judgment.

It has been published in one of the professional periodicals that "the recent melancholy catastrophe on board the Slaney at Woolwich should have been brought before a naval court-martial;"—and after having very justly animadverted on the atrocious and revengeful crime committed by the seaman who bayoneted the corporal of marines-the correspondent concluded by suggesting "that the dastardly murderer should be tried and hanged on board one of her Majesty's ships, and the example would, no doubt, have a very beneficial effect."

A reference to M'Arthur, or Hickman, on "Naval Courts-martial," will at once demonstrate that the seamen found "guilty of wilful murder," by the verdict of the coroner's inquest, cannot, in this case, be tried by naval court-martial, as the unfortunate corporal died ashore in the Infirmary, although he received the fatal stab from the seaman on board one of her Majesty's ships floating in Admiralty waters, viz., the "great river" Thames, "below the bridges thereof."

The injury inflicted, and the death in consequence, must both happen on board a ship, or boat, on the high seas, or in admiralty waters.

As the work of M'Arthur, or that of Hickman, is not generally in circulation for immediate reference, it may be convenient for the public to find in the pages of "The United Service Magazine" the opinion of either author on the important cases of murder in the fleet-also the law bearing on the particular points in question, which decides whether the offender is to be tried by naval court-martial, or by the civil law; and the 16th sect. of 16th & 17th Victoria, cap. 69, by which the crime of murder committed by a person in full pay of the fleet, in any of her Majesty's dock-yards or victualling-yards, may be tried by naval courtmartial, as if the said crime was committed on board any one of her Majesty's ships or vessels of war.

First, the law relative to murder and manslaughter on the high seas. M'Arthur quotes the law as enacted by statute 2 Geo. II. cap. 21, and deduces his opinion on the several cases accordingly. Hickman gives his opinion thereon from the recent statute of 9 Geo. IV., cap. 31, sec. 8, by which it is enacted that, "Where any person being feloniously stricken, poisoned, or otherwise hurt upon the sea, or at any place out of England, shall die of such stroke, poisoning or hurt in England, or being feloniously stricken, poisoned, or otherwise hurt in any place in England, shall die of such hurt upon the sea, or at any place out of England, every offence committed in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, or of being accessory before the fact to murder, or after the fact to murder or manslaughter, may be dealt with, inquired of,

tried, determined, and punished in the county or place in England in which such death, stroke, poisoning, or hurt shall happen, in all respects as if such offence had been wholly committed in that county or place."

On the several points in this section Hickman has accurately observed, that "It is only under certain circumstances, however, that a court-martial could take cognizance of this crime: for instance, when the stroke, poisoning, or hurt is given by some person or persons in actual service and full pay, on the main sea, in great rivers beneath the bridges, in places where ships resort within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, or in places out of her Majesty's dominions; and when the party so stricken, wounded, or hurt, shall die on board one of her Majesty's ships as aforesaid, or in any place out of her Majesty's dominions, the case could be legally judged of by court-martial. But if the stroke, poisoning, or hurt should be given as above described, and the wounded man* be removed to an hospital, or other place on shore in her Majesty's dominions and die there; or if the wound which caused death should have been inflicted on the shore in any place within her Majesty's dominions, or on board any ship, vessel, or boat, lying without the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, the offender must be given up to the civil authorities, to be tried by the ordinary tribunals of the country, according to the provisions of the 8th section of the Act 9 Geo. IV., cap. 31, before noticed."

In contradistinction to this case of the murder committed by the seaman belonging to the Slaney, who is to be tried by the Civil Law,† Hickman instances the court-martial held in October 1815, at Plymouth, on a ship's corporal of the Trave, for the wilful murder of a corporal of marines serving on board the same ship. This case is conclusive as to the legality of the Naval court-martial, which tried the offender, for the cause of the murder and the death both happened on board the ship. Its legality is further proved, as the offender was in the first instance delivered over to the civil power at Quebec, the crime having been perpetrated in the great river St. Lawrence, but he was directed to be returned to his ship for the purpose of his being tried by naval court-martial, by the Lord Chief Justice Kerr, who thus delivered his opinion of the law applicable to the case, after the prisoner had pleaded three pleas to the jurisdiction of the court at Quebec:

"I consider the proviso in the letters-patent as a declaration of his Majesty's sense and understanding of the 4th and 25th sections of the act of Geo. II., cap. 23, and wherever crimes are committed on board one of his ships of war, the Admiralty jurisdiction shall extend to the spot where she lays, whether the place be fresh or salt water, whether within the local extent of Admiralty jurisdiction or not. But this proviso, and the statutes referred to in it, show that it is a part of the national policy to consider persons on board his Majesty's ships as a distinct order of men in the State, and that they are to be governed by their own code of laws, and subject to the jurisdiction of their own maritime courts. The prisoner must be discharged from this bar."

As in the present case of the corporal removed to the infirmary.

Since this article has been in type the murderer has been tried at the Central Criminal Court, Woolwich, and sentenced to death.

U. S. MAG., No. 343, JUNE, 1857.

M'Arthur quotes a case of a smuggler on shore having fired at and killed a master of the navy, who was in a boat on the sand bank, about 100 yards from the shore, was tried at the Admiralty Sessions, held at the Old Bailey in June, 1785. A question was raised in the prisoner's favour, as to his having been properly tried by the Admiralty jurisdiction.

* *

The Judges were of opinion that the prisoner was tried by a competent jurisdiction * and he was executed pursuant to his sentence. "Hence,' says M'Arthur, we are of opinion that a similar case happening to a person belonging to the fleet would be a subject cognizable by a court-martial.

In this opinion M'Arthur is decidedly in error, because, by the articles of war, of 22 Geo. II., the offender, although in full pay of the fleet, must commit the act which caused the murder, actually "upon the main sea, or in great rivers only, beneath the bridges of the said rivers nigh to the sea, or in any haven, river, or creek, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty."

Let us suppose, for instance, that the seaman belonging to the Slaney had, whilst standing on shore, shot the corporal of marines on board her, and that the death happened on board, instead of at the infirmary -it is legally proved both by the said naval articles of war, and by the aforesaid statute of 9 Geo. IV., cap. 31, sec. 8, that the offender would be tried by the civil law, and not by naval court-martial, as he committed the act which caused the death of the corporal on board, whilst standing on shore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and not whilst " on the main sea, or the great river" Thames, within the said jurisdiction.

However, it is obvious that the following section of 16 and 17 Victoria, cap. 69, will legalise a naval court-martial to take cognizance of the crimes of murder and manslaughter, committed by any person in actual service and full-pay of the fleet, whilst on shore in any of the Queen's dock-yards or victualling yards.

"17th. And whereas, under the act of the twenty-second year of King George the Second, chapter thirty-three, courts-martial constituted by virtue of that act have authority for the trial and punishment of offences committed upon the main sea, or in great rivers only, beneath the bridges of the said rivers nigh to the sea, or in any haven, river, or creek, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, by persons in actual service and full pay in the fleet, or ships of war of her Majesty:

Any court-martial constituted by virtue of the said last-mentioned act shall have the same power for the trial and punishment of offences committed in any of her Majesty's dock-yards or victualling-yards, by such persons as at the time of the offence committed shall be in actual service and full pay in the fleet, or ships of war of her Majesty, as if such offences had been committed upon the main sea, or in any haven within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty; and all persons in actual service and full pay in any of the ships of war of her Majesty shall within any of her Majesty's dock-yards or victualling-yards be subject to the same discipline, laws, and customs, as if on board such ships of war of her Majesty upon the main sea or in any such haven as afore said."