§ — Mr. Manners Suttonsaid, that seeing an hon. baronet in his place, he should call the attention of the House to the circumstances of a case of military punishment which the hon. baronet had a few days ago spoken of, as having been related in the Carlisle Journal. The facts then stated by the hon. baronet were, that a private in the dragoons had married without leave; that for this he had been sentenced to receive corporal punishment; that he received a part of his sentence, and under the apprehension that he should receive the remainder, had committed suicide. Now, the facts asserted in the statement of the Carlisle Journal, which he should call a libel on the army, were incorrect. He had made inquiries on the subject, and had received a detailed account of the circumstances of the case:—a private in the 13th dragoons, stationed at Carlisle, had asked the consent of his commanding officer to marry, and had been refused. It was not to be understood by this, that if a soldier wished to marry, it was necessary that he should have the consent of his commanding officer, or that he would 575 commit a military crime by marrying without that consent; but as the accommodations in barracks for the wives of soldiers were limited, it was necessary the officer should have a power of preventing annoyance to the respectable women who were in that situation, by the introduction of others of a different description. But, it was not merely on this account that the officer refused his consent, but it was because the man was married already. In a short time after, the man absented himself without leave for some days, in the course of which time he was married. When he returned he, was tried by a brigade court-martial, and sentenced to receive 200 lashes—100 lashes were inflicted on him, and the remainder were remitted. Some days after he was found drowned, and the probability was that he had committed suicide. These were the facts in the official return; but to do justice to the officer who commanded the corps in question, he should read a letter from sir John Byng, the commander-in-chief in the northern district.—Mr. M. Sutton then read a letter from sir J. Byng, which stated the circumstances nearly in the same manner as Mr. M. S. had stated them. It stated, however, that the officer had refused his consent to the marriage, as the woman was an abandoned character. Sir J. Byng observed, that the soldier could not have committed suicide from apprehension of further punishment, as the remaining part of the sentence had been remitted; and that he did not believe he felt himself aggrieved, as he (sir J. Byng) was at Carlisle at the time inspecting the regiment, and any soldier had thus immediate means of redress—he believed that the individual had committed suicide from despair at finding himself married to a worthless and abandoned woman. Sir J. Byng concluded his letter with an eulogium on the character of brevet major M'Allister, who, from long knowledge he could assert to be incapable of oppressing a soldier under his command.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he had not known the name of the gentleman in command at Carlisle, and of course could not have meant to cast any reflection on his conduct. It however appeared, that all the facts in the Carlisle Journal had been correctly stated, for he (sir F. B.) had not stated it as an assertion of the Carlisle Journal, but merely as a possible supposition that the man had committed suicide to avoid receiving the remainder of his 576 sentence. He was glad to hear that the remainder of the sentence had been remitted, but the fact in the Carlisle Journal was stated, to show the mischievousness of this species of punishment at all. The facts of the case seemed to be, that a soldier had chosen to marry against the wishes of his officer, and that for this he was flogged, for though absence without leave was an offence, it was not usually so heavily punished. If the man was married before, he became liable to the ordinary laws of the country, but it was an abuse of the military law to subject him for an offence not cognizable by a court-martial. As to the motives which led to the suicide, it was impossible to speak. It was not very likely that it could have been the regret at marrying an unworthy person, whose character he must have been previously acquainted with, as it appeared it was known to the officer. It was move probable that the man felt so strongly the disgrace which had been inflicted on him, that his life was intolerable to him. As this was a symptom that this degrading system of punishment was keeping its ground, he should probably have again to bring the subject before the House.
§ Mr. W. Smithobserved, that if the punishment was for absence from duty, it proceeded on just grounds; but if the man disappeared to get married, and afterwards returned to his duty, his absence ought not to have been dealt with as if he had been guilty of desertion. As the man could not have been charged with desertion, it seemed that he had been punished for disobeying his officer's injunction not to marry.
§ Mr. M. Suttonexplained, that he had never mentioned the word "desertion;" he had carefully stated what was the fact, that the man had been tried for absenting himself from his duty.
§ The conversation here ended.