Commons Sitting of 10 March 1828

EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Jonathan Fox being called in, upon the motion of Mr. Lumley, to be discharged, the SPEAKER addressed him as follows:
"Jonathan Fox, the offence for which you were committed to his Majesty's gaol of Newgate, was that of suppressing the truth, when examined as a witness before a committee of this House. It is an offence of immense magnitude. It is obvious that if such an offence were to be tolerated, or suffered to pass with impunity, the ends of justice must be defeated, and the dignity and character of this House impaired. The House, therefore, had no alternative but to adopt the Resolution under which you were imprisoned.
"Since your imprisonment, you have approached this House by petition: In that petition you express to the House the feebleness of your health at the time you were examined; you express your entire respect and deference to the House; and you express also your sincere regret and contrition: It is because the House believe the explanation you have given, and because they rely upon the sincerity of regret and contrition you have expressed, and because they are satisfied that their

1077
conduct can, neither by you nor by any one else, be misconstrued, that I am directed, so early after your imprisonment, to inform you that you are discharged, on the payment of your fees."
Jonathan Fox was ordered to withdraw. Mr. Tennyson then moved the order of the day, for going into a committee on the East Retford Disfranchisement bill.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that having, on Friday, intimated an intention of examining a member of the House on the subject of this bill, he would apprize the House, before he stated the reasons which induced him to make the motion, of what had passed between that hon. member and himself. Being desirous, on every occasion, to observe the maxim—"Do unto others as you would wish to be done by," he addressed a letter to Mr. Crompton, stating his intention of persevering in the motion, and desiring to know whether Mr. Crompton would attend voluntarily, or prefer attending by a compulsory order of the House. In answer to that communication, he received a letter from Mr. Crompton to the following effect:—"That it was not his present intention to be in his place in the House on Monday next, and in case he wished to change his intention, he would inform Mr. Harvey of that circumstance; that, according to his present views, he would rather be in his place some day subsequent to Wednesday; but that Mr. Crompton's colds were so tedious, as to leave him no chance of attending without making himself ill." In consequence of this letter, he should move that Mr. Crompton attend the committee on Friday next. He would now briefly state the reasons which induced him to make the motion. Since last Friday he had read all the evidence taken, not only at the bar of the House, but before the committee appointed to try the merits of the election; and the impression which he had entertained on Friday evening was strengthened by that perusal. It should be recollected, that the object of this bill was that of punishment, by striking the borough out of the political map of the country. The bill was not introduced upon the principle of general reform, but upon the principle of applying reform in any particular case in which palpable malfeasance should be proved. Acting upon this principle, there were three courses of proceeding. The first and most lenient was that of punishing only particular indi-
1078
viduals who had been guilty of corruption; their numbers, as contrasted with the entire body, being so trifling as to render it inexpedient, as well as unjust, to extend the punishment beyond the transgressing party. The second case was that in which a considerable portion of the constituent body had been found guilty of corrupt practices. The third was that of entire extinction of the right of election—the severest measure of punishment which could be applied to the political offender. In proof of misconduct requiring the last description of punishment, the hon. member who had introduced the bill had endeavoured to show a uniform and long-continued system of corruption; and, in pursuance of this plan he had pointed out three distinct periods in which corrupt practices had almost touched every person at the bar. The evidence relating to 1812, when Mr. Osbaldeston and Mr. Marsh were returned, was conclusive as to the manner in which Mr. Osbaldeston had secured that return. He then travelled to 1818, and placed at the bar an individual who had just been so correctly admonished, of the name of Fox, and the gist of his evidence was, that he had deposited in the hands of the Retford bankers, shortly after the election of 1818, the sum of 2,800 l. On being interrogated as to the mode in which that sum was to be applied, he, at first, declared his total forgetfulness of the way in which the money was to be applied, but, on being admonished of the consequences, he admitted that he had an impression, that that sum of money was given over to the bellman to be distributed amongst the burgesses. He (Mr. Harvey) asked the House, whether that was a species of evidence upon which they were prepared to come to a decision, that gross corruption universally prevailed in the borough of Retford in 1818? The witness stated, however, that he could inform the committee in what way the money was disposed of, provided he was furnished with a paper in the possession of Mr. Crompton, in which were contained the names of every member who was to be a recipient in the distribution of the money. There was, therefore, a frightful chasm in the evidence, which it was in the power of the House to supply by the examination of the proper person. It might so happen that Mr. Crompton had never given an order—that he had drawn the money for a legitimate purpose; and, in that case,

1079
the burgesses of Retford would be exonerated from the imputation which now lay upon them. It was the duty of the House to examine all parties who could elucidate these facts. Could any person who had read the evidence conceal from himself the impression, that it was in Mr. Crompton's power to supply the defect in the testimony of Fox? Could it be believed that Fox had distributed the money, unless there was some additional testimony to confirm his statement, or remove the odium under which the electors of East Retford laboured? It was not necessary to refer to authorities to prove that it was competent to pursue such a course. It was not an unusual course for the House to order its members to attend, to undergo that examination which the course of justice, or the supply of facts, might render essential; he could not consider that such an interrogation would press remarkably hard upon this hon. gentleman, because he could not conceal from himself that the hon. gentleman was abundantly sustained by example and sympathy in the House; for it would be ridiculous to suppose that the hon. gentleman was the only person who had entered the portals of the House by the means which he was suspected to have used on this occasion. He, therefore, disclaimed any personal feeling against the hon. member; but thus much he must say, that we should be dealing out a most severe measure of justice, if it could so be called, towards these unfortunate individuals, many of whom were in the humblest condition of life, if while we exterminated their political rights for receiving the value of their rights (for it was nothing more), we threw round the members of the House the powerful and omnipotent shield of parliament, to guard them from similar exposition. There was another consideration to which he was desirous of calling the attention of the House. It ought to be recollected that this report came down expressly recommended for the purpose of drawing attention to the peculiar facts disclosed in it. A few weeks since, some of the standing orders of the House were circulated amongst the members, amongst which he read this:—"That it was a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament to concern himself in the election of members to serve for the Commons in parliament." Could any gentleman have read the report which
1080
had emanated from the committee, without being struck with the direct evidence which was to be found in it of a palpable interference of a Lord of Parliament; that Lord having paid the sum of 1,200 l. into the Retford bank, to be applicable to those purposes into which the House was now inquiring. The House was looked up to as the guardian of the constitution; but was it not undermining the constitution to suffer the purchase of the votes of the constituent body? It was impossible the House could terminate its inquiries on this report. He would move, "That S. Crompton, Esq. do, in his place, attend the committee of the whole House, to whom the East Retford Disfranchisement bill is referred."
Mr. Alderman Waithmanexpressed his dissent from the greater part of the observations of the hon. member. He did not think any evidence was wanted to prove general corruption in the borough. Some hon. members had entertained doubts and scruples which surpassed his comprehension. They seemed to forget things in the evidence, that an unexceptionable witness, named Thornton, had produced accounts as well kept as they could be in any merchant's counting-house: there were not only the sums paid, but all the persons receiving the money. He thought this a most convincing fact. The only circumstance which made him feel any difficulty in rejecting Mr. Crompton's testimony was, that the world would say that the House acted inconsistently, if not unjustly, in treating persons of a humble class in life with great severity, for an offence which they overlooked when it was committed by one of its own members. He had no wish to examine Mr. Crompton; for he wanted no further evidence to make up his judgment; but he thought that the House ought to consider, whether it would not injure its own character with the country if it failed to command the attendance of that gentleman.
Mr. G. Bankessaid, he would take that opportunity of informing the hon. member for Bletchingley, that he did not consider the evidence, as it now stood, sufficient to disfranchise the borough of East Retford. The evidence of Hannam varied materially from that of Pickup; and he should wish to have both those witnesses re-examined with a view of seeing whether the discrepancy in their evidence could be reconciled. He also was of opinion, that the

1081
banker at Retford, Mr. Foljambe, should be examined. As the evidence stood at present, it appeared that there were two cases at the election in 1826, in which promises of votes were given in consequence of its being understood, from a declaration of Mr. Foljambe, that at the end of the election "all would be right," meaning thereby that a sum of money would be paid to the voters. Now it was material to the present inquiry to know whether those two cases were true or not. Mr. Foljambe had denied the truth of them before the committee up stairs, and it was upon his evidence that that committee had declared the sitting members not to have been guilty of bribery. He should therefore wish to examine Mr. Foljambe on this point at the bar of the House. There was also another point on which he considered the attendance of Mr. Foljambe necessary; he meant with respect to that part of the case which related to the powerful influence which appeared behind Mr. Foljambe: that influence which had advanced 1,200/. in two sums for the purposes of the last election. Mr. Foljambe had stated, that the sum of 1,200 l. was all that he expected to receive from that quarter for electioneering purposes. He should like to ascertain whether that was the case or not; because if it were, the inference from it would be that the sum of twenty guineas would not have been paid to the electors after the election, supposing that it had never been questioned. Painful as it might be to his feelings, he wished to have the attendance of Mr. Crompton at the bar, if it could be procured; but he did not see that Mr. Crompton ought to attend, if he felt a strong reluctance to such a measure. He now gave notice, that if Mr. Crompton should be ordered to attend at the bar on a future day, he would move that Mr. Hammond, Mr. Pickup, and Mr. Foljambe, be ordered to attend on the same day.
Mr. Sykessaid, he merely rose to state to the House the situation of Mr. Crompton. His hon. friend had intended to have met the challenge of the hon. member for Colchester; but he was at present too much indisposed to come down to the House. He held in his hand a medical certificate from a gentleman of the highest character in his profession, stating that Mr. Crompton was so ill that he could not attend that night in his place without extreme danger. He had himself seen Mr.
1082
Crompton, and he could say from his own knowledge, that he was not in a state of health in which he ought to be examined. Mr. Crompton, therefore, required a delay of two or three days. He had no intention whatever of avoiding any examination which the House might think it was his duty to meet. He reposed his honour securely in the House, and having so reposed it, he was willing to undergo any examination. At the same time, he entertained great doubts as to the competency of the House to put to him any questions which by their answers might involve him in a criminal prosecution. So much he had thought it right to say on behalf of his hon. friend. He would now say a word or two in his own person on the present motion. He was not going to deny the right of the House to order Mr. Crompton to attend, but he thought the House was bound to consider the expediency of exercising that right. If the hon. member for Bletchingly, who had conducted this case with the candour and the clearness of a lawyer, had closed it without thinking it expedient to call on Mr. Crompton to give evidence, the House might be inclined to pause before it did so, for no other purpose than to gratify—he would not say the spleen, for that would not be parliamentary, but the curiosity of the hon. member for Colchester, in matters with which that hon. member had no business to interfere. Why was Mr. Crompton the only person to be called to give evidence on this question, when Mr. Osbaldeston and Mr. Evans, who were equally implicated, were not called? Mr. Crompton had indiscreetly, considering his situation, but still competently as regarded his character as a member of parliament, proceeded to examine one of the witnesses produced on this inquiry, and it was not till some dissatisfaction had been excited by the indiscretion of which he was guilty, that the idea arose of examining him. Under such circumstances, he put it to the House to consider whether they ought to call Mr. Crompton to the bar. For his own part he would say that Mr. Crompton, if he were called upon to appear there, would have reason to complain of a violation of that candour and delicacy which he had a right to expect would be shown him by his brother members.
A Member, whose name we could not learn, stated several circumstances to the House, with a view of showing that there

1083
was no occasion to call Mr. Foljambe to the bar as a witness.
Mr. Lumleyconsidered that there was no necessity for examining Mr. Crompton.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that the question of the propriety of calling Mr. Foljambe as a witness to the bar had been so ably disposed of by the hon. gentleman on the other side, that he felt himself excused from the necessity of saying a word upon the subject. Under the peculiar circumstances in which that gentleman was placed, he felt that he should not be justified in summoning him as a witness before them. "With respect to the observations which his hon. and learned friend had made upon Mr. Foljambe's connexion with a part of the case proved before the committee up stairs, all he had to say was this, that the conduct of earl Fitzwilliam, as there disclosed, had no bearing whatever on the case which he had undertaken to lay before the House. If his hon. and learned friend had any charge to make against that noble individual, it was for his hon. and learned friend to bring it forward as a substantive charge against a peer of parliament. As he had been obliged to touch upon the conduct of earl Fitzwilliam, he thought it mere justice to the character of that illustrious nobleman to add, that though it had appeared that he had advanced 1,200 l. for the purpose of that election, it did not appear that he had advanced it for any corrupt purposes. It was advanced for the defrayment of those legitimate expenses which every body knew were allowed at elections; and he must say, that he saw no harm in a peer's advancing 1,200 l. for the payment of the legitimate expenses of his nephew's return to parliament. Such being the position in which earl Fitzwilliam stood, he thought that his hon. and learned friend would have done better if he had not alluded to it. No one looked with greater jealousy than he did to the interference of peers at elections; and, as a proof of it, he would refer to his own conduct some years ago, when he brought under consideration the proceedings of the duke of Marlborough at an election for Oxford.—As to the motion, for the attendance of Mr. Crompton, he had only a few words to say. It was indifferent to him how far the House might proceed in its examinations. He thought he had already made out a case amply sufficient to justify the House in disfranchising this borough. He was most anxious to go at the
1084
earliest opportunity into the examination of the question and into a division upon its merits. He regretted the delays which had taken place, and considered them extremely disadvantageous. At the same time, he was sure that if the House was not tired of these examinations, the further they were continued the clearer they would show the corruption of the borough.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that on the subject of the examination of their members in the manner proposed, the information furnished by the current of authorities was rather of a complex kind. No committee had, he thought, a power to originate a motion for the examination of any witness whether he were a member or not, without receiving an order from the House. Among the authorities, there were several instances of orders for the examination of witnesses, with the superadded words, "if they should think fit." On the whole, however, he was disposed to assume, that the House, if it pleased, had the power to examine members as witnesses in any business before them. He knew that there were instances of members having at first refused to be examined, but who had submitted after some wavering; in no instance had the House proceeded, as far as he could learn, to commit to the Tower in case of a refusal. For his own part, being satisfied on the point to which alone he thought Mr. Crompton could be examined, he saw no necessity for calling upon that hon. member. Still, as this was a case in which they had to decide judicially, and where their decision ought alone to be founded upon the uninfluenced operation of their consciences, he would yield his opinion, should it appear that any number of hon. members were anxious to have Mr. Crompton examined. He cared little for the prevalence of any feeling elsewhere, that they would be disposed to screen one of their own members: all he should ask himself was, ought this particular course to be taken? Because, if he felt it ought, he would do it, regardless of popular impressions. If many hon. members were desirous of examining Mr. Crompton, then he thought it quite clear that in the course of such examination no question should be put which could expose the witness to penalties, or to his being placed in an unfavourable situation elsewhere. The examination should not be conducted with any view of criminating the hon. member himself, but solely for the purpose of

1085
ascertaining in what degree the borough of East Retford had been corrupt, and whether it ought to be disfranchised. It had been already proved by Fox, that 2,840 l. had been lodged in a bank to pay the electors. It was to that point only that Mr. Crompton could be interrogated; and as they had the information already, what necessity was there of having it repeated? However, if any hon. member thought the evidence material to add a link to the chain, he certainly would not oppose it.
Mr. Wynnthought there was not a shadow of doubt as to the power of the House to direct the examination of a member. In a committee of the whole House, every member had a right to put such questions as he thought fit to any other member. In this instance, he did not see sufficient grounds for the delay which would result from Mr. Crompton's examination, and, therefore he should vote against it. At the same time he proceeded only on the impressions of his own mind; and if he thought there were many members who wished to hear the evidence of Mr. Crompton, he would vote for his examination. As he considered it most important that every thing concerning the power of the House should be clearly understood, he would repeat, that he was clearly of opinion, that in a committee of the whole House, every member had a perfect and unquestionable right to examine any other member, without any fresh orders from the House. In the case of colonel Wardle, on the charges against the duke of York, no order had been made that he should attend in his place; but being called upon to answer some question, and having objected that one member of the committee should call on another, lord Colchester, then Speaker of the House, sitting as a member of the committee, stated, that no member could refuse to be examined before a committee of the whole House. But it was said, suppose the member should object, the committee had no power to enforce his attendance. The committee could do in this case what they could do in any other similar instance. They would report the fact to the House, and obtain its interference. This was the course they always followed. In the cases of the witnesses who had been guilty of prevarication and false evidence in this investigation, the committee had invoked the authority of
1086
the House. That no member was privileged to disobey the resolution of the House, was proved in the instance of three members who were concerned in the South Sea Company. They had objected on the ground of their oaths of office, and those oaths they had taken as members of the Privy Council, but the House overruled the plea, and on the report of the committee, they were committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, That was going as far in the way of compulsion as the House could well do. There could be no doubt as to the authority of the House over its members: it must be complete, or its proceedings might be totally paralysed. With regard to the question before the House, he did not see any necessity for acceding to the motion. He would always object that any witness should criminate himself, unless it was absolutely necessary to the ends of justice. It had been suggested that some individual might be present not belonging to the House, who might hear this evidence and give it afterwards in testimony before some court of justice. But no court, he was sure, would admit hearsay evidence of what had passed at the bar of that House. The only satisfactory evidence in a court of justice would be the short-hand minutes of that evidence taken by order of the House, but there was no danger that that evidence would ever be produced before any court of justice. He was aware there was some inconvenience not resulting directly from the evidence, but which might flow from it as a probable consequence in some cases; and that was, that the evidence itself, though it could not be produced against the party, might lead to the discovery of other testimony injurious to him. On that ground, bills had been sent down from the other House, in some cases, to indemnify the witnesses generally against all penalties and forfeitures they might have incurred by reason of any act of which they might give credence. He thought that principle so just and reasonable, that he wished to see it extended to all cases of inquiry before either the House of Parliament, or any committee of either.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, there was not a shadow of difference between his right hon. friend and himself as to the power of the House to compel the attendance of any member to be examined before a committee. The result of his inquiry was

1087
distinctly in favour of the existence of that power. A member stood in the same relation to a committee as any other individual. He did not claim for him any indemnity that he did not claim for every other individual.
Lord Howicksaid, that if the only question was, whether the evidence of Mr. Crompton was or was not necessary to make out the case against the borough of East Retford, he should vote for that hon. gentleman's examination. But he wished to argue the question on higher grounds. If the laws against bribery were constantly enforced, he would say, by all means discover all the parties guilty of corruption in these cases. But as it was notorious that nine tenths of the members who sat for boroughs in that House were returned either by bribes of money, or money's worth, he saw no reason to select any particular individual, and make him a scape-goat for the sins of others. The House could neither deceive itself nor the country; and he would say, unless the House was determined to adopt some general rule to suppress bribery, and to carry it in all instances into execution, he would not concur in inflicting what he must otherwise consider only a cruel and useless punishment. He should certainly vote for the bill, as the burgesses of East Retford had no right to use their privileges for selfish or corrupt purposes.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that some hon. members had stated that they considered the examination of Mr. Crompton necessary to establish facts. He for one was prepared to vote for the disfranchisement of the borough on the evidence he had heard. But he thought it very strange, that members, who differed from him as to the sufficiency of the evidence, should join with him in refusing to hear further evidence. It had been stated, that the proposition to examine Mr. Crompton had originated in personal feelings; but the hon. member for Colchester had solemnly disclaimed the imputation. That hon. gentleman had stated that he held the examination of Mr. Crompton necessary, to enable him to arrive safely at the conclusion, which, as a judge, he must draw from the evidence before him. As to the objection that Mr. Crompton might, by some of his answers, subject himself to prosecution, he disregarded it; for the committee would prevent the hon. gentleman, from giving any answer which might
1088
expose him to any proceedings out of that House.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he was quite at a loss to account for the imputation so pointedly made against him by the hon. member for Hull, that he was influenced by feelings of spleen towards Mr. Crompton. He disclaimed solemnly that he had not felt the slightest spleen towards the hon. gentleman. As to what had been said by the hon. member who conducted the inquiry he would reply to him in the words of Sterne, "that the ass had sought his master as much only as the master had sought the ass." He had been induced to interfere in this inquiry in consequence of two gentlemen, connected with East Retford, having called upon him, who, after presenting that hon. gentleman's compliments, had stated, that he would feel personally obliged if he would give his aid in conducting this investigation. The persons who had thus induced him to intrude sat at that moment under the gallery, at the bar of the House. He had told them at that time, that, in his opinion, the inquiry would be mere trifling, if the committee did not call, not only on Mr. Crompton but on Mr. Evans. He knew nothing of Mr. Osbaldeston till he heard of him in the course of this inquiry, and he would have been as ready to have called him if it had been necessary. But there was no occasion for doing that, as they had had his agent Pickup, before them, who had stated, that he had taken the money for the express purpose of paying the voters; and they had also had Hannam before them, who had assisted Pickup on that occasion. Here there was a complete identification of a corrupt purpose. Not so with respect to Mr. Crompton; for, from all that appeared in the evidence of Fox, he might still be in possession of the 2,840 l. He called on the hon. gentleman, who had been so dexterous in the management of his case, to state why he had not produced the evidence of dozens of persons who might have been found to prove that they had received the sealed parcels? Fox stated, that 2,840 l. had been made up in parcels of twenty-one guineas each. Why had no witness been called who had received one of these parcels? There was another reason why it was important Mr. Crompton should be examined. There was no evidence that that hon. gentleman, though lie had spent money in 1812, had, laid out

1089
sixpence in the election of 1818, for any corrupt purpose. This, if it was proved to be true, would be strong testimony to show the improved character of the burgesses. He believed that the time was gone by when the hon. member could incur any penalties for what he might say, though perhaps at common law he might still be responsible; and, for any thing he knew, the very first question that might be asked, would lead to that liability which he agreed ought to be avoided.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that the hon. gentleman had been misled; for he had not sent his compliments to him, or any message on the subject. With respect to the present question, if he had abstained from calling for the evidence of Mr. Crompton, Mr. Evans, or Mr. Osbaldeston, he had done so, not from any desire of preventing their exposure, but because he had been given to understand that those gentlemen would be unable to prove the receipt of money by the burgesses.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanrecommended the hon. member to withdraw his motion. If it went to a division, he should not vote for it.
Mr. Humeconcurred in the recommendation.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that insinuations had been thrown out against him, and private motives had been attributed to him, and he therefore was anxious to press this motion to a division, in order to satisfy the House of the purity of his motives. If he stood alone he would divide the House thirty times. If, however, the House were satisfied as to the purity of his motives, he should not press for a division.
Mr. Peelsaid, he could bear testimony to the fact, that the hon. member for Colchester upon a former evening, and before any of the imputations alluded to had been made, had pressed as anxiously for the examination of Mr. Crompton as he had done upon the present occasion. There was no question, therefore, as to the purity of the hon. member's motives; and seeing that, he trusted the hon. member would not call for a division.
The motion was then withdrawn.

MUTINY BILL.
On the report of the Mutiny Bill being brought up,
Lord Nugentrose, pursuant to notice, to move a clause for preventing corporal punishment in the army. In bringing
1090
forward this amendment, the noble lord expressed his anxiety to avoid every topic and argument which might be calculated to excite feelings of irritation here or elsewhere. The subject was one surrounded with difficulty and delicacy, and nothing but an imperative sense of duty could have induced him to press it upon the attention of the House. He held it to be an incontrovertible fact, that the king, amongst his other prerogatives, possessed the power of not only controlling the army, but also of regulating and enforcing its discipline according to his discretion, subject to the laws enacted for that purpose, and under the sanction of that House. It was a fallacy to contend, that, because the soldier had voluntarily subjected himself to this disgraceful punishment, they should not legislate upon the subject, and decide as to the propriety and utility of this portion of military discipline. Even granting for a moment that the soldier has no grounds for complaint, he would still ask; first, was this a proper sort of punishment to exhibit before those who were the natives of a free country, and accustomed to civil liberty; secondly, was it a punishment conducive to the maintenance of those feelings and of that spirit in the army, which it was so desirable to uphold and preserve? Lastly, though first in importance, came the question—Could a substitute be found for this disgraceful and humiliating punishment? If there was any practicable and safe substitute,—any escape whatever from the infliction of a punishment degrading at once to him who suffered it, and to the service which admitted it,—sure he was, that the House would gladly adopt it. He was equally confident that every hon. and gallant officer who heard him would participate in the sentiment, and would be ready to admit, from the improved practice and feeling of the army, that any substitute of sufficient example would be highly desirable. The opinions of the officers in the army coincided with his own, that, if practicable, a substitute ought to be found for this degrading punishment. Upon that point he did not imagine there were two opinions in that House. The exhibitions to which this disgraceful species of punishment gave rise, familiarized the public mind, more particularly in garrison towns, to scenes to which it should never be accustomed. The noble lord proceeded to advert to the cruelty and injustice of the

1091
punishment. It was not calculated to maintain that chivalrous spirit which should always characterize the military service. In such a profession, it was impossible not to associate disgrace and infamy with stripes and blows, and it was hard that such a punishment should be inflicted upon a poor soldier, perhaps for his first offence; it was hard that a degrading mark should be put upon him which would follow him through life, and accompany him to the grave. Some gentlemen might consider these to be high-flown sentiments, but to such he would put this question. He believed there was not a more powerful inducement to lead a soldier on in hishonourable career, than the hope, that at the end of many years he might win his way to promotion. Suppose a soldier had thus obtained a commission, who in the early part of his life, and for a first offence had undergone this disgraceful punishment—in what position was that man placed? Gentlemen should not disregard the maintenance of honourable feelings in the army, even to the lowest ranks. The noble lord illustrated this position by reference to a fact which occurred during the wars of the succession. A number of Highland officers who had followed the fortunes of the Pretender, on being obliged to leave their native country, entered into the French service, and were there formed into a distinct regiment. In one of the battles which subsequently took place, they claimed the post of honour, and, advancing in the front of the army, they bravely bore the hottest fire, until they were mown down by the enemy's cannon. The Frenchmen, on beholding such a noble exhibition, universally exclaimed "Une fois gentilhomme, toujours gentilhomme!" In a Highland regiment, the soldier who suffered beneath the lash of the drum-major could never return to his country; he was an outcast and forbidden, and a stranger amongst his companions. Such was the feeling with which this degrading punishment was regarded in the Highlands. It was a species of punishment which tended to confound the gradations of crime. He understood that 200 or 300 lashes constituted the punishment for crimes of a secondary order, and yet more than 300 lashes could not be inflicted even for a capital offence, without endangering a soldier's life. Thus, when a man was ordered to receive 1,000 lasses, the number actually inflicted could
1092
not exceed 300; and he was glad to understand that, of late years, the disgraceful practice of bringing back a delinquent who had undergone a certain portion of his sentence, a second time to the lash, had been very properly abandoned. This punishment, like the code of Draco, which punished equally with death, the slightest as well as the most heinous offence, was calculated to confound all the gradations of crime, and to defeat the ends of salutary discipline.—The noble lord proceeded to recommend as a substitute for flogging, that which he saw employed three or four years ago in the garrison of Gibraltar, namely, hard labour and extra service. It was not his wish that the House should interfere with the government of the army, but he was desirous that they should express a strong opinion upon this subject. The continuance of the punishment of flogging in the army, was a national reproach, and it was high time that that part of the military discipline should be reformed. The noble lord then moved, that in section 24 of the mutiny bill, which relates to corporal punishments, the words "not extending to life or death" should be omitted, and the following words inserted—"provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this act shall authorize any court-martial to direct the punishment of flogging, or any other bodily punishment, to be inflicted on any offender, except for drunkenness on actual military duty, theft, fraud, or assault, with intent to commit felony." These latter offences, to come within the meaning of the clause, must be perpetrated against a brother soldier: because in case of their being put in practice against fellow-subjects, not connected with the military profession, the individual offending came within the operation of the civil law.
Mr. John Smith, in seconding the motion, observed that, in his opinion, the punishment of flogging had a tendency to increase the number of crimes. He had I lately conversed with a person who had been many years the principal keeper of Newgate, and he had been assured by him, that he seldom recollected a criminal flogged at the Old Bailey who had not been committed again within less than twelve months for a new offence. A punishment of that kind invariably produced a total loss of character, and such a recklessness of consequences, that it was not a matter of surprise that the unfortunate

1093
sufferers, neither seeking nor procuring employment, were forced to have recourse to their old practices as a means of subsistence. If such was the effect of corporeal punishment upon those persons, how much more severe must it he on the soldier, exposed to disgrace before the whole of his comrades. He believed, indeed, that flogging produced in the soldier a furious and implacable spirit, which urged him on to the commission of new and more aggravated offences. The example of France cited by the noble lord, must be considered as conclusive on the subject. It had been his lot to see about 5,000 of the French troops in garrison for some time, and he did not recollect a single instance of corporeal punishment being inflicted for any offence. So great, indeed, was the horror amongst them of any degradation of that kind, that he believed the soldier would have run his bayonet through the body of the officer who should have ventured to command its infliction. In his opinion, the discipline of the army would be better preserved, and he was sure it would be more consistent with humanity, if they were to shoot a few soldiers every year, than to expose them to the horrible agony of corporeal punishment. After some observations upon the horribly disgraceful scenes which were once exhibited in the Tilt-yard, the hon. member contended, that if there was no better argument for the abolition of flogging, he would urge the propriety of discontinuing it as a punishment from the very unequal manner in which it was inflicted, and the very unequal strength of constitution which was brought to suffer it. A man embrowned by the sun, and accustomed to work without his shirt, would suffer much less from flogging than a manufacturer who was perhaps brought up to a labour less severe; and it was at the same time well known that it was in the power of the person who held the lash to make the punishment frightfully severe or comparatively trifling. For these reasons he seconded the noble lord's motion with pleasure; but he would have felt much greater pleasure in doing so, if the noble lord had proposed to abolish the punishment altogether.
Sir J. Sebright, being of an opinion diametrically opposite to that of the noble lord, and of the hon. gentleman, felt himself bound to state, in a few words, the reason of that difference. There were many persons in the House better quali-
1094
fied to state those reasons than he was; but as he had formerly seen a little of the service, he was desirous of saying, that he was prepared to justify the punishment of flogging, because he believed it to be absolutely necessary. That opinion, from what he had seen, he must continue to hold, until some of those who had much greater experience, and whose habits of commanding large bodies of troops, gave them knowledge upon the subject, were prepared to say that the discipline of the army could be preserved by any other species of punishment. The French army had been alluded to; but he begged the House to consider that that army was very differently constituted from the English army, while the punishments were ten times more severe. An English soldier was never confined more than forty-eight hours at one time, while a French soldier was frequently kept for an almost unlimited time in prison, and fed upon bread and water. As to the abolition of the punishment of flogging, he could speak from his own knowledge that it had been tried in every regiment in the service—it was tried every day, and as long as possible—flogging being only resorted to as a dernier resort. It ought to be recollected, that the English soldier was very much given to drinking—a vice common, indeed, not only to the soldier, but to the nation in general, although he was glad to say it did not prevail so much as formerly among the higher classes. This vice led to very bad consequences in the army, and it was necessary to punish it with severity; but he was convinced that the army altogether was in a most efficient state, and that the British soldier was in every case treated with a kindness and delicacy beyond that shewn to any other army in the world.
Sir H. Viviansaid, he participated in all the humane sentiments which had been expressed by the noble lord and the hon. member who had seconded the amendment. No man would more readily give up the present system than he would, if he had pointed out to him a safer or a better plan. He, however, was a friend to the discipline of the army, knowing that without strict discipline, an army was infinitely more dangerous to its friends than to its enemies. His feeling was, that times might arrive when it would be absolutely necessary to have recourse to corporal punishment for the preservation of due order and. discipline; and therefore

1095
he could not consent to its abolition. In his opinion, the constant recurrence to this subject threw a sort of slur on British officers which they did not deserve, since they did not, except in extreme cases, have recourse to this punishment; and if there were any way of removing it, he was convinced that their feelings would go hand-in-hand with their duty. It was said last year, that British officers wished those who were placed under their command to crouch under the lash like spaniels. In his view of the case, the soldiers were more like their own national bull-dog, and sometimes required the strong hand of the master to be exercised to prevent them from being dangerous to their friends. In consequence of what had passed in the House last year, he had made some inquiries into the number of corporal punishments inflicted in different regiments for a given period, and the result of his inquiries was this:—In one regiment he found sixty-eight defaulters, four courts-martial, one man punished; in a second, seventy defaulters, seventeen courts-martial, three men punished; in a third, eighty defaulters, nineteen courts-martial, two men punished; in a fourth, thirty-five defaulters, four courts-martial, two men punished; in a fifth, twenty-one defaulters, one court-martial, one man punished; and in a sixth, forty defaulters, sixteen courts-martial, three men punished; and, except in two cases, no punishment was inflicted exceeding a hundred lashes. He therefore contended, that there was no abuse of the system. The noble lord had referred to the French army; but he ought to take into consideration the difference between the manner in which the French and the British army was constituted. He was aware that no corporal punishment was inflicted in the French army; but the French soldier was liable to other punishments, infinitely more severe than any that was, or could be, inflicted on the British soldier. Besides, the British army was quartered all over the country, and it was necessary to have a powerful and efficient control over them; while the French army, on the contrary, was constantly kept in garrison towns or in barracks. In case of any crime being committed by a French soldier, he was either condemned to death, to the boulet, or to be placed in a garrison for life. With respect to the conduct of the British troops in the field, it was
1096
quite evident, from their achievements, that corporal punishment had not daunted their spirit; and with respect to their discipline, any man acquainted with what had passed in the south of France must know, that the British army were hailed as deliverers, while the French army were feared and dreaded. The gallant general proceeded to animadvert upon the impolicy of members bringing forward questions with which they were not acquainted. The noble lord, in his amendment, proposed to inflict the punishment of flogging for theft, fraud, and drunkenness; but he had totally passed over offences of a much more serious description, such as disobedience of orders, and sleeping upon their post; while he allowed the punishment of flogging for petty theft from a fellow soldier, an offence which the articles of war expressly required the commanding officer to place under the cognizance of the civil power. If a soldier was, for instance, to knock the noble lord down in the street, what punishment would he award him? And yet the noble lord and others wished to abolish all fears of that punishment which kept the military in awe, and prevented them from indulging in those acts of licentiousness, which might give some gentleman an opportunity of declaiming against the army as a disgrace to the country. After some observations upon the difference between the men taken in time of peace and those whom the officers were forced to recruit in time of war, and admitting that the punishment was not so necessary under such circumstances, the gallant general passed a high eulogium upon the feelings of kindness and affection, like unto that of a parent for his child, which existed between the officers and the soldiers of the British army; and concluded by declaring, that the expression of any strong feeling by the House was not necessary, either to prevent the infliction of unnecessary punishment, or to preserve the discipline of the army.
Mr. Wilbrahamstrongly condemned the practice of flogging. It was a most sanguinary punishment; and, in his opinion, a disgrace to the British army. Those who opposed this practice were described as visionary speculatists; but he believed that lord Combermere would not be considered a speculatist; and that gallant officer had, in a very great degree, if not entirely, abolished, the inhuman practice

1097
of flogging in the British army in India. He could not conceive why the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish, and even the Hindoo troops, should be exempted from this punishment while it was inflicted on Englishmen.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that in contrasting the modes of punishment in our army with those in the French army, hon. gentlemen had spoken of the latter as though no other punishments were known in it besides solitary confinement and death. They had forgotten all the gradations of punishment; that in the French army offences were divided into two classes, the one of which consisted of faults against discipline, and the other of crimes. Faults against discipline were visited with fourteen days' confinement, being kept on bread and water for three days, and other punishments of a lenient nature. Crimes were the subject of the sentences of a court-martial, and the punishments assigned for them were travail publique, irons, death. He knew of no system better calculated to remove offences than a gradation of punishment like that adopted by the French, and the success of that system convinced him that it might be beneficially adopted in the English army. He was sorry that the suggestion which the hon. member for Montrose made last session had not been attended to; namely, that flogging should be confined to regiments on foreign service. He thought it well deserving the attention of the House.
Colonel Lindsaysaid, that hon. gentlemen ought not to forget of what class of persons the army was composed. Some of them were wayward and disorderly, and a great portion of them exactly at the age when men's passions were the most ungovernable. Physically speaking, the army was the most uncontrollable body of men in the community. And yet they had to undergo the greatest privations; were exposed to insult without the means of resenting it; and were called upon to do their duty silently and instantaneously. It was therefore absolutely necessary that such men should be restrained by a very severe code of laws. He would call upon the noble lord who wished to abolish corporal punishment in the army to say what he would substitute in its place. He was free to admit that military men were greatly indebted to hon. gentlemen, and especially to the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, for bringing this subject
1098
before the House; because he was sure that they had been the means of lessening the application of corporal punishment. But there was a great difference between the abrogation of this power and the non-use of it. In his opinion, the infliction of corporal punishment ought only to take place in extreme cases; but the power of inflicting it ought not to be entirely removed. He argued this question on the same principles of humanity which hon. gentlemen on the other side so strongly insisted upon; but he came to a very different conclusion. Remove the power of inflicting corporal punishment, and the only resource, in cases of mutiny, would be death. This, then, in point of fact, was the humanity of the noble lord: leaving the military judges no mediate course, he compelled them to pronounce the sentence of death for an offence which did not deserve so severe a punishment. As to foreign armies, the punishments in them, so far from being more lenient, were much more severe than in ours, and were inflicted at the will of non-commissioned officers, and without any trial. Seeing, as he did, that the British army was able to beat the army of any other nation to which it was opposed, he was unwilling to alter the discipline under which it had been brought to its present state of perfect discipline.
Mr. Humesaid, it would seem from the speech of the gallant member that the British army owed its superiority over other armies to the system of flogging that prevailed in it. Now he was by no means disposed to admit, that a practice which had a tendency to degrade the soldier, and to brutalize his mind, was a practice necessary to sustain the character of the British army. In Holland, Prussia, and in Wurtemberg, as well as in France, flogging had been abolished with the most beneficial effects: and even in Austria, and the few other places where it was continued, the flogging did not take place by removing the clothes of the soldier publicly, and punishing him in a manner so revolting to humanity as was practised in our service. When it was admitted that this punishment was not inflicted in more than one regiment out of four or five, and even then very seldom, it was evident that the perfect state of the discipline of our army was not owing to this practice. He had proposed a safe experiment; namely, that the abolition of this punishment

1099
should be extended, in the first instance, to England. They would then see what little effect this revolting species of punishment had in preserving the discipline of the army, and with what safety it might be extended to the whole British army. In this country, where, in any extraordinary case, the aid of the civil might be called in to assist the military power, he thought the experiment might with propriety be made, and he had submitted a proposition to that effect last year. In India, lord Combermere had almost altogether abolished corporal punishment. He had issued a general order, which restricted the infliction of it to stealing, marauding, and acts of gross insubordination, which would render the soldier unworthy of the military service; thereby limiting this degrading punishment to persons who had been guilty of the most infamous offences. He hoped the day was not far distant when this brutalizing practice would be altogether abolished.
Colonel Woodthought that, although corporal punishment was not allowed in foreign armies, the discipline of them was preserved with greater severity than in ours, because the infliction of capital punishment was more frequent. The noble mover had attributed to him an argument which he had never used: that noble lord had made him say that, as boys were flogged at school, he saw no reasons why soldiers should not be flogged. Now, no such argument had ever fallen from his lips. He had commanded a regiment for many years, and had always introduced corporal punishment as seldom as possible. There was, perhaps, no regiment in which it had been inflicted in so few instances. He was not, however, of opinion that the punishment could be altogether done away with, although it ought to be as seldom resorted to as possible. In some instances he had had recourse to it; and there were I two in which young soldiers, on whom it had been inflicted, had thanked him for the salutary effect it had had upon them, in deterring them from continuing in a course of offences which would have led to severer punishment in the end. The British army had been contrasted with the armies of other countries. For his part, he thought the British soldiers, who had beaten all the armies that had been brought against them, had military character enough. Besides, as soon as they were disembodied, I they fell into the mass of the people, and
1100
did not, as in France, form a particular class of the community, and, still preserving their military character, think themselves of a superior order to the rest of their fellow-subjects.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, he would not again go over the old argument upon this subject. To state the objection to what was proposed generally, it was this,—that where there were large bodies of armed men collected together, strong measures were necessary to keep them in order. Means which might be used for this end in other countries, could not be resorted to in this. How, for instance, could the punishment, so much insisted on, of solitary confinement, be inflicted in this country? Our troops were not in strong garrisoned towns or military fortresses, where men could be confined apart from their comrades. We had no mode of imprisoning soldiers, except sending them to the common gaols; and he did not think that an association with the ordinary inhabitants of gaols would be likely to send a soldier back to his regiment at all improved. It was a great mistake to suppose that corporal punishment did not prevail in foreign armies. Foreign soldiers were subject to blows and stripes, and the only difference between them and ours was, that in the one case this species of punishment was inflicted with trial, and in the other without trial. He apprehended that the House would not be inclined to follow this course. Many of the substitutes for this punishment in foreign countries would not be tolerated in England. If our soldiers were seen parading the streets with cannon-balls chained to their legs, such a spectacle would be much more revolting and disgusting to the public mind than the present system. The noble mover wished to abolish all corporal punishments, except for certain offences named in the clause. Now, the mutiny act and the articles of war said, "Go to the civil power whenever it is possible," and the cases in which this was not possible were the very cases in which the noble lord wished to do away with corporal punishment. The mutiny act was passed to provide for cases which called for the immediate interposition, and which the ordinary course of the law could not put down. These were, desertion, disobedience, insubordination, and mutiny, whatever it might be, and these the noble lord wished to exclude from corporal

1101
punishment. But the noble lord's proposition involved an impossibility; and he thought that it would be better to say that there should be no punishment but death, and take away corporal punishment altogether, rather than make such dangerous exclusions as these.
General Duffprotested against any hasty attempts to remodel an army which had driven the invincible legions of France from one end of the world to the other.
The amendment was negatived.

ROMAN CATHOLIC LAND-TAX BILL.
On the order of the day for committing this bill,
Mr. Curteisobjected to the mode which the bill recognised, of taking the valuation of land for the purpose of the tax.
Mr. G. Bankesentered into a lengthened explanation of the clauses of the bill. He pointed out the inequality of the assessment of the Land-tax, as it existed at present in England, both as regarded the Catholic and Protestant land-owners. It had been formed, as it then stood, in the reign of William 3rd. and had continued down to near the end of the reign of George 3rd. in the same disproportion. Another grievance under which the Catholics especially laboured, was the necessity of being compelled to prove the payment of the four shillings in the pound upon a rack-rent, before any relief could be sought in the court of Exchequer; and every succeeding year the evil had increased. The object of the bill was, not to place the Catholics in a better situation than the Protestants, with respect to the Land-tax, nor to throw on Protestants, that portion of the burthen from which the Catholics were to be relieved.
Mr. Fergussonsaid, that some objections which he had to part of the bill having been removed, he now gave it his hearty support.
The Attorney-generalsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the bill, but thought the relief ought not to be extended to Roman Catholics who had purchased the estates of Protestants, nor to Protestants who had purchased those of Roman Catholics; for they bought them subject to those payments.
The House then went into the committee.