Sitting of 15 March 1819

ROCHESTER ELECTION.
Mr. Gooch
985
informed the House, "That the Select Committee had determined, that lord Binning is duly elected a citizen to serve in this present parliament for the city of Rochester:—that the petition of Robert Torrens, esquire, did appear to the said Select Committee to be frivolous and vexatious: that the opposition of the said lord Binning to the said petition, did not appear to the said Select Committee to be frivolous or vexatious." On the motion of Mr. Bennet, the minutes of the proceedings of the committee were ordered to be laid before the House.

ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. Abererombysaid, that he had a petition to present from the Guildry of Edinburgh, which prayed for a reform in the present constitution of the Scotch burghs. He should not have said any thing on that question at present had it not been for the numerous signatures which were attached to the petition which he had to present, for the perspicuous statement which the petitioners made in it of the evils under which they laboured, and for the firm and constitutional manner in which they expressed their hopes of obtaining redress from the justice of parliament. They complained of the self-election of the members of the different corporations, which was an evil that the House ought immediately to remedy; inasmuch as, by the law of Scotland, all the burgesses were responsible for the debts contracted by a magistracy, of which they did not elect a single a member. This was a serious hardship, because many boroughs had funds, which were only just equal to their expenditure, and others had an expenditure greater than their funds. The petitioners bad been accused of favouring wild and visionary schemes of reform; they stated that this accusation was false, and that it was known to be so by those who urged it. They also added, that if they had been the disloyal subjects which they had been asserted to be, they could not have wished for any thing better than the continuance of the system which prevailed. The government never had an easier opportunity of conciliating a large number of its subjects by the mere exercise of common sense and common justice, than it had on the present occasion. All the petitioners asked for was, a relief from their present grievances: they were, however, of opinion, that the bill which the lord advocate had intro-
[986
duced on the subject, was more calculated to aggravate than to relieve their injuries. He should have thought that the knowledge of all these grounds of complaint would have made the government bring forward a well digested plan to remove them. They had not done so; and by-failing to do so, had been deficient in duty to the country. He supposed that the executive would in this case attempt, as it had done in many others, to throw all the responsibility on the legislature.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed; as were also petitions presented by lord A. Hamilton from the Incorporation of Goldsmiths of Edinburgh, and the burgesses of Lauder.

PETITION OF THOMAS WILLIAM GRADY.
Sir Robert Wilson presented a petition from Mr. Thomas William Grady, setting forth,
"That in a moment of irritation the petitioner did inconsiderately address a witness in language which he is now sensible ought not to have been held, whilst its expression was a violation of the privileges of the House; deeply impressed with a sense of his error, and its injurious consequences, he does, as some reparation, assure the House, that he will not only refrain from a repetition of his: offence during the proceedings instituted, in compliance with the prayer of his former petition; but he voluntarily declares that he will abstain from all subsequent acts of a similar nature and tendency: being determined to leave the vindication of his character to the judicial result of the proceedings now pending, and feeling assured that his personal honour can never be impeached for the maintenance of a line of conduct in unison with the wishes and opinions of the House; the petitioner, having thus expressed the sentiments of his contrition, throws himself upon the consideration of the House."

MR. THOMAS WILLIAM GRADY REPRIMANDED.
On the Motion of sir R. Wilson, Mr. T. W. Grady was brought to the bar, where he received the following Reprimand from Mr. Speaker:
"Thomas William Grady;—The using insulting language to any person, in consequence of the evidence he has given at this bar, or the threatening him, with reference to any evidence he may be called upon to give, is a contempt of the authority, and a breach of the privileges of this

987
House, which never has been, and never will be tolerated. In your Petition you state a full acknowledgment of your guilt, and deep contrition for it; you plead in excuse the irritation of your mind, and the difficulties of your situation; and from these causes your forgetfulness at the moment of what was due both to this House and to yourself; all these circumstances have been weighed, and added to the inexperience of your youth, have procured the most indulgent consideration of your case; but let me warn you, be not misled by the lenity now extended to you; this House will not be trifled with: witnesses under the examination of this House, are under the protection of the House; and a repetition of this outrage, either by yourself or by others, during the progress of this inquiry, or at any time growing out of this inquiry, will be Visited by this House with the utmost rigour and the severest punishment."
Ordered, nem. con., that the said reprimand be entered on the Journals of this House.

COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. WYNDHAM QUIN.
Sir R. Wilsonmoved the order of the day for continuing the investigation on this subject, when, in consequence of an explanation given by Mr. W. Quin, relative to a discordance between the testimony of Mr. Goold and Mr. Carew Smith, by which it appeared that Mr. Quin confirmed the assertion of Mr. C. Smith, and negatived that of Mr. Goold, as to an interview on the morning of September 22. Mr. Lambton moved the discharge of certain orders for the attendance of additional witnesses from Ireland. The Speaker learning that Mr. W. Quin admitted the correctness of Mr. C. Smyth's statement, and consequently that no further evidence would probably be necessary upon that point, said, he had delayed the issue and transmission of the summonses. Mr. Goold was called in to explain a part of his testimony of Friday night: after which Mr. T. W. Grady, the petitioner, was examined at great length. Mr. David Roche was then examined; after which, R. Wilson moved that the minutes of evidence taken that day be printed along with the rest. As he did not think that the minutes could be in the hands of members before the beginning of next week, he should move that the further consideration of the petition be adjourned to the 25th instant. This was put and carried.

MUTINY BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Gurneysaid, he could not let this opportunity pass without objecting to that part of the bill which sanctioned enlistments for life. It was a practice productive, on all sides, of unmixed evil. It went necessarily to render the soldier discontented with his situation, it prevented the recruiting of the army, it was in itself a monstrous injustice, and one which was never heard of, or tolerated in this country, previously to the accession of George the first. The late Mr. Wind-ham, he said, had substituted enlistment for a term of years; which the noble lord opposite had got rid of, by holding out a fallacious option, and under this, a boy of sixteen or seventeen years of age, probably intoxicated, when he could not by law make a title to the smallest amount of transferable property, was allowed to sell himself for life for ten pounds! He should therefore move, that the schedule B. be left out of the bill, which contained the form of the oath for Life Enlistments.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that this subject had been well and frequently considered in the House, and the ground on which this part of the system stood was evidently the fairest and best. The recruit might choose limited or unlimited service. The difference in the bounty was only 16 s.. If a man wished to enlist for unlimited service, it could scarcely be imagined that he was induced to do so for the paltry allowance of 16 s. It must be a matter of determined choice, uninfluenced by gain.
The motion was put and negatived.
Sir Robert Wilsonsaid;—Not having recollected that the Mutiny bill was passed before the 24th instant, I omitted to ask for returns which I wished to be laid upon the table of this House, before the bill came under consideration. Having, however, in much earlier life expressed a strong opinion upon a particular part of our military code, and having, indeed, been the first officer who, by a written treatise, directed the serious attention of the government and the country to the subject, I feel called upon to express my present opinions, notwithstanding I am so much exhausted. I know that since the time to which I alluded, the duke of York has effected what may be called a revolution in our military system of discipline I know that by his regulations admoni-

989
tions, and expression of earnest wishes he has contracted, to a great degree, that excess of punishment which afflicted and disgraced the army when I first entered into it; but this very success encourages me with a hope that parliament will not lose sight of the subject, until this degrading and demoralizing species of punishment, this punishment so much the subject of national reproach, and so antinational shall be abolished from our military code, except as an ultimum supplicium or commutation for the punishment of death. It was truly said, when the penal laws were under discussion, that cruel laws frequently executed, created, but did not check crime; and I appeal with confidence to every military man who hears me, if, in a regiment where the commanding officer is severe, offences do not multiply in the ratios of that severity; so that punishment is the cause and not the effect of pre-existing depravity and misconduct. On the other hand, whether, where that commanding officer is succeeded by one of a milder character, offences do not diminish in the same proportion, so that the same corps which was notorious for harsh discipline and misconduct, becomes as remarkable for tranquil discipline and good order. It is invidious to cite even individualism such cases for praise; but where a distinguished personage has rendered a service to the army, community, and humanity, it is my duty to mention his name with honour. With those feelings, and not from any servile or interested considerations, I think of the duke of Gloucester as having afforded the first practical example in support of the wishes impressed by the duke of York, and of a system very unpalatable to officers who had received a different education. In a corps exposed to all the temptations of a London life, and which temptations the cat 0'nine tails could never resist. After some previous arrangements, corporal punishment was relinquished, and the corps became from its conduct a pattern to the whole army. The example followed by the brigade of guards, obtained the same results, and on the merits and services of this part of our army, it is not necessary for me to dwell, as they are so well known to the country. It is not ray intention to present a picture of a different description. I do not wish to inflame the public wind, nor shall I ever advert to the details, without I see danger of relapsing into a system which I never flunk upon without more loathing
ÇÇ
[990
and horror than ever I felt when witnessing the many horrible scenes I have witnessed in the course of my life. The time of peace is the time to introduce this improvement; and let it be recollected, that this is the only country in the world, where this ignoble and this unmanly species of punishment is still continued. Let it be recollected also, that this is not a British punishment, for it is not to be traced back beyond the introduction of the Dutch guards in the year 1688. I wish those gentlemen who have expressed such just gratitude to our army in Europe—who have just voted the thanks of this House to our meritorious army in India-would consider whether the most honorable memorial, the proudest monument, they could confer and erect, would not be the abolition of this punishment—whether this would not be the most just as well as the most valuable commemoration of national gratitude. I shall, Sir, take the first opportunity of moving for the returns of all courts martial of the last year; specifying the sentences ordered, and what part of the sentences and in what way they were inflicted.
Mr. Beckett[judge advocate general] said, that when returns had been laid before the House of the number of courts-martial, not for one or two years, but for a century and a half past, and when it had still continued to sanction corporal punishment, he thought the matter should; be considered as res judicata; he was therefore, surprised at hearing such opinions as those which had fallen from the hon. and gallant officer. The hon. and gallant officer was, however, consistent in his opinions; for, sixteen years ago, he had given to the public his opinions at length upon the same subject. The glorious triumphs of our armies on the continent were, in a great degree, owing to the excellence of their discipline, and a part of that discipline was the system of corporal punishment. Would it, then, be said, that this system should be altogether abolished? But it might be urged, that the same strictness in this respect, which would be necessary in time of war, could not be required in time of peace. In answer, to this, it might not be un useful to the House to look back to the progress of punishments for the years 1817 and 1818. In those two years though the capital punishments bad decreased, yet the substituted punishments had increased consider ably, which showed an increase of crime.
Sir J. Newportwas astonished to hear the hon. gentleman assert, that this country owed the victory of Waterloo, and other glorious achievements to the system of corporal punishment. This was an assertion which he never could give credit to. He could not believe, that the victories of this country were to be attributed to so base an engine. The infliction of corporal punishment would, he believed militate against the accomplishment of mighty deeds; He should not rejoice in the noble spirit and enthusiastic gallantry of a British army, if they could be traced to such a source as that which the hon. gentleman had panegyrised.
Sir Lowry Colewas unwilling to obtrude himself on the House, but having been for many years connected with the army; he might be supposed to have formed an opinion oh this subject. That opinion was not a popular one, but still he was bound to state it. He must then say, that, however objectionable and injurious the system formerly was, yet he did not think the British army could be kept in its present state of discipline, if it were wholly removed.
Sir Isaac Coffinsaid, that the army, with respect to courts-martial was in an unhappy state indeed; since the sentences were given privately, and transmitted to the commander in chief, instead of being, as in the navy, openly promulged.
The bill was read the third time and passed.

FRAME-WORK KNITTERS.
Mr. Mansfieldcalled the attention of the House to the Frame-work-knitters petition which he had recently presented; and after pointing out the necessity which existed, for granting some relief to that body, moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the grievances complained of in the frame-knitters petition, and to report the same, with their observations thereon, to the House."
Mr. Paresdescribed the afflicting state in which the frame-work-knitters were plunged, and earnestly entreated the House to devote some means of relieving them.
Mr. Humedid not mean to oppose the motion, but looking to the result which had attended the labours of the committee appointed in 1816, to inquire into the grievances of the Nottingham manufacturers which had sat six weeks to very little purpose, he hoped the House would
[992
guard against the encouragement of hopes which they would not have it, in their power to realise.
Mr. Birchsaid, that as the petitioners had made out a strong case, he hoped they would not, by a refusal to examine their grievances, be led into an opinion, that the House was unwilling to grant them relief. If some measure of relief were not given to those poor people (and if it originated with his majesty's government, he should like it the better), their sufferings were so excessive, that he feared scenes of disorder, which all good, men, deprecated would be the consequence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. member seemed to attribute part of the distresses suffered by those individuals to the neglect of government. This was not just. He knew of very few cases where they could interfere to give local relief, without being guilty of partiality. The proper way was to come to parliament, and let the facts of the case be duly investigated.
The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS REGULATION BILL
Lord Aucklandsaid, that no argument of any weight against the bill had been urged which was not fully answered. He should, however, take the liberty of adverting to the facts which had since occurred, and which tended to prove what he had before observed, namely, that whatever prejudices existed against the; use of machinery, was generally among persons unacquainted with its use; and that as appeal to experiment was always sure to overcome that prejudice.
[982
The first fact to which he should refer was this: the inhabitants of the parish of Christ-church met to petition against the bill. In the course of the proceedings it was suggested, that it would be proper, in the first place, to try how far it was practicable to sweep chimnies by machinery. A machine was produced and experiments made; and the result was so satisfactory, that the very persons who assembled for the purpose of petitioning against the bill, actually signed a petition for it. The other fact had occurred in making the experiments on the chimnies connected with the House of Commons. In consequence of the directions of the Speaker, a person had proceeded to sweep with a machine, and he could only sweep 19 chimnies out of 61: the housekeeper was, however, determined to continue the experiment, and, under his superintendence, no less than 60 of the 61 were swept. The chimney that remained un-swept required some alteration to render it accessible to the machine. Having stated these facts, he moved that the bill be now committed.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he was always disposed to give public bodies, as well as individuals, credit for acting with a due regard to their own interests. Now, if their lordships looked at the case on this principle, they would soon discover, that the insurance offices would have reason to be well pleased at the passing of this bill. It would increase the danger of fire, and in proportion to the risk, the rate of the insurance and the number of; insurances would augment. In fact, the bill promised to open to them a fruitful source of gain. It was absurd, therefore, to found any argument on these corporations not petitioning against it. The supporters of the bill contended, that the chimnies of the metropolis could be nearly all swept by machines. Now, were this the fact, he would at once withdraw his opposition; but, if the report of the surveyor-general was to be relied on, no such power was to be attributed to the machines. Colonel Stephenson had distinctly stated, that the total abolition of climbing boys was at present impracticable, and could not be attempted without endangering the general safety of the metropolis. But it will be replied, that it is not intended that the bill shall operate immediately; that in passing it, time will be afforded for the preparation of machinery; but colonel Stephenson's report contained satisfactory

983
reasons for refusing to pass a prospective bill for such an object. It was stated in the report, that no machine had yet been invented which was capable of completely supplying the place of climbing boys. When such a machine should be invented, he would support a bill like the present; but until he saw such an invention he would oppose every measure of the kind. In the case of this bill, as in many other cases, mankind were carried away by ideas of humanity, which prevented them from giving due consideration to the subject. They took a partial view of the evil they wished to cure, and did not look at the relation in which it stood to the general state of society. Hence they were not aware of the extent of the mischief their remedy would produce. The merits of the present bill might, perhaps, be illustrated by a story which he would take the liberty of telling their lordships, though he was himself the subject of it. The physician, who had attended him in his late illness, had prescribed large doses of Calomel; so much indeed, that he thought it necessary to ask him the reason of such prescriptions. "Oh! (said the physician) I can easily prove to you the advantage of my practice. The calomel is like the climbing boys, it finds its way into every corner and cranny of the frame, and sweeps every deleterious particle clean out; whereas the other sort of medicines resemble the machines, and accordingly do the business very imperfectly. They do not follow all angles and turnings, but pass over many important parts untouched, and leave heaps of matter, which afterwards kindle into mischief." If this story had any effect in explaining the policy of the measure, he might relate another, which perhaps would serve to render its humanity more intelligible. In some parts of Ireland it had been the practice, instead of employing climbing-boys, to tie a rope round the neck of a goose, and thus drag the bird up the chimney, which was cleaned by the fluttering of its wings. This, practice so much interested the feelings of many persons, that, for the sake of protecting the goose, they seemed ready to give up all humanity towards other animals. A man in a country village having one day availed himself of the aid of a goose, was accused by his neighbour of inhumanity. In answer to the remonstances of his accuser, he observed, that he must have his chimney swept. "Yes, (replied the humane friend of the goose),
[984
to be sure you must sweep your chimney; but why don't you take two ducks, they will do the job as well?" The zealots for this bill had, in their blind eagerness to relieve a partial suffering, as completely forgotten the general interests of society, as the poor Irishman had disregarded the ducks in his anxiety to save the goose. He certainly should be happy to see the use of climbing boys totally abolished; but if a machine could be invented to sweep chimnies, that invention could not be promoted by this bill. He must, therefore, move as an amendment, that, instead of now, the bill be committed this day six months.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, he was not able to entertain their lordships with any jokes, either relative to himself, or extracted from Joe Miller, but he believed very little was necessary to be said to induce them to support a measure founded in humanity, and which they had reason to conclude was perfectly practicable. He could not, however, refrain from observing, that the noble earl had, in some measure, shifted the ground of his opposition to the bill. He new dwelt solely on the danger which might be incurred in the metropolis if sweeping boys were abolished. What then had become of those general principles respecting free-labour, on which the noble earl had so strongly insisted? Of those principles the noble earl now said nothing. The best argument for the bill was, that it would afford time and opportunity for making the arrangements necessary to the abolition of climbing boys. A sufficient time was allowed for experiments; and if the bill passed, every person, in anticipating the abolition of the present inhuman practice, would be induced to try the machines. If he saw any danger to the metropolis from the measure, he should be as unwilling to support it as any noble lord; but he could perceive no ground for any such apprehension. He thought, however, that unless the bill passed, the experiment would never be fairly made.
Their lordships divided on the question, that the bill be now committed: Contents, 20; Non-contents, 37.—Majority, 17. Lord Lauderdale's amendment was then put and carried. The bill was consequently lost.