Sitting of 9 June 1825

FLOGGING IN THE NAVY.
Mr. Humesaid, that having, in the course of the last session, called the attention of the House to the subject of Flogging in the Navy, he had intended to follow the same course, but in a different form, at an early part of the session, but was prevented by the pressure of business. Instead of a committee to consider the subject, his present
1098
intention was, to move for leave to bring in a bill to do away with the practical abuses he complained of. All he proposed was, to obtain permission to bring in a bill now, to have it printed, and to do nothing further with it till the next session. From the communications he had had with several persons in the navy, he was induced to think, that it was in the power of the government to provide a remedy for preventing impressment, and dragging men from their homes and families. The cause of the unwillingness to enter into the navy was the extensive power of arbitrary punishments. No man in the army was subjected to the punishment of flogging until his alleged crimes were decided upon by a court-martial. Why were seamen deprived of that legal protection? Again, how was it to be explained, that in large vessels of the navy, such as the Bulwark and the Dictator, there was no flogging for months together, while in comparatively small ships it was almost daily inflicted? The contrast was almost inexplicable. He believed that the only explanation was, that it depended upon the arbitrary caprice of the commanding officers, without any reference to the offences of the seamen. No such capricious power was vested in the officers of the army. By parity of reasoning, then, why was not the same legal security against the abuse of punishment afforded to the seamen of his majesty's fleet? He could not understand how government could reconcile the continuance of such a revolting practice, with their efforts to relieve from arbitrary flogging the slaves in the West-Indies. In their order in council of the 10th of March 1824, directions were given to prevent a slave in Trinidad from receiving more than twenty-five lashes, and such lashes were not to be inflicted until twenty-four hours after the commission of the alleged offence. Were not our seamen worthy of being placed on an equal footing with the slaves of the West-India colonies? The hon. member here read a statement referring to the arbitrary infliction of flogging, beginning from a period of twenty years past, down to the last year. It took place, in one instance, where a marine received four dozen lashes by the order of his commanding officer, captain Cockburn, merely for his musket missing fire; and in a second instance, where an old seaman, of thirty-five years standing, received the same number of strokes, for

1099
declaring that he never witnessed so barefaced an act of cruelty as flogging the marine for such an offence. The punishment of starting was frequent; and he found that when a captain of a ship was brought to a court-martial for a violation of the orders on that point, which violation was established by evidence, the only punishment inflicted on that officer was an admonition, and a command to be more circumspect in future. Was it too much, then, to call for the interposition of parliament, to put an end to such an improper practice? In bringing in a bill, it would be his object to provide, by strict enactments, against its recurrence. It would be said, how was it, if all these abuses existed, that the naval officers in that House did not take the question up? The answer was easy. Some, from early impressions, were prejudiced in favour of such a mode of discipline; while others seeing the view the lords of the admiralty took of the question, dared not interfere. It was one of his objects, to limit the services of seamen, on the principle acted upon by the late Mr. Windham towards the army—to seven or ten years—protecting the seamen, who served so long from future impressment. Indeed, that provision, under his system, would be unnecessary; as impressment itself could then be dispensed with. With regard to the necessity of impressment, he would ask the gallant admiral opposite. Where the necessity existed, when he found no difficulty by bounties, and ordinary recruiting, to obtain the necessary supply of mariners? The rate of wages paid to the navy was not commensurate with the wages given to the other branches of the service. How was it to be expected, that when the pay of the merchant service was 3l. 10 s., and that of the navy 34 s. a-month, seamen would be induced to enter our ships of war voluntarily? If small pensions were given, after a certain number of years' service, to our seamen to sustain them under the afflictions of premature old age, too frequently the result of a life of severe toil, it would operate as a great inducement. If so small sums as 7l. or 10 l. annually were held out as a boon, it would be productive of the most beneficial effects. Even the trifling grants of the Trinity-house, from five to six shillings a-month, were received by that class of men with gratitude and satisfaction. He would give them small pensions proportionate to
1100
the period of service, and alter the present system of distributing prize-money. Was it right that a captain of a ship should receive as much prize-money as all the crew together? The officers of the navy ought not to consider prize-money as an object, but should give it up to the men. He would propose that six-eighths of the prize-money should be allotted to the men, and two-eighths to the officers. The officers of the Indian army, when under the marquis of Hastings, had set a noble example in that respect, by giving up their prize-money to the men. He was quite satisfied, that by this and other means, such a change might be produced in the feelings of seamen towards the naval service, that volunteers might be obtained whenever they were required. Still, however, as an emergency might arise, he would provide against it, by having a register of seamen on the plan which was begun 150 years ago, but which was not prosecuted as it ought to have been. He would accompany that plan with a provision, that no seaman should be excused from the service of his country in the navy; just as no landsman was now excused from the service of his country in the army, he being liable to be drawn as a militia man, and to serve five years. He would now move, "that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the 22nd of Geo. 2.ch. 33, and to make provision for the encouragement of Seamen, and for the better manning of his Majesty's fleet."
Sir F. Burdettseconded the motion.
Sir G. Cockburnthought he had some reason to complain of the hon. gentleman's want of courtesy, in not apprizing him that it was his intention to introduce into this great national question a personal charge against himself; in which case he would have been prepared to rebut it. He really could not recollect all the circumstances that occurred to him five-and-twenty years ago, but he remembered that it was about that time that a reform was beginning to take place in the discipline of the navy. Previous to that period, it was the practice for the boatswains and boatswains' mates to carry sticks, for the purpose of immediately starting any of the men. The only point that he recollected, with reference to the subject, was, that he had given instructions that that practice should be discontinued on board the ship which he commanded, and that a lieutenant who had disobeyed those instruc-

1101
tions, was compelled to quit the navy in consequence. If the hon. gentleman would bring forward any specific charge he would meet it. All he could say was, that he had never ordered any punishment except when he thought it absolutely necessary. The hon. gentleman asserted, that one reason for his bill was, that, at present, seamen were so ill treated in the navy, that they disliked the service. Some of the facts stated by the hon. gentleman led, however, to a very different conclusion. If, while merchantmen give 3l. 10 s. a-month, sailors could be found willing to enter the king's service for 34 s. a-month, it was a proof that that service was not distasteful to them. But the hon. gentleman in proposed a system of pensions to induce men to enter early into the navy. Pensions were granted at present. If a sailor, after 7 years' service (or before in some cases), was disabled by debility or accident, he received a pension. After a service of 14 years, that pension was increased; and should he have served 21 years, and for any considerable part of that time with so much credit as to be rated as a petty officer, he became entitled to a pension of 45 l. a-year. The hon. member had entered into a comparison of the army with the navy in this respect. The fact was, that the sailors were better off than the soldiers. The army enlisted for life; the navy never did. At the end of a certain service the sailors were paid off; and it was no great proof of the dislike of the sailors to the service, that the men who were paid off; were generally the first to enter again. So unfounded was this alleged dislike to the service, that the owners of merchantmen in all parts of the world, had written to the Admiralty, to beg that they would restrain the officers of the navy from receiving their men; and in consequence of those applications the Admiralty had written to the officers on the several stations, not to receive men from the merchantmen to an extent that might distress them. In this last point they went further than they were required to do by law; for there was a statute which annulled all the engagements of a sailor with a merchant vessel on his entering on board a king's ship. The hon. gentleman also wished to take from the officers of the navy the power of punishing the men without a court-martial, and in that point to assimilate the navy to the army But, the hon. gentleman forgot that when the army was in the field,
1102
the commanding officer was invested with the power of arbitrary punishment; of punishment without any previous trial by a court-martial. Now, our ships were always in motion. A man of-war frequently went round the world by herself. In such cases it would be impossible to have a court-martial; and a man who behaved ill might remain a prisoner for three years, before he could be tried. Of this he was sure, that should the House take away this power from the officers, they would go far to destroy the discipline of the navy. The Admiralty had done every thing they could to prevent the improper exercise of that power. It was one thing to possess a power, and another to make an improper use of it. The Admiralty never sanctioned an excess of punishment; but always signified their approbation of those officers who managed their ships without punishments. These two considerations united had produced such an effect, that as many blank returns were now received, as returns stating the infliction of any punishment. This was a great advance. So necessary, however, was the power of inflicting punishment felt to be, even in the merchant service, that in the papers of that very day there was the report of a trial, in which one of the crew of a merchantman had brought an action against his captain for punishing him; but in which the judge had stated, that he could have no doubt that every captain of a merchant-vessel had a right to inflict corporal punishment on such of his crew as deserved it. Would the House take from the navy the power that was considered indispensable even to the merchant service? It was a matter of vital importance; for he was convinced, that to withdraw the power in question would be to shake the very foundations of our navy. With respect to impressment, there could be no doubt that it was desirable to do without the practice as much as possible; but in some cases it was inevitable. It was true, that all our seamen who had pensions were liable to be called upon in an emergency. But the business of a seaman was like any other business. Dexterity in it required that the hand should always be kept in. The moment a declaration of war took place, it was desirable that we should have the means of, sending out a fleet; and to effect this, it became necessary to lay hands on every seaman that could be found. It was quite impossible to put an end to the practice

1103
of impressment; unless the House would allow such a fleet to be maintained during peace as would enable us to go to war at any moment without disadvantage. It was impossible, that we could have, at a moment's notice, forty or fifty thousand men, without taking them from the merchant service. After correcting an error into which the hon. member had fallen, with respect to the thirty-sixth article of war, which allowed punishment by courts martial, but not by courts martial "only," as the hon. member supposed, he (sir G. Cockburn) concluded by expressing his hope that the House would show, by a majority, that they were satisfied with the way in which the navy was now managed, and did not think the proposed bill necessary.
Sir I. Coffinopposed the motion from a conviction of its impolicy. He was not disposed to attach much credit to the hon. gentleman's opinion on maritime affairs, and would recommend him to remember, the old saying "Ne sutor ultra crepidam."
Mr. Robertsonsaid, that the want of discipline in the naval service more often arose from a want of qualification in the officers, than from misconduct in the men. He had been in a ship of the worst possible equipment as to crew; but in which the men had been kept in subordination without any corporal punishment.
Sir Joseph Yorkeprotested, that the punishment inflicted upon seamen, arose solely from the necessities of the service, and that it was administered cautiously and conscientiously, and not according to passion and caprice. Punishment might be more formally inflicted by sentences of the courts of law, and the regular tribunals; but it was impossible it could be inflicted with more deliberation and decorum than it was upon the quarter deck of a man of war. The charges of cruelty and of caprice, amounted to an attack upon a highly-meritorious and gallant class of individuals, the officers of the navy. Were naval officers less sensible than other men of the influence of reason and humanity? And how but upon the notion of their insensibility could such a question as this be supported? As to the crews, he did not deny but some two-thirds were good: of the remainder he would from his professional experience declare, that so far from moral lectures about personal character operating upon them, they might as well talk to pigs. Some of them were as insensible as brutes,
1104
and bore their floggings accordingly; indeed, they were classed as formerly the hard drinkers were—there were the five-dozen men, as there had been the five-bottle men. His firm persuasion was, that the existing discipline, or at least the reserved power of inflicting it, could not be abrogated.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that the subject was one of a highly serious nature, involving matters of great national importance. However brilliant the faculty of wit might be which any member possessed, it should not be displayed on so grave an occasion. To say the least, there was bad taste in being facetious upon questions which affected the sufferings of others. The best defence which could be set up for such jocularity was, that the speaker, like the gallant admiral who had just sat down, had been carried away by the flow of animal spirits, Now, as he understood the question, his hon. friend merely proposed to do that which had been the declared opinion of many able and intelligent men. The alterations which he proposed had been over and over again recommended, by captains, commanders, and other experienced persons; nor had one single statement of his hon. friend received the slightest answer. His hon. friend contended that there was no necessity to engage force on the side of government to man the fleets, if they would only proceed by the known motives of human conduct; namely, by holding out sufficient inducements for those who were to be invited to encounter the perils which hung upon the lives of those devoted to the maritime defence of the country. What was there to which any man could seriously object in this? And on what a mis-timed occasion did the argument of public economy, the only one which could be rationally opposed to it, occur? The ministers were pompous in their description of our growing resources and increasing mercantile prosperity. To hear them talk, one might be led to suppose that the Treasury was overflowing with wealth, and that the difficulty was in finding proper objects on whom to bestow it. When the House reflected upon what the government had thought proper to do, with respect to augmenting the salaries of the judges, and of another high personage; when they reflected that these augmentations were only the precursors of similar impositions upon the public, he was at a loss to conceive how

1105
they would support that government in their adherence to a system of impressment and of corporal punishment, merely to effect a result which they might effect by the more justifiable means of good conduct in the government of ships, and by paying the proper price of labour in the market of seamen's wages. At a time like the present, it very ill became that House to say, that the country could not afford the means of inducing men to enter the naval service by rewarding them according to the market price of their labour; but Out the government were obliged to seize upon the services of the most important class of the community, and to compel them to a course of duty at a less rate of remuneration than that which they could obtain from private employers. At a time of profound peace like the present, was it for the House to say to those who had performed the most arduous and perilous services for the country, that they were not to enjoy the common rights of humanity; that they were still to be dragged from their families, and compelled to serve by terror and punishment, when they might, like other servants of the public, be tempted to perform their duties by proper remuneration? What, then, did his hon. friend propose? He merely said, "Let me, after well considering the subject, show how you may get rid of all these evils, which every one of you must equally with myself deplore." There was nothing asked but the liberty of bringing the proposition before the House for their adoption or rejection. The gallant admiral had treated his hon. friend as if he was incapable of comprehending these questions of practice—as if he could not be supposed equal to an opinion upon matters of fact. His hon. friend had proved too often his power in that way, to make a formal justification necessary. Ministers knew, and so did the gallant admiral, that the head of his hon. friend was full of very useful facts; for he must have surprised each of them in their turn with the knowledge which he evinced of matters connected with their several departments. His hon. friend proposed to take from the officers of the navy the dangerous powers of coercion which they now held. Was it to be endured that a beardless boy, armed with a little authority, should have the power of ordering up a veteran seaman, who had served his country long and faithfully, and for some, trivial offence subject him to the most
1106
dreadful of all punishments. The hon. baronet said, that the 36th article of war was the only one acted upon; and that almost all the others ended with the word "death": but flogging, to a gallant and proud-spirited seaman, was ten thousand times worse than death; and nothing could more effectually show the necessity of some alteration in the system, than the fact, that thirty-five of the articles were so severe that they could seldom be acted upon. His hon. friend did not propose to do away with all punishment, he only wished that the system should be gradually ameliorated; that some control should be exerted over the passions of the officers; that some interval should take place between the offence and the trial, that there might be time for reflection; in short, he wished only that something like a military court-martial should be adopted, and that sailors should not be subject to the most degrading punishment at the whim and caprice of one individual. He proposed only a plan in a general way; and to this he did not see how ministers could object. An officer, who had long commanded an Indian ship, had publicly stated, that he had never found it necessary to resort to flogging. By suitable pay, and by holding out inducements to good conduct, he had always been able to keep his crew in the best order. As to the plea of the navy having a portion of wretches among them, whose principles and conduct could not be subdued without the roughest discipline, the answer was plain—they ought not to let such persons into the navy, any more than they were allowed to be in the army. For what was the effect of it but to degrade the honest, honourable, gallant men of our fleets to the low and brutalizing condition of discharged felons? God forbid that he should have any other view than that of giving equal advantages to the officers: the country could not find means to reward them in a way equal to their actions. The question was, whether the seamen of England ought not to be induced to enter the national service by a prospect of advantage; whether their situation, whilst serving, ought not to be made comfortable; and whether the means ought not to be afforded them of passing their old age in ease and security? The nation was quite rich enough, and it was bad economy to do otherwise. He had seen a treatise upon this subject, which clearly demonstrated to him that

1107
such a system would cost the country less in pounds, shillings, and pence, than the present grievous and oppressive system. In fact, they were doing nothing more or less than continuing in this country and upon its native inhabitants, that system of slavery from which they seemed so anxious to relieve the natives of Africa. This was, in itself, so preposterous, that he thought it needless to offer a word more upon this part of the subject. He maintained that the motion was calculated to produce a great deal of good, whether acceded to or rejected. It was now admitted that formerly there did take place in the navy, under pretext of discipline, acts of a most unjustifiable nature. He gave the Admiralty full credit for the steps which they had taken in the line of improvement; but it seemed to be with government as with certain other great philosophers, they required flappers to awaken them to the performance of their duties. Parliament might get a little good out of them, but they must not forget the flapper. Such was his opinion of the justice and fairness of the motion, that he did not imagine it would have been necessary to offer more than a single observation upon it. The gallant admiral opposite had, however, thrown so much of his own fancies into the subject, that the truth was, in a great degree, obscured. Nothing was stated which went to disprove that the prize-money as well as the wages of the seamen ought to be increased. He did not wish to deprive the officers of their share of pay and prize money; on the contrary, he would continue both to them to their fullest extent. Yet it should be recollected, that the officers had the field of honour as well as of promotion open to them, while the brave but humble seamen had but little chance of succeeding in the one, and hardly any of being noticed in the other. His hon. friend had complained of the looseness with which the 36 articles of war had been worded, and had observed that 35 of them carried with them the punishment of death. The gallant admiral on the other side argued thus: "true it is, that capital punishment is so awarded in 35 of the articles of war, and that they are not acted upon is a proof of our humanity, for death, death, death, is to be found in every one of them, and therefore you may trust to us in other cases." To this his answer was, that he would not unnecessarily trust such a power to any
1108
individuals. And he would say to that gallant officer and his friends near him: "If you will not have the laws of Solon, we will not have the laws of Draco, which are so bloody and cruel that we cannot act upon them, and we require in their stead some system guided by reason and justice, and which shall be sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case in question.
Sir George Clerkthought, that the hon. mover ought to have laid before the House some specific plan of amendment in our naval system, before he ventured to propose that which had been truly designated as a question which involved the whole interests of the navy. This he had not done, and therefore he should oppose the motion. The hon. baronet proceeded to point out the mistakes made by the hon. mover, with respect to the articles of war, and contended that even if the whole act of Geo. 2nd were repealed, still the captain would, by the common law possess the power of flogging his men, for the preservation of discipline. He next adverted to the inconvenience of holding a court-martial in a ship upon every offence of disobedience, drunkenness, or petty theft, committed by the sailors, and observed, that if such a system were established, the number and severity of the punishments would be much increased. At present, the captain inflicted punishment upon his own responsibility, and subject to the opinions of the board of Admiralty, who inspected the monthly returns with great caution, But, let the punishment be once inflicted by court-martial, and the case would be altered. The captain would not be responsible, and as the offences complained of were almost always against the officers on duty, and not against the captain himself, the officers would take care to punish the offenders in every case. It was proposed to delay punishment. It was at present delayed more than twenty-four hours after the commission of the offence" and then it was attended with the greatest solemnity; the ship's company were called up, the articles of war were read, and the punishment was then publicly inflicted. It was said by the hon. baronet that beardless boys had the power of inflicting such punishment. He could only assure him that no such case had come to the knowledge of the Admiralty, and that if it had it would have been visited with deserved severity. He had never heard

1109
any man assert that corporal punishment in the navy could be safely abolished; and if so, to whom could the infliction of that punishment be so safely intrusted, as to the captain, who acted upon his responsibility, and under the immediate eye of the Admiralty? Confinement was recommended in preference to punishment within a proper time; but even this would conduce to the injury of the health of the prisoner, and deprive the vessel of the benefit of his services. Again, it was said, that the seamen in king's ships, might be paid as merchant seamen were. To this he would answer, that if the wages given in a man of war were to be increased from 34s. to 40s. per month still the merchant service would have the preference, as the men in merchant ships would enjoy a greater degree of liberty than the discipline of our navy could possibly allow. It had been observed, that returns from the " Bulwark" and other ships, shewing that no corporal punishments had taken place in them for some time, was an argument in favour of the abolition of corporal punishments altogether; but, as well might it be argued, that because there was no capital offence to be tried at the assizes in any single county, therefore all capital punishments should be abolished. With respect to the retired allowances to seamen, the hon. member appeared equally at fault. The fact was, that after twenty-one years, whether worn out, or disabled, or not, a man was entitled to a retired pension of 1s. 6d. per day; and if a petty officer, his allowance would amount to 45 l. a-year. In answer to the observations about the prize money, he begged hon. members to consider the risk at which a captain of a ship made a prize. Should that prize not be allowed, he and his family might be ruined, He hoped that the House would not, upon arguments such as those advanced by the hon. mover, interfere with a system under which our fleets had achieved such immortal victories.
Sir F. Ommaneysaid, that the hon. mover had persuaded the House to repeal the combination laws, and now every town in the kingdom swarmed with insubordinate workmen standing out against their employers. He complained of the injustice done to all the gallant officers of the navy by this motion. As to prize money and wages, it was quite plain that the seamen and petty officers had more by half than they could spend. At a
1110
sea-port, half the houses were engaged in selling gin and rum to the sailors.
Mr. Humein reply, observed, that the very able speech of the hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) left him scarcely any thing to add. He, however, wished to observe, that if allowed to bring in his bill, he would lay before the House such documents as would make a case to satisfy those who opposed him upon this occasion.
Mr. Sykesbore testimony to the evils occasioned by impressment. Murders, assaults, and other offences, were frequently caused by it. A workman in his employ had left his axe at a distance, and two of his sons having played with it, the one cut off two fingers from the right hand of the other. The father was greatly grieved, but at length he consoled himself by the reflection, that the boy, when grown up, could not be impressed into the navy.
The House divided: For the motion 23; Against it 45; Majority 22.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. A.

Hutchinson, C. H.

Bernal, R.

James, W.

Blake, sir F.

Lushington, Dr.

Burdett, sir F.

Monck, J. B.

Cole, sir C.

Newport, sir John

Evans, Wm.

Palmer, F.

Forbes, sir C.

Rice, S.

Glenorchy, lord

Robertson, A.

Graham, sir S.

Warre, J. A.

Grattan, J.

Western, C. C.

Grenfell, P.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Hume, J.

Hurst, Rt.

Sykes, D.

CHARTER SCHOOLS OF IRELAND.
Sir John Newportadverting to the motion which he was about to submit to the House, said, that the whole question lay in a very narrow compass. It regarded the propriety of taking some legal measures against a set of men who had, in the discharge of their functions, done every thing that was unjust, oppressive, and unwarrantable. Upon the management of those institutions which he was going to advert to, it had been his fate, for twenty-one years past, to address the House on a variety of occasions. In every case wherein he had exposed instances of the most gross mismanagement, and flagrant perversions of the public bounty, as connected with the Charter-schools of Ireland, he had been combatted, either with evasive promises or direct denials. In the

1111
meanwhile, the existence of the evils complained of was perfectly notorious; and some idea of their magnitude might be formed when he stated, that since the Union the public had at different times bestowed upon the support of the chartered schools of Ireland, nearly 600,000 l. When the House adverted to the reports which had been, from time to time, made to them on this subject, how would hon. gentlemen on the other side be able to make out those assertions of immaculate purity and honest management which they had so loudly advanced in favour of those who immediately presided over those chartered schools? Unfortunately, it was no unusual thing for parliament to hear similar language about such matters. And many years ago, even, when the attention of the philanthropic Howard was directed to the chartered schools of Ireland and their condition, promises of amendment were held out, and the best hopes were excited. But, what had been the result of those promises? The schools in question, so far from being ameliorated, were deteriorated. In 1806, it appeared by one of the reports, that the chartered schools of Ireland were discovered to be exceedingly ineffective for almost all the excellent purposes of their institution, and full of abuses. It was in consequence of a petition from the archbishop, the bishops, and many of the dignified clergy, and of the most distinguished of the laity of Ireland, that the Charter-schools of that country were originally founded, and endowed with lands for the support and the furtherance of the objects of their establishment. The first of these schools was founded in 1734; and in the three following years seven more. The plan of founding these institutions carried with it so powerful a recommendation to the patronage of the public, that one individual, a Dutchman, subscribed 46,000 l. three per cents towards their support; another person about 20,000 l. and several other private characters very large sums; so that the rental of these schools, in consequence, now amounted to upwards of 7,000 l. per annum. In 1808, a report was given in to parliament signed by the archbishop of Dublin and other distinguished personages who had visited these schools previously; and until 1817 nothing further seemed to have been done on the subject. In 1817, Mr. Thackery was appointed to examine into the condition of these establishments; and after Mr.
1112
Thackery, Mr. Lee. These commissioners stated, that at the period of their visitation the condition of the schools was far from satisfactory, and the system pursued in them most vicious.—Here the right hon. baronet quoted largely from Mr. Lee's report relative to the marked superiority of intelligence, vivacity, and apparent contentment, observable in the half-naked children of the neighbouring peasantry, over the children brought up at these schools; the cruel enormities practised by the masters, in the punishment of the children; such as seizing them by the throat, half strangling them by that means, and at the same time administering severe flogging with a cane; their employment on Sundays in preparing specimens of penmanship to be laid before the visiting committee of fifteen, because on week days some of the masters compelled them to work in the (to them) more profitable occupation of weaving. The right hon. gentleman next cited several passages relative to the chartered school at Stradbally. There the boys were asked by one of the visitors whether they were well used; and though they were cruelly treated, such was their terror of the master that they answered in the affirmative. Here a variety of details relating to the severity of some of the punishments inflicted at this school were entered into by the right hon. baronet who mentioned, among others, the case of a boy who was in one day nine times flogged with a leathern thong, and thus received about 100 lashes. As to the system of education, some of the boys were found to be ignorant whether the word "Europe" implied a man, a place or a thing. The master was a farmer, and therefore attended very little to his duty in the school. He made the boys work for him in his garden; and one day, when they had been working very hard, and were very hungry, a party of them ate one of his raw cabbages, for which he thought proper to punish them very severely. The House would observe, that there was left by the late bishop Pocock, a bequest for the establishment of a weaving school, and the building a place for the purpose of affording the scholars religious instruction. Now, by the reports, it appeared that out of 36 scholars in this establishment, there were only 13 who could read, and only six copy-books among the whole number of boys; the master could not teach, and

1113
there was no usher. Several of these scholars, however, were grown up young men. This was at Newport, in the vicinity of which, such was the anxiety for instruction among the peasantry, that at a cabin only two miles distant, 96 of their children met constantly to be taught. At another place, a young man had taken a stable for the purpose of teaching the poor, and so crowded was the floors of this place, than the children were absolutely obliged to be take themselves to the manger. A the Charter-school of Clonmel, there were only two scholars and no books; and for a master, one was a mere cripple, but who had a salary of 50 l. per annum, and twenty-four acres of land, at a rental of 25 s. per acre—the very next adjoining land, letting commonly at the time of the report at eight guineas, and now at six guineas per acre. Not only were the objects of these charities perverted; but the secretary prevented all complaints from reaching the committee. There was an understanding, indeed, between the registrar and the masters of these schools, who constantly made him presents, and advanced monies without interest. Now, the observations which he had addressed to the House, he did not mean to apply to all the parochial schools of Ireland, but only to those Charter-schools which were under the superintendence of masters who had so outrageously misconducted themselves. All his anxiety was that those who had been guilty of these cruelties should be visited by the law; and taught to learn, that it would not suffer them with impunity to outrage humanity and justice, in their conduct towards the friendless and otherwise unprotected individuals who were confided to their care. He concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, expressing the marked sentiments of regret, and indignation, with which the House of Commons perused the details of unwarrantable cruelty practised on the children in several of the Charter-schools of Ireland, contained in the Report presented to both Houses of Parliament by the Commissioners appointed by his Majesty for examination into the state of the schools of Ireland, and praying that his Majesty may be pleased to direct the law officers of the Crown in that part of the United Kingdom to institute criminal prosecutions against the actors, aiders, and abettors of those dreadful outrages, as far as they may be amenable to law."
Mr. Goulburnbegged to state most distinctly, that there were no sentiments of regret and indignation at the acts which the right hon. gentleman had detailed in his speech, in which he did not most entirely concur. In making this distinct avowal, he was relieved from travelling through all the painful details. He was not relieved, however, from other difficulties arising from the period at which the report had been laid on the table, and from the circumstance of its being unaccompanied with those details to which the commissioners referred. If he were driven to the alternative of deciding whether the system of cruelty of which the commissioners complained should continue, or the resolution proposed by the right hon. baronet should be adopted by that House, he for one should certainly concur in that resolution. He thought, however, that it would be a much more expedient course to leave the remedy of these abuses to those whose official duty it was to inquire into them. The report had only been on the table of the House five or six days, consequently there had been no opportunity for the government here to have had any communication with the Irish government, as to the course which it might be expedient to adopt. The commissioners referred, in almost every page of the report, to the appendix. The real state of the Charter-schools could only be correctly appreciated by a careful perusal of that document. If, however, it should be the opinion of the House, that a sufficient case had been made out to justify the interposition of parliament, and that they ought to agree to this resolution, notwithstanding the assurance given by the government, that they had every disposition to bring the offenders to punishment, he for one should not raise his voice against it. As far as he was acquainted with the opinion of the noble marquis who presided over the government in Ireland, there was every probability that the recommendations of the commissioners would be attended to; but so attended to, he trusted, as to preserve the unhappy individuals concerned, from the evils which must necessarily result under either alternative, of a continuance of the present system, or of a change which might throw them upon the world in a state of helpless destitution.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, if he understood the

1115
right hon. gentleman, it was not his intention to oppose the motion.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he should not oppose it, but he recommended the right hon. baronet not to press it.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, the House was bound not to overlook the case which had been made out. If this were a motion specifically criminating the master of Sligo, or any other individual, then there would be some reason why the House should wait for other documents. But, all that the House was called upon to declare by this motion was, that a primâfacie case had been made out sufficient to warrant them in requiring that legal proceedings should be instituted by the law officers of the Crown against the persons guilty of these atrocities. He was not disposed to leave this matter in the hands of the executive. The whole inquiry had been forced upon the government by parliament. If ever a document had been laid upon the table, which called for the interference of parliament, it was this report. The system of Charter-schools was a specimen of the old exclusive Protestant system in Ireland. It should not be forgotten, that the system of Charter-schools had been repeatedly praised and recommended by lords lieutenants of Ireland, and supported in that House; and that any opposition to that system had been constantly met by charging the opponents with hostility to Protestantism. The whole mischief of the system of Charter-schools had arisen out of the exclusive system on which it was founded. The report of Mr. Howard in 1787 had developed as great abuses as that now before the House; and the report of Mr. Thackery in 1817 exhibited scenes of still greater atrocity; yet no steps had been taken to bring the offenders to punishment. No less than 1,000,000 l. of the public money had been voted for the support of these schools, of which 638,000 l. had been voted since the Union; a sum which, if it had been properly applied, might have provided for the education of the whole population of Ireland. He trusted the annual vote would be resisted, in order that effectual means might be taken to provide for the education of the poor in Ireland. He should, if no one else took up the subject, move that the sum be given to the government of the country, and not vested any longer in the hands of the governors of the Charter-schools.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that there had been a decrease of the grant for Charter-schools since he came into office, from 29,000 l. to 19,000 l.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the committee was not forced upon the government, for he had himself set forward the inquiry while secretary for Ireland, and had named the committee. In selecting the gentlemen, he had only regard to their qualifications. Mr. Glascock was unknown to him, but he was induced to appoint that gentleman, on account of the activity and zeal manifested by him on another occasion. Feeling that it was right to have a Roman Catholic on the committee, he had appointed Mr. Blake, an intelligent and active man, with whom he had no acquaintance. Mr. Grant he had never seen in his life; and, in adding the name of his hon. friend (Mr. Frank-land Lewis) to the list, he had given an additional proof that impartiality was the great object he was anxious to attain. Two questions arose out of the case at present under consideration The first was, as to the policy of continuing the system; and the second, as to the propriety of punishing those who were concerned in the abuses. Whit he was anxious for was, that the consideration of the question should be postponed until they had the appendix to the report. He had no difficulty, however, in stating, that from the report itself, the inference was inevitable, that the system of the Charter-schools was one that did not admit of correction. That it was one which ought to be extinguished altogether, as soon as possible. The House would be glad to hear, that the report was nut two days in the possession of government before an order was sent, desiring that they should not admit any more into the schools, but should take steps to reduce the numbers, without interfering with any of those who were already admitted. He was sure the right hon. baronet would admit, that the commission of 1806 was more favourable to the system of the Charter-schools than the present report, and that the commission was a sufficient warrant for a man in office to act upon. If prosecutions were to follow, he would not suffer himself to make any comment that could, by possibility, prejudge the question. If it could be judicially proved, that cruelties were exercised, such as the committee had reported, it would not be sufficient that the individuals should be dismissed; they

1117
should be punished, not vindictively, but with a view to deter others. No one, he was persuaded, would suspect him of a wish to screen such persons from punishment; but, if the House should resolve to prosecute those individuals, let them have the benefit of a fair trial; let not parliament interfere, so as to prevent an impartial decision, which they must do if they adopted the words of the resolution. He hoped the right hon. baronet would so far alter the wording of his motion, as not to assume the guilty practices that were to constitute the subject of inquiry.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that the candid manner in which the right hon. gentleman had met the question, would, in all probability, satisfy his right hon. friend and the House.
Mr. Frankland Lewisobserved, that there were no less than thirty documents relating to the transactions before the House. That fact would, he thought, be sufficient to prevent them from acceding to the resolution. The masters had been already dismissed from some of the schools; I and seeing that they had been already punished, he would submit whether it would not be unjust to punish them again.
Mr. J. P Grantthought the House would not consider the dismissal of the schoolmasters sufficient, without adopting prosecution. If prosecution was determined on, every expression should be excluded from the motion which had the slightest tendency to prejudge the cause of the individuals. But, the House might feel it necessary to back the government, by a distinct expression of their feeling; Next to the horror which he felt at the practices which the committee had discovered, was the surprise that they had been so long permitted to continue.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that he had always entertained a strong opinion, that the system of the Charter-schools must ultimately work out its own destruction. He did not certainly suppose that such enormities as were detailed in the report were in existence, because the system was so strictly under the superintendance of the clergy and the most eminent men in Ireland. But there were evils inherent in the system, such as those of separation from parent and child, and proselytism under suspicious circumstances. At length, however, there was but one opinion entertained respecting its merits. That which had so long been considered the bulwark of the Protestant establish-
1118
ment, was now acknowledged to be the greatest stigma which attached to it. He was not sorry for that, because he was of opinion, that the more the Protestant religion was relieved from such incumbrances, the better for it.
Mr. J. Smiththought, that the ragged and half-starved schoolmasters, bad as they were, were not the most guilty persons; but that inspectors of the schools deserved that character.
Mr. F. Lewissaid, that the inspectors were deceived by the false statements of the masters.
Mr. Grattancongratulated the House, that the facts had at last been made public, and thought the commissioners deserved the thanks of the country.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldconcurred in all that had fallen from the Secretary for the Home Department; but, should the right hon. baronet press his motion to a division, he should be ashamed not to give it his support.
Sir J. Newportthen withdrew the motion, and the following was agreed to nem. con., "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to the law-officers of the Crown in Ireland to institute criminal proceedings against the persons concerned in the cruelties detailed in the Report of the Commissioners on Education, so far as they may be amenable to law."

DUKE OF CUMBERRLAND'S ANNUITY BILL.
On the motion, that the report of this bill be now received,
Mr. Warresaid, that, having been prevented by illness from expressing his decided disapprobation of the proposed grant; he would now move, as an amendment, "that the report be received this day six months."
The House divided: For the Amendment 60; Against it 106. Majority 46.

CORN TRADE—CANADA CORN—WAREHOUSED CORN.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, it was his intention, in the bills which he proposed to bring in, to give effect to the alteration which had been agreed to in the laws with respect to Canada corn, and to give an opportunity for bringing into the market a quantity of corn which had been rotting for several years in the warehouses. There was nothing in the first measure calculated to excite the jealousy of the English corn-

1119
grower, and the advantages resulting to the public from it were such as the House could not disregard. When he stated, that in the course of the last twenty years, an average quantity of from 50,000 to 60,000 quarters of corn had been annually imported from Canada, he thought he said enough to prove that, under any circumstances, the quantity of that corn imported could not exceed 100,000 quarters. To bring this to England would employ from 20,000 to 30,000 tons of British shipping. He was confident that those who were afraid of an inundation of corn would find their fears unfounded. It was therefore his intention, in conformity with the amendment in the other House, to move for leave to introduce a bill for establishing the free intercourse in the article of corn between Canada and this country, for the space of two years. This course would enable parliament to revise the measure, if at the expiration of the period it should be deemed necessary. Nor would this be a great indulgence to Canada; for, by the existing law, Canadian corn could be introduced when the price was 67 s. He should, therefore, move for leave to introduce two bills; the one for permitting corn to be imported from Canada, the other to allow the release of the warehoused corn.
Mr. Elliceexpressed his decided opinion, that it was impossible that such a quantity of corn could be imported from Canada as to justify any jealousy on the part of the corn-growers of England. He suggested that this corn should be admitted duty free.
Mr. Whitmoresaid, that if the government did not redeem its pledge next session, of doing something on the subject of the corn-laws, he should himself bring forward a measure with respect to them.
Mr. J. Bennettthought it would be better to let the existing law take its course.
Mr. Huskissonfelt every desire to attend to the suggestion of the hon. member for Coventry; but, if the corn averages should get below 67 s., which they might do, the consequence would be, that the Canada wheat would not get in at all. It was to the ultimate effects, however, of his measure, both as regarded this country and the colony, rather than to any present advantage, that he was looking.
Mr. Sykesthought the measure was a bonus to Canada, and would be of primary importance to the consumers of this coun-
1120
try. It would also have a tendency to render the price of corn steady.
The motion was agreed to.

BUCKINGHAM HOUSE.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Buckingham-House Land Revenue act,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he should he able to put into very few words all he had to address to the House upon this subject. Carlton-palace was at the present moment in a very dilapidated state. It was, in fact, so far unsafe to inhabit it, that, whenever a large assembly was held in the upper rooms, it became necessary to prop up the lower ones. As the expense attendant upon the necessary repair under circumstances would, of course, be considerable, it was conceived that it might be more convenient to abandon Carlton-house entirely, and make Buckingham-palace the royal residence in future, Now, there was one immediate desideratum which would be attained by this arrangement. On part of the ground which Carlton-house now occupied, a new building for the Royal Academy might be erected; and probably it would also afford one for the intended National Gallery. It would be easy, upon other portions of this site, to erect a series of handsome dwelling-houses, the value of which would cover a considerable part of the expense to be incurred; but, as this must be a matter for profit hereafter, and money was wanted immediately for the repair and fitment of the new residence, it would be requisite for parliament to take measures with respect to that supply. He would therefore move, "That it is expedient to authorize the application of part of the Land Revenue of the Crown for the repair and improvement of Buckingham House."
Mr. Ellicetrusted that the new palace, when completed, would do credit to the national taste, and not be such a building as had been erected at Brighton and other places. There was one circumstance to which he decidedly objected, and that was the encumbering the ground upon which Carlton-house and gardens now stood with new houses. We were already out-built all over the west-end of the town; and he deprecated any arrangement which should take away the little space and air that still remained. With reference to the expense, he would just suggest, whether it might not be met

1121
mainly, or entirely, by the sale of some of those ground-rents which the Crown had in such profusion all over the parish of St. James's? He could wish, moreover, that this scheme had been brought forward before the additional buildings were begun at the British Museum.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was not intended to cover Carlton-house gardens with buildings, but there were some offices attached to the house, the site of which could not be applied to a better purpose.
The resolution was agreed to.