Sitting of 12 March 1827

MUTINY BILL—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Leycesterobserved, that, after three nights' consultation with his pillow, he had hoped the noble Secretary at War would have come down with the announcement, that he had abandoned the barbarous clause in this bill, for the infliction of Corporal Punishment. That barbarous practice showed to what loathsome habits the human mind might bring itself—how even the natural feelings might be chained under the influence of custom. If this practice were now to be commenced, the man who should propose it would meet with universal reprobation: and why was that which was too bad to be begun, not too bad to be continued? This cruel code was justified, upon the principle of necessity; but where was the paramount, the over-ruling, necessity for the practice of flogging? It was proved not to be necessary, by the diminution of the practice in the British army, by its non-existence in the continental armies, and in our own volunteer corps, which were not made of the most pliable materials. But he would not trust professional men with the decision upon the moral expediency of professional rules. He would rather refer to the tribunal of common sense, by which tribunal, he was sure the practice would be pronounced a curse to him who suffered, a torment to him who inflicted, unworthy of oar gallant army, and a stain upon the character of Great Britain. At all events, a tribunal ought to give the benefit of
1124
its doubt on the side of mercy. It was, he thought, miserable to continue thus, going on upon speculation and guess-work, when the country might resort to the in-fallible test of experience. Under those, considerations, and because he was fully convinced that the abolition of this ancient abuse would render soldiers more, attached to the service, he would move, that a clause be brought up to rescind the provisions, for the infliction of Corporal Punishment in the British Army.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, that he should make a few observations, in consequence of facts, which had come to his knowledge, and which added to the distrust he had always entertained of the efficacy of corporal punishment. Indeed, he much doubted, whether punishment inflicted on the body ever caused the reform of persons addicted to, crime; and his opinion had been confirmed, by the circumstances which he should state. In the month of September last, he happened to be detained three weeks in a garrison town in France; and, during that period, he had an opportunity of examining minutely and accurately, the way in which five thousand five hundred French soldiers were kept in order, and he would assert, that their discipline and conduct were in no respect inferior, and in some things, probably, superior, to our own. No French soldier ever was subjected to a blow: it was considered a dishonour, to both the party who gave, and him who suffered, such an indignity; and, without noticing what some persons thought of the necessity of recourse being had to such a mode of punishment, he, was of opinion, that there was no sentiment which it was more desirable to impress upon, a soldier, than the principle, that a blow was a disgrace. The punishments inflicted in the French army were: confinement, hard labour, and privation; and it was unquestionable, that punishments like those could not have the effect of making a man a worse soldier than before, while the infliction of corporal punishment was almost certain to do so. In support of that fact, the hon. member stated a conversation which he, had had with a respectable and intelligent individual, the governor of a prison, respecting, the result of those corporal punishment inflicted every five or six weeks after the sessions; and it appeared, that the greater, part of those who suffered those punishments, came again into his custody, with in

1125
a twelve-month. Several gallant officers who had spoken upon this subject said, that the discipline of the English army would be destroyed, if corporal punishment was not preserved, and seemed to treat the objections made to it with some degree of scorn. They could not, however, justly do so, until they had ascertained whether there were not other punishments which would be sufficient. He did not know whether the British army afforded such conveniences for solitary confinement as existed in the French service. He had the opinion of a gallant officer who had served in the four quarters of the globe, that these corporal punishments were highly objectionable. Neither was that officer's opinion unsupported by experience; for he had commanded two troops of dragoons, for the space of two years, without ever having had recourse to flogging. It happened that, during the period of that officer's command, there was one individual whom he feared he should be obliged to send to head-quarters; but, on the day fixed for that purpose, a petition was presented from the men, stating, that the detachment had been for two years without any corporal punishment, and that they felt acutely that any one belonging to it should so suffer; they implored that the offender might be pardoned, and hoped that they, themselves, would be able to keep him in order. The officer complied, and the man sinned no more, ft might, perhaps, be imagined, that these troops were, in consequence of this treatment, badly disciplined and instructed; but, on the contrary, upon inspection they were declared to be the best in the regiment. He would not have alluded to this, only to show how an officer had succeeded in instilling into his men that best of feelings, the wish to avoid disgrace.
Lord Nugentagreed with his hon. friend in the view he had taken of the system of flogging, and was sure that, if a proposition for its adoption were now before the House for the first time, it would not be agreed to. The only difference at present between the advocates and the opponents of the system was, whether a course equally beneficial could be substituted for that now in operation. He had heard of a correspondence which had passed about eleven or twelve years ago, between the lieutenant-governor of Gibraltar and the deputy inspector of hospitals there, and the consequence was, that from that period flogging had been disused in that garrison.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he had the other night expressed a wish to see a clause in the bill, making it necessary that the persons composing a court-martial should be unanimous previous to its passing any sentence. The noble Secretary at War had objected, that any factious subaltern might then, in order to acquire popularity, prevent any corporal punishment from being inflicted in the regiment. He did not know how it could be reconciled, that one out of five on a court-martial, should not prevent a sentence, seeing that twelve men were required to be unanimous in our courts, before the slightest punishment could be inflicted. The improvement he proposed was only a palliative; and, perhaps, it would not be wise to attempt a reform in what was radically bad. He had attentively listened to what had fallen from the gallant officers in the army on this subject; but, the only reason they gave for defending it, that he could discover, was that it ought to be continued because it had existed. But this, he thought, was bad reasoning, and not such as should induce the House to continue such a degradation on our brave defenders. He had heard an officer say, that in this regiment some of the men were brought out so frequently to be flogged, that they were known by the name of the flogging-blocks; and this circumstance demonstrated that, so far from flogging making them better soldiers or men, no good could be derived from it; and as no benefit resulted from the revolting custom, it ought to be abolished as being a national disgrace, and as placing our army in its discipline and honour second to that of France. He was glad to find the question brought before the House whenever an occasion presented itself; but he would rather that some regular motion had been made respecting it; and he hoped that no session would be suffered to pass away, without some effort being made to relieve the soldier from this abominable punishment.
Sir John Sebrightsaid, he was ready to take his share of the unpopularity which might be attached to supporting the practice complained of. He had been in the army in the early part of his life, and from his knowledge of the military service, it was his opinion that the system ought to be upheld. He was fully impressed with the belief, that the excellent discipline that now prevailed in the army was in a great measure to be attributed to the

1127
coercion which had been adopted; as, by removing that want of discipline which had previously existed, it had produced a happiness to the soldier to which he was before a stranger. It would be asked how this could happen? The answer was—because every man in the army understood discipline better, and was less liable to disobey orders. On the subject of courts-martial, he must beg to make a few observations, as he too had had some experience in these matters. They could, he might say with justice, be termed paternal or domestic tribunals; for in all cases the commanding officer had the power of dispensing mercy in his hands, and was ever ready to exercise it, when there was occasion for his interference. The whole system was, in his opinion, excellent; and though he might incur public odium by so doing, he should always feel it a duty to give it his sanction and support.
Sir A. Hopewished much, that a regular motion had been brought forward for the discussion of this question, as these desultory conversations unsettled men's minds, and prevented them from coming to a proper conclusion. It had been well remarked by the lion, baronet who spoke last, that in the system which was now acted upon, corporal punishment contributed to the happiness of the soldiers. If it were to be considered as a question of feeling, it certainly was one more particularly so to officers of the army, than to visionary philanthropists, who had no opportunity of judging of the necessity which might exist for it. He would say, that if, in the paternal government of the army, and what was properly called, the family trial of a court-martial, where he who passed the sentence did so upon oath, and where the commanding officer, who had the power of mercy to alter that sentence, found himself obliged to inflict this punishment, no one could imagine, that such a punishment would be wantonly inflicted.
Colonel Trenchsaid, that one point in the present discussion appeared to have been untouched by the hon. members who had addressed the House. They seemed totally to have lost sight of the fact, that much flogging existed independent of what took place in the army; and yet a thought of complaining against it to the legislature never entered the head of any man. What distinction, he would ask,
1128
existed between flogging a boy of sixteen: at school, and flogging a soldier of sixteen in the army? Where was the difference between inflicting corporal punishment upon the back of a soldier, who had been convicted of a flagrant offence, and whipping on some other part of the body of a-school-boy, who had been accused of some petty delinquency? He thought that the agitation of this question was productive of infinite mischief. It had the worst effects upon the minds of the soldiers; and he sincerely hoped that the House would now, at once, deliberate upon it, and set the question at rest for ever.
Mr. Wynninquired, what question was before the House.
The Speakerreplied, that it was the third reading of the Mutiny bill.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that it would then be more regular to let the question before the House be disposed of, and then such a clause as hon. members seemed to wish might be brought under consideration.
The bill was then read a third time.
Mr. Leycesterin proposing a clause to-prevent corporal punishment in the army, said, that whether or not a discussion on the present shameful system produced agitation in the minds of the soldiers, he cared not. He should always raise his voice against flogging soldiers. The clause which he proposed was intended as an experiment; and if it was found on trial not to be beneficial, it would be easy hereafter to get rid of it. It had been observed by a right hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, on a former night, that "where there was a will there was a way." Now, he begged to use the same expression in reference to the abolishing of flogging; and he really conceived it high time that something should be done with a view of obtaining what appeared to him so highly desirable.
Mr. Warburtonwould ask, what the Turk said to produce submission? "Use the bastinado," was the reply. And what said the colonial cultivator? That the lash could not be dispensed with—as if the circumstance of a man being born with a dark instead of a white skin could prevent his cultivating the soil in the same manner as the European did. The hon. member for Hertfordshire had uttered, language in reference to the subject of flaggellation, which he never expected to have heard from him. He never imagined.

1129
that his hon. friend would have advocated the cause of flogging in the government of men; seeing that he was strenuous in discountenancing the flogging of horses and dogs. He would say, "not only do not flog dogs and horses, but flog not at all: appeal not to the backs of men, but to their reason."
Mr. Humesaid, it was in vain to expect that military men would put an end to flagellation. Would the slave-trade have ever been abolished if the interests of those engaged in it had been listened to? It was hopeless to anticipate that any great reform in the laws would proceed from lawyers; so likewise was it hopeless to expect that officers would abolish corporal punishment. He was anxious to have the trial made by way of experiment, whether or not corporal punishment could not be entirely abolished.—With respect to England, it was an experiment; but in America, and in the greater part of Europe, it was no experiment, seeing that flogging the soldier had been done away some years. It was said that the discipline of the army required that odious punishment. The king of Wirtemberg had abolished corporal punishment in his army, and substituted in its stead solitary confinement. Flogging in the navy, he was sorry to observe, was quite as much encouraged as in the army. Having alluded to America, as an instance of a country that had abolished that digraceful mode of punishment, he would, with the permission of the House, refer to an act of Congress, passed in 1812, in which the laws that permitted flogging were repealed. The hon. member then read an extract from the Act to that effect. The noble Secretary at War had himself admitted, a few nights back, that corporal punishment in the British army would have been dispensed with if possible. The late duke of York, who carried the army to the extent of improvement which it now held, was no friend to corporal punishment; for in regiments where flogging was carried to a vast extent, he stopped promotion. The power of flogging ought to be taken from individuals by that House. There were regiments in which, from one year to another, a corporal punishment did not take place; and he would take leave to ask, if insubordination prevailed in consequence? But it was urged, that circumstances might arise in which, unless the power of flogging was permitted,
1130
great inconvenience would be sustained. In the vicinity of an enemy, or in a foreign country, this power, it was insisted, could never be dispensed with. It was said, that it was a species of coercion which, if set aside, would cause great risk to the discipline of the army. Now, his object was, to have the experiment tried on the troops serving at home. During the last discussion upon this bill, it was urged, that there was a necessity for corporal punishment, if it was intended to keep the army in a state of discipline. Necessity was always the tyrant's plea. Sure he was, that the character of the common soldier would be raised if flogging were abolished. It was remarked that there was no degradation in the punishment, and that instances of promotion had occurred in soldiers who had suffered under the lash. This might be the case in a few solitary instances, but he was persuaded that out of every hundred men who had that shameful and degrading punishment inflicted upon them, not more than one in that number was promoted. He (Mr. Hume) was desirous that discipline should be maintained in the army, but in enforcing that, the most humane course ought to be had recourse to. He should give his support to the clause.
Mr. Leycesterthen brought up the clause to this effect:—"That it shall not be lawful, after the passing of this Act, to enforce Corporal Punishment on any Soldier, by the sentence of any Court-martial, within the United Kingdom."
Colonel Daviessaid, that from his knowledge of military affairs, he should certainly oppose the adoption of the clause just submitted for the consideration of the House; being convinced that for the preservation of the discipline of the army, it was essential to have recourse to corporal punishment. If soldiers knew that it was abolished, much evil would follow. Much had been said about the government of foreign armies; and it was insisted that they were not subject to corporal punishment. If they had not flogging, soldiers who, in our army, were subject to that mode of punishment, were, in other countries subject to death for the same offence. In such a case, if a soldier had his choice, would he not prefer receiving the lash to being deprived of life? In conclusion, the gallant officer said, that he perfectly concurred in what had fallen from his hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire.
Sir Robert Wilsonwas surprised that it should have been said by any hon. member, that the happiness of the soldier was connected with the maintenance of the present system, as far as it regarded corporal punishment. He could not conceive it possible that any British soldier could have a mind so constituted—his feelings so much at variance with the opinions of nearly all mankind—as to approve of that degrading system of punishment. Every soldier on the continent hailed with delight the abolition of that wretched system, by which man was degraded to the level of the brute—as an act of justice rendered the army by the respective sovereigns. Neither could he coincide with what had been remarked respecting the punishment which boys underwent at schools, as compared with that of flogging soldiers. The two cases were not similar. Nevertheless, he suspected, that when the boy assumed the gown, he would object to such a punishment being inflicted. The gallant officer had observed, that under the present system, as the army was constituted, it was necessary to have recourse to corporal punishment; soldiers being too frequently reckless of character. But wherefore was this so? The fault was in the system. It prevented men of character from entering the army as private soldiers. That very morning he had seen a publication which was written by a common soldier—but, by the way, although the work was written by one in that humble station, it evinced no common mind. The writer spoke of the necessity of officers correcting and preventing the irregularities of the soldiers, not by modes of terror, but by assiduous attention to them—by pointing out the evils which would result from a vicious course. "If this plan were followed," observed the writer, "then the necessity of corporal punishment would be prevented." An instance never occurred within his experience, in which a soldier who had suffered that degrading punishment became a better man; but, on the contrary, the man thus treated was always worse for the punishment, and in many instances became a thorough reprobate. When he had the command of a Lusitanian corps—a description of men, that at one time did not possess any very extraordinary character for discipline—in this corps, however, during the time he had the honour of commanding it, not a single instance of
1132
corporal punishment was put into execution. They behaved in such a manner too, when under his command in the field, as not only brought honour upon themselves, but credit upon himself. Those troops were never once guilty of an act of violence, nor was there any desertion among them. He had read that day, in a Jamaica newspaper, a report of the speeches in an assembly in that island, in which some of the speakers thought proper, in defence of that abominable practice of using the lash to the negroes, to refer to the practice of flogging in the British army. Mr. Barrett, whose name had been mentioned in that House and elsewhere with great respect, and very deservedly so, rebuked those petty tyrants—those women-floggers—for defending the system. Would the House of Commons give countenance, by permitting corporal punishment still to exist in the British army, to those advocates for flogging slaves in Jamaica! In Russia, the system of punishment for the misbehaving soldier was of a very different kind. There a stigma was cast upon his honour.—He was not permitted to take part in the storming of a fortress or in the post of danger and honour, if he had been guilty of any act which was opposed to military discipline. This was a punishment which was considered exceedingly degrading. Why not appeal to the honour of the English soldier, in cases where he had misconducted himself, rather than to the degrading punishment of flagellation? Although he concurred in the principles of the clause now under discussion, he was anxious that it should not be pressed, inasmuch as the present Commander-in-chief had so recently obtained his appointment, and had not had time to inquire into the system. The duke of Wellington would, before another session, have had an opportunity of examining whether it was or was not for the benefit of the army, that corporal punishment should be preserved. He thought the honourable members who had urged the necessity of abandoning the system, ought to be satisfied at present with having expressed their opinions, in order that the new Commander-in-chief might be afforded the opportunity of taking the subject into his consideration.
The Judge Advocate (sir John Beckett), in defending the principles of the bill, contended that, even according to the observations which had fallen from hon. mem-

1133
bers who were opposed to it, an admission was made that the discipline and subordination of the army, under the direction of his late royal highness, the duke of York, flowed from the present system, which, he would take leave to say, involved; constitutional principles; and he would add, that corporal punishment in the army was according to the common-law of the country. The Crown had, for a series of years, had the regulation of the army under its control, and had been subject to the responsibility of maintaining the military forces in a state of proper discipline. What was to become of that responsibility, or how could that discipline be preserved, if the check which constituted the principal and most effectual instrument of its maintenance were removed? The right hon. gentleman here read an extract from the Act of the 13th and 14th of Charles 2nd, expressly vesting the privilege of governing the army in the hands of the Crown; and contended, that that power had remained undisturbed down to the present day.
Dr. Lushingtonrose to deny that the doctrines promulgated by the right hon. gentleman were in conformity with the principles of the constitution, or had ever been recognized by the laws and usages by which the army was governed; and he was perfectly astonished to find a tight hon. gentleman, holding a high confidential and responsible office under the Crown, stand up in that House, not to uphold this practice by alleging in its justification the dictates of that imperious and absolute necessity, with a view to the maintenance of discipline in the army, which could alone palliate the continuance of this abominable punishment, but daring to argue in its defence, that our ancestors had handed to us an army, under the power and dominion of the Crown—upon which the Crown had the power to inflict punishment, according to its pleasure, its will, or its discretion; and to inflict that punishment not only by corporal punishment, but, if the doctrines of the right hon. gentleman were correct, by degradation, and even by death itself.
The Judge Advocatedisclaimed having made any assertion which could be thus construed. But he repeated, that the power of the Crown to impose corporal punishment for insubordination, or any neglect of duty or discipline, had been conferred, by a clause introduced in the
1134
Mutiny bill with that express view, and had been repeatedly confirmed and recognised by various distinct acts of parliament; and that this power, so exercised', had become, by established usage, what might be denominated the common law of the army.
Dr. Lushingtonasked, what the right hon. gentleman meant by the common-law, or by established usage, if it was not what had been handed down to us by our ancestors, from time immemorial? How did he mean to support the argument that the Crown had the power to dispose of the army as it pleased, by the common-law of the land? Did the right hon. gentleman mean to rely upon the act of Charles 2nd? If he did, his answer was, that there was no common-law, and no established usage, of the nature contended for by the right hon. gentleman, but that a special enactment had been made upon the subject; very different from the purport alleged by the right hon. gentleman; which enactment, however, had long since been abrogated, and was no longer in force. He denied that any such common-law, as stated by the right hon. gentleman, existed in the army, and God forbid that it ever should! The law was, that the army should be governed by the same principles' of legislation, as those to which persons in civil capacities were subject. Now, if any attempt were made to innovate upon—in any way to alter or modify—the laws subsisting for the government of persons inc civil capacities, it was necessary to produce an authority by act of parliament. He would remind the right hon. gentleman of what was said by lord chief justice Mansfield, at the time of the riots, when it was proposed to make use of a military force in a way which was inconsistent with the law. The lord chief justice asked for the authority for such a proceeding. It was stated, that the commander-in-chief had given orders for the military to advance. His reply was, "Then, if they do, I will try the men for murder; I will not suffer any person, in whatever station or authority, to control the laws, framed for the government of the military as well as others, and I will not suffer them to be altered, except by a special legislative enactment." All that appertained to the government of the army rested upon the Mutiny act solely; and any punishment not sanctioned by that act, was a direct violation of the law, for which the author

1135
of it was responsible—Nay, he would go further, and say that that responsibility had been enforced, and acted upon within the last thirty years. Let the right hon. gentleman recollect himself. He must be very well aware that if any mistake was made by a court-martial—if individuals were subjected to punishment in a manner not authorised by law—the Court of King's-bench would give, and had given, redress. He must declare that never since he obtained a seat in that House, had he heard the constitution attacked in the manner attempted by the right hon. gentleman. He never could have thought, that a person, so officially situated as was the right hon. gentleman, could be capable of standing up and maintaining doctrines as unconstitutional as they were unfounded; and which, were they even well founded, would be contrary to the dictates not only of justice, but of common humanity. The right hon. gentleman had said, "Is this a proper period to introduce any proposal for the abrogation of corporal punishment, so immediately after the death of the duke of York, whose supervision and management of the army were applauded by all?" Good God! what had the death of the duke of York to do with the matter? The question was, whether so inhuman a practice should be continued, or could be upheld on any principles, either of justice or of propriety? and it was perfectly immaterial, in reference to that question, whether the duke of York or the duke of Wellington was Commander-in-chief. The subject was one, in fact, which could not be postponed. It was one which required to be agitated, until we should arrive at that minimum of human suffering which would be compatible with the preservation of discipline and subordination in the army. Had that Minimum been attained? He said, No. Had we brought the regulation of the army to a state of perfection? He denied that this was the case. The right hon. gentleman, he was satisfied, would agree with him when he stated, that ten years ago corporal punishment prevailed in the army to a greater extent than at present; and at that period there were the same objections made to its mitigation. Honourable and right hon. gentlemen, and gallant generals, were heard loudly to exclaim, that, this species of punishment could not be departed from, or diminished, Without peril to the due control and management of the army. But, notwithstand-
1136
ing these arguments, the good sense of the country had diminished such inflictions; and if the question was still further discussed, the same spirit would lead to their further mitigation. He hoped, therefore, that the mouths of his hon. friends would not be closed, but that they would persevere in their praiseworthy efforts. He would tell the right hon. gentleman what he had heard from a practical man, as an example of the frightful extent to which this debating system prevailed. A gallant general had told him, that during his command in Canada, he had been compelled, in the execution of that revolting part of his duty, to witness the infliction of five hundred lashes per day; and he would mention it as a fact reflecting high honour upon the memory of his late royal highness, that when that gallant general resigned his station, unable longer to support the sight of so much human misery, the Commander-in-chief assured him, that he should not suffer in consequence of it. He contended, that the army had not arrived at any tiling like a state of perfect discipline. [An hon. member here raised a cry of "Question."] He should not be surprised to find that the hon. gentleman who began the cry of "question" was some young officer, smarting from the reflection called up by these remarks, of his having inflicted punishment unjustly. If this was the case, he did not envy the young gentleman his feelings; but as he would not be awed into silence, the hon. member had perhaps, better hold his peace. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with repeating his dissent from the doctrines of the right hon. gentleman.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the hon. and learned gentleman had, in his opinion, wasted a vast deal of very respectable and constitutional indignation, which he might better have reserved for some occasion, on which it would be more necessary or useful; for greater misrepresentation he had never heard, than the hon. and learned gentleman had made of the speech and statements of his right hon. friend. The hon. and learned gentleman had, no doubt, misunderstood his right hon. friend; but he would submit to the House, whether the arguments of his right hon. friend bore such a construction, or merited such animadversions, as those applied to them by the hon. and learned gentleman. Any person coining into that House would, from the statements of the hon. and learn-

1137
ed gentleman, have supposed his right lion, friend to have represented, that by the common-law of the country, the king enjoyed the power of inflicting corporal punishment. His right hon. friend had said no such thing. The position of his right hon. friend—which, he contended, was perfectly consistent with the law and the constitution—was, that the government of the army was not only by immemorial usage, but by the distinct recognition of acts of parliament, in the hands of the Crown. Now, if we looked to the modes of punishment constantly resorted to, for the preservation of discipline in the army we should find that corporal infliction, in some shape or other, formed invariably a portion of them; and when we considered the means by which military subordination was to be maintained, it must be evident, acting upon the results of practical experience, that this description of punishment was indispensable to the promotion of that most necessary object. But he denied that his right hon. friend had used any argument which could with justice, be characterized as at variance with the principles of the constitution, or that would justify the imputation of such ignorance on his part, as to confound the common-law of the land with the regulations for the maintenance of military discipline. The simple question was this—"Is corporal punishment necessary for the preservation of discipline in the army, or is it not?" The hon. and gallant member for Southwark had put this question upon its proper footing. He had correctly and fairly asked, whether it was possible to put the army abroad upon one footing and the troops at home upon another. This was the true way to view the present proposition; and it would be acknowledged, that such a proceeding would be a subversion of all justice and wisdom in the application of laws. That such a mode of repressing insubordination was necessary, experience fully proved. The existence of the power to inflict corporal punishment operated as the most effectual preventive of its actual infliction. But, the line of argument pursued by the hon. gentleman opposite was not fair or tenable. Were corporal punishments frequent? The hon. gentleman demanded their abolition on that ground. If they were unfrequent the hon. gentleman contended that that very circumstance constituted a
1138
proof of their inexpediency; and therefore desired that they should be repealed. Those hon. gentlemen who were so hard to be pleased could not complain of him and his right hon. friends, if they did not affect to meet arguments employed to find fault with every line of proceeding that could be adopted. It had been affirmed, that, in the French army no blows were ever inflicted. He apprehended that this statement was erroneous. His impression was, that blows were inflicted, and that the French soldier—although, perhaps, not punished with the cat-o'-nine-tails—was subject to the infliction of punishment with the flat side of the sword, at the caprice or will of his commanding officer. It would be ridiculous to attempt to draw a distinction between punishment inflicted with a piece of iron, or a piece of leather. If there was any degradation in corporal punishment, or if such suffering tended to demoralise the man, or to break down his spirit, it must be perfectly immaterial whether it was administered by a sword or a cat-o'-nine-tails; and it would be absurd to draw a constrast between the two instruments of punishment. It might be true, as was urged, that corporal punishment did not, in some instances, tend to reform or improve the individual; but still it was indispensable, as a means of preventing the commission of acts, to which men would be tempted if free from its restraint. But, the question of military discipline was not one in which the army was alone interested. Its effects extended to the well-being of all classes of the population. If the hon. gentlemen on the other side had any reason to complain of violence or injury committed by any portion of the army, he was sure they would be very much disappointed if their prayer for redress was met with the answer, that government could not interfere—that they must have recourse to the tardy and tedious process of law. A good deal of indignation had been expressed in the course of the debate; but he should like to hear the expressions of indignation which would be vented against the government in such a case. He would ask those who objected to this mode of punishment, what form of coercion could be substituted for it? Would they have soldiers sent to prison? In that case they must be placed in the common gaols, amongst the most abandoned cha-

1139
racters; or military prisons must be built for their reception. He should be curious to hear what the hon. member for Aberdeen would say, if his majesty's ministers were to propose a grant of some hundred thousand pounds for the erection of prisons for the exclusive accommodation of the army. For himself, he felt as much as any one could do, all the objections to this mode of punishment; but he would still adhere to it, as a choice of evils. The only way to avoid its operating injuriously was, that all officers should be instructed to use their utmost endeavours for the prevention of those acts which, if committed, would render the infliction of the punishment necessary. But he was satisfied that, if ever so ill-judged a proceeding were resorted to as the removal of this regulation, it would be found necessary, in a few months, to re-impose it; The hon. gentlemen on the other side called upon the House to follow the dictates of experience. Now, it was his right hon. friends and himself who were, in effect, acting up to that principle; while the hon. gentlemen opposite were only attempting to substitute for experience their own crude and visionary theories. Ought not the opinions of practical men to be received, and their suggestions attended to? It would be as reasonable, when any measure of West-Indian policy was brought forward, to discuss it in the absence of hon. gentlemen connected with those interests; the affairs of India should be kept a secret from all who had a knowledge of that portion of our possessions. When the Corn-laws were discussed, for Heaven's sake let no country gentleman—and, on any financial question, let no political economist—open his mouth. The noble lord concluded by saying that, if the infliction of corporal punishment were abolished, it must be followed by the abolition of the army itself, which, without it, would soon become the most dangerous establishment in the empire.
Mr. Sykessaid, that the power claimed for the Crown was not conferred either by the statute or common-law; and he read a portion of the preamble of the Mutiny act in support of his argument. With respect to the question now before the House, he entertained but one opinion; namely, that it was a barbarous remedy, equally unfavourable to the liberty as well as to the discipline of the army. It had the effect of making the mind as well as the
1140
body callous. He would appeal to military gentlemen, whether a soldier who had been flogged was good for any thing afterwards. Experience proved, that it was a punishment which rendered the object of it insensible to the duties of the soldier. In a town in the neighbourhood in which he lived, a soldier, for some offence, received five hundred lashes. A few days afterwards, the regiment was ordered to march. The consequence was, that the wounds of this man festered, and he died. On the inquest, one witness deposed, that all the flesh came from the back bone. The verdict was, "Wilful murder": but, no proceedings were taken, or inquiries made, on the finding of this verdict. He believed that the instance he had mentioned was very frequent [No, no, from the ministerial benches]. If it was not let there be laid on the table of the House, a return of the number of cases in which corporal punishment had been inflicted. He could never believe that such punishment was necessary in the English army, when it was not found necessary in the armies of the continent. If it was necessary to restrain the improper passions of the men, and compel the due performance of military discipline, some other means ought to be adoped; for corporal punishment was cruel in the extreme. The system ought to be put down, and some other introduced in its stead. The sooner it was abolished the better.
Sir H. Hardingerose amid cries of "question." He said, he would not dwell long on the subject now before the House. One hon. member had stated, that military officers were not to be considered authority upon this topic, any more than law officers were to be taken as authority on matters of law: he would, therefore, produce a document which emanated from: persons, who at all events, deserved, and, doubtless, had, the confidence of the House, with reference to it. On the subject of corporal punishment he would read an extract of a report of the governors of the General Penitentiary, made on the 7th of bruary, 1827. The persons by whom that report was signed, was, he felt assured, the last to be suspected of inhumanity, or of a desire to inflict unnecessary punishment. The extract was as follows:—"That solitary confinement appeared to have very little effect, either upon the men or the boys, and certainly did contribute to injure the health; it was, therefore, the opinion

1141
of the governors, that an error had been committed in abolishing corporal punishment, and the governors were satisfied, that a revival of this power would be highly advantageous, guided by necessary restrictions, and under particular circumstances;" signed "Bexley." Now, surely the individual whose name was affixed to this report, would be the last man to act with inhumanity, or to recommend a system which he considered either unnecessary or unwise. With regard to what the gallant member for Southwark had advanced on the subject of the Lusitanian Legion, which that hon. member had commanded, he would give his testimony to the admirable discipline which existed in that corps. But it should be remembered, that corporal punishment was not the system adopted in the Portuguese army. He himself had had the honour to command five battalions of Portuguese troops; and, as the system of flogging was not in force, recourse was had to punishment by the sword; the effect of which was, that of the wounds which they received, many died in the hospitals. The milder and more natural punishment was thus rejected; and a punishment, which produced no beneficial influence, but very frequently caused death, was adopted in its stead. Was this a system which Englishmen would ever tolerate? The hon. member for Midhurst had referred to the French army, and commented on the fact, that no corporal punishment was then permitted. Now, a friend of his had, not long since, seen a drum boy shot at Lisle, for striking a drum major. The question was not as to what was the effect of the system of corporal punishment in a time of peace, but in a time of war; and he would refer the House to the conduct of the French army during the Peninsular war; and would quote from the work of colonel Jones, who gave the words of a French lieutenant-colonel, who had said, that it was a common practice in the French army to exchange and to play at cards for women. One instance he related of a commissary who offered two ounces of gold for a Portuguese girl. This was while the army of the duke of Wellington was in a high state of discipline. He would refer to the army of Soult, when crossing the Pyrenees, pursued by the British army. The conduct of the latter was then so excellent, as to have been generally contrasted by the inhabitants with
1142
that of the former. He would also allude to the Prussian army after the battle of Waterloo. In that army no flogging was allowed, although the torture of the cane was. When the British army marched through the various villages, the inhabitants remained quietly in their cottages, firmly confiding in their good conduct; but when, through those same villages the Prussians marched, they found them all deserted, and, until they had departed, the people could not be prevailed upon to return. The state of the army of occupation might also be cited; the army of which the archbishop of Cambray, who naturally disliked it, because it had taken, as it were, possession of his country, had reported, that while the British army was there, their conduct had been such as to remove all his prejudices, and to give rise to the most grateful sense of their kindness and generosity. So much for the discipline and conduct of the British army, as compared with that of other troops. If the House substituted any other punishment for that of flogging, it would inevitably be more severe than it was at present. He had taken the trouble to ascertain the number of courts-martial held during the Peninsular war, and he found, that altogether they did not exceed five hundred, all of them being, of course, for serious offences, as trivial matters would, under such circumstances, be passed over, and of these not more than fifteen or sixteen men had been shot. Now, if the punishment of flogging had not existed, acting according to the system pursued in the French army, more than half the men so tried would have been put to death. Would this be according to the feelings or the wishes of Englishmen?—Surely not. He was satisfied that such a power was absolutely necessary. That it ought to be exercised to as limited an extent as possible, was a truth which no British officer would deny. In the regiment of guards to which he had the honour to belong in the year 1823, there were but three men flogged out of eight hundred soldiers, of which the first battalion was composed. In the second battalion, there were, he believed, five; and in the third, eight; making but sixteen out of two thousand four hundred men. He assured the hon. members who had commented with such severity upon this subject, that there was a feeling in the bosoms of British officers, as strong as in that of any individual

1143
in the country, to prevent the unnecessary use of corporal punishment. When it was resorted to, it was only done from an earnest desire to discharge a duty which they owed equally to the country, whose servants they were, and to the soldiers they commanded.
Sir A. Hopesaid, that every soldier in the army of every country in the world, with the solitary exception of that of Great Britain, was subjected to arbitrary punishment. But the British soldier, ever since the passing of the Bill of Rights, could only be punished after undergoing a trial by his peers: his safety and his security were, therefore, guarded by the law. Now, it was impossible that any free-man could be in a better state. Before the passing of this bill, if the hon. members would refer to the articles of war, they would find that there were forty-three cases for which punishment of death were awarded, one of torture, and one of mutilation. The two latter, and nearly the whole of the former, had been done away, by substituting a system of flogging in their stead. There were two reasons why this system should not be abolished; first, that of mercy to the soldier; and second, to subdue the unruly passions of men, with a view to preserve the peace of the country, and the good order of society. It was the duty of those hon. members who wished this system to be done away with, to propose in its place one that would produce those necessary ends.
Sir H. Viviandeclared, that the British officers were most anxious to do away with the system of flogging, if any system, which could answer an equally good purpose, could be substituted in its stead. He assured the House, that the speeches of some hon. members had had the effect of causing that punishment which they sought to abolish; for his own part, he could state, that when he commanded a thousand men, he found, all of a sudden, that a great degree of murmuring had suddenly spread among them. He then sent for the oldest of his Serjeants, who told him, that the men were induced to believe that sir Francis Burdett had done away with corporal punishment; and he was actually obliged to make an example of one man, to restore order in his regiment. It was only the power that British officers wanted; they were not disposed to use that power, until every other means had failed. Let any hon. member show by what other
1144
means he could preserve military discipline, and he would at once give his sanction for removing this evil, which he now felt to be a necessary one.
The clause was negatived, and the bill passed.

CORN LAWS.
The order of the day was read, for the House again resolving itself into a Committee to consider further of the Corn Trade Acts, On the question, that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. Denisonhoped the House would indulge him, while he offered a few observations on the question about to be considered in the committee. It had rarely fallen to his lot to agree with ministers in their measures; but he fell great pleasure in stating his concurrence in the resolutions submitted by them to the House, respecting the Corn-laws, and, particularly, as, in so doing, he knew he acted in conformity with the wishes of his constituents. As far as respected wheat, 60 s. was, in his opinion, a fair average between the desires of ultra-consumers on the one hand, and ultra-growers on the other. He approved also of the method proposed for taking the averages; because, besides being an improvement, it tended to insure a fixed price. Some hon. gentlemen had wished to reduce the average below 60 s.; but it was impossible for the farmers to pay such extravagant taxes as were imposed on them, unless they received that protection. He did not approve, however, of the anomaly respecting the measures; for nothing could be more absurd than to compel the use of the Winchester measure in taking the averages, and the Imperial measure in buying and selling. He hoped that, in the committee, that matter would be set to rights. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, on Friday last, respecting the currency, although he concurred with him in thinking that some of the present distress had its origin in the change that had taken place, he hoped the country would not again be inundated with paper. He had expressed himself friendly to the resolutions, as far as they applied to wheat; but he hoped, that, with respect to spring corn, some alterations would be made in the committee.
Mr. Curteisconcurred with the hon. member in his objections to the use of different measures, in selling and taking the averages. He regretted the effects

1145
of the change in the currency. The Scotch had succeeded in retaining their one-pound notes; and Ireland would have her's back again. Now, as this was a united empire, he saw no reason why all parts of it should; not be placed on the same footing. Notwithstanding the objection of the hon. member for Surrey to a small-note currency, he thought that, if private bankers were compelled to give security, the re-issue of small notes would prove advantageous to the country.
Mr. J. Woodsaid, that the resolutions on the table of the House had produced, not only disappointment, but the greatest terror, alarm, and dismay, among the manufacturing interests, who had been led to expect, that on the meeting of parliament some measure would be devised, with reference to corn, which would be advantageous to them; and now they saw their hopes blasted by the measure that had been brought forward. He condemned not only the average price proposed, as being too high, but the alteration in the mode of taking the averages, the effect of which would be to turn the Corn Exchange into a stock exchange, or gambling house. It was reported out of doors, that ministers intended to give way on the subject of oats and barley, and suffer themselves to be bullied by the landed interests. In so doing, they would prove themselves unworthy of the warm support they had received in that House.
Mr. Crippswas quite convinced that the price of corn fixed by the resolutions could not be injurious to the manufacturing interests. He was, on the other hand, equally convinced, that the great landowners must give way a little, and reduce their rents. It was said, that the poor lands would all be thrown out of cultivation, if the resolutions were carried. How could it be otherwise. He had lately crossed the Cotswold hills, the soil of which was very poor; and he was sure that an extent of seventy or eighty miles would, in that direction, be thrown out of cultivation, from the inability of the farmers to pay the present rents, and compete with the altered state of the market. It was easy for gentlemen to say that those lands ought never to have been cultivated; but did hon. gentlemen recollect the reason why they were thrown into cultivation? namely, the demand created by the shutting of foreign ports against us. The hon. member illustrated the absurdity of the
1146
use of measures, differing in size, by a case in which a knavish person bought a quantity of grain by the Winchester measure, and refused to pay for it. The seller applied to his solicitor to compel payment, who asked him, "By what measure did you sell your corn?"—"By the Winchester measure, to be sure."—"Then," said the attorney," there is no use in your going to law, and throwing good money after bad; the Winchester measure is illegal, and you cannot recover." He had no objection to the Imperial measure, but the use of two could only produce confusion.
The House then resolved itself into the Committee. On the resolution, "That, in respect of every integral shilling by which such price shall be above sixty shillings, such duty shall be decreased by two shillings, until such price shall be seventy shillings; whenever such price shall be at or above seventy shillings, the duty shall be for every quarter one shilling,"
Mr. Charles Grantsaid, that for a number of years, barley was averaged at one half of the price of wheat, and oats at one third. That was their calculated relative value, until the year 1822, when the committee then appointed, suggested an increase in the relative value, but not to any great extent. Since the resolutions now before the committee had been introduced, many remarks, made in that House and out of doors, suggested the necessity of inquiring into the most satisfactory mode of fixing the relative value of wheat, barley, and oats; and it was found, that to take the averages of a number of years, would be the best. The average prices of these grains had therefore been taken since the year 1821.
Mr. Calcraftthought the agricultural interest ought to be protected to that extent which would insure production, and not let the people depend for food upon foreign supplies. He was astonished to hear hon. members object to the ministers for having, in compliance with the wishes expressed in that House and out of doors, modified the original resolutions. The right hon. gentleman, the vice president of the Board of Trade had not come up to his standard; but, the measure submitted was, as far as it went, so fair and unobjectionable, that he should support it.
Mr. Curwensaid, if called upon to state his sentiments upon oath, as to what he thought the proportions of duty and price

1147
ought to be, he could not say that those proposed by the vice president of the Board of Trade were unfair, or that either the price or the duty ought to be higher. He had no doubt that ministers had acted impartially, with a view to the interests of all classes in the country.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, it was his intention to move two resolutions. The first was, that a certain proportion of the duties to be hereafter levied on the several species of grain to be imported into this country, shall be paid on entry at the Board of Customs, such proportion to be determined with reference to the ports from which the grain is exported, and also with reference to the shipments. The second resolution had reference, to oats, and oats alone. It was known, that vessels were capable of carrying a larger freight of oats than of any other grain. The vessel, indeed, might be loaded to the hatches with oats, very conveniently; while a similar freight of wheat would sink the ship. His second proposition, therefore, was, that as in vessels: of equal size, a greater quantity of oats, than of other grain might be conveyed, and as the cultivation of oats was a matter of the deepest interest, not only to Scotland and Ireland, but to several ports of England, it should be required of the Board of Customs to form some arrangement for limiting the importation of foreign oats, seeing that, such an arrangement must have been observed in the importation of oats from Canada, and seeing that such an arrangement was acted upon in, the introduction of five hundred thousand quarters, which the government was enabled to suffer to be imported last year.
Mr. Fergusonwas happy to see that ministers had given way to the sentiments expressed upon this question, both in that Mouse and out of doors; but he could not think; as one hon. member had said, that they had been "bullied" into it. He should be sorry to see the Treasury bench filled by any men, who would be bullied out of any measure, which they thought would be fox the interest of the country; and he did not think that bench was now filled, by men who would be likely; so to act [hear, hear]. He approved of the measure submitted by the vice president of the Board of Trade; but he did not think that that measure went far enough, with respect to oats.
Mr. Secretary Peeltook the liberty of
1148
suggesting, that it would be more satisfactory and convenient to enter upon a discussion of the general principle, upon one of the several opportunities, which would be hereafter afforded, in the course of the proceedings, and not to encumber the discussions in a committee upon the Resolutions, with a discussion of the general principle; but to discuss the duty upon each species of grain, separately, as each Resolution came before the committee. To give an instance of his own observance of that principle of forbearance which he had suggested to the committee, he should abstain, upon that occasion, from making any other observation upon the coarse, unjust, and unfounded imputation cast upon ministers, by the hon. member for Preston, who had stated, that ministers had been "bullied" by the landed interest, than to simply deny the truth of the assertion.
Mr. Portmansupported the measure, and observed, that the landed interest, by conceding that 60 s. should be the minimum price, had conceded as much as they could concede.
The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, that, when the market price of barley should be at 32 s., or under 33 s. the duty should be 12 s. a quarter.
Mr. Whitmoredeclared, it to be his opinion, that the law arising out of the alterations as to the duty on barley would create more suffering in the country than the law of 1822. He saw no grounds for changing the proportions between barley and wheat. He deprecated the passing of so severe a law. If it was passed it could not be long before the eyes of the people would be opened to all the evils of such a system.
Lord Althorpsaid, he could not agree in sentiment with the hon. member Formerly, foreign corn could not be; admitted until the price at home was 80 s.; by these resolutions, it was to be admitted-when the price was 60 s.; which he thought, would come to be at about 57 s.; so that by the change the consumer would gain an advantage of 23 s. As to the rates fixed for barley, so far from thinking them excessive, he believed, that they were now below the mark; seeing that the expense; of cultivating barley was two thirds of that of wheat.
Mr. Alderman Wooddeclared his intention of dividing the House on the: original propositions, relative, to barley.

1149
Ministers had not acted, fairly in lowering the import duty on it without notice.
Sir J. Newporthoped the House would put their veto on all distinctions between the interests of the several classes of the community. Though England was a manufacturing country, Ireland was an agricultural one, and gave her agricultural produce in exchange for the manufacture of England. If England would not take the corn of Ireland, Ireland would be unable to take the manufactures of England.
Mr. Hobhouseexpressed his trust, that the friends of ministers would stand true to them on this occasion, when, they saw them compelled to alter their original resolutions, by a few ingenious hints, not coming from the people, but from persons more powerful than the people. He denied that any vulgar attacks had been made in that House against the landed interest; but the people had a right to complain, and would not be put down by clamour. All they, wanted was fair play. The House ought to hear the voice of the people, and their representatives. This was not an occasion, on which the right hon. gentlemen opposite should, to use an old phrase, "turn their backs, on themselves." This was, however, the first time they had refused to hear the people. He was the last man in that House to throw firebrands among the people; but he hoped it would not be considered too much if he said, that when any question was propounded in which the people expressed a decided voice, the House was doing itself harm, by not listening to what their representatives had to say. Whether what they advanced was good or bad, he should say, "hear, at least, before you strike." The government had now changed its mind, without any reasons which did not exist before. All he could say to such vacillating conduct was, that it clearly showed that the government was not worth two-pence. It was not only known and seen in that House, but the country began to see it. He did not, perhaps, express what he thought upon the subject so well as he ought to do; but he was in constant communication with the people, and could vouch for their sentiments; and all those with whom he bad conversed were of opinion, that it was impossible that so wretched and disjointed a government could go on. He would venture to say, that had it not been for the gentlemen who
1150
usually sat on his side of the House, when the government proposition was brought forward the other night, the ministers would not have been able to have carried it. Suppose there had been on his side of the House, that truckling, place-hunting appetite, which it had been the fashion to impute to them, and that one of them had; risen and said to the gentlemen on the-benches around him, "It is ministers who have hashed up this pretty affair: let them set down to it, we must not meddle with, such a nasty mess." The measure was carried, only by a majority of sixty-one. If, therefore, such a speech as that had-been made by any of the influential gentlemen on his side of the House, where, he would ask, would ministers have-been left? Would it not have been shown, that the ministers were divided among themselves; that they were unfit to govern a great country; and that it ought not to be confided to them. When the minister for Foreign Affairs came down to that House, he solemnly called upon them to vote for certain propositions; and now they were as solemnly called upon, by the vice president of the Board of Trade, to vote differently, without a shadow of reason being adduced, beyond what the House was already in possession of. He should, therefore, sit down, with, a determination to vote for the proposition of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in opposition to that of the Vice-president of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he thought the hon. gentleman had been diverted, by his indignation against his majesty's government, from the real question before them; which was, whether the proposed rate at which barley was to be imported, did or did not, afford an unreasonable protection to the home-grower of barley? Had he been a stranger entering that House while the hon. gentleman was speaking, he should have imagined that his majesty's ministers, had been guilty of a great dereliction of duty, and had abandoned the principles on which they had professed at starting to be governed; and he should have been much surprised to have been told, that the whole trade arose from the their proposing to grant a little more protection to barley than they had at first intendeds Was it to be supposed, that the government could not submit a proposition to the House, without depriving themselves of every power to modify that proposition?

1151
He should have thought, that the avowed principles of the hon. member would have induced him rather to applaud than blame the government. He should have thought that the advocate of free discussion and democratic principles would have admired the readiness with which ministers confessed themselves in the wrong, and the alacrity with which they took what they thought the right path. The hon. gentleman said, that this right path had not been chosen from any attention to the wishes of the people, but from the threats which had been held out by a party in that House, which was above the people. Another hon. member had gone further and had candidly told them, that ministers had been bullied into this change. It would be sufficient, he thought, to put it to the candour of the House, whether ministers had acted from these motives, or from a conviction, that, in framing the original resolutions, they had been proceeding upon mistaken views. He should, however, call the recollection of the House to what passed on the night when his right hon. friend submitted to them the principles on which government intended to proceed; which were, a free intercourse in grain, subject to controlling duties. On that very night several hon. members having approved of the rate at which wheat was to be taken, gave it as their opinion, that barley and oats were not sufficiently protected. The first reply his right hon. friend gave to this was, "This is matter of detail, concede me the principle, and afterwards we will arrange the details." There was, therefore, no ground for accusing the government of inconsistency. The question was merely—Was this or was it not a sufficient protection for the home barley-grower, and was the resolution of the 1st instant right or wrong? The government had thought that barley was not sufficiently protected by that resolution; and it, therefore, became its imperative duty, even at the expense of confessing itself wrong, to raise the protection on that grain to a due proportion with that on wheat. He should not dwell on the evils to which an undue protection of any particular grain would lead, as every gentleman must be sensible how much such a circumstance would hamper agricultural proceedings. His right hon. friend having learned from members of that House, that barley was not sufficiently protected by his resolutions, took the
1152
average of its price, and of that of oats, for six years, and found that he had not assumed the true proportions. He then did, what every honest man ought to do, confessed himself in error. He had taken the proportions which were thought, for forty years past, to be the correct ones; and, in so taking them, was only to be accused of taking for granted, what he ought rather to have inquired into. He found, according to the returns, that wheat was 56 s., barley 31 s., and oats 20 s. 6d. Taking-wheat, therefore, at 60 s., no just charge could be brought against the government, if they took barley at the price now proposed. If, indeed, out of deference to a large minority, ministers had been induced to abandon the principle with which they started, and had recurred to prohibitions, they would have justly incurred the charge of inconsistency. But, surely, for a modification, not of the principle, but of the details, they ought not to be subject to the charge of having been bullied into the change; and he hoped they should still enjoy the esteem of the people, although the hon. gentleman had, in no very elegant terms, pronounced them to be a government not worth two-pence.
General Gascoynecomplained of the awkward situation in which this vacillating conduct of ministers placed members, who had written down to their constituents, that the question was settled upon a certain basis, and had now to contradict their former report. He should vote for the original proposition.
Mr. W. Wardsaid, he should vote against this new proposition. When the original resolution was laid on the table he had voted for it, as he took it to be a peace-offering from ministers to the people; and he was averse from stirring up animosities between the two interests. But he would not, on any pretence, suffer an encroachment on the original proposal, as it would lead to consequences not foreseen. This increase upon barley would affect wheat and every other grain; as it would induce the farmer to cultivate a greater quantity of one grain than he otherwise would do.
Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, that with respect to what had been said concerning the price at which barley and oats were to be admitted, it was certainly understood, that that was a point reserved for discussion; and he would undertake to say, that although ministers had found themselves strong enough to carry the wheat proposi-

1153
tion, yet, had they attempted to carry the original resolutions relative to barley and outs, they would have been defeated. It was in wisdom that they had made the alteration, and he thanked them for it. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Westminster, he could only say, that he had made the most variegated speech he had ever heard. It seemed to have no precise object, except that of inflaming the minds of the people. If the voice of the people of England could be heard in that House, he was convinced it would be in approval of what ministers had done. For his own part, he thought that the protection on barley was still insufficient; but, nevertheless, he could not sit down without expressing his thanks to government, for the manner in which they had brought forward this question.
Mr. Moncksaid, he should certainly give his support to the original proposition of ministers. He denied that the change was owing to any suggestion from the people. It had been conceded to the threats held out to ministers in different parts of the country, by those who ought to be the natural protectors of the people, but who would make themselves their masters. He objected to this increase of duty, because it was upon an article already too highly taxed, and which formed the principal beverage of the poor.
The Committee divided: for the Amendment 215; for the original Proposition 38; majority in favour of the Amendment 177.

List of the Minority.

Baring, F.

Martin, John

Batley, H.

Milton, lord

Bernal, R.

Monck, J. B.

Birch, J.

Philips, G.

Bright, H.

Ramsden, J. C.

Buxton, T. F.

Rancliffe, lord

Calvert, C.

Robinson, G.

Cradock, col.

Stanley, lord

Ebrington, lord

Thompson, ald.

Fergusson, sir R.

Waithman, ald.

Fortescue, hon. G.

Warburton, H.

Fyler, T. B.

Ward, W.

Gascoyne, gen.

Wood, John

Hobhouse, J. C

Whitmore, W. W.

Hodson, F.

Wilson, sir R.

Howick, lord

Wrighten, W. B.

Hume, J.

Wyvill, M.

Lumley, J. S.

Lushington, Dr.

TELLER.

Marshall, W.

Wood, ald.

The remaining Resolutions, relative to the duties on barley, were then severally put from the Chair, and carried without a
1154
division. After which, the Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.