Sitting of 14 April 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Copyholds; and Copyholds Enfranchisement.
Petitions presented. By Mr. F. BARING, from Merchants, Shipowners, and Traders of Portsmouth, for the Repeal of the Duty on Marine Insurances; and from Portsmouth, for the Repeal of Civil Disabilities affecting the Jews.— By Lord Viscount STORMONT, from the Inhabitants of St. Augustine, Norwich, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers.

MILITARY FLOGGING.
Captain Bolderorose to put a question to the hon. Member for Maldon, who had a motion tonight regarding the Mutiny Bill. After the full discussion the question of flogging in the army had undergone last night, and after the been given by Government, in the diminution of 100 lashes to be inflicted by regimental and garrison Courts-martial, he submitted to the hon. Member, whether it would not he injurious to the service, of which he (Captain Boldero) was a member, again to bring the question before the House. He had consulted several military friends upon the subject, and they were of opinion that it could not but be prejudicial again to introduce the discussion. He, therefore, humbly begged the hon. Member for Maldon not to press his motion this evening.
Mr. Lennardreplied, that what had been conceded by Ministers, which the hon. and gallant Member had termed a boon, was not at all satisfactory to him nor to many of his friends, and, in deference to them, he should persevere in the notice he had given.

BONDED CORN.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that the motion he was about to submit, was one of so much public importance, so reasonable in itself, and therefore so free from objection, that he could not anticipate any resistance to it either by Government or by any considerable number of Members. It would be to this effect, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to consider under what regulations and restrictions foreign corn and flour in bond might be admitted to entry for manufacture, and exported without prejudice to the revenue;" in other words, without any evasion of the
1016
Corn-laws. Whatever might be his opinion of those Corn-laws, as long as they continued they ought to be maintained in their integrity. Having made that admission, it was incumbent on him to show that his proposal could be adopted without injury to the agriculture of the country. At the close of last Session, so many petitions were presented to the House, and so many applications were made to the Board of Trade, that he had felt it his duty, as a commercial man, to give notice that, in the present Session, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to permit the manufacture of foreign grain; but upon farther consideration, he had been induced to think that, if he moved at once to introduce a Bill, he might be fairly met by the objection on the part of Ministers, that they could not consent to it without a distinct statement of all the details. He had therefore considered it fairer to all parties to move for the appointment of a Select Committee. He would first advert to the present state of the law. Whatever might be the quantity of foreign grain and flour imported and in bond, and however long it might have remained in the warehouses in consequence of the low price of corn in this country, it must continue there until destroyed by gradual decay, for, by the existing statutes, it could not be imported nor exported in a manufactured state. The present system was not only at variance with the principles of free trade, as he understood those principles, but it gave an advantage to the foreign trader over the home manufacturer. If the manufacture of foreign corn and flour were permitted, the merchants of this country could compete with those of other countries in foreign markets; and when he stated, that out of 600,000 quarters of foreign grain now in the Government dépôts a considerable portion of it had been four years in bond, some idea might be formed of the loss and injustice which such a system produced to the British merchant, who was thus deprived of the opportunity of employing a considerable portion of his capital in a profitable foreign trade. He was aware, that he was bound to show, that the permission for which he sought would neither affect the revenue nor infringe the Corn-laws. The island of Newfoundland, with which he was connected, derived almost exclusively the supply of provisions from Europe, and in consequence of the existence of the bonded system of this country that colony was obliged to send to Hamburgh, Dant-

1017
zic, and other places for that which could so easily be obtained in this country if the restrictions to which he alluded were removed. This same law gave America the monopoly of supplying the Brazils and the West Indies with flour, to the great detriment of British shipping, and therefore the sooner a law, which was as injurious as it was anomalous and unreasonable, was got rid of, the better. He denied, that the removal of the restrictions on foreign grain, so far as exportation was concerned, would in any way prejudice the rights of the agriculturists, and he therefore hoped his right hon. Friend would act upon his own principles, and accede to the motion. He hoped he should not be told by his right hon. Friend, that, as a Committee was sitting on the subject of agriculture, the present motion was unnecessary. The Committee now sitting was one composed almost exclusively of Gentlemen connected with agriculture, and, that being the case, it was utterly impossible, that they could give to this question the consideration which it ought to receive. It might be urged, that the present question could be better adjusted after the Committee on agriculture had made its report; but he (Mr. Robinson) doubted whether a fair report, without meaning anything invidious, could emanate from that Committee as regarded the subject of his proposition. He called upon all those hon. Members who were favourable to the promotion of their mercantile and commercial interests to support his measure. It would have the effect of making Great Britain a general dépôt for the manufacture of all articles of consumption for their colonies, instead of throwing it into other countries. They were willing to agree to any restrictions that could be placed on them for securing the revenue and the home trade, and therefore he could not see how the Government could oppose his motion. He claimed the appointment of the Committee on the ground of precedent. In 1824, Mr. Huskisson had brought in a Bill for the purpose of allowing grain in bond to be manufactured into flour. This proposition, however went further, as it called for a general alteration of the law on that subject, and he would defy any person to show that his proposition, if carried into effect, would in any way be productive of loss to the revenue, or of the least injury to the agriculturist. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee, "to inquire under
1018
what restrictions and regulations foreign corn, warehoused or in bond, could he manufactured into flour and re-exported without danger to the public revenue or without injury to the agricultural interest."
Sir Edward Codringtonhad presented petitions on the subject last Session. He was quite sure if the Government would consider the question they would find that no harm would come from the measure, but much good. He had much pleasure in seconding the motion, which, if carried, would be of the utmost benefit to the general interests of the country.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonexpressed his regret, that the hon. Gentleman, when he gave notice of his motion, did not specify more clearly what his object was. The hon. Gentleman had said, that he should submit a motion relative to the grinding of foreign corn in bond; but such a notice did not afford an intimation of the course which the hon. Gentleman had felt himself called on to pursue. He certainly should say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that he did not think the House would do wisely if it consented to this motion, inasmuch as he was of opinion that this was a question which should be left to the Agricultural Committee, who would no doubt consider the different plans laid before them, and report according to the evidence produced in support of those plans. He had been called on, in pursuance of his duty, to consider the subject, and so far as he was able to make himself master of it, he must say he did not think that any advantage would result from an investigation by a Committee, especially devoted to this particular inquiry, in the manner proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The motion was, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire under what regulations and instructions foreign corn and flour warehoused in bond might be allowed to be manufactured and re-exported, without prejudice to the public revenue, or to the interests of agriculture." Now he was willing, as he had told some parties who had applied to him on the subject, to bring in a Bill himself to carry into effect all the hon. Gentleman sought for, according to the terms of the motion, but the difficulty was this: there could be no objection to allow the foreign corn which was in bond to be ground in this country and re-exported—that was to say, if the parties having the corn in bond would, under the King's lock, grind it, and re-export all the

1019
produce of the corn so ground, then no injury whatever could result to the public revenue, nor could the supposed interests of the agriculturists be affected. What, however, the parties wished was, to be allowed to introduce a quantity of corn, to have that consumed in England, and to export an equal quantity of manufactured flour. He considered that this would so far be a benefit, as it would give employment to the capital and to the machinery of this country. But he objected that the difficulty would be, that English corn would be manufactured for exportation, and that foreign corn would be retained for consumption in England. If any such permission were given, there ought to be every security afforded that the corn so manufactured into flour should be exported. In looking to the Bill of 1824, to which reference had been made, he did not find that there was sufficient security afforded. That Bill provided, that for every five bushels of wheat manufactured, security should be given that 1961bs. of flour would be exported. But then it was found that this regulation was very imperfect, for some wheat being of finer quality would produce a greater quantity of flour, so that the proportion of flour would of course vary in its proportion to the quantity of corn. He thought the principle on which they should act would be, to make this country as much a manufacturing country as possible, provided that in doing so they did not lead to fraud or suspicion of fraud. The parties who proposed the scheme said, that they would give a security that no fraud should be committed. His answer was, that he could not find a security against fraud. He wished to give every possible encouragement to the manufacturing interest in this country, but he felt that they were bound to take care that they did not open the door to fraud, or even the suspicion of fraud. As regarded sugar, an experiment similar to that now recommended had been tried. Parties had been anxious to be allowed to introduce sugar for consumption, and to re-export an equal quantity that had been refined. The Government, in order to ascertain whether fraud could be guarded against, took an establishment in the city, and became refiners, when they found that it was impossible to fix such an amount of drawbacks as would be neither more nor less than it ought to be. If the Committee, which the hon. Gentleman asked for were appointed, a
1020
great deal of alarm would be excited in one quarter, while expectation would be raised in another, and ultimately the Committee and the House would be obliged to come to the conclusion that such a plan could not succeed.
Mr. Eatonperfectly coincided in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the once permitting foreign corn to be ground in this country would be attended with numerous frauds. But he believed that the real intention was to smuggle the flour into the English market. He did not see any reason why the foreign corn should not be ground in Newfoundland, as the bonded corn in this country was a millstone round the neck of the British farmer.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that he was opposed to all restrictions upon commerce of any description, which were always found to have an injurious operation. He supported the motion of the hon. Member opposite, as a step to the repeal of the Corn-laws, which must eventually take place, and which, if the agriculturists themselves would overcome their prejudices, they would find would be for their own interest. The removal of all restrictions upon commerce would be for the benefit of the country. Under this feeling, he was anxious to give his assistance to the motion of the hon. Member.
Colonel Sibthorpcontended, that the agricultural distress which prevailed in the country, called for the most serious attention. On this subject he had himself presented two petitions from important agricultural districts in Lincolnshire. After the expectations that had been held out by the labours of the Agricultural Committee, he could not conceive a greater blow to the hopes of the agriculturists than the declaration that had been made by the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that his objection to the motion was, because the House was called upon to take it for granted, that foreign corn which had been imported into this country, under restrictions, ought to be allowed to be ground in this country for exportation; and the hon. Member for Worcester said, he would refer the subject to a Committee, in order to determine what regulations were necessary for the purpose of carrying this object into effect. He (Mr. Fergusson) believed, that the real intentions of those who mooted the question was, inasmuch as they had failed in their speculations to grind their bonded corn in this country and get it consumed here to the

1021
detriment of the agricultural interest. He was satisfied that it was by means of fraud they wished to effect this object, and that the effect would be, if the proposition was acceded to, that this corn would be consumed here, instead of that which was the growth of this country. Entertaining these views, he should give his determined opposition to the motion.
Mr. George F. Youngconsidered that this been might be granted without occasioning any detriment whatever to the agricultural interest, and entertaining that view of the subject, he should support the motion of his hon. Friend. He (Mr. Young) should be satisfied and content if any six members of the agricultural interest in that House would set themselves down in a Committee room up stairs, and after examining into all the details on the subject, adjudicate and determine on this question. He should be perfectly willing to abide by their decision, because he was satisfied that they would decide the question, without the slightest suspicion of their being actuated by a view to their own interests. He must say, that he thought the shipping interest, with which he had the honour to be connected, was hardly dealt with in reference to this question, and he thought the right hon. the President of the Board, ought to allow this subject to be made matter of inquiry, which was all his hon. Friend asked. He considered that it was a fit subject to be submitted to a Committee, and, therefore, he should support the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Ewartwas of opinion, that there was great force in the observations of his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, but still he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have granted the inquiry sought for. He thought that a tribunal less partially composed than that of the Agricultural Committee, of whom he wished to speak with every respect, should be selected for the discussion and determination upon a proposition like the present. It was his intention to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Worcester.
Mr. Humewished to know whether the opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Worcester came from his Majesty's Ministers or the agricultural interest? In the latter case, he should have expected that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Chandos) who had shown such a laudable zeal for that interest—zeal that was certainly consistent, and he thought, highly
1022
honourable to that noble Lord—he should have expected that he would have taken some part in this question. This question had heretofore been opposed by the agricultural interest, because it was thought that it would interfere with that interest— that it would be the means of introducing a portion of foreign wheat instead of wheat the growth of this country. Now, what were the advantages in opposition to that view of the question? It would give them the advantage of being the curriers of corn, it would afford employment to the English manufacturers, it would make the English the carriers of that corn out of the country, giving to them the profits of the trade, instead of their being now obliged to go to the Baltic and other places for supplies. He confessed, that he could see no difficulty in the way, if there were a real desire to carry such a measure into effect. He should recommend the hon. Member for Worcester to withdraw his motion, and allow the hon. Gentleman to introduce his Bill, in order that they might see what objections would be made to it. Though he had a decided opinion on the Corn-laws, yet still, he must say, he should never seek to get rid of them by any side wind. In looking to such a Bill as that suggested by the right hon. Member, the President of the Board of Trade, he would endeavour to protect the agriculturists as much as if he were a decided favourer of the Corn-laws; and if such a measure could be carried without injury to the agriculturists, why should it not be done? With that object the hon. Gentleman ought, he considered, to withdraw his motion, and allow the right hon. Gentleman to bring in his Bill as he proposed; and if the regulations suggested were not sufficient, then would he the proper time for the parties to look for a Committee. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman what it was he proposed to do, in order that they might see how far his measure might be desirable.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonthought, that he had fully explained his views of the subject to the House, but it appeared he had not rendered himself intelligible to his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex. He (Mr. Thomson) stated, that he saw no objection to the adoption of the principle; and this information he had given to the parties who had waited upon him, of allowing the holders of foreign wheat in bond to grind it in bond, and to export it. When he made this proposition he was told by the parties that the adoption of that prin-

1023
ciple would be of no use to them; and he must say, therefore, that he could not undertake to bring in a Bill on the subject after such a declaration had been made. He would have introduced the Bill then, and he did not positively say that he would not do so now, but he could not consider that he should be justified in supporting the motion then before the House.
Mr. Youngasked, could baked biscuits be also bonded?
Mr. Poulett Thomsonreplied, that his answer to that question was, that the whole of the produce should be re-exported.
Lord Sandoninquired, if the right hon. Gentleman required that the whole of the offal should be re-exported?
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, his principle was that the whole of the produce should be re-exported.
Mr. Youngasked if he would allow it only in the shape of biscuits?
Mr. Aaron Chapmanconsidered that the proposition would afford great relief to the shipping interest, and not affect the agricultural interest injuriously. He should, therefore, support the motion.
The Marquess of Chandosobserved, that the Agricultural Committee had full power for entering into this question. He did not think that the best mode for determining it could be by the report of a separate committee.
Viscount Sandonconsidered this a most favourable moment for acting upon the proposition of the hon. Member for Worcester, seeing the difference of prices which now existed between the produce of the United States and of Europe. Our colonies had hitherto been principally supplied from America, but now the prices were so much lower in Europe than in America, that this was the time when the export of that produce could be made with effect.
Mr. Gisbornegenerally had the pleasure of voting with his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade; but he was sorry that he could not find the slightest excuse for doing so on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Worcester came forward and said if he could show the House that his proposition would not injure the agricultural interest, that then he would call upon them to alter the law as it now stood, and he asked for the Committee on that ground. The answer of his right hon. Friend was, that the hon. Member for Worccester did not want a Committee, that the Agricultural Committee was sitting, and he might go before them.
1024
The Agricultural Committee were to take this matter into their especial care, and point out some mode by which this could be effected, without interfering with their interests. Now he did not think this was quite fair, it was, as it appeared to him, to use a homely phrase, very much like adding insult to injury, to tell the hon. Member to take this case before an opposing interest, in order that they might devise the most effectual way in which this case might be met. He was willing to vote for the question on the ground stated by the hon. Member. He did not wish to interfere with the Corn-laws by a side wind; he had voted against any alterations of them on former occasions, and should do so again. The hon. Member wished to have a Committee free from agricultural jealousy, and he (Mr. Gisborne) would support him in that object with all his might. He could not see any ground for opposing the motion, except that which must be presumed to arise from the jealousy of the agriculturists, and if such jealousy did exist, the Agricultural Committee was the worst tribunal to which the matter could be referred. All that was asked was to grind foreign bonded wheat into flour, and to make biscuit in bond for exportation: and why might the parties not be permitted to try this experiment? why might they not be permitted to do this, until some other mode should be devised? In conclusion, he must say that he never heard a proposition objected to on weaker grounds, and, therefore, he should support the motion.
Mr. Warburtonwas decidedly in favour of this subject being referred to a Committee, and he could not conceive why the motion of the hon. Member for Worcester should not be granted.
Mr. Shaw Lefevreadmitted, that if the question could be considered by the Agricultural Committee it ought to be. He must be permitted to say, that he could not agree in opinion with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Ewart), that the agriculturists wished to protect themselves at the expense of the other interests of the country. Nothing would give him greater pleasure than that those interests should receive relief, as far as it fairly could be conceded to them. He could not pledge himself that the Agricultural Committee could make a special report on this subject, but he could assure them that they gave the subject submitted to them the most impartial consideration; and when their Report should be laid before the House, he

1025
was satisfied that hon. Members would be far from supposing that they had been actuated in any degree by agricultural jealousy.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that when his right hon. Friend considered the proposition as impracticable, he very properly opposed a mode of proceeding that might interfere with settled interests, and could only tend to encourage speculations injurious to trade. The right hon. Member, in conclusion, bore testimony to the fairness and impartiality with which the Agricultural Committee had acquitted themselves of their duties.
Mr. Anderson Pelhamhad no objection to the motion, so far as the appointment of a Committee, because he thought the subject well worthy of being considered by the House.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that ever since he had had the honour of representing the Tower Hamlets a very strong feeling had existed amongst a great portion of his constituents on this question. A great number of persons belonging to the shipping interest, or trades connected therewith, had repeatedly and loudly complained of the present state of the law as it affected them; and in the justice of those complaints he must say, that he very strongly concurred, and thought that some remedy should be adopted. At the same time he admitted that considerable difficulty might be found in remedying the evils complained of, particularly as a difference of opinion seemed to exist as to the extent of the evil itself, and the nature of the objects which should be held in view. For his own part he thought it was not material whether the corn were manufactured for the foreign market only, or whether it were also applied to the use of our own shipping; he did not think it would be a sufficient relief to allow a drawback upon corn manufactured into biscuits for foreign use; the same principle, if applied to all, ought to be applied equally to biscuits manufactured for our own shipping. It was notorious that, by the present state of the law our ships were often induced to go to Hamburgh and other foreign ports for their biscuits, instead of taking them from the home market. Upon these considerations, he should certainly support the motion of the hon. Member.
Mr. Robinsonin reply stated, that for the sake of arriving at a perfectly fair and satisfactory conclusion, he was desirous that if his motion were acceded to, the Committee should consist one half of Members con-
1026
nected with agriculture, and half of those more immediately interested in mercantile pursuits; and that the President or Vice-president of the Board of Trade should be one of the number.
The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 40; Noes 77:—Majority 37.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pinney, W.

Baines, E.

Pryme, G.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Read, Sir J. R.

Bewes, T.

Sandon, Ld. Viscount

Bolling, W.

Scholefield, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Smith, B.

Brodie, W. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Brotherton, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Chapman, A.

Stewart, W. V.

Codrington, Admiral

Talfourd, Mr. Sergeant

Elphinstone, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Colonel

Gisborne, T.

Thornely, T.

Hastie, A.

Tulk, C. A.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, C. P.

Horsman, E.

Wakley, T.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Lennard, T. B.

Wood, Mr. Alderman

Lushington, Dr.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, D.

Robinson, G.

Parker, J.

Young, G. F.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Knightley, Sir C

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Labouchere, H.

Baillie, H. D.

Lefevre, C. S.

Baring, T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Barnard, E. G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Barry, G. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bernal, R.

Lushington, C.

Blackburne, J. I.

Lygon, hon. Col.

Bonham, R. F.

M'Leod, R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Martin, J.

Chandos, Marquess of

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Clive, hon. R. H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Peel, Sir R.

Dalbiac Sir C.

Peel, W. Y.

Darlington, Earl of

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Donkin, Sir R.

Plumtre, J. P.

Eaton, R. J.

Powell, Colonel

Fector, J. M.

Pringle, A.

Fergusson, R. C.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Fleming, J.

Rickford, W.

Forester, hon. G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Gordon, hon. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Goulburn,

Sergeant Scott, Sir E. D.

Graham, Sir J.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Hector, C. J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Henniker, Lord

Stanley, Lord

Herbert, hon. S.

Stormont, Lord Vis.

Hogg, J. W.

Surrey, Earl of

Howick, Lord

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Hoy, J. B.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Townley, R. G.

1027

Trelawny, Sir W.

Wilkins, W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Williams, R.

Twiss, H.

Wodehouse, E.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Wood, C.

Vere, Sir C. B.

TELLERS.

Vivian, J. E.

Baring, F.

Ward, H. G.

Stanley, E. J.

MUTINY BILL—MILITARY FLOGGING.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonbrought up the Report of the Committee on the Mutiny Bill. On the Question that it be agreed to—
Mr. Lennardsaid, Sir, I rise to bring forward a motion, in a more modified form than that which was rejected last night. I am happy, however, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Fancourt) did bring forward his resolution in the form in which he presented it to the House, because he thereby gave hon. Members who think as I do, that the time is come when an alteration should take place in the mode of punishing soldiers in the army, an opportunity of expressing their sentiments, and of marking, by their vote, their adherence to the principle embodied in the resolution. But, as the House thought fit to refuse that motion, I am anxious to give hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the more modified motion which I shall now submit to the House, and the object of which is, to restrain the infliction of corporal punishment in time of peace upon soldiers employed in the United Kingdom. Sir, in making this Motion, I shall not travel over the ground which was so ably traversed in the debate of last night. The question is, whether in time of profound peace, when there is no pretence for saying that any injury will be done by the insubordination of soldiers in the field or in the presence of the enemy, whether you will so far violate outraged public feeling as to determine upon the continuance of this barbarous, inhuman system in the British army, or whether you will not deem this a proper occasion for endeavouring, by introducing a milder system of punishments, by a better system of recruiting, and by improving generally the condition of the British soldier—whether the time is not arrived when this experiment may be fairly tried? I own, Sir, I am one of those who do believe, that by adopting those measures which were recommended by my hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, you will succeed in forming an army, which, like the French army, you will be able to govern without the infliction of those horrid tortures to which British soldiers have
1028
been of late years so often subjected, and against which public feeling is now so strongly rising. I believe that, notwithstanding what was said by the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, and others, who opposed the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple. I do believe that the infliction of corporal punishment is the means of excluding from the British army many respectable and worthy men. We are told, indeed, that this cannot he the case, for a man who enters the army, determined to do his duty like an honest man, will know that he is in no danger of feeling the lash. Sir, I believe that the mere terror of this punishment is sufficient to exclude respectable young men from entering the army. I should like to bring this question to a practical test. I should like to ask any Gentleman in this House, holding his Majesty's commission in the army or navy, whether he would not immediately throw up his commission if there were a possibility of his being subjected to this punishment? And would not any respectable high-spirited young man have as keen a sense of the disgrace and ignominy attending the infliction of the punishment as any hon. Member in this House? I therefore say, that the class of men whom we ought most anxiously endeavour to allure into the ranks of the army, are entirely excluded from it by the existence of this degrading punishment, and their being thus exposed even to the hazard only of their being flogged. They will not subject themselves to association with men liable to this punishment. I am convinced that you can never expect any permanent improvement in the British army, until this punishment is entirely abolished. Sir, I do not believe that any half measures, such as those proposed by the Government, can be effectual. In truth, while you retain this punishment you deprive yourselves of the power of introducing into the army that class of men which would enable you to get rid of it. You first of all, by retaining this corporal punishment, get an inferior class of soldiers; and then you say, you must continue the punishment in order to govern them. You should abolish the punishment then by degrees, get rid of those atrocious characters who cannot be governed without the lash, and then I will venture to say, in a short time, you will have an army as well disciplined as any in Europe. Sir, the noble Lord (Lord Howick) contended that solitary confinement was not a sufficient substitute for military flogging; that it had failed in

1029
America; and he referred to some returns in order to support his argument. Now, Sir, the noble Lord is mistaken upon this point. Solitary confinement has not failed in America: if he had looked further, he would have seen that the Americans afterwards added hard labour, and that since, it has succeeded entirely; and how it can be argued that a punishment which succeeds in reference to civilians should not succeed as a punishment for soldiers I cannot understand. The noble Lord, indeed, quoted some returns to prove that solitary confinement has not succeeded in the army. But though, as far as they went, they might seem to prove that, yet, I do maintain that solitary confinement has not had a fair trial in the British army. Then with regard to a better system of rewards, every proposition, with that object in view, has hitherto been met with ridicule. We are told, indeed, by the noble Lord, that it is impossible such a motive as the hope of reward can influence the soldier. Sir, I believe that if you give a greater chance of promotion to the soldiers than they at present have, you will at once raise them in the scale of society—that you will inspire them with hopes which will induce them to perform their duty—that you will inspire them with feelings of ambition and honourable emulation, which are the most effective that can possibly influence the human mind. Sir, I do not deny that the present system has succeeded in giving us a well-disciplined and brave body of men. We were told last night, indeed, by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Member for Launceston (Sir Henry Hardinge), that he had led a body of men in the Peninsula who had been very frequently flogged; who were exceedingly immoral, but were very brave. I must confess, however, that from the description given of them by him, they were not the sort of men whom I should like to have introduced with arms in their hands into this country. And though, perhaps, the present system may give abettor set of men in the field, yet I believe a milder system would produce men better fitted for home; and that it would be very desirable to prevent the recurrence of these offensive accounts of torture which we too often hear is inflicted in this country. Sir, I cannot help observing, that in my opinion, an undue degree of weight has been attached on this subject to the testimonies or military men. We all recollect (and none can better recollect it than you, Sir,)—we all remember that the judges of the land
1030
were the most bitter opposers of any improvement in the law. And I could read extracts from speeches made by those learned personages, on the subject of the improvements suggested by Sir Samuel Romilly, giving a picture of political corruption perfectly astonishing. And I maintain that such is the case on the present occasion. I assert, that persons intrusted with power under an existing system, are never able to divest themselves of the prejudices attaching to power; and I contend that, as with the judges in reference to improvements in the law, so is it with the officers of the army, in regard to military discipline. If it were not so upon the general principle, which I have just mentioned, I maintain, that the opinions given by officers in the army upon this subject, were drawn from their experience of the army in its present state, and as that is a state which I hope, at least, will speedily be changed, they are not entitled to that weight which might otherwise attach to them. Upon the subject of substitution for corporal punishment, I should feel inclined to read to the House an extract from the Report of the Military Commission, which is conclusive, I think, upon the point. It is the language of an officer for whom we must all entertain the greatest respect; but the passage has already been quoted and must be familiar to hon. Members. Sir, I say, that an army composed of men who can only be kept under discipline by the lash, though that it is always necessary I deny, is a most dangerous body for a free country. The punishment of the lash is retained in the British troops in India. There have arrived accounts in this country, of a body of English soldiers having announced to their officers, that they would not allow the punishment to be inflicted on the English soldiery, while it is not allowed to be inflicted on the Native troops. I ask the House whether there is no danger when public opinion is so strong upon this subject in this country, lest the soldiers should one day come to a resolution that they will not any longer submit to this punishment? Now, Sir, what is the danger, about which so much has been said, to be apprehended from abolishing corporal punishment? We are told, that in every regiment there are a certain number of bad characters, only to be governed by it, on whose account alone, it is necessary therefore to maintain the power of inflicting the lash. I say this on account of danger, which in time of peace,

1031
the House can easily grapple with, by having a penal company to which bad characters, if refractory, can be sent, and by adopting a system of recruiting, which will prevent the influx of such characters into the army in future. In the debate which took place on the resolution of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple, I think hon. Members went too far for argument, in referring to the armies of the continent. We need only look at our own police force, to sec a body kept in a state of perfect discipline without anything like an approach to corporal punishment. And why not bring the army into the same situation, by putting it upon the same footing. It is upon these grounds, Sir, that I ventured, entertaining as I do, a very strong opinion upon the impolicy of retaining this punishment in the army, that I have attempted to give this question another trial, by submitting it to the House in a less objectionable form. I believe that several hon. Members who voted last night against the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple, would have voted for a more moderate proposal, and they will now have an opportunity of recording their opinions. The Government do not appear to be aware of the strong feeling which exists in the country on this question. If they were, I think they would not have disappointed their most sincere friends as they have, by the course they have taken. I am one of those who, three years ago, voted for the motion of my hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex: we were on that occasion only in a minority of ten, and I believe the motion would have been carried had he brought it forward again; but he desisted, partly on my own suggestion, on the understanding that Government would take up the subject—that they would not bring forward any half-measure, but apply themselves sincerely to the institution of a system of secondary punishment, with a view to the final abolition of corporal punishment. Sir, I beg to move, as a proviso to a clause of the Bill now before the House, "that no Court-martial held in the United Kingdom shall, except in time of war, be authorised to award the infliction of corporal punishment."
Viscount Howickcomplained, that this motion should have been brought forward as it had been in a very thin House, after the full discussion which the subject had received last night. The hon. Member said that a more modified motion than that
1032
made last night would have obtained more votes, but he well remembered that the hon. Member for Worcester, who differed with the hon. Member for Barnstaple as to the extent to which he pushed his motion, yet voted for it, because he considered it as an expression of the opinion of the House against the retention of corporal punishment in the time of peace. Under such circumstances, he thought it scarcely fair to expect the House to go into a second discussion of this subject, and that feeling was, he knew, entertained by many Gentlemen who agreed with the hon. Member in opinion, and who had left the House because they would not vote against their opinions, and because they did not think it fit now to rediscuss the subject. If the hon. Member chose to press it to a division he had no fear but that the majority would be much greater in proportion than last night.
Mr. O'Connell,before the House divided, begged leave respectfully to enter his protest against this practice of military flogging. It was a practice so odious in its very nature, that he observed that the hon. Gentlemen who spoke in support of it, invariably shrunk from calling it by its right name. They talked of the infliction of corporal punishment; but they did not choose to designate it by its proper appellation of—military flogging. Any infliction upon a man's person was corporal punishment; but this was peculiarly and distinctly the punishment of flogging. He thought it ought not to continue. There was every reason why it should cease, and there was no justification for its being longer preserved. From the portion of the debate which he heard last night, it struck him that all the hon. Members who spoke in support of the continuance of this practice, aimed solely at making out a case for its justification on occasions of extremity, such as that of a state of actual war with the army in the field, when the commander might be suffered to have recourse to such a punishment as a sort of concession. The military officers who were examined before the Committee, appeared to aim at establishing the same position. Why, that extreme case was admitted by many: it ought, perhaps, to be admitted by all. But though the allowance of such an exercise of his discretion might be permitted to the commander, surely that did not meet the spirit, though it might meet the terms of the resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Barnstaple. All the

1033
arguments in favour of this practice, grounded on its necessity in extreme cases, went merely to establish this—that on such occasions it might be tolerated. Why? For the reason that the punishment of death was reserved; because it was necessary for the good of the service. But what kind of logic was it by which it was inferred that because in extreme cases the punishment of flogging might be properly inflicted, it should therefore be resorted to on the commission of every offence? The discussion last night, then, turning on extreme cases, the ground upon which this practice was said to be generally necessary, he agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Lennard) that it was quite right to give hon. Members an opportunity of coming to another decision on the subject. It was a thin House to be sure, but the greater the shame for those who absented themselves. The question was not decided last night, nor could it be decided by any o e division of that House in opposition to a motion for the abolition of flogging. And for this reason, that when common sense, and feeling, and humanity, were on the side of those who were defeated, the people of England, after having obtained the political power which enabled them to do so, would not long suffer so unjust and degrading a punishment to continue. If the responsible Representatives of the people in that House were not to pass the Mutiny Bill until the punishment of flogging were done away with, they might, in his opinion, effectually put an end to it. It was, indeed, a cruel infliction—cutting off the human flesh by pieces! It was a violent punishment for any crime; for ordinary offences it was at once most painful and most unjust. In such corporal inflictions there was a great inequality in the degree of punishment, because a man of a weak constitution suffered ten times more than one who was robust, and that for the same offence. It was ascertained in medical science, that a small wound would, in some constitutions cause a locked-jaw, whilst the severest wounds would not produce the same effect in different constitutions. This practice, then, was not only brutally cruel and essentially and unnecessarily unjust, but it was more—it was degrading. The most celebrated commander of the present age conveyed his opinion of this practice by using a kind of conundrum, which was certainly not original. The French phrase was—"C'est le crime qui fait la honte, ce n'est pas I'echafaud." The noble Duke translated this by
1034
answering the question of the Commissioners whether this punishment tended to degrade the soldier, by saying, "the crime degrades him." He wondered that a man of such experience in military affairs could express such an opinion. Soldiers, when they got drunk, were degraded in the sense of the noble Duke by being flogged; but how many of our high-bred gentlemen got drunk without being degraded simply by the offence. The punishment of flogging was not only degrading but unnecessary. The punishment of whipping was applied to dogs with some effect, though he did not think the man a fortunate sportsman who was obliged to beat even his dogs. Ought that punishment, then, which was scarcely applicable to dogs, to be applied to men? It was very distressing to him to dwell on such a subject in presence of military officers; but he could not help saying a word or two in reference to the speech of the gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Hardinge). The House was told of the gallant 57th regiment, who died in their ranks with all their wounds before, whilst the gallant Officer forgot to tell the House that they were well flogged behind. [Sir Henry Hardinge had not forgotten to tell the House that the regiment was flogged.] But if the argument of the right hon. Baronet were good for anything it went to this—that the survivors of that regiment should all have been hanged. If the punishment of flogging was found so effective in the first instance, as much additional flogging as possible, or some more violent punishment, would, according to the right hon. Baronet's view, be of the greatest service to the regiment. The right hon. Baronet would administer the punishment of flogging just to the same purpose as the quacks praised Morison's pills, by saying, that there is no chance of their proving beneficial unless they be taken in large quantities. He never heard a speech more conclusive against his own views than that of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had thought proper to speak harshly of a gallant Friend of his with respect to this practice. It was true that he did him the justice of stating, that necessity compelled him to have recourse to this punishment; but he (Mr. O'Connell) thought that he should have waited for the presence of his gallant Friend (Colonel Evans) before he made such a statement with reference to his conduct. But after all the flogging which the right hon. Baronet deemed so essential

1035
to the preservation of discipline, the troops at St. Sebastian acted in a way after the storming which was unjustifiable. Let it not be supposed that he meant to disparage the character of the British soldier. He believed that in determined and continuous bravery he was unequalled. But would any man tell him that in order to keep alive that spirit it was absolutely necessary that the British soldier should be flogged like a dog, and that our heroes should have their heads surrounded with laurels at the same time that their flesh was torn off their bones? He did not desire to be understood as pressing the Ministry to make a sudden and immediate alteration. But it could not be pretended that a case of absolute necessity for the continuance of this practice was established when the House recollected that the battles of Marengo, Friedland, Jena, and Austerlitz, were gained by men never subjected to the lash; and if this was the case, was there anything so degraded in the nature of the British soldier, as that he should not be placed on the same footing? The only just reason which those who opposed the abolition of the present system could allege against an effective substitute for it was, that the experiment would cost some trouble. He had heard the French army disparaged. He was not there to praise it. It had been asserted, that commissions were not now given to non-commissioned officers in the French service. He was not surprised at that. Indeed he was not surprised at anything that happened under the Government of Louis Philippe. But the fact should not be lost sight of—the fact that at the time this system of exclusion was established, they heard of conspiracies amongst the non-commissioned officers, as well as conspiracies against the King. He spoke, however, in accordance with history, when he stated, that French soldiers were often victorious without being flogged. But the English soldier, it appeared, was of a different description from the French—he was in fact but a kind of substitute soldier. Why? Because he was liable to be flogged; and because no man of proper feeling would willingly enter the army as a soldier whilst this practice was continued. Take the instance of the police force of Ireland in order to prove that there was no necessity for keeping up this punishment in the army. There were in that country 7,000, and when they were not actuated by strong party spirit, they were well-conducted and disciplined. Again, take the London police, who were
1036
so much better treated and paid than the soldier. He for one was of opinion, that the pay of the soldiers ought to be raised. The country could afford to raise their pay, if so large a force was not kept up in the colonies. Why was that necessary? Because the colonies were made our enemies, instead of being our friends. Let them act towards the colonies as they ought, and they might safely allow them to defend themselves. Above all things, however, he would give the commissions to the men. These commissions were now kept as a kind of prize for the aristocracy. Much had been said of the men not being good company for the officers, supposing they were promoted. They might not be as refined and polished as their superior officers; but he could speak to the fact, from experience of their conduct in his own country, that there was not a class of men employed under the Government, who conducted themselves with more propriety, or were more meritorious in the discharge of their duties, than the non-commissioned officers of Ireland. The British people had insisted on taking the whip out of the hands of the slave-owner, at the cost of twenty millions. The common sense and good feeling of the same people would also insist on taking it out of the hands of military officers.
Mr. Barlow Hoysaid, he did not think that the discipline of the army could be maintained without the present system of flogging. In limiting the punishment, as it was proposed, to 200 lashes, he thought that a great part of the objections to the practice would be done away with. As to the exemption of our troops in India from the lash, he thought, if it were admitted, the system must be adopted at home, the very first relief from that part of our possessions; believing as he did that the motion if carried, would be destructive to the discipline of the army, he must oppose it.
Mr. William Cowpersaid, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin might have equally directed his eloquence against all substitutes for flogging, and depicted the degradation of the boulet, and the miseries of confinement and of death. His argument went against all severe punishment. One severe enough to outweigh the temptations to crime was necessary. Humanity might he shocked, but that humanity ought to be consistent, and object to war itself. How was war with all its legalized atrocities justified?—by necessity; on that plea be

1037
justified this punishment. There was a small proportion of men in every regiment who must be governed by fear, since to their vitiated minds irregularity was more pleasing than good conduct. He thought liability to corporal punishment necessary, but deplored its exercise, and hoped that it might operate as the belief in a future world did upon mankind, that it might overcome temptation and deter from crime, not by actual infliction, but by dread of its terrors.
Mr. Pembertonsaid, it was impossible to disguise the fact, that the present debate was merely a revival of that of last night. It was hardly possible to suppose that any system of military discipline could continue to be effective, if it were thus nightly interfered with, or the constitutional dependence of the army upon the Crown upheld, if the soldiers were night after night, and Session after Session, taught to look up to the House of Commons as the arbiters of their fate. It had not been and could not be denied that the present system of military discipline had produced an army as efficient for all purposes as ever entered the field. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had upon the present occasion, according to his usual practice, spoken eloquently, but without much regard to matters of fact. The hon. and learned Member complained of the inhumanity of the punishment adopted in the army. Now, the humanity or inhumanity of that punishment must, like every other species of punishment, depend on the necessity or the absence of necessity for its infliction. The infliction of any human suffering, whether it were solitary confinement, forced labour, or flogging, if necessary, was inhuman; but if by the infliction of it a greater degree of human suffering was prevented, by the infliction of any one of the punishments, he must deny that it was inhuman. The hon. and learned Member had inveighed against the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Hardinge) for having flogged a body of raw troops, but General Evans, who had found himself obliged to act in the same manner, under the same circumstances, had wholly escaped his censure. The conclusion to which the hon. and learned Member arrived, from the statement made by the right hon. and gallant Officer, was certainly very extraordinary. The hon. Member said, that the statement alluded to satisfied him of the inefficiency of corporal punishments; but the effect which it had produced upon his (Mr. Pemberton's) mind was diametri-
1038
cally opposite. The right hon. and gallant Officer's statement was this—that, after the battle of Talavera, the soldiers of the regiment in which he served were guilty of plunder, murder, and other excesses, and that, consequently, it was necessary to apply the punishment of flogging frequently and severely. What was the effect? That in the course of two years there was not a better conducted regiment in the service, and when subsequently they marched from a corner of Europe into the heart of France, their conduct in a hostile country was as orderly as if they had been proceeding from London to York, and they were received by the people not as conquerors but protectors. As to the alleged severity of the suffering arising from flogging, Colonel Evans himself stated, that soldiers were exposed to sufferings a thousand times more severe. But it was said that the punishment was attended with moral degradation. All punishments were connected with offences, and disgrace more or less attached to the commission of the offence; but there was nothing in the evidence given before the Commission to prove that corporal punishment produced a greater degree of moral degradation in the person subjected to it than any other kind of punishment. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, that flogging was a punishment that was not fit for a dog. It was easy to inflame the minds of the people by declarations of that nature; but was there anything more disgraceful in being flogged than in being chained like a wild beast, or placed on the tread-wheel with rogues, or sent to the galleys? There was nothing in corporal punishment disgraceful and degrading in the abstract, and apart from the nature of the offence. The pillory, which was considered an infamous punishment, was abolished upon the ground that it ceased to be so when the offences to which it was applied were not in themselves of an infamous description, and it Was found that the pillory was converted from a stage of infamy to a throne of triumph. It was said, that public opinion was opposed to corporal punishment, and he admitted that public opinion would in all cases ultimately prevail. If public opinion was opposed to a particular law it was evident that it would be necessary to repeal or modify it, because the public were the parties to carry it into execution, and if they refused to do so the law would become inoperative; but the case of military flogging was different, because it applied only to a particular class. When

1039
the soldiers and their officers themselves called for the abolition of the punishment, it might be impossible to retain it, but at present their opinion was the other way, for they were unanimous in stating, that it was the best mode of punishment which could be devised. It was impossible to read the evidence given before the Commission without coming to the conclusion, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick) spoke advisedly, when he said that "if flogging were abolished, it would be necessary to disband the army to-morrow." Reference had been made to the abolition of flogging in the native army of India by the late Governor-General who was present in the House; but that Act ought rather to operate as a warning than an example to be followed. In 1834, his Lordship having first conceived the idea of abolishing corporal punishment in the Indian army, directed a circular to be sent to the Presidencies desiring that the Boards of Officers should transmit to the Government their opinion as to the possibility and propriety of carrying that object into effect. His Lordship received Returns from each Board, and in some cases from the individual officers composing it, and the opinion of every one was opposed to his Lordship's proposition. On the 16th of February, 1835, his Lordship prepared a minute, which he laid before the Supreme Council. This minute contained a statement of a most remarkable character as to the difference in the number of punishments in the Bengal, Madras, and Bombay armies. His Lordship in the same document stated, that he had not data sufficient to enable him to form an opinion as to whether the difference in the number of punishments was attributable to the different constitution of the armies, or to any difference in the mode of enforcing discipline in them, and he recommended his successor, as the first act of his Government, to inform himself upon those important points. On the 24th of the same month, before any information could have been received upon these most essential points, his Lordship, then on the eve of quitting India, instead of, as he had previously recommended, leaving his successor to obtain information, and to come to a decision upon the subject, submitted to the Council a proposal for the absolute and unqualified abolition of corporal punishment in the Indian army. That the noble Lord was actuated by the best motives it was impossible to doubt; but was it—he would not say right, but wise, on the part of his Lordship, on the eve of quitting the Go-
1040
vernment of India, in the absence of all information, and against the opinion of all the military authorities in that country, to take this irretrievable step, and leave, if not the responsibility, at least the consequences of it to his successors? It was reported that the British soldiers had communicated to their officers, that as the native soldiers were exempted from corporal punishment, they would no longer submit to it. Supposing that this rumour was untrue, as he hoped it was, still the question remained—was the noble Lord justified in opposition to the opinion of every person consulted in taking a step, which once taken, could never be retraced? It, however, was unnecessary in discussing this question to refer to the armies of foreign countries, or to that of India, for unfortunately the British army afforded sufficient evidence of the evil which had resulted from relaxing the system of corporal punishments. In the year 1825 a clause was first introduced into the Mutiny Bill, by which the power of substituting imprisonment for corporal punishments was given to Courts-martial. It did not appear that, during the four or five years immediately following, this power was exercised to such an extent as to diminish the number of cases of corporal punishment. In the year 1829 an Act of Parliament was passed, by which the power of regimental Courts-martial to inflict corporal punishments was abridged; and in June, 1830, an order was issued from the Horse-Guards, by which the frequency of those punishments was materially diminished. He would next call the attention of the House to what had been the effect of these alterations. In 1825 the army consisted of 98,946 men; the number of Courts-martial in that year was 4,708, and the number of corporal punishments 1,737 In 1829, the army consisted of 103,740 men; the number of Courts-martial was 4,782, and the number of corporal punishments 1,748. It would be observed, that during those four or five years there was no diminution of corporal punishments, and no increase of offences. Now, take the subsequent five years and then let any man, with the result before him, deny if he could the truth of the noble Lord (Lord Howick's) position, that if corporal punishment were abolished, it would be necessary to disband the army immediately, because it would become the curse instead of being the protection of the country. In 1829, the number of Courts-martial was 4,782; in 1834, it was 10,363. In 1829, the num-

1041
ber of corporal punishments was 1,748; in 1834, it was 963. Thus there was a diminution in the number of corporal punishments; but how many other punishments were inflicted, and how were the offences increased? In 1829, the offences were in number 4,782; in 1834, they were 10,227. Recollect, that the power of inflicting corporal punishment was still retained; but take that away, and let offences increase only in the proportion they had done; and in ten years from the present time the British army would no longer be in existence. The effect of the alteration made in the mode of enforcing discipline in the army had been the infliction of 6,000 more punishments than took place under the old system. It should; not be forgotten, that, by the system which was substituted for corporal punishment, the innocent were, to some extent, punished for the misconduct of the guilty; for the duty of the well-conducted soldier was augmented in proportion to the number of his comrades who were imprisoned. He called upon the House not to adopt the mischievous and disorganising proposition before them. The hon. Gentlemen who supported it, ought, if they acted consistently with their own principles, to abolish the system of corporal punishments at once. He for one looked forward to the time when that object might be effected, but not by the means now proposed. Improve the condition of the army, improve the condition of the population from which the army is taken. Let hon. Members reverse the system on which they had lately acted, and instead of increasing the service and diminishing the pension, let them augment the pension and diminish the service. Establish honorary distinctions, and attach to them the substantial advantages of a pension and diminished service. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, that twenty millions of money had been given to take the lash from the back of the negro. Let the hon. and learned Member, and those with whom he was associated act upon the same liberal principle towards the British soldier; but whilst they continued to be more tender of their own pockets than of his back, he would laugh their affected humanity to scorn.
Lord William Bentinckfelt it necessary, after the allusion which had been made to him, to address a few words to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who had just sat down, seemed to think that he had
1042
been guilty of great indiscretion in abolishing corporal punishment in the native Indian army, and he stated that this had been done in opposition to the opinion of all the military officers consulted. Though the hon. and learned Member spoke as if he (Lord Bentinck) had acted in the matter upon his own individual authority, he must be aware that be was assisted by the Supreme Council. The hon. and learned Member must also know, that the power of altering the articles of war was vested in the Governor-General in Council, and if he would refer to the papers upon the table, he would find that the Council were unanimous in passing the order in question. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the circumstance of his having recommended his successor to visit the different armies in India for the purpose of assimilating their regulations with respect to discipline. It must not be supposed that he was ignorant of the nature of the discipline of the Indian armies. He had been Governor of Madras for some years, and was as well acquainted with the regulations of that army as with those of the army of Bengal. He had never been in Bombay, and was therefore less acquainted with the army of that Presidency than with the armies of Bengal and Madras; but he knew that one half of the Bombay army consisted of Bengal sepoys. Under these circumstances, he thought he was not chargeable with great indiscretion for having pursued the course which he had adopted. He should have felt ashamed of himself, if, after having been in India so long a time, and entertaining as he did a profound conviction that it was perfectly safe to abolish flogging in the native army, and having the concurrence of the Supreme Council to that measure, he had left it to be carried into effect by his successor, who was a perfect stranger to him. Every person acquainted with India must admit that the safety of that empire depended principally upon the native army. Those who had perused the evidence given before the Committee on the renewal of the East-India Company's Charter, could not fail to have observed, that the attachment of the native army to British interests, did not prevail to the same extent as formerly; but he believed that nothing could tend so much to attach the native troops to the British Government as the abolition of corporal punishments. Another hon. Member had said, in the course of the discussion, that he ought to have referred the question to the

1043
Commander-in-chief; but he saw no reason why 150,000 men should, without necessity, continue to be subjected to corporal punishment in order that 20,000 other men, who might properly be subjected to the punishment, should not be displeased. It might be necessary to subject the British troops in India to corporal punishment for some time to come. Those were the grounds on which he had proposed the abolition of corporal punishment in the native Indian army; and he thought that no censure could justly apply to him on that account. He had proposed to the Commander-in-chief a plan for eventually abolishing corporal punishments in the British army in India, and he hoped that the President of the Board of Control would take that proposition into consideration.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd,who spoke with great rapidity and indistinctness, which disabled us from collecting more than the general import of his observations, was understood to say, that deeply feeling with those who trusted that the period was not far distant when corporal punishment would be entirely abolished, he could not help congratulating them, and the public, on the tone of the discussions on the subject which had taken place these two nights. Some gratitude was due for the concessions which had been made, and for the ameliorations which had been promised, but the greatest ground for congratulation was yielded by the self-contradictions which the arguments of those who opposed the abolition of this punishment exhibited. Take only the last example, the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, who, in the conclusion of his address to the House, expressed his anticipation of the time arriving at which a cessation of crime in the army would put an end to the infliction of a punishment abhorrent to our nature; whilst, if the argument urged by him in the earlier part of his speech were worth anything, it would induce the House to believe that even the ameliorations that had already taken place, instead of being beneficial, had been productive of mischief and misery. If his argument was worth anything, his hon. and learned Friend must fondly look back to the good old times when men were subjected to the infliction of 800 or 900 lashes. So that while his argument obliged his hon. and learned Friend to go back to the harsh system of former days, his feeling and imagination—more true, more worthy, and more correct—carried him forward to that consummation desired by all good men—when corporal punishment
1044
should be discarded for ever. His hon. and learned Friend commenced his speech by saying, that the discipline of the army must be prejudicially affected by the discussions in that House. If the discussion of the subject had commenced in this House, he might agree in that expression of opinion; but his hon. and learned Friend knew very well that the House was but a faint, feeble, and tardy echo of that sympathy which prevailed throughout the country on this question; and so far from having a tendency to produce irregular habits and neglect of discipline on the part of the soldier, it would, in truth, give him a proper stimulus to good conduct, to find that that sentiment was not merely entertained by popular assemblies, where heat and passion prevailed, but in the deliberative assembly of the Commons of England, representing not the passions, but the feelings and opinions of the people of England—by whom he would have the satisfaction of knowing that his wrongs were carefully considered, and his case calmly regarded, and whose duty it was, to legislate for the welfare not only of the soldier, but of that state of which he formed apart. But he had some reason to complain of the noble Lord, who had objected to his hon. Friend, on account of the renewal of the debate this night. What could be more forcible than the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, when he said, that in a time of tranquillity, there was no necessity for the power to inflict corporal punishment;—that that power should be reserved to a time of war, and to cases of extreme emergency? But while hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side admitted the force of this argument, and thus, by their concession, established the exception, they sought, contrary to all logic, to found upon that exception a general rule. Nothing could be more illogical than to say, that because a case of emergency might arise,—which always made a law for itself,—therefore you-must make the emergency no exception at all; but must retain the power of inflicting corporal punishment in a time of peace and tranquillity, in order that you may be able to apply it at any moment when the emergency shall arise. His opponents were not entitled thus to beg the question, and assume that, because an emergency might arise to require the power of inflicting corporal punishment, therefore the power ought at all times to exist. Again, when those who opposed the Motion had been met by the suggestion, that

1045
a system of rewards might possibly present a better inducement to good conduct, and produce a happier result than flogging, they had replied, that the human mind was so constituted, that the desire of immediate gratification prevailed over any motive which a prospect of future advantage could offer. That argument, if fairly carried out, proved the case of the advocates of the abolition. Were they to say that men were incapable of being influenced by the feeling of hope, and yet were we to believe that they were always to be influenced by fear? He believed in those instances of drunkenness, where the lash had been applied, the dread of its infliction had been one of the least efficient powers to check the offence. The immediate indulgence which the mind sought in drunkenness presented an idea of pleasure, which was incompatible with the idea of distant pain. Corporal punishment, therefore, failed to check the offence; at all events, he could say, that as long as the mind was seeking some immediate gratification, it was not likely to be scared by frightful examples seen only at a distance. When a reference was made to the degradation which the lash inflicted on the soldier, how was that argument disposed of? It was said, on the one hand, that soldiers were composed of such base materials, that it was impossible to operate upon their feelings, except through the medium of corporal punishment; but, on the other, when that degradation was described as having the effect of destroying the zeal and gallant spirit which alone could ensure victory in the field, it was then said, that corporal punishment was no disgrace, and the stripes on the outward man did not reach the mind. To the soldier was actually attributed a power of abstraction, and a higher and more philosophical nature than any Gentleman who heard him ever possessed. When his hon. and learned Friend said, that one punishment was not more disgraceful than another, he would ask, what it was that made it worse than death to a gentleman, to submit to a blow? It was placing the soldier upon a higher and more philosophical pinnacle than a gentleman to say he could submit to the scourge, and yet proceed in his career of glory. His hon. and learned Friend had fallen upon an illustration, unfortunate for his argument, but fortunate for his opponents. His hon. and learned Friend quoted the case of the pillory as a proof that disgrace was consequent not so much on the punishment as on the crime. What
1046
was the occasion, however, of the abolition of the pillory in all cases except perjury, for which the public had no sympathy? It was, because that sentence was passed upon a gallant officer. Here, then, the principle which his hon. and learned Friend would apply to his argument was put in force against a distinguished officer; for the pillory was held to be so degrading a punishment, that as soon as it was to be inflicted upon a gentleman it was abolished. The Court of King's Bench sentenced Lord Cochrane to be put in the pillory; and it was then that his hon. Colleague, the present Member for Westminster, declared, that so far from thinking the punishment, under the circumstances, to be just, he would go and stand beside him. He could not forbear expressing a wish, that that hon. Member were but here in his own proper character, to revive those old sentiments upon this subject, which he was wont to utter at a time when they did not find so much sympathy within these walls as at present, and for which the nation owe him a debt of gratitude, which nothing ever could extinguish or repay. It was upon the passing of that sentence (which, however, was never executed) that the pillory was abolished. The argument of his hon. and learned Friend led them to this conclusion, that the dangers his hon. and learned Friend anticipated, from the abolition of flogging, would not arise. He rejoiced at the concession, which had already been made on the subject. He rejoiced to hear hon. Members, who, in former times, considered, that capital punishment was necessary for the protection of property from forgery, beginning to acknowledge that corporal punishment may be all but dispensed with in the maintenance of military discipline. He rejoiced in the reduction of the number of lashes; and it was rather as a concession of principle that he rejoiced at it, than for the relief it would give to the soldier. But there was another alleviator, named—Nature, which affixed a period to the power of the oppressor, in limiting the power of endurance; for in most cases, long before 200 lashes or 1,800 stripes had been inflicted, the power of human suffering had ceased. He was struck with the remark of an hon. and learned Gentleman, that war itself was a hard necessity; that it was cruel, bloody, and shocking, and, therefore, it seemed a sort of inconsistency in those who upheld war to oppose the infliction of corporal punishment, on the

1047
ground of its cruelty. Agreeing with him in that view, and looking forward to a period when arms, as a profession, should be no more. He looked for the alleviation of the evils of war, and its final extinction to those high impulses of honour and those great examples of virtue, which a wise and humane system of discipline could inspire and create. Warfare, in its mildest form, was ever characterized by frightful scenes of violence and cruelty, and he rejoiced in the amelioration of that system of punishment which tended to deaden the feelings of the soldier. He hoped, that at no distant period, the lingering prejudices of many on this subject would give way, and that a more humane system would be substituted for that which had hitherto prevailed.
Mr. Craven Berkeley,in answer to the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the soldier would be gratified by the discussion of the subject in that House, denied that the soldier, generally speaking, had any desire to see corporal punishment abolished in the army. He had been long in the service; and he spoke from experience and observation. He remembered when there were what were called company Courts- martial among the privates themselves, the invariable result of which was to inflict corporal punishment, much more severe than that inflicted by regimental Courts-martial; so severe, indeed, that the authorities at the Horse Guards were obliged to interfere to suppress the practice. He denied, therefore, that the soldiers were averse to the existence of corporal punishment; and he was convinced, that if the whole army could be marched individually to the Bar of that House, such would be found to be their opinion. The fact was, that the subject had been most fully and fairly discussed last night. But the hon. Member for Maldon had a cut and dried speech in his pocket, ad captandum vulgus, and therefore he brought the subject forward again. As to the supposition, that the abolition would give a better class of men, he had the honour to hold a commission in the Life Guards, and he knew that the privates, generally speaking, were yeomen's sons, a class of men uncontaminated by the corruption of large towns. He concurred in the opinion expressed yesterday evening by the noble Lord opposite, that if corporal punishment were abolished, they might disband the army.
Mr. Wakleyexpressed his astonishment at the absurd arguments, so contrary to all reason and propriety, which had been urged by the opponents of the motion. What had been the effect produced in the army by corporal punishments? That it had so degraded the soldier, that in order to maintain proper discipline, it became necessary to inflict no fewer than ten thousand such punishments in one year. Did not that show, that we had adopted a system of punishment which degraded the soldier? It was said, that the punishment had been mitigated; and that instead of 9,000, only 1,800 stripes would be inflicted at a time in future? But what had happened within the last twelvemonth? That, from the infliction of half that number—of fifty lashes—two deaths had occurred. He contended, that in both the cases to which he alluded death had been the result of the flogging. He had examined those cases; he had read the evidence taken before the Coroner's Jury; and it was his firm conviction, that if those men had not been flogged, they would now be alive. A capital punishment, therefore, had been inflicted; a punishment infinitely more than commensurate to the offence. Was it intended to punish insubordination by death—by slaughter? It was said, that a great deal of indifference existed in a portion of the public towards the subject. Where? Let the next election show. Let the Members who voted against the present motion boldly avow having done so on the hustings, and he was persuaded, that they would not find their way back to that House; and he should rejoice at it. He had seen many of the public since the vote of last night. They had all expressed their disgust at that vote. "Good God!" they exclaimed, "and this is a Reformed House of Commons! Why, in the worst times of the House there would have been a better division in support of such a motion." The evidence of the noble Lord who had just described the effect of corporal punishment on the native troops of India, appeared to him (Mr. Wakley) to be conclusive on the point. As to the logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had opposed the motion, nothing could be worse. That hon. and learned Gentleman contended, that the repeated discussion of the question must lead to discontent in the army, and to the practical abolition of corporal punishment; and yet he censured those who desired that abolition for agitating the sub-

1049
ject! Did the hon. and learned Gentleman suppose, that the hon. Member for Maldon was not sincere in his wish to abolish the punishment? He shared in that hon. Gentleman's opinions on the subject; and he insisted that the motion should not be withdrawn, but should be put to the vote.
Mr. Thomas Duncombesaid, that although he regretted the decision to which the House had come last night, he allowed that the subject had undergone a fair and ample discussion. What he now rose for, however, was to call the attention of the noble Secretary at War to one point. He understood, that by orders from the Horse Guards the maximum of corporal punishment to be henceforward inflicted was two hundred lashes by a general Court-martial, a hundred and fifty lashes by a district Court-martial, and a hundred lashes by a regimental Court-martial. Now, was the noble Lord aware, that the torture of the punishment did not entirely consist in the number of lashes; but that much of its severity depended on the time occupied in the infliction? He had been informed, that there were commanding officers who, since the last order reducing the amount of punishment, thought that some of the sentences of courts-martial—for instance, where fifty lashes had been inflicted, were too lenient; that they contrived to evade that leniency by occupying a longer time in the infliction of the punishment; and that there were instances of a commanding officer taking out his watch and ordering the lashes to be given at minute or half-minute time; so that a punishment which ought to have been over in five minutes, was made to last half an hour. He did not believe that there was a single Gentleman in the House, however strong his opinion might be, as to the necessity of retaining the power of inflicting corporal punishment, who would applaud the ingenuity of the plan which he had just described, and by which the punishment was rendered so much more severe; and who would not admit that such a practice ought to be discontinued. He called upon the noble Lord, therefore, if his Majesty's Ministers had arrived at the painful conclusion that the existence of corporal punishment was necessary to the discipline of the army, at least to take care that the new orders on that subject should be accompanied by a provision that the butcher-like operation
1050
should be performed in the shortest time possible.
Sir Ronald Fergusonhad heard, with deep regret and astonishment, the statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury. If it was really true that such an occurrence had taken place as that described by the hon. Gentleman, let him name the officer, or let him communicate his name to the Horse Guards, and he would express a hope that his Majesty would strike him out of the army list without a Court-martial.
Sir Henry Hardingecertainly thought that, after the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Finsbury, that hon. Gentleman would confer a benefit on the service and the country, and he would confer a benefit on the interests of humanity, if he would take the proper steps to denounce to the Commander-in-chief the officer, whoever he might be, who had been guilty of the conduct described. If the information which had been communicated to the hon. Member for Finsbury were correct, and if it could be proved that any officer had so misconducted himself, the indignation of the army and the country would justly fall upon that person, and the hon. Member would do an inestimable benefit to the military service, by letting it be seen who was the offending party. For himself, he (Sir H. Hardinge) could declare upon his honour, that he had never before heard of such a circumstance, and that he believed it to be almost impossible. He repeated, however, that if the information which the hon. Member for Finsbury had received was correct, that hon. Gentleman ought immediately to take the step which he (Sir H. Hardinge) had recommended, in order to remove so gross an imputation from commanding officers generally. He was sure that the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, would concur with him in his opinion.
Viscount Howickbelieved, from all he knew of the army, that the existence of such a case as that alluded to by the hon. Member for Finsbury was quite impossible. If the hon. Member did not speak from undoubted authority he was not justified in making the statement he had made. If he did, it was his duty to the country, to the House, and to the army, to proceed with the matter, and by bringing the individual under the notice of the Commander-in-chief, not alone obviate the evil for the present, but also prevent its recurrence for the future. With

1051
respect to the wish of the hon. Member, that the punishment should be inflicted in the shortest possible time, he (Lord Howick) could not agree with him in that view of the subject. He believed that it was more merciful to distribute the punishment over a comparatively long space of time than to give it all together. He believed that the reason why the discipline of the navy was maintained equally well with the army, but at a less amount of suffering, was, that when a man was flogged, the strokes did not succeed each other with such rapidity as when the punishment of flogging was administered in the army. In consequence of this arrangement it was expected that a man should be at his duty the next morning after he had been punished on board ship; whereas, in the army, no such expectations were ever entertained.
Mr. Thomas Duncombestated, that at that moment he would not name either the party, or the authority on which he had made that statement; but with respect to the latter, he would declare, that it was an authority on which he fully relied. Would the hon. and gallant Member opposite, or would the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, say, that a commanding officer had not a discretion in his hands as to the manner in which a corporal punishment should be inflicted? He was glad to hear the opinions which had been expressed on this subject, and he felt it his duty to call on the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, to take care that there should be added to the new orders about to be issued from the Horse Guards, a direction that no discretion should be left in the hands of a commanding officer with respect to the time to which a given amount of corporal punishment might be protracted.
Viscount Howickdistinctly denied that such a discretion existed; for no commanding officer was authorized to inflict punishment in an unusual manner. There was only one case in his recollection in which this rule had been violated. The occurrence took place in Ireland, and the officer in question had ordered the cats, before they were used, to be steeped in brine. And what was the result? The officer was brought to a Court-martial, and dismissed from his Majesty's service. If, then, an officer would take upon himself, so far to depart from established usage as to increase the time occupied in the infliction of the punishment, in order to in-
1052
crease its severity, he would, he knew, be brought to a Court-martial by Lord Hill instantly, and that if it were proved, that he had committed such an act, the result would inevitably be, that he would be dismissed from his Majesty's service.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson: although he did not complain of the manner in which the hon. Member for Finsbury had discharged what he conceived to be his duty on the present occasion, he yet felt that it was impossible to leave the question in its present condition. Undoubtedly, before the hon. Gentleman had ventured to make his statement, he ought to have been prepared with proof of an assertion which implicated the character of some particular officer, and of the army itself. The hon. Gentleman ought to have been certain that the alleged fact was indisputable; he ought to have been certain that his authority was one on which he could implicitly rely, or he should have abstained from saying a word on the subject. Having brought that subject forward, however, the hon. Gentleman was now bound by every honourable consideration, to disclose in the proper quarter the name of the offending party, in order that the offence might be visited with due punishment; and that no stain should be left on the great body of commanding officers, or on the army. He trusted, therefore, either that the hon. Gentleman would give the necessary information, or, if he satisfied himself that the imputation was not well founded, that he would declare so in his place in that House.
Sir Charles Dalbiac,in reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), begged to state that no commanding officer had the power of protracting punishments inflicted by order of Courts-martial except at the peril of his commission. He (Sir C. Dalbiac) was prepared to go farther than the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Fergusson) opposite, and to say that a stigma would remain upon every officer in command of a regiment until the charge made by the hon. Member for Finsbury were substantiated or refuted. Under these circumstances he would leave it to the honour and justice of that hon. Gentleman whether, on reflection, he would not think it right to disclose the name of the officer to whose conduct he referred.
The House divided on the Question that the Clause be brought up:—Ayes 62; Noes 135:—Majority 73.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mathew, Captain

Attwood, T.

Morrison, J.

Baines, E.

North, Frederick

Barnard, E. G.

O'Brien, Cornelius

Beauclerk, Major

O'Connell, Daniel

Bish, Thomas

O'Connell, John

Blackburne, John

O'Connell, Maurice

Bowes, John

Parker, John

Bowring, Dr.

Parrott, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Pattison, James

Brotherton, J.

Pease, J.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Plumptre, John P.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Poulter, J. S.

Curteis, Edward B.

Pryme, George

Duncombe, T. S.

Ramsbottom, John

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Hobinson, G.

Elphinstone, H.

Rundle, John

Etwall, Ralph

Scholefield, Joshua

Ewart, W.

Smith, Benjamin

Fancourt, C. St. John

Strickland, Sir G.

Hastie, A.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Hawes, Benjamin

Thompson, Col. T. P.

Hector, C. J.

Thornely, T.

Hodges, T.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Horsman, E.

Trevor, hon. Arthur

Hoy, James Barlow

Tulk, C. A.

Hughes, Hughes

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

Ward, H. G.

Hutt, W.

Williams, W.

Jervis, John

Lushington, Dr. S.

TELLERS.

Lushington, Charles

Lennard, T. B.

Marjoribanks, S.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Richard

Dalmeny, Lord

Angerstein, John

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Anson, G.

Dunlop, J.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Eastnor, Viscount

Archdall, M.

Elley, Sir J.

Baillie, Col. H.

Fazakerley, N.

Baldwin, Dr.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Baring, F. T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Baring, F.

Ferguson, G.

Bell, Matthew

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Finch, George

Berkeley, hon. F.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Blackburne, J. I.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Bonham, F. R.

Forster, Charles S.

Bradshaw, J.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Brudenell, Lord

Gisborne, T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Gladstone, Thomas

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Gordon, Robert

Byng, G. S.

Gordon, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Chaplin, Thomas

Goulburn, Sergeant

Clerk, Sir G.

Graham, Sir J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Greisley, Sir R.

Coote, Sir C. C.

Grey, Sir G.

Copeland, W. T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Corry, hon. H. T. L.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Cripps, Joseph

Hay, Sir J.

Crompton, Samuel

Hay, Sir A. L.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Henniker, Lord

1054

Herbert, hon. Sidney

Poyntz, Wm. Stephen

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Hill, Lord Arthur

Rickford, W.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hope, hon. James

Ross, Charles

Hotham, Lord

Rushbrooke, R.

Howard, R.

Sanderson, R.

Howick, Lord

Sandon, Lord

Jermyn, Earl of

Scott, Sir E. D.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sharps, General

Johnstone, Sir J.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Jones, Theobald

Sibthorp, Colonel

Kerrison, Sir Edward

Smith, hon. R.

Knightley, Sir C.

Smith, Robert V.

Lawson, Andrew

Somerset, Lord E.

Lefevre, Charles S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Stanley, Lord

Lennox, Lord A.

Steuart, R.

Lincoln, Earl of

Stormont, Lord

Long, Walter

Stuart, V.

Maclean, Donald

Surrey, Lord

Macleod, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Mahon, Lord

Thomas, Colonel

Manners, Lord C.

Thomson, C. P.

Martin, J.

Thompson, Paul B.

Maule, hon. F.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Nicholl, J.

Twiss, H.

Norreys, Lord

Vere, Sir C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Vesey, hon. T.

Packe, C. W.

Wilkins, W.

Parnell, Sir H.

Williams, Robert

Peel, Sir R.

Wilson, Henry

Peel, right hon. W.Y.

Wodehouse, E.

Pelham, hon. C.

Wood, C.

Pemberton, Thomas

Pigott, Robert

TELLERS.

Pinney, W.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Powell, Colonel

Stanley, E. J.

The Report was received.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By H. R. H. the Duke of CUMBERLAND, from the Corporation of Dublin, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Bury St. Edmund's, against the Punishment of Death for any Crime but Murder.—By the Earl of BEAUCHAMP, from the Magistrates of Worcester, against the Prisoner's Counsel Bill.—By the Duke of LEINSTER, from the Inhabitants of Dublin, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from the Solicitors of Nottingham, for an Alteration of the Ecclesiastical Courts' Consolidation Bill.—By Viscount DUNCANNON, from Coventry, that no Alteration be made in the Municipal Corporations' Act Amendment Bill.—By the Earl of HARROWBY, from Debtors in Liverpool Gaol, for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.

WAR IN SPAIN.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he had several petitions to present relative to the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, but before he laid them on the table, he wished to put a question to the noble Viscount opposite. He conceived that the state of the war in Spain had now assumed an entirely new character, and therefore he begged leave to ask whether a letter which had, appeared in the newspapers signed by Lord John Hay, and dated from Santander, March 24, was written in consequence of instructions given by his Majesty's Government, and if so, whether there was any objection to laying the letter and instructions before their Lordships.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he believed the letter was in the possession of the Admiralty, and he had no objection to its being laid before the House.
The Earl of Mintosaid, the letter alluded to by the noble Marquess was not an official letter. Instructions had certainly

1013
been sent out, and he believed that no objection would be made to their production.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, as it appeared that there was no objection to the production of those instructions, he should move for them to-morrow. He wished next to learn whether any answer had been received to Lord Palmerston's letter of the 10th of March, addressed to the Spanish Government, with respect to the liberation of twenty-seven unfortunate Carlist prisoners, to whose melancholy situation he had heretofore referred? He understood that the Spanish Government had sent them to Porto Rico, and he should be glad to know whether the noble Viscount had received any information respecting those unfortunate men.
Viscount Melbourneanswered, that despatches relative to this subject had been received, and would shortly be laid before the House.

MUNICIPAL REFORM (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that in presenting to their Lordships the petition which he held in his hand, he felt it necessary to trouble the House with a very few words. The petitioners had, he conceived, strong claims on their Lordships' sense of justice; and, in his opinion, their representations deserved some consideration from his Majesty's Ministers. The petition came from the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of Londonderry, and was against the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill. The privileges which the Citizens of Londonderry had long and deservedly enjoyed, the petitioners complained would be fatally affected by the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill. He regretted to say, that the mode and manner in which Bills relating to Ireland were got up, evinced a spirit, an animus, on the part of his Majesty's Government, to keep down and mortify that class of persons who were most anxious to uphold the Protestant religion in Ireland. This feeling was further manifested by the coldness with which the Government appeared to view the flagrant outrage lately committed in Dublin, where the statue of King William was destroyed. When he saw this species of feeling pervading all the acts of the Government, he could not avoid examining their proceedings with a jealous and scrutinizing eye.
Viscount Melbournebegged leave to deny that any such feeling as that described by the noble Marquess existed in the minds of
1014
his Majesty's Government. There was not the smallest foundation for any such assertion. With respect to the circumstance particularly alluded to by the noble Marquess, he should only say, that the Government of Ireland had taken the most strong and effectual measures in their power to discover the authors of the outrage. As to the Irish Corporations Bill, when it came regularly before their Lordships, he should be ready to defend it against the noble Marquess, the most strenuous defender of the Corporation of Londonderry, and, he supposed, of all the rest of the Irish Corporations.
The Marquess of Londonderry,in answer to what had fallen from the noble Viscount would ask, whether his Majesty's Government had offered any great reward for bringing to justice the perpetrators of the disgraceful outrage to which he had alluded? [Viscount Melbourne: Yes.] He knew that a reward of 100 l. was offered; but he would ask whether that was a sufficient reward, in a case where such great villainy had been perpetrated? It appeared to him as if the Government of Ireland, so far from acting promptly on the occasion, were only anxious to take the least possible notice of the outrage. As to the course which he should pursue when the Irish Corporations Bill came before their Lordships, it would be a very plain and straightforward one. He trusted that the Bill which was calculated to inflict irreparable injury on Ireland, throwing the whole power of the Government into the hands of the Catholic priests, and their political agitators, would never reach a second reading; but he, for one, would certainly oppose it in every stage.
Petition laid on the table.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the above Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that from the character of the objections which were urged against this measure, it would be much better considered in a Committee above stairs than it could possibly be in a Committee of the whole House. He should, therefore, move "that the Bill be referred to a Committee above stairs." As the Municipal Corporation Bill had become part of the law of the land, that measure ought to be rendered as complete as possible, but in taking steps for that purpose they ought studiously to avoid

1015
anything like oppression in dealing with the rights of individuals.
Viscount Melbournewould not object to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord.
Motion agreed to, and a Select Committee appointed.