Star. — London, England, 1824-03-16 00:00:00

...- ~. • ..-~.'~awr'. _ I`x!'l'., p..MOORE preiriteditTetatioalrom 7,000 inhabitanta of Gera sad Little Bolton, for the-se/Seal of the Combination Laws. Petitions.were presented, by Mr. JAMES, fro'M the Boot sr I 40 0 emalters of Cailisle.;:by the Nish} Hon:.Mtntberfrothithe rye and• Shoe-molrers; df:*Whitettasen ;wlaq' Mr.. kiesainust-, :frotn .ieui ney men Printers of the City of London; laf - Mr. -Alder ,- Woons from the , Boot!iind. Bhoe.bvtli;:rg of , Ashunr.uncler -1;„.; by -Mr.' -.Hrelk-froth-OV -Buor.lind• &lusennstiters or Ply, f vuth and .De.agerort::-.stie*-IVtitions:werrneverallfeeferred to tat Artisans' Coroptittit. The Crornnatter on the. Judges fif Walis;Bill .IYR3 postponed to onday nett. '?jr. DAVENPORT-presented a Petition from•the Inhabitants r 1 Congleton, praying for an *lteration of the Poor Laws.—Or drred to be penned. Mr. DAVENPOAT•presented a Petition from the Innkeepers I.ioensed Vternageri of Nantwicti,- praying. fer a repeal of the aiditional duties On kxcite Licenses. Similar Petitiona were.presented b Mr; WiIITDRILAD ; from ter tin Licensed VieroallerS of the -county of A•litidlestr; another bY'• Captain BASTARD; another by Sir CY. Isnit.sr, from the Licensed' Victuallers of Exeter.'—These Petitions were ordered to be printed. A new:Writ was ondered.for Qoeenboroneli, ifs the room of the Eigat Hon, I. C. ViUiert, now Karl of Clarendon. Lord. STANLEY presented a Petition from the Wool flatters of Narchester, against the exportation of -British Wool. Three similar Petitions were • presented by an ilon. Member, from the. county of Suffolk. Siaallar Potitioos %erre presented by Nl'. W. HOWARD; by 'Lord s,a:s•..r, from the Inhabitants of Rochdale; by :%Ir. Lamieros, from the. Worsted Manufacturers of the tow" of Darlington. Sit J. SERCAD HT presented' a Petition from the Inhabitants of Itoyst , ;n, prayirg -for a repeal' of the Duties on Coals carried caistwise...-Ordered to be printed. :\dr. L. KECK presented a Petition from Thomas Thotupson, praying.for a :repeal of the cloaca is; Probates' of Wills.—Ordered to he printed. 'Air. A: CAMPBELL presented a Petition from certain Mer chants, dealers in rum, praying for *reduction of the duty oil that aticle.-t-Ordered to . be primed. The same lion. Member presented a Petition from certain Linen 3laiiefactnrers against the repeal' of the Bounties on lanen. Petitions were- presented by Mr. LINDSAY-from el . .- Magistrates and Inhabitants of Dundee ; of di: [loyal Burgh of cTar ; of the County of -Forfar ;. uf St. Andrew',; and of Perth shre.—They were severally ordered to be printed. Mr. HOLIIIOUSE presented a Petition from the Inhabitants or lircrerton, in favour of the Bill to Prevent Cruelty to Animals. 31: - . lilt 1G HT rre.sented a Petition from the Importers a, To. 1:::zo of the Port of Bristol, praying for a reduCtion of the duty og n:t The same Hon. Member presented a Petition from the Inha l.:.ant- of Bristo:, in favour of the Insolvent -Debtors' het. rt tithing were ordered to be printed. • • tlr. LAW LEY asked the President of the Board of Trade whe-- th-r his attention had been directed to the Hides and Skins Bill, t.t.-v before the I louse?—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUSK ISSON replied, that the Bill had beets intsoduced at piivaze Bill; that it was no such thing; that the promoters began a: ;he wrong endee t (Hew, bear)—as-it would be better to remove r..ther than to add to the rt.strictions ; and that he was of opinion such IJiil might not to be entertained by the House--(Hear, hear). Mr. W. SSIITII presented a Petttion,sivied by tinny thousand. parsons in tint near Norwich, against Negro Slavery iu the West Indies. Those vrhogot tspAheat Petitions were:ealled.mid-headed. fatuticsi . if . they were such, he . was, proud to say he was one of them. Mr. WA ISDN 'IA YLOIt spoke °Obese Petitions having been i-.10uenc , ..:1 by an itinerant orator. • Mr. G. BOIN Kr spoke in praise of suchindividual, and sal that thi! people ought-to be.aroUsed ou•such.subjects. •Dlr. W. TANI:OR had no objection:Co .shah proceeding. only he was azAinst that House and Ministers being overawed—(Hear), GosnoN, Air. Itlanxuso, and several other Members rose at the same ritut• ; but ' Mr. Stereary PEEL implored the Honourable Members to postpone their remarks, as within twenty-four hours his .Right".llo; nourahh: Friend (Mr. Canning) would fully bring_ forward the tub ject.-2.etition tzar!, and ordered to. be printed. On foe Motion of an Honourable Member, fteturn• was. or dered of the number : of pounds weight of ground Stuff and Rappee wi:hin one year. Mr. Al 2, It ().%113 Y presented • a .Petitinit from the Chamber of Conanierci.i and Dl.inufaelores of the City.of..Ellinburgh, praying or a repeal of the Assessed Taxes, and .that none of the public Liiiirey should be applied to the building of Churches. BRITISH SPIItITS. Mr. L7-3I E. presented a Petition from theßectifiers of I B , itish Spii its, in and neat Loodon,complainingofceit tin distillers being also rectifiets contrary to and the ditficolty in the pre,ent state of the monopoly of rttiO 4 spirits. . The Hon. Member said he:amnia the ..ime permiision to use small. stills should. be. =tended to England, which had last year been app4ied• to Scot Lind in.d Ireland. _ _ Mr. ELLICE hoped the Chancellor of the Exehequel would give his aucation.to. this. subject. ..The; price of rein without the duty, was oily. ls.6d. wheteas tI4 price of 13i itish spirit, without the duty,.was 4s. Sd. the gallon. The principles of - free trade, therefore.called upon them to allow the West India Merchants to COMr pete i.sitathe English spirit growers, that the 4onsumer might have his fair chance between them. :-Tur this purpose the English rectifier ought to,•have.the.privi lege of converting rum into gin. After a few words from Mr. W. 5516711,.. Mr. HUME, • and Sir It. FcaonssoN, the Petition••was -read and or dered to be printed. DEER ADD MALT EluriEs. Mr. M ABERLY sai' he had risen to-day .by the courtesy ef Minister- before other business was-entered ' into, to thaw the atterrion of the House to'the subject of appointing a Committee-tO inquire whether. the Malt Duties ought not to he equalised, in their operation on all classes of his Majesty's subjects. The poor. lie would observe were the persons who now paid the highest .;tity on malt. He only. wished these duties to be equalised. The ordinary duty. on malt was only 25.6 d. a bushel, and the private• brewer alone -paid this duty, "11115 t the consumer through the brewer paid Gs. 10id. 'this was a most flagrant injustice. It was his object to persuade the noose to abandon the present system i collecting this duty altogether. The private brewer only paid ss. 8d a barrel on strong beer. "'The libour cl4ss. bought their beer through the brewer at the rate of 15s. Sid. a barrel, owing to the additional duty levied on the public brewer. The total return of all malt used in England. and Wales was 27,388,360 bushels; of this amount 10,532,523, were used in pri; vale brewing; of the latter was used in strong beer ' 6 -m 1 . 6 . 212 ,744 bushels. It would hence a l iwar that 1(3 ,855,04X) bushels were used in public brewers' pre mises, whence the poorer -classes were supplied. There Were us:d about 560,000 bushels in vinegar works and other distillations. From all these returns the House •. - /ould see how unfair a portion of those duties was borne by the poor in the great mass of society. This ;night be taken at 1,974,8661. He would assert, that it the great paid at the rate of 10s. a barrel instead of !e present rate, a revenue would be treated of 1'2,052/. on small beer, and 1,9Q5,05/. on strong beer 94.) brewed, making 2,097,1071. total. Here, he would remark, there was only brewed of• intermediate beer C,EO2 barrels, and this inconsiderable quantity was only brewed by tifty,five individuals. it was for such a paltry object as this that the bt'ewers had been cum pelle,i to erect separate biewhouses, though they had ‘iitlicient spare room, and the whole principle of 1 -,i,latute had been violated. The total - amount of the sums collected as duties on malt was - 3;27 0 AL/. Sow it would appear that the rich were exonerated .Juries to the• amount of 2,100,0001. Before he down he hoped he. should be able to sonyince the 11:mse it was its duty to concur in his motion to appoint Committee on the subject; and he was sincerely L , ,tvus that the Right Honourable-Gentlemen opposite ••1•111.11.11.•.,,MM,FMR,•••••••M 9 7.7r1M"'!"'MpIMP would not oppose the mp4oni—partirutirly ,s . he could I prove, by calculation,4hatxhe,whole„yevehng might be Collected, to,the amount of six millions : ster,ling:pithout, any diferent.expense from that -incurred in colleCting the Malt Duty, only . provided.the - whole Beer Duty were transferred to mal;, ktistead of beiilg taken on lioth. This doldge mode of taxation cost us in the. collection 300,0001. additional. It would perhaps be argued that the mode. of estimating the expense of the collection was not correctly taken. 'This hal been - disproved on a, former occasion by , an Honourable Member (Mr. Hume), on an examination before a Committee. There was no tax.on 'beer in' Ireland.; the whole tax was put on malt.•- Now this was exactly what he wished to be adopted in England.' An s Adt - had been passed in the Ist and 2cl of this King's reign to prevent frauds in col lecting the Duties on Beer. This Act was a most harsh restriction—indeed so much so, ;hat the Scotch Brewers had appealed against it in a body, and •tlleged they could not carry on their business- in consequence of. thew. restrictions. The Bill proceeded on fahe,pre niise;, by interfering between the brewers arid their custorncts. The S:otcli Brewers had in.theitkremnn sttance begged of Government to adopt the very ex• pedieffc he new•su ,,,, b I:) ested. The Lords of the Treasury replied, the change could not be adopted except by en dangering this branch of revenue. Another extraordi nary thing in this Bill was, that the Lords of the Trea sury had themselves fixed the price of twn sorts of beer. Now-he would ask why was this done, if not done in the spirit trade, tea, stig.ir, or any other trade paying a duty? In fact the practice was as fit to be adopted ; with respect to printed cottons, woollen goods, and all; articles paying duty, as in the article of beer. Yet the brewers were tlius, restricted by a fresh law; and a short time had scarcely elapsed when both the price of malt and hops had risen so on them,' that they could wot sell at the price limited by the Treasury. The brewers brewed of course a beer which was mere trash, in order to save themselves,. for had thq brewed as befolv they must have sustained a loss of 12.5. 6d. on every 71. l2s. expended. What was roostj to be regretted w.is, chair the Public did no -get any; benefit by it, nor ,did any one in fact benefit by it.: No doubt fraud was prattised in the collection of the, 'duties on beer; nor could it be defeated as long as the. duties were collected separately.. For instance; it wasr notorious that the farmer often paid his men their wages. in beer, the du.y on which was entirely lost to , the re venue, or, .at least, the whole of the difference between, the dirty paid by the private and public brewer. It was. ' absurd to exempt the farmer's beer from tax, .With view to enable him to pay his labourers more Was thisijust ? Certainly not. By this* Would pledge: himself. there would be an equal amoupt. of revenue, if the two duties were raised all on malt, witch would put. the "sylple population on an equal footing. ' A pro-. ject, he had heard, was in contemplation to equalise all the duties on different sorts of' beer. " This would died requirestrong laws to enforce it. 'How could the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chaocellor 'of th s eTichequet) advocate just principles in some inst4nces and oppose them in'otheis ? After the reduction which took place in the House and WindoW Duties, the Commissioners of Taxes sent round a circular to the Collectors, directing A fresh survey. • It was however put a stop to in conse quence of 'the feeling that Was excited thaoughout the 'country. "The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the only Object of 'directing a new survey was to bring about such regulations as would have the effect•of making the duty pre.s equally on all classes. This was a fair and' just principle of taxation. Now, however, the Right, Hon: Gentleniartturned round ,upon his own principle and refused to act upon it. He (Mr. Maberly) proposed arlaitional duty on malt, thus Making the whole duty 45:6.1. It did not follow, if atommittee was ap 7 pointed; that . they would think the measure an advisable tine. All he desired was inquiry. When the question, of •the intermediate duties was agitated last Session, iF was said that the public, by .such a coui se, avouldbe ens abied to purchase a cheaper article than porter,• and • a better one than table beer'. Now his plats would put it in, the poweiof every person topUrchase beer at any degree of strength he might with: Another advantage arising -from this was that the brewers would 'have an oppor" which.they had not a/ present of exercising their skill. In consequence of the improvements-in chemistry, 11 it , avas piobable that more beer might be extracted from' a : siren quantity of. malt than at present. There were not, however, at present sufficient inducementita Make the experiment. .-A third advantage would be to equa lise the • duties to the poor and the rich. The present system was contrary to every principle of justice. • Mel did oot.think, therefore, that the House would refuse the appointment of a Committee. • _The: Hon. Member concluded - by - moving 'that alelecvCommittee be- ap pointed tci.inquire intothe present mode of taxing'•beer .and. .malt .separately; whether it was not expedient to impose :the. tax on. malt alone; and whether, according to the present mode of taxation, one class of his-41a jesty's subjects paid only 25.16 d. a' bushel on malt,-while , another' paid 65..1}! sd. aud.ss.,Bd. a barrel . on beer, while the other paid 15s. Bd. The C HA NC EL LOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he was not disposed to deny what was asserted by the Hon.' Gentleman, that the question had been imperfectly dis cussed last year. Ile could not flatter himself that the' arguments he employed.then were sufriiient to convince the Hon. Gentleman; but the reasons he stated appeared to the House sufficiently convincing to support his view of the subject. Nothing had since occurred to induce him to alter the opinion he then expressed. Though he did not think he could throw any new light on the -question, he •would however shortly state the reasons which bad led him to think that it would not be expe dient to‘ac,quiesce -in the motion. The Hon. Gentleman stated two grounds for his proposition. The first rip- , plied to their aaxiety•for economy, and the second to the anxiety they should naturally feel for acting on a just principle of taxation, bearing equally on all classes: The Hun. Gentleman contended that the. present plan, was productive of math greater expense in the collet-' thn of the revenue than ,would attend that proposed by hint ; and, in reference to the, justice of the case, he said it was unfair to relieve the rich at the expense of the poor. With respect to, the expense of collection, lie' must repeat what Ire stated last Session, that the expense of collecting the beer duty, though assigned to that ar i ticle alone n the Excise reruns, could not be easily as certained. The reason was this ; that the same indi vidual who collected the beer duty was employed to collect the duty on other -articles also; such - as-soap, candles, and, in tact, every article on which his services ct-old be conveniently employed. Thus therewas always. charged on the collection of, the malt.and :beer duties eel Lira other expenses which' had nothing to*slo with thwe tidies. The practice might be absurd. -fle would nut :argue that point. S.ich, however, was the case; anJ cousequeate vra,, t:rat it would be impossible ,- to state-with -anytjting approaching to accuracy. what -was the. expense incurred by the" collection of any of! those duties particularly. But thought there were no !leans of determining' the precise expense of collecting, each, he could netadmitehat the saving would amount the sum-of 29;5000/. The Hon. Gentlereati must consider that if the duty on malt were doubled, it conld not be collected at the same expense as when it was less by half. If the duty were increased by 25., the stimulus to evade it would be Of course doubled by the odera- Eton, and a greater• degree of.,•vigilance would be ne cessary for the Aeteetion ()Maud. How this additional degree of vigilance could be-exercised. without an in creased number of officers, he.was at a loss Co conceive, It was• therefore a perfect fallacy to Suppose that there could be anything like a saying of 295,000/. The Hon. Gentleman contended that his plan - W ou ld not have the effect of diminishing' th e revenue. and said it WAS , iioi his wish that any diminution should take place. The, beer duty last year produced "3,080,0001: and -the quan tity of malt consumed was 27 millions of blishels. This at a 2s. duty 'on the bushel produced, 2,700,050/. that lithe plan of the Hon. Gentleman had been a4upted last Session, 'the revenue would have been deteriorated: to the amount of 500,0001. The Hon. Gehtlernan might say that if - thereverrue fell off 'thekcould then lay an additional duty on malt. But the House must cons i d er that.by thus increasing the duty they would necessarily increase - the venaptations•rn evade the payment of it.— Anbtherargtirtient of the Him:Gentleman was the in equality of the present dirty. He could not pretend to say that, abstractedly speaking, it did not press un equally—(/Year; hear) front Mr. Moberly). Practi cally, however, he was quite confident tltat the effect did not bearso severely on certain classes as had been assumed. lie knew well, and indeed it must be cleat to every person who considered the subject, that they who brewed their. own• beer could 'not possibly have Else article at the's'itme extiense of materials as the Feat briwers.'. The' Hon. Gentleman assumed that all who •paid the -duty on beer Avere poor, and all who brewed their• own beer, rich. There could not be a. 'greater mistake. ' The fact was that the Nobility and •Genrry of the2countrx, when they resided in London, paid the beer dutir . as well as the poor ; for the beer con sumed-in their houses was that manufactured by those who supiSlied the ether elasses-of society. The middle classes who . redded• in country towns were not to be classed wit h the poor, and they also paid the duty. It was an uojust distinction, not at all Supported by facts,, to sal- that none consumed beer -of- -their own brewing lbat the rich. In the part of the country With ithich he was best aerrainted, and also in the county-of York, he knew there'were very poor • •pebple who brewed their- OWn beer. It•would be inflicting a most severe hard ship on the'class of prior people who brewed their own beer, and' drank it at home with their families, to im pose Thisadditional duty on malt. The effect would be to drive them from home—to send them to a,public , :house—(Hear, hear)—and introduce throughout • the country a practice which in a moral point of view must be highly injurious. 'the good therefore of the plan proposed was not quite so Unqualified as the Honourable Gentleman•seemedlo think.•-• The.Hotteurable Gentle man laughed at the idea that the present system of col lection had agtendenCy to secure to the consumer a good article, and to &event the use of improper ih4redients in the manufacture of beer. Let the cOnSinher; said he, be al lowed to judge fdrhimielf in this ts - iriother articles, and there is liule fear that he will allow himself to bg deceived. He (the Chancellor of the'Etehequer) was•rt disposed to attach more importance to this cirdietqance than belonged-to it, hut he 'did 'not:Make so ligl:tly of it as the' Honourable 'GentteMan. 'lf they could a/F(srd to remit a Ittic;•'And that this were' the only 'ar'ganient against it, he did .riciV Mean •to say: that it ought to be tsuffirient, but; iv ought -to have some-weight .wherr the , mere question. .was:•cas - to =the transference- of-4a :tax from one article to another. It was not so _very easy lorahe cohsualerlo !detect 'frauds in the uP•of ingre dients as thc: Honourable- Gentleman-seemed to think. He-recollected -tip: instances- of'tletection- et:c pt. those brought about by servants, or. byjbe vigilance of the &ease. • :The . Hvnibbitible Gentleman objected to the measure adopgd ialseiSessibn;--• indltitrositaced by him (the Chancellor of tho:Excheqber). He said the duties were levied.under most: inconvenient: restrictions:: He (the .Chancallorof the. Exchequer) 'lever- said that he expected much from that - measure. • It was proposed rather by way of. experiment. And he was not at all insensible to- the objections to which it was open. He therefore applied his Mind. to devise some means by which the restrictions complained of might be remedied, Ind he thought there were means by' which all or the greater part of the .inconvenience 'might be removed. He had nOW'inerejy repented the' same arguments he employed last Session : liEhadribthing new to. advance. Looking, however, at the subject With all the attention 'it o:as'in Ills poorer to bestowsupon it, he coed not come to the conclusion,' that' it was desirable or expedient to' ' transfer the duty - frbav beer to malt. He would there fore recommend to the ifoute to diisent from the Motion. Mr. HUME supported the motion. Ile contended that a great saving would. arise in the collection of the duties if the plan of his Hon. Friend were adopted. It would then be unnecesstrry to' employ sO many officers- The time they-now employed in the breweries would be entirely saved,:for Tthete Aveard be no occasion for gauging, !measuring, or keeping. stick. The' ime being saved, it was clear that the 4iamber might be reduced. With respect to the inecinality of the tax, it was so great as to press heavily on the -p00r..7 By the plan proposed the consumption vi?huld bso much increased as to pre vent any injury to the revenue. It would also be pro ductive of the great advantagerof freeing the bre% ers from the- presence of the ailicers. • 'Mr. WODEHOUSE 'said, as it . could• hot be denied that the' Tax on Beer stfetted the --lotfer • Orders un equally, there was, he believed; naperson in the HOUSE who weuld not be disposed to-remedy , the inequality if it were possible.- It appeared; however, a most prepos terous assertion to that all the beer which paid- duty. was consumed by the indigent -.[Mr. NI-ABiRLY: made no such assertionj.—He -appealed to the House whether the Honourable Gentlernan• did not speak to that effecr, and say that his Right Honourable Friend. (the . Chancellor of the, Exchequer), -was held to the course he now pursued, by a base compliance -with the • wishes of the 'agricultural interest? The Honourabl e Gentleman (Mr. Moberly) made a magnificent asset tion last Session, and said ha could expose them. This, he supposed, was the attem pt. The proposal was to im fose a duty of. 4.05.,a • quarter on malt in place of 295. It was inipoi,ible that sueli. a change should. nut pro duce a consideQrbleoffect 'with respect to the„growers Of barley. Ia the years 1791, 1792, and 170, the averagc COns&rption•of malt wastreater than is 18 1 21; 182 4 ar.d 1S). Sqrysattitle•stibjat to an itiereascii umr-r...grrequ duty.of excise decreased iii consumption.. The same must follow If the duty on malt should be itised. Mr. DENISON supported the motion. Though the Nobility and Gentry used beer that r ! aid duty, they had it ISO, or at least 100 per cent: cheaper than the poor. If the plan proposed were adopted, he believed the consumption would bc much increased, and dram drinking diminished. Mr. CRIMPS opposed the Motion.-*There was no tax more evaded than that on malt. These were many 'small maltster; in the countiy who did not pay it—There were no corppiaints of the 'tax on beer, and they were bound thereforeto coni:lude that the people did not con sider it as pressing vn: . aitly on any class. He sincerely wished, however, that a plan should L , e adn i •ted for ana lysing the article supplied by the brewer in every stage, that the Public might be protected from the use of de leterious ingredieut. The consumption of grain would tlitvi. be grv:itly inctea.ed. Mr. NIONCK opposed the Motion. The duty on beer Was as cad as the Excise It was not till the time . •• of William that the duty on malt was introduced. By adopting, the system now propo , . et3, they would occasion the very inequality thatwascomplained of. The landed interest paid.their full proportion of the taxes, and they bore exclUsively . the bnrthen of poor rates,. of re moving .patipers, and of highways. The middle classes were,as ninth benefited by the precent•rate of duty .qn malt ..rs the rich ; and by increasing it many of the poor also would he deprived of a wholesome beverage. A cliff:rent system,. it was true, prevailed in Iceland ; but the same arguments did not.apply to both countries. In Ireland the,Landed Interest were highly favoured, for they . paid neither poors' rates nor land tax. Lord ALTHORP was of.opinion, that doubling the duty on malt would greatly diminish'the revenue, and would drive the hiewer to the use of drugs. Alderman C. SMITH thought, if the duty on malt was much increased, it would drivithose who uow brew themselves to public-houses for their beer. • The question beini loudly called for, Mi. MittIEELY replied; and the Hutise divided. Ayes - 26 • • Noes - - 130 Majority against the appointment of a Committee—W4 THE ARMY—CORPORAL. PUNISHMENTS. • On the motion that the Mutiny Bill he read a third time, Mr. HUME moved the addition of a clans& to prohibit the infliction of corporal punishments on sol diers not employed on fo , eign service or in active ope rations. He was unable, he said, to enfOrce his propo sition by any stronger argumenfs than-had already bees urged in support of it on fornier occasions.. But he Could fortify his case by -one circumstance which had very recently come to his knowledge. In the time of the late- King- .if Wirtemberg flogging prevailed in his I army to a very great extent; *the punishments being ,exceedingly frequent-though 'not of extraordinary see • rim the number of lashes inflicted seldom exceeding ,100. The . frequency of the punishments, however, ren dered the Men so indifferent, that a man Who had once been punished feeling hi mselt disgraced, became careless, and the same individual being brought out for punish ment- from month to month, became at length a bar. defied and determined vicious character. On the acces slim of the present King, a different system was adopted. The consequence had been that the number of offences and punishments had greatly diminished. The mode of 'punishment adopted was that by solitary confinement, . and it s% ould perhaps surprise many lionnurable tlemen to hear that the longest period of confinetnent • ordered was ten days. The degrees Of p(nrisitment were three days, six days, and ten days, either of simple con finement, or of confinement in s irons, according to the da• tuFe of the offence; and when a man had been punished twice for the same offence, he was considered *as no longer fit to remain in the regular army, but were ierit to what were called the conderunedtattalions. Theib• iroduction of this change in thee discipline of the Ittiny •was strongly objected to by.many Oflicers of conside ration and experience, who stated•that-in•their opinions the punishment' of flogging was necessary to the main , tenance of diicipline in the army. • Rut their otriaidns had entirely changed on witnessing theresults of the il teration ; for • they found the genet al character' of, the men to have been much improved by the new system ; and there- could, be no reason, in his estimation, - for thinking that the same effect tt:ould not be proilifcedpy a similar change of system in this country. tle did not know 'what Might be the hopes of promotion-held out ,to private soldiers by way of encouragement is the army of 'tbit country, but he itarect they were very Slight in -deed,•and not such as to -induce young med of active Minds to enter into the service ; anti he was qtiite fled that many weft deterred from emitting by the ex isting system of punishment. He milli! not 'consider the interference of the Hoinse by legWating iitis'sdb ject as any interference with the duties of the Com mander-in-Chief; and he therefore hoped the Noble Lord (Palmerstony would not oppose the bringing up of the clause. Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN rose, in consequence of what had been said upon this subject on a fmmerevening, as well as on the present occasion, to state, that during the time he had had the honour to command a regi ment, he had endeavoured by every means in his power to do away, .as far as possible, with the Use of corporal punishments ; and he believed that every Officer in the service had a strong and anxious feeling on the subject, and would wish to do away with them altogether, if any means could be devised of maintrining the disci pline of the Krmy withoutthem. lie considered' it no slight reflection on the illustrious individual who elks at the head of the army, and who had at all times shewn hitn , ,elf to be the friend of the soldier ;• he considered it no reflection on the character' of the Of of the Bnitish ar;11, to think that if it were shewn to be practicab e,.consistently with the interests of the service, they wonld.not most cheerfully and cordially accede to any proposition for the abolition of corporal punishment. He was sure that the Officers of the British Army had heal is as responsive to the feelings of humanity as' those of the ttarmest advocates of -tine abolition of such pu nishments, and he had never yet' spoken with any one 'Officer upon the subject; w ho wrath: not have been glad to get lid of them it he could; but all whit whom he had spoken concutred,io saying; that no one proposition which they had ever heard- appeared to the.a, to bt cal= culated to i•ffeet . thit temembeted that about ten year's he . o ,rorsindiel. a ,in..girrielit • orr thousand . strong,-and use period th at . the n.en ive:e much more in fis;ular inquired the cause, and the AdjtitAnf-tarne.to trim arid - .said the fact was, that the men had got' it into their heads 'that' Sir F. Bandett. liad done aavv with cnrpor.l punishment, and there:was no getting them to attend to rtnything.. Co‘oparitiins had been drawn 'between the army o f France and that of this country is point of -discipline, ill oia: to lOUIId AR 4.rgutnent agaihst the use 01 arpo . _ 4 ~;. ,~: . Tom_ 117 7 ~ r ....‘., • i .:11 4 ~~ r :r: s t I f 4 i 7 . 1: ' • li ii 7 ! ; li 1 .. •F • ' ~,~,..,