The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-05-01 00:00:00

. . . -. . . . . . i. 30. ON RA (0 CI 9,.., . . ,•••••.‘ -:‘,: , ~.. -::: % I.J , •6 . . . , not kte:,o art 4 ......... 4 . ...0 . ! .... -, ... . _ or; itrior•j. •q . . .• 1 , l . . I . I i LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1823. "The Cause for which H4MPDE.& fell is the Field, and SYDNEY died on the Scaffold!" PRICE SEVEN PENCE. ful to the feelings of humanity that such a punishment I should exist. it was ltercely possible to infl'ct any other punishment with effect. silt the principal objection tO its abolition arose from the nikessity which there would be of substituting some more severe punishment in its stead. If Gentlemen wished to do away with capital punishments, they should not lessen theausaber of secondary ones. With regard to its efficacy on youthful offenders, he was persuaded that there was no other puniehmett which could be devised so salutary for boys as whipping.—(hear, hear). He was not aware that it had been much abused, for though he had looked into the record! of the Secretary of State's office, he did not find a single complaint of this punishment for the last seven years. MO (Mr. Peel) could not agree that it was worse thansolita rtioninemeut, for he thought this letter mode of treatment more likely to break a boy's spirit, and sink him in his own estimation. With regard to the charge which bad been made against the visiting Magistrates of Dorchester Gaol, he could take on himself to say, that the Hon. Member was not borne out In the statement which he had made. It did the mitigated language in which they were conveyed has been found fault with, but he maintained that such language was the best calculated to obtailn the object they had in view—namely, the preservation of the peace of Europe. If the strong language recom mended by the Honourable Member had been ,used, what would have been the consequence? Would we not be now told by the opposite side of the House, " Yen have held strong language, you have menaced war, you have threatened that you would takearms in case France should persevere, you have degraded t:ngland by using threats which you have not carried into execution, an I you have deceived Spain by holding out hopes which you did not mean to realise." Would not, lie asked, this have been the language with which Ministers would now be upbraided, if they had adopted the course recommend by the Hon. Mover of the Address? He (Mr. W.) aihnis ted that the invasion of Spain by Franc: affured a justi fiable ground of war to this country, but - still it could not be maintained that we were bound to go to war on that ground alone, unless it could be proved that it was se.* vantageous to the interests of this country. We should have been even justified in snaking war urn) Spain when her ships, under American colours, had committed seve ral injuries upon our commerce. Though we might have had justice at oar side in undertaking the war, yet that would not have been a sufficient reason for our adopting it. Such was the opinion of the greatest statesmen that ever sat in that House. In 1786 these principles were justified by Mr. Fox, who then stated distinctly, that, in our relations with foreign Powers, we were not bound to break them off and engage in a war upon a principle of justice alone ; that we should consider how they affcct•tl our interests, and by that consideration only ought we to be guided in the side which we should take. Mr. Fox, in a speech in that House, declared that we had no busi ness to trouble onrselves with the legality or illegaliity of other Governments, but confine ourselves to that which was most likely to prove our most valuable friend. Similar language was used by Lord Grey, in ISM, which appl'ed exactly to the present question. The arguments that Noble Lord then used, when we were assisting Spain against France, were decidedly opposed to our inter ference with Spain. It was not the justice of the cause, then (which all admitted), that should influence this country to take up arms in favour of Spain. A nation could not always act, consistently with its own interests, upon a principle of generosity alone. Accord ing to the doctrine of an Hon. Member who spoke last night, it would be our interest to go to war,becanse it pro moted.our commerce and gave a fillip to trade—whir h he denied; but, even admitting it, that ought not still he a sufficient ground for war, unless we were certain that, once engaged in it, we could bring it to an honourable conclusion. What Burke said was perfectly true, that " the goddess liellona was not a female to be flirted with." The French proverb, that the sword should nut be drawn without reason, or be sheathed without ho now., was perfectly applicable to the present question. Nothing should induce us to go to war, unless we were resolved to bring it to a successful issue.— if, as seemed to be admitted, it would be impossible for France to hold permanent possession of Spain, it only furnished a stronger argument in favour of the course taken by Ministers. 1 Spain could bring a re spectable force into the field, and could organise a large hand of verities, which was the force heat adapted to waste the French army, he had no doubt that it would prevent it from occupying more of the territory than it actually stood upon. But at present it was known that Spain bad not a sufficient army to make any formidable resistance; neither did he think that she could give us sufficient assistance, unless we at once sent out an army large enough to meet the French, and then we necessarily become a principal in the war. Had they re. sources to support our army? Every body knew that they had not; so we should be compelled to take the Govern ment of the country into our hands, as we did before. It was said, that whatever the course was which Ministers pursued, we must come to the same result at last—that in any event we could not avoid a war. He admitted that a war between France and any other country made us ru's a great hazard of being engaged in it, but that danger should only make us more cautious in the course we took. If France, after the subjugation of Spain, should attack Portugal, then, and then only, would be the proper time for our interference. We before protected Portugal against the united power of France and Spain, and at a time when France could wield the energies of Spain. Though France should now get possession of Spain, could she wield it? Before she could derive any advar tage from that possession, she must first have gold, as well as the concurrence of Spain, neither of which, lie bad no doubt, she possesse I. It was contended that, in the course of the war, the right of search would be in sisted upon, which would oblige us to take measures to resist it; but it was time enough when a case of urgency came to meet it. At present it was the best policy of the country to avoid a war ; but whenever a necessity arose which called upon it to assert its honour or defend its interests, it had the means and the will to do both ; bat before we embarked in a contest, it was the iinperatior duty of poverninent to consnit what would most promote its interests. The Honourable Member for IVestminater said that we should not only go to war, but issue a decla ration that it was a war of the people against Kings ; but such a declaration would be equivalent to the decla ration issued by the National Assembly in 1792, and would he acting on that very principle, which all co.i ileinnerl—an interference in the internal affairs of other nations. We had no business to trouble ourselves with the concerns of other nations, till they adopted some mea sures which affected our own safety. He had heard in the course of the debate a phrase " accursed Monarchy," which he certainly had not expected to hear in that House, or from those Gentlemen who must have expe rienced that a Monarchy—he admitted a limited one— (hear)—was the best and most certain form of govern ment, and that individual liberty could be enjoyed under it to a greater degree than was known under any other form of government. Almost any form of government was preferable to that in which the many swayed, for he believed no tyranny was so bad as that exercised by the ruling power of a republic. He was therefore surprised to hear an Hon. Gentleman use such language in its ge- , neral sense, without qualifying it as applied to absolute Governments. Mr. HOBHOLISE.—I used the phrase as it was ex pounded by the tyrants of Europe, not as applied to the limited Monarchy of England. Mr. WYNN said that he certainly laboured under the impression that the Hon. Gentleman used the expression in a wore extended sense. He did not stand there to ad vocate the conduct of the Sovereigns of Europe, yet he deprecated the abuse of our Allies, as calculated to in crease the difficulties of preserving peace. It ass un doubtedly the privilege of Members to canvass the con duct of foreign Powers, and it was competent to them to use what language they thought fit; but for that very reason there was no manliness in saying that which was attended with no danger, while it produced irritation among our Allies. Some censure was attempted to be thrown upon the Duke of Wellington, for having said that he saw nothing in the antecedent conduct of th Mr. CURWEN supported the notion. Mr. CHRISTOPHER SM I CHI spoke against the Bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said any person oppos ing the measure would be suhject to the imputation, perhaps, of not being . properly alive to the feelings of hu manity. However, if such an impression did really ex ist, it should nut prevent hint from stating his opinion, and that opinion was most decidedly adverse to the pre seat motion. Corporal punishment was a salutary mea sure, and in many cases a considerable benefit had arisen from it. The Honourable Gentleman had not stated it wbat eases this mode of punishment ought to be abolish ed. if he meant it to extend to all cases whatever, he (the Attorney-Oeneral) certainly felt it his duty to op pose the Bill. Doubtless corporal punishment was ex ceedingly painftd, but it ought not to be abolished on that account. merely. Mr. LENNARI) said that since the disgusting prac. tice bad been abolished as it respected females, he saw no reasoa why it. should not be extended to the other sta. The pnoiihnetst, On another ground, %vat exceed ingly • odious ; it was a punishment that might operate very differently according to the particular individual administering it, as bis feelings or prejudices might be excited. not appear that for the last two years, the punishment of whipping had been inflicted in that prison, except upon a boy of fifteen years of age, whose habits of vice were of the most incorrigible character. The Magistrate who commit ted the boy desired that lie should be kept apart from the I to mi Ti t risoi ted f t o e u r r s, f le o s t tLie rie s s ho u n po ld n co d n i t ff a e m re in nt ate p thi s e o m n . en H in, e had tiro gaol, and there was as other means of dealing with such a ' character but by flogging him. Upon all these grounds he should oppose the bringing in of this Bill. Dr. LUSH INGTON said he differed entirely from the Right lion. Gentleman in the views which he had taken of this question. In the first place he denied that whipping was a proper punishment, either in the Army or Navy. It was a species of correction which appeared to him to render soldiers and seamen unfit for service, by degrading the in dividuals in their own estimation. As to its propriety in schools. it was a subject of complaint, that in many cases it was inflicter to en excess.—(Hear). He himself had known many young men who quitted school, and abandoned their prospects in a profession, rather than submit themselves to so humiliating a punisbment. Solitary confinement in pri sons appeared to him to be a more severe, as well es more salutary punishment. The deprivation of society, the ex clusion of friends, and the absence of comforts, together with the opportunities which offered of reclaiming the pri soner were more likely to bring him beck to a sense of duty, than the harsh treatment of Bogging. Public whipping he re probated, because it wounded the feelings of individuals, and he was opposed to private whipping, because it might he administered capriciously and unjustly. Upon the whole he was inclined to give his support to the bringing in of this Bill. Mr. DAWSON considered the law as it stood at pre sent very salutary. Mr. HOEHOUSE said the Honourable Gentleman bad not answered any arguments of his Honourable Friend, the mover of this question, for the latter had advanced none. Hs had merely contended that some mode of punishment should be substituted consonant to the manners and customs of the country, in the lieu of that odious, disgusting, and cruel system of punishment by flogging. He (Mr. Hoblsouse) considered the pun ishment illegal, and he should be glad to know from the Honourable Gentleman opposite, whether there was any Act of Parliament which authorized the Magistrate, in the regulation of gaols, to inflict the punishment of whipping. It never could be considered right to p ermit such an odious punishment to be inflicted " ad rofini tam," at the discretion of the Magistrate. And if any measure was salutary, •loubtless the punishment of pub lic whipping was more advantageous than private. Of the two, that of flogging in public tended to prevent a repetition of the offence. The punishment, however, was nothing more nor less than a system of torture, and one which in his opinion an English Court of Law could not justify. If he understood right, the Returns were not complete, and yet according to them there were a thousand persons punished annually, during the last seven years. If the females had been spared out of delicacy, by a law recently enacted, surely the manli ness of the other sex ought to be a su ffi cient ground for them being also spared this odious—this degrading punishment. It had been said, and mc,,t truly, that a being who had undergone such a punishment, lost that which rendered him an object of regard in his own and others eyes—self-respeat. When he (Mr. Hobhouse), some Tears ago, was on board the ship uf 1, Commander, he noticed some men standing sentinel at the cabin door. On his asking the occasion of so novel a sight, he was told that all the men had been so reputedly flogged, that they bad lest all seam of shame, and it would not he safe to remain in the align without being 'needed. — The flanoerahle Gentlemen opposite thought some re galatieek at least, was neca n ary in the adasieistration of this degrading penis L Hs considered it the most revolting to humanity and common decency of any mode of punishment countenanced in England, and, therefore, he should give his warm support to the motion. — Mr. H. DRUMMOND spoke against the Bill. Mr. Alderman WOOD said that the punishment of whip ping was never inflicted In Newgate, but is the presence of the Sheriff or Under Sheriff. A MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, denied that such a ease as the Hon. Member for Westminster stated, could have happened in the Navy. Sir THOMAS BARING thought flogging had only the effect of hardening old offenders. With youthful offend ers, however, he thought it might be had recourse to with propriety. Mr. R. MARTIN professed himself friendly to the prin ciple, but he wished tee Hon Member had specified the cases in which he would continue the punishment. He knew eases ht Ireland where whipping was administered ' with such severity as to occasion death to the unfortunate objects of its application. He would not, however, abolish it altogether ; for in cases of barbarous riots such has oc carred at fairs in Ireland, he thought it a proper mode of punishment. Mr. EASTCOURT and Mr. GURNEY spoke against the puntahMerft. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON thought it a salutary mode of plutishment, if administered with discretion, Mt.-BENNET replied. Be said that if Gentlemen who omaesed his Bill at all, comtemplated the possibility of their being subjected to the punishment of whipptng, they would not he such sticklers for it. It is a base, bar barous, and beastly practice; disgraceful to the present day, and to the code of English punishments. What ever might be the fate of this Bill, he hoped yet to see this savage punishment abolished. The House divided, and the numbers were,—Ayes, 37, —Noes, 74—Majority against the motion, 37. Mr. MARTIN obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the Encouragement of the Reclaiming of Waste Lands in Ireland. Mr. N. CALVERT thought if punishments of this nature were abolished, the measure might be extended to schools; there were, doubtless, many Honourable Gentlemen present aho had lost self-respect, if such were necessarily to follow from punishment exercised upon them when at school.--(A laugh). He said be should vote against the . motion . . . . . Mr. S. BOURNE apprehended that the punishment of private whipping had arisen from females being so treated. He believed. many instances could be produced in which flogging bad been more effective than any other mode of punishment. The number of persons punished during the period alluded to by an Honourable Member, would be found not to be in any great pro portion. Mr. HOLME SUMNER would vote for the abolition of whipping as a punishment for adults in all cases.— He admitted, however, that with boys, if administered with discretion, it was a salutary mode of coercion.— As to its application to prisons, he was enabled to say from his own experience, that the tread-mill had ren dered an appeal to it unnecessary. Being friendly to the principle, he should support the Bill. Sir ISAAC COFFIN denied the possibility of such a case as that stated by the Hon. Member for Westmin ster (Mr. Hobhouse). During fourteen months that he (Sir Isaac) was in command of the Melampus, be never punished a man, and during the whole war he had re course to the punishment of whipping in only one in stance. The fact was, there was no necessity tor it. It was impossible a ship's crew could be in the state de scribed by the Hon. Member. The circumstance could not be kept concealed from the Admiralty, and any of ficer who would so dishonour himself and degrade the service by such severe punishment would be immediately dismissed. Mr. HOBHOUSE, in explanation, said he did not mean to impute to the Gallant Officer that he had caus ed the punishment to be inflicted. Neither did he mean to say, that he (Mr. IL) had seen it inflicted under his own eyes. What he meant to say was, that there were unfortunate ships in the service, the crews of which were not so obedient as others, and that it was his for tune to sail in one of them, where be had heard that such practices as those he described had been carried on. Sir ISAAC COFFIN acquitted the Hon. Member of all design to allude to him personally, but when he heard the krofession maligned, he thought himself called upon to stand up in its vindication.—(Hear.) Sir ROBERT HERON asserted that whipping was a pun ishment never exercised beneficially. It was unjust, because unequal. for the degree of punishment was at the discretion of the executioner, and not of the Court.--(Hear). In the part of the country to which he belonged, the Magistrate never inflicted this punishment. It was, besides, (men to the greatest abuse, inasmuch as it might be made a source of private emolument to the gaoler, the lenity or severity of whose hand might be regulated by a doucenr. In every respect tm thought it objectionable, and that in the present enlightened age so barbarous a punishment ought to be dis continued. Mr. N. CALVERT explained. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that all the information which he had been able to collect relative to the punishment which was the subject of this motion, lad him to think that the abo lition of whipping would be so dangerous a precedent that he could not consent to the bringing in this Bill.—(Hear).— lf it was true that it tended to degrade those individuals who we:3 made the objects of its application, it ought to be discontinued at schools. But if it was necessary in the at. my, navy, and in schools, a fortiori, it should be restored to in prisons where there were only persons who had been already either convicted or under diargee, •ad upon whom The Report of the Committee on the Bcer Bill was or dered to be brought up on Monday. Mr. HUME asked if it was the intention of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer to reappoint the Committee of Accounts? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was not his intention to more fur the reappointment of this Committee this Session at all events. ....- The Committee of Supply %vas postponed to Friday next. _ . The Report on the Irish Miscellaneous Estimates were brought up, and the Resolutions were severally agreed to. The Report of the Miscellaneous Services were brought op, and the resolutions were agreed to. Mr. BERRIES brought in a Bill to regulate the Du. ties on certain Articles imported into Ireland from this country.—Read the first lime. NEGOCIATIONS RELATING TO SPUN. The Order of the Day for the adjourned debate on the Negociations relating to Spain being read, the original Address and Amendment were again put from the Chair. Mr. WYNN rose and said that it was now his duty to state the reasons which led him to form the opinion, that throughout the neguciations, whether carried on at Verona or at Paris, the interests and honour of the coun try were strictly attended to by those who represented this country: It was, in his opinion, that there was no intermediate course between peace and war, and denied that any Minister was bound to take the advice of Parlia ment in the first instance. It was his duty to take that course which he thought expedient, and be was after wards subject to the approbation or censure of Parlia ment. He was aware that the language of the Address which had been moved by the Honourable Gentleman, the Member for Caine, was, its effect that if a more dig nified language had been used by Ministers in the late negociations, the evils of war would have been averted, but if he looked to the note of the late lamented Secre tary for Foreign Affairs, issued in ISIO, or to the de spatches to Mons. Villele or Chateaubriand, contained in the Papers laid on the table, in all these documents it would be found that this country had distinctly objected to the right of interference, on the pm of a nation, in the internal concerns of another one; and with regard to Spain, it was expressly stated that France was not jus tified in the course she took towards that country, and that such a course would be as injurious to the general in t to of Europe as it would to that party in Spain, whose interest France professed to espouse; and, above all, that it would be pregnant with the greatest danger to France herself. Whether this language was a little too strong or a little too weak, was not of much conse quence, because, in his mind, the conduct of nations was guided by things, and not by words; and by whom were these opinions communicated to the Allied Sove reigns ? Was sot the first military character in Europe selected as the representativeof this conniry at Congress, that all the influence of that distinguished individual might add to the weight of these opinions ; and have they not been made as large and full as it was passible , for hie. Majesty's Ministers to mike them? He knew' II 11 - t.t %. A .~ ,1 . -. p i i 1 , kst4 ,? • 1 • 1 :4 4 ! • , . . 4 x 1 t • -," . , 1 t i .41 1 I , 1$ C . !) ii 1 i 1 . .. . I . . , \ , il NUMBER 5660 EAST INDIA 110 USE. April 30, 1823. THE Court of Directors of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, rio hereby give-space, That the Court will be ready to receive proposals in writ ing at any time on or before Wednesday the 25th of June next, from any person or Persons wbo may be willing to build either in the River Thames. or at en outport in Eng land or Wales, a ship or ships of about 1300 tons burthen, to be let on freight for the said Company's service for six ♦oyag'es certain ; specifying in one item a permanent peace. freight for each of the said six voyages. The Tenders, with the words " Ship Tender," on the cover, to be severally sealed up and left with the Secretary at this House, at or before twelve o'clock at noon, on the said 25th of June next, beyotel which hour no Tender will be received. --------- JOSEPH DART, Secretary. The partiealars of the principal dimensions and scant lings of the ships, an teteatory of Abe principal stores, the copy of the charter-party for each voyage; se an outline to gether with the other terms and conditions upon which the ',hips are to be tendered, built, and employed In the Com pany's service, may be had upon application at the oaks of the Clerk to the Committee of Wapping, on en altar Thera day the lath day of May next. EAST INDIA-HOUSE, April 90, IS. Conrt of Directors of the United Company of T Merchants of England trading to lite East do hereby Ore notice, That a Special General Court of the said Company, will be held at their house in Leadenhall-street, on Wednes day, the 14th May next, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, for the purpose of laying before the Proprietors for their ap probation, a resolution of the Court of Directors of the 9th inst., the sum of Sixty Thousand Pounds per annum to his Majesty's Government, with a view of relieving the finances of the country from the charge incurred for retiring pay pensions, &c., on account of that part of his Majesty's forces which is ma intained in the East Indies from the 30th April, 1822, to be paid out of the Territorial Revenues of India, on account of all retiring pay pensions, &e., granted • on that, may be hereafter granted in respect of his Majesty's • forces serving in the East Indies. Copy of the said resolution now lies open at this House lc: the perusal of the Proprietors. The Court of Directors do also give notice that the said General Court Is further made special for the purpose of submitting for confirmation the Resolution of the General Court of the 19th March, approsing the Resolution of the Court of Directors of the 18th December last, granting to Alajor James Rivett Cantu. of the Madras Establishment, the sum of Thirty Thousand Bombay Rupees, at the rate of 2s. 3d. per rupee upon the ground therein stated. The Report required by the Bye-Law, esp. G. see. 20, to gether with the documents upon which the said Resolution has been formed, *reopen for the inspection of the Proprie tors at this house. JOSEPH DART. Secretary. ONLY ONE DAY MORE, wavr rituasose. CARROL'S great Lark still continues. He Sold ' , Ten Capital Prizes the First Day of the present Lottery, amongst which was No. 11611; a Prise of 190,000 (being the only oils yet drawn); and in the Last Lottery whit:headed the 13th January, Ire also Sold In Shares Taro Prizes of 1110,000, One of .elO,OOO, ao many other Capi tals, snaking in all Three of 220,000, 00. of 210,000, and ICS other Capitals, all Sold by CARROL, in the short hpaes of Three Months, at Ids Olices, 19, Coraltill, aad 96, °shred street. The present Lottery willilaish drawing on Thursday Nest. Bth May, that being the Last and only Dy when all Ilse following Capitals mast be Drawo, rim.: 2....ef.. —220,030 I li .... 0f... .. 2 600 2 .1,000 I 16 400 Besides many others of 2100, 260, 223, Re. 131PERIAL PARLIAMENT. --.11.W.- - HOUSE OF' LORDS.-.-WZDNIUIDAY. Lord CRANBOURNR brought up from the House of Commons a copy of their Report on the Game Laws, which bad been moved for by Lord Calthorpe. Mr. S. RICE brought up from the House of Commons, the 'nth Charitable Society's Loan Bill, and a Report on the Local Taxation of tbe city of Limerick. The Warehousing Bill, and the Bill to prevent pro- fame Cursing and Swearing, were committed. Lord CAWDOR moved for certain Papers relative to the Administration of Justice in Wales •' and then gave notice that on Tuesday next, he should bring forward a motion on the subject.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-'-WtDNESDAY. LINEN YARN. __ _ A petition was presented from the Linen Manofacturers et Armagh, praying a duty might be imposed upon linen yars imported into lreland.—Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. LEATHER TAX. _ . _ Sir GEORGE ROBINSON presented a petition from the Hoot and Shoe-makers and Curriersof Northampton, against the Leather Tax.—Ordered to lie on the table. WEST INDIA SLAVERY. Lord F. OS BORN . presented a petition from the In habitants of Chatteris, in the Isle of Ely. praying that slavery might be abolished in the IVest Indies.----Ordered to lie on tie table, and to be printed. COAL DUTIES. A petition was presented from Darlington against the Coal Reties.—Ordered to lie on the table. On the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, the list of the 'Commis Council of Dublin, distinguishing such as were belongiag to the Guild of hleschants among them, was ordered. Also. copies oldie Proclamation of the Mayor •OI 400144. and the Resolutions of the Corporation re specting the dressing of the statue of King William. ° TIRE SIIERIFF OF DUBLIN. Mr. SPUINti RICE moved that the Town Clerk of the City of Dublin be summoned to attend as a witness on Friday se'snight. POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION. Mr. NOLAN postponed his Poor Laws Amendment Bill until the 9th May. ABOLITION OF WHIPPING. Mr. GREY BENNET rose, pursuant to his motion, for the purpose of introducing a Bill to aboli-ls whip ping. us a punishment inflicted by the Magistrate. Ile contended that it was neither exemplary nor reformatory. 4 The punishment was one that remained of a barbarous age. If there could be no other punishment substituted, then the law would have some authority in remaining as it stood. But there was a punishment which had been freed salutaty—tbat of hard labour; and be conceived this punishment might be substituted in every instance. Some yesrs back the punishment of the pillory bad been abolished; in cases of an ordinary nature, in which it had bees usual to punish offenders ; and why could oot this barbarous mode of punishment be likewise abolish ed? He had attended to the subject many years, and had devoted much time for the purpose of befog fully acquainted with it. He had traeilled many miles in this country in order to comprehend it, and, after all be could lenra, it did appear to him to be a positive evil. In the Returns which had been presented to the House, it ap rated there was not less than 6,959 Individuals flogged 14 prisons in the coune of seven years. It was disgrace- J.~ z m g' ,