The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-16 00:00:00

• LIDNDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY. Mr. KEMBLE presented a, petition from the inhabi tants o'fßermondsey, against the London and Croydon- Railway Anti-Amendment Bill. MARYLEBONE VESTRY BILL. Wr. MACKINNON presented petitions from inhabi tams of Marylebone, in favour •of the Bill now before the House, fur amending the Vestry Act in favour of that pa.'fi!th. .EDUCATION IN IRELAND. • SetgVant JACKSON presented several petitions front' 'places in the counties of 'Cork and Limerick, against the present system of National Education in Ireland, and in favour of that adopted by the Church EducaCton Society. CO LT: EGE OF MAYNOOTII—FACTORY SYSTEM. Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from a emigre gatio..l of Wesleyan Methodists in Knaresborough, against the grant to the College of Maynooth ; and a pet'.tion from Devonport, for a law to correct the evils of th'2 Factory System. The petitZoners prayed, that as Farliatnent had granted twenty millions to abolish black slavery in the West Indies, they would take measures to altolisti white slavery in England.—(llear.) MAYNOOTII COLLEGE. Colonel WOOD presented a petition against any fur ther grant to the College of Maynooth. EDUC.ATION. IN IRELAND. Mr. GREGORY presented a petition from a place in Ireland, praying for a system of education in Ireland. INCOME TAN. _ Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from Edin burgh against the income tax. Mr. MASTERM AN presented a petition from Lon don against the income tax. Also, several petitions in favour of the tax. 111•=0POLITAN BRIDGES. Mr. Alderman lIUMPIIERY presented a petition from Southwark. praying that the tolls o n t h e diff erent bridges 'night be ta ken off. INCOME TAX. Mr. BARCLAY presentod a petition from the Soli citors of Sunderland, praying that they might be Qxempt from the income tax. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from Oak ham, in Rutland, from Essex, from Newport, Northamp ton, and the compositors of the Western Times news paper, against the income tax ; also a petition from Richmond, against the proposed reduction in duty on foreign - manufactured leather. HANMER presented a petitionfrom the attor neysitif lion, praying that they might be exempted from the income tax. Lord SANDON presented a petition from certain mer chants of Liverpool, praying that the tariff might be passed into a law. Mr. PHILIPS presented a petition from Manchester, rgainA the income tax. CARDIGAN ELECTION. The f4 - Alowing Members were called to the table, and sworn in to try the merits of the petition against the re turn for the boronugh of Cardigan :—Sir C. Conte, the Earl of Lciecster, W. S. O'Brien, G. Dodd, E. Turner, W. James, and W. G. Ilayter, Chairman. WAKEFIELD El.f:ClifON COMMITTEE. 'The following Members were called to the table, and sworn in as a Committee to try the merits of a petition, complaining of an undue election for the borough of Waketield :—E. Strutt, Esq., W. M'Kenzie, Esq., Hon. E. Gore, Col. Thomas Wood, of -Brecon, Hon. W. Gor don, and H. H. Drummond, Esq., Chairman. The Committee was appointed to sit at twelve o'clock to-morrow. CORN-LAWS. Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the silk dyers of laaehester, praying for a repeal of the Corn law•s. IXCOME TAX. Mr. COWPER presented a petition from Hertford, against the income tax. The petition was brought up / Ind laid on the table, amidst the cheers of the Opposition. Mr. G. W. WOOD presented a petition from Kendal, praying for a reduction of the duty on foreign and co lonial sugar, and also beseeching the House to adopt every expedient tl.;r equalising the revenue and the ex penditure, before resorting to such an inquisitorial mea sure as the imposition of an income tax. Mr. RUTHERFORD presented a petition from the ProvoSt and Town Council of Leith, against the income tax. TIK , , lion. Member moved that the petition be read at the table. The petition was then brought up and read by the Clerk at the table. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. HODGSON HINDE gave notice that, in Com mittee on the Miscellaneous Estimates, he would cali the uttention of the House to the state of the unfinished publication of the Records. LAND TAX. Dr. BOW RING moved for a return of the amount paid to the land tax in various townships and places in the county of Lancaster. exhibiting the whole amount and the stun paid by each. Captain JEST moved for leave of absence to Captain Laynrd till the Ist of May, on account of illness in his subordinate.—(Hear, hear.) The teaching of morals, with the sanction of religion, never indisposed any man to • r the proper performance of his duty.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware that many persons held the ()pinion that ignorance was bliss, and that when instruction was necessary the lower orders had the advantage o f t h e in formation of others ; but he would refer to the )taiil returns lately laid on the table of the Hnitage ) which would afford him a strong argument in favour of instruc tion. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to the Report of the Chaplain of the Freston House of Corrtsnion, which showed that the number of prisoners decreased in proportion to the amount of instruction they received. He believed th at i n France and elsewhere upon the Continent, the dis c ipli ne o f th e army was maintained without recourse to the sys tem of flogging. As an instanm that flogging was not necess ar y, f or the maintenance of good discipline, he would state. the instance of the Irish Con ' stabulary. Sir Hussey Vivian stated that, out of seven thousand men, the finest on the face of the earth, he had never seen a drunken police man ; and if discipline could be maintained among such a body of men without the necessity of flogging, where was the necessity of npplying that pr inc i p l e to t h e regular army, The House would call to mind, that by an order dated the 24th of February, 1.835., Lord William Bentin c k, abolished 'flogging among the native troops in India, and he begged of Gentlemen to hear in mind that he did that in direct opposition to the opi nion of a military committee on the subject. He was unwilling to intrude unnecessarily upon the time of the House, but, he could not avoid quoting, in support of his argument, the minute of Lord William Bentinck upon this subject. Lord William Bentinck had said that. with regard to the opinion of military men, it was the unanimous opinion of all the members of military committees, that the punishment of flogging could not be abolished.—(Hear, hear.) They did not stop to inquire whether any adequate sub stitute for flogging could be adopted, but they at once declared that if the punishment of flogging were abolished the discipline of the army could not be maintained. Lord William Bentinck denounced that opinion of the members of the military committees as a mere prejudice which was entirely opposed to reason. At the same time his Lordship said that he was not at all surprised at the existence of that prejudice, because he could not forget that he had for many years entertained the same prejudice, and it was only by many years of reflection and calm reasoning, that he had been enabled to over come it. No one, however, had hitherto at tempted to defend the practice of flogging on its own merits. He knew that he should be told that unless be could devise some efficient substitute, it would be impossible to do away with the punishment of flogging, while the army was composed of the description of men who at present generally entered the service.; but he would ask, did they find the present system of recruiting so efficient that it was impossible it could be revised with advantage to the service. He (Captain Bernal) was anxious to justify hi, opinion by authorities, and he would first quote the authority of Mr. Fox, who had given it as his opinion that the existing practice of recruiting was not consistent with the British Constitution. Mr. Wyndham ; too, on introducing his Recruiting Bill, in 1806, had said that he hoped, by introduc ing a better sort. of men into the service, they would be enabled to do away with corporal punishment. Lord Lynedoch and Mr. Wilberforce had expressed similar opinions. Major-General Sir Archibald Campbell had been examined before the Military Committee on corporal punishment, and had given it as his opinion, that men enlisted for a limited period always made the best soldiers, and that he (Sir A. Campbell) had always endeavoured to get such men under his command, and to induce them to re-engage. It might be said, that the present system of enlistment was perfectly voluntary. It could hardly be said to be so. Men were entrapped under the excitement of liquor, and deceived by tha false pretences of a recruiting serjeant, to enter the service. Could they wonder that, when a youth, entrapped in this manner, and enlisted for an unlimited period, found that, those representations were false, and that he was at once subjected to the strict discipline of a regiment, without hope beyond having a pension of 6d. a day at the end of 30 years if he conducted himself well—for such a person was only granted a reward for good conduct —could they wonder at a youth thus situated booming reckless and demoralized? He believed it was an unuisputed fact, that the proportion of suicides in the army was much greater than it was in civil life. He would next draw the attention of the House to the pro ' priety of limiting the service of these men and increasing the number of those who rose from the ranks. He felt. justified in saving, with due deference to the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and the Secretary at War, but at the same time with all due firmness on his (Mr. Ber. nays) part, that it was his humble opinion that they would, by limiting the service of the men and hold ing out the hope of ultimate promotion to them, do away With the necessity of flogging, and elevate the character of the ser vice. The clause which he should have the honour of sub mitting to the House had for its object the abolition of punish ment by flogging, reserving it only in two instances—namely, offences committed on a line of march, or for theft. He was induced to retain it in those two instances in deference to the opinion of those officers who had given evidence on the sob ers. They were unanimous in the opinion that it should be retaked in those two instances, and he was fortified in his pre• sent view of the matter on referring to the speec% of the Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandonl, who had been one of the Commission that sat in 1835 on Military Punish ments, and had on that occasion said that he (IA not consider it practicable to carry on the discipline of the army on foreign service, without inflicting corporal punishment. With the exceptions that he had mentioned he thought that flogging ought to be dispensed with ; he, therefore, certainly concluded that lie would have the support of the Clerk of the Ordnance( Capta n Boldero). He would conclude by moving the insertion of the following clause in the Bill: " And be it enacted, that it shall net be lawful to inflict cor poral punishment, by flogging, during the time of peace, on any private soldier, corporal, or non-commissioned offi er, in the army or militia of the United Kingdom, save fur offences committed on a line of march, or for theft." The SPEAKER then put the question, that the clause be brought up and read a first time.—Agreed to. On the question that the clause be read a second time, Captain 'BOLDER° said that he would first advert to the question put to him the other night by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Bernal), and he begged to remind the House what that question was. The Hon. Gentle man had asked him (Captain Boldero), whether it was his in , tentiou to bring forward his annual motion for the abolition of corporal punishment in the army? His (Captain Boldero's) answer was, that he did not mean to do so, but if a motion to that effect were brought forward, he would give it his support. The Hon. and Gallant Member committed two errors ; one, in saying that it was an annual motion, which it was not; and, in the next place, it was usual in Hon. Members asking for information from one another, that courtesy required they should give sortie private information of it. The Hon. and Gallant Officer had overlooked this, not with any intention of annoying or embarrassing him, but no doubt for the good of the service. Now, with regard to its being an annual motion, how did the m a tt er s t an d '? In 1836, he voted ' for the abolition of corporal punishment. Captain BERNAL —Yon seconded the motion. Captain BOLDERO—He did second the motion, and spoke on the occasion, and voted for the abolition ; but had he voted for a similar motion from that time to this? That be distinctly and totally denied. ( An Hon. Member said " Iu 1837.") He had stated that he had voted once, and once only, for the abo lition of corporal punishment, and if his word was doubted, the Mirror of Parliament—the record of that House—might be refereed to. An Hon. and Gallant Friend of hi., who had made an annual motion on thi s su bj ec t, at last shrunk from doing it, and moved fur a Committee of Inquiry, in order that evidence taken before it might support his views; he would , not trouble Hon. Members for their votes, having done so FO often unsuccessfully without further evidence. He (Captain Beldero) voted for him. In 1836, Mr. Lennard, the Hon. ' Member fcr Maldon, gave notice when the Report was brought ) up that courts-martial should not he allowed toinflict corporal punishment in time of peace. The Report was brought up, and he ( Captain B.) spoke in favour of the abolition, and said he considered a great triumph had been obtained in restricting courts-martial in the number of lashes they could inflict, but in consequence of the improvement that had taken place from the system of rewards and solita"y confinement, he urged his Hon. Friend not to press his motion. Be did bring it forward, and he (Captain Boldero) left the House and did not give him his support. In 1838, during the discussion on the question, he had been much impressed with the observations of the Hon. Member for Sunderland, who was then Secretary at War, that, as to abolishing corporal punishments, they had better disband the army at once. Observations of that nature was enough to make the boldest it an flinch from pitting his own opinions in opposition to them. In 1838, also, he brought forward a motion relative to the Mutiny Act, and moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of military punishments and rewards then in force in the British army. On that occasion, he alluded to General Evans, who had just returned from Spain, and who, notwith standing his votes in that House, had been compelled to carry flogging to a great extent in the British Legion in Spain. He had not retracted his o pi n i ons mere l y w h en h had changed aides, for ewer since the year 1838 he had allowed the Mutiny Bill to pass unnoticed without his bringing forward any motion. He confessed that his opinions upon the subject were altered ; but he would give his vote with perfect confidence that it was one which no one could disapprove of. He had a right to change his opinion whenever he might please, and he had changed it while sitting upon the other side of the House. He denied that Ile had ever expressed a determination to bring forward an annual motion for the abolition of corporal punishment ; and he would confidently leave the House to judge of his conduct. Mr. J. HOWARD said that in his opinion military courts martial ought to be entrusted with the power of awarding corporal punishment. For his part. he knew of no power less abused, or more satisfactorily exercised; and if he was asked by what tribunal he should wish above all others to be tried, he should certainly choose a court-martial. Notwithstanding the able speech of the Hon. Member for Chippenhain, the opinions of the officers high in the service, and amongst others of the first soldier of his age, the Duke of Wellington, were so en tirely in favour of retaining the punishment, that they had strengthened him in the view which he had hitherto entertained on this subject, and he must, therefore, vote against the motion. Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said, having being entrusted with the cpmmand of her Majesty's forces in foreign stations for many years, he could not give a silent vote on the subject brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman opposite. His long experience led him to the sincere and solemn conviction that this mode of punishment could not be dispensed with with safety to the British service ; and although he did not say this without doing great violene to his feelings . and wishes on this subject, it was very consolatory to him to know that this obnoxious punishment was by degrees failing into disuse—( Cheers front the Opposition) —that it wa s becoming less and It Ss frequent, and that in proportion as the moral character of the soldier should be raised, and habits of providence and sobriety encouraged, was the probability that it w .uld fall .sntirely into disuse at some future period.—( Hear, hear.) Looking back to his own career, and remembering the trightful extent to which this punishment was inflicted in his early days —a recollection which made him shudder—he could not reflect upon what had been done, and was still doing, to im prove the condition of the soldier, and the abatement which had taken place in the punishment, as well by restricting it to fewer eases, as by diminishing the number of lashes, without indulging ad hope that these converging lines would eventually, and at no insubordination,punis m ent was day, be to tr u hes n e d tru t is o t m edo e f e t t o .—( Hear, hear.) By examining the .army regulations, page 252, it would be seen that corporal duty, theft, disgraceful conduct,the threatening ft) i! Tv l i a n n g g away with arms and itecoitrern stealing, iv andse h• - nts. only was t o punish - language, neglect neat recrictod to crimes,these . ,lout the greatest care was taken to preventthe—• pumshment &Om being inflicted ea-. cept upon mature delitsatititite. Ms general officer was permitted tie ti)htrm a punishment tipob the first conviction. tC tentld safely say for himself that Whenever he had confirmed the sentence of the eand-inertial, he had done so with great reluctant*, load • Iltin a conviction that in that case it was tie 'eetraiy It& the discipline of the service. He would recommend the House to leave it to the humanity of the fitters, con trolled by the admirable reguletitths to which he had referred, and by the Attempts Which had been made, and were still makinge--fittempts in which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord kussell) and the late Secretary of War had taken an active part—( Hear, hear)—to raise the thbeal character of the soldiers. He thought that the distinction of flogging in peace and war, and on the life of march, and any other time, was most dangerous and offensive.... ( Hear, hear.) With regard to the crime of theft, he begged to ask the Hon. Member, ought not the soldier to be punished for making away with arms, accoutrements, and ammunition? What greater crime could there be than making away with those articles? and yet nothing but positive theft would be punished by the Hon. Member. With regard to drunkenness, which the Hon. Mem ber had acknowledged to be the parent of all crimes, it was his opinion, that of all other crimes, it was the one that should be the least exempt. He should, therefore, give his vote, under the sincere and honest conviction, that in the present constitu tion of the British army, the punishment of flogging cannot be dispensed with, with safety to its discipline.—( Hear.) Mr. MACAULAY begged to state briefly the course he meant to pursue on the present occasion. He might with per fect consistency vote for the motion of the Hon. Member, as the subject of flogging was not brought under discussion during the time he had the honour of being in office ; but lie thought it was the duty of persons in opposition to take upon themselves a share of that unpopularity which may attach to them in con sequence of their opinions as to what they deem necessary for the public service. The inquiry which it was his duty to make satisfied him, not that flogging was not carried to a frightful extent in former times, but that they had done away with it as far as it was safe. 'lnc instances of flogging ought to be very much within the limits allowed by the law. By the adoption of such measures as had been alluded to—furnishing the means of amusement to the men, and giving them opportunities of intellectual enjoyments —very much might be done to render flogging unnecessary, but he conceived it would not be safe to abandon it altogether, or on the ground of a distinction between peace and war.—( Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he should vote against the motion; and if it had been brought forward last year, he should have taken the same course. During the debate another question had been raised respecting the consistency of the Hon. Gentleman, arid the line of con duct he pursued with regard to the subject upon the former occasion, and he invited them to look to the Mirror of Par liament as to what he said in 1840. He (Mr. Macaulay) would beg to read a part of what he said. His words, before the motion for a Select Committee, were—" I call on the House to abolish this barbarous and brutal torture, and to show to continental nations that the British soldier can discharge his duty with equal fidelity under the influence of a noble feeling." —(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Macaulay) thought that t o ca ll on the H ouse to abolish " barbarous and brutal torture" was equivalent to any vote. That was on the 20th of May, 1838, and he conceived that it had been satisfactorily made out that between the year 1836 and 1838 a change had taken plane in the opinions of the Hon. Member. Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, in reply to the observation of the Hon. Gentleinan opposite, that no man had ever been re• claimed by the infliction of corporal punishment, would re mark, that there were at present in her Majesty's service four Colonels who had, while privates, received corporal punishment. —( Hear.) It had also been attempted to he shown, that because there was no corporal punishment inflicted in some of the European armies, we could, therefore, do away with it. Now, with regard to the French army, he would observe, that in the course of one year 81 men had been sentenced to death, and that the sentence had actually been carried into execution in one-half of the cases. Now, if that had been the case in the British service, what would the Hon. Member for Wycombe have said ?—( Hear, hear.) Again, it was said that as there was no flogging in the Irish police, they could do away with flogging in the British army. '1 he Irish police was constie tuted of a better class of men.—(Opposition cheers.) If they would give the British soldier the same pay they did the Irish po lice, a better class of men would enter the army, and they might be enabled to do away with corporal punishment.—(Opposition cheers.) The pay of the British soldier was eighteen pounds a year, and the pay of the Irish policeman was thirty two pounds a year without any deduction, while from the pay of the British soldier considerable deductions were made. He (Lord A. Lennox) had been in the service twenty years. He, in common with all who had witnessed the infliction of corporal punishment, considered it a brutal and disgusting ex hibition, but it was his deliberate opinion that it could not be done away with. He had endeavoured, whenever he had had the power, to diminish its infliction as much as possible; and he was happy to say, that during the last four years, he had only had o ccas i o n to or d er t h e i n fli ct i on o f corpora l punish ment twice.—(Hear, hear.) He acknowledged that corporal punishment was a great evil, but he was afraid that, at present, it would not be safe to abolish it altogether. Mr. 0. STANLEY said that his experience in the army had been but slight, but he could not avoid giving utterance to his opinion, that the infliction of corporal punishment in time of peace was unnecessary. If that were the case, nothing could be a greater disgrace to the army, than to allow the practice of inflicting cerporal punishment to exist. A better class of men would enlist, did they not fear that they should subject them selves to the liability of undergoing a punishment which they considered a degradation. That it might be neces sary in time of ear, was no argument for retaining it in time of peace. It could only be justified by necessity. By subjecting soldiers to corporal punishment they were establishing :distinction between them and all other classes. He was sure that if the punishment were done away with some other effectual means would be found of insuring the discipline of an army. He did not see why soldiers should be subjected to a different treatment from other men. In India the native soldiers were not liable to be flogged, and he believed they were not deficient in discipline. He was glad to find that althotigh the motion might not be carried, the subject had been brought under the consideration of the House, as he felt that its discussion would be attended with advantage. Mr. VIVIAN said, he regretted that a subject which had already been so fully discussed had again been brought before the House, especially at the period when it was found necessary to melte a large increase in our army. He did not think it would be desirable that military commanders should be deprived altog ether of the power of inflicting corporal punishment. it should be remembered that that punishment was inflicted in extreme cases only. He must say the synipathy of Hon. Gentlemen was rather thrown away when it e as extended towards a class of men who were void of those better feelings and principles of which the British soldier ought to boast, because the punishment of flog ging was inflicted rather as an example, and upon men on whom all other kinds of punishment had been tried without effect. His (Mr. Vivian's) idea of the punishment was, that it was more essential in cases of insubordination than on the line of march, or in case of theft, and then as an examele to deter others. As to the punishment of drill, it ought, in his opinion, to be resorted to as little as possible. Then with respect to solitary confinement, there was a class of men in the army who cared not if they were confined ten days nut of every month or fort night. Besides, the effect of the infliction of that punishment would be, that all the well-conducted men would have to do the duty of those whose ill conduct got them confined. Then, again, it was re commended to confine offenders in the hulks. Now, in any place out of the British dominions, as, for instance, in China, at the present time, the punishment of the hulks could not be inflicted. Allusion had been made to the efficient state of the Irish police, in which the punishment of flogging was unk nown . But it must be borne in mind that the men chosen for that service were selected for their good character, of which they should exhibit a testimonial before they were received. He was not one of those who wished to see this punishment carried into effect in the army. He should rejoice in nothing more than to see the army brought to such a state when such a punishment need no longer be held in terrorem over the head of the soldier. But as no officer now could abuse the power, on the contrary, as every Gentleman who had spoken had ad mitted that every commanding officer did his best to dispense with it as much as possible, he could not but express his regret that the Hmi. Gentleman had chosen this particular time to bring the subject under discussion. Captain HOWARD having claimed the indulgence of the House fur addressing it, said he had expected to hear the same arguments adduced in the present, that they had heard tin former occasions, and that he should have met with similar appeals to the sympathies of the country • but yet, where instances of indi v id ua l h ar d s hip were consi dered, they should bear in mind that the legislation of that House had generally been conducted on more broad and comprehensive principles.— ( Cries of " Divide , divide.") He wished to quote the opinion of Sir J. Mackintosh, who he knew was considered a high authority on both sides of the House. With regard to the dis cipline of an army, he says," A prompt and active obedience to authority is the first principle that hold armies together, and is more necessary in ass army than in any other body of men, and without it they will speedily degenerate into a ferocious mob. One of the greatest and wisest men had concentrated into one sentence the description of an army, in saying that an armed and disciplined body may be dangerous to liberty, but an armed undisciplined body was dangerous to society." The lion. Member concluded by stating that in 1836 the opinion of the Judges of the land was against the abolition of corporal punishment. Dr. NICHOLL said, as he had never expressed his opinion in that House on the subject under consideration, he trusted he might be allowed to make one or two remarks. It was the opinion of all the highest authorities, military and civil, that it was not possible to maintain the discipline of the army with out retaining the power of inflicting corporal punishments, though it was extremely desirable to restrain the exercises of that power within the narrowest possible limits. He would state to the House the number of soldiers who wire imprisoned, and the number who had received corporal punishment, in the years 1831 and 1838. In 1831, the number imprisoned was 3,671, the number who received corporal punishment, 1,462 ; in 1838, the number imprisoned amounted to 7,170, while the number upon whom corporal punishment was inflicted, was reduced to 850. His object in referring to that was to show that the military authorities were determined to keep within the narrowest limits this severe but necessary punishment--(Loud cries of "Divide, divide.") He had in tended to make some further remarks, but as Hon. Gentlemen were impatient for a division, he would not trespass any longer upon the attention of the House. Colonel RA WDON said, notwithstanding the impatience of the House, he could not allow himself to give a silent vote on that occasion. His belief was, that if the motion of the Hon. Member for Wycombe were carried, it would be destructive to the discipline of the army, and therefore prejudicial to the interests of the country ; and he would consider his conduct unmanly if he did not boldly express that conviction.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He must say that he could not at all ap prove of that question being brought forward year after year. A few years back a Commission was issued in perfect good faith with a view of finding if possible a substi tute for corporal punishment. That Commission was com posed of four civilians anti three military men, so that however it might be said that military men were biased in their judg ment, in this case the preeonderence was on the other side. The report of that Commission stated that it was the opinion of almost every witness called that the substitution of other punishments in time of active service would be impossible with out injury to the discipline of the army. hat was the opinion of the Duke of Wellington—a name which in the House of Commons and on military subjects would elways com mand respect ?—Hear, hear.) The Duke was asked, " While your Grace commanded the army, was it your wish, and (lid you endeavour to diminish the frequency of corpor a l punishments as much as you could ?" His Grace's reply was, " 'that he had done so himself as far as possible, and that he had found the same endeavour on the part of every commanding officer who knew his duty." \\ hen asked to slate whether he knew of any efficient substitute for corporal punishmeut, his Grace said that he had turned the subject over in' his mind, and he was of opinion that they theyaiwould w could not m a in ta i n t h e army in an e f f i cient state without re taining that p un i s h ment. The punishment of imprisonment wouldbe u fr as regarded be diminishing thec onducted their ondnct force, edmen and By im prisonment the well-conducted men would have to do the work of the man imprisoned.—( Hear, hear.) He would be glad to do away with corporal punishment, but they ought to pause before adopting such a course. He (Col. Rawdon) had acted as president of a court-martial which had sentenced a soldier in the Tower, in 1840, to receive 150 lashes. He would not shrink from the responsibili ty that might attach to him for his share in passing that sentence. The man had at tempted to fire at his comrades through a partition, and for that he had been punished. The great object of punishment was to deter others from the commission of- crime by the force of ezausplu. • Now itnprisontaent did not operate as an cz- amply: Th& stildieks rata the crime and the criminal if they did not see the punishment inflicted. Captain POLHILL, as an old officer, felt it was his duty to state briefly his reason§ for opposing the motion of the Hon. Member for Wycombe. He thought it was desirable that the power of inflicting corporal punishment should be left in the hands of commanding officers, although he admitted that the less it was found necessary to use it the better. Captain BERNAL, in reply, stated, that however humble an individual he might be comsidered, he was somewhat surprised that after the motion had been brought forward, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had not addressed the House upon the subject. He did think that some respe ct was due to p u bli c o pi n i on out o f d oors . —( Cries of " Order, " and " Chair.' The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member was not en titli,d to reply. Captain BERNAL said he wished to explain what had been said b the Hon..3lembr r for Liverp oo l.—(L ou d cr i es o f "O r d er , order," " Chair, chair.") The SPEAKER said,that if the Hon. Member had been mis 'understood he might explain, but he could not introduce any new matter into the debate. Captain BERNAL said that his whole argument was misun derstood and unanswered.—( L aughter.) The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the clause Against it 157 Majority... The Bill was then read a third time, and passed. MARINE MUTINY BILL. This Bill was read a third time, and passed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next. CUSTOMS' DUTIES ('VEST INDIAN AND NORTH AMERICAN COLONIES). On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the House resolved itself into Committee to consider of preliminary resolutions on Customs' duties ( \Vest Indian and North American colonies). Mr. LA BOUCHEHE said that he apprehended that this was the time when it was his duty to bring before the Commit tee the point of which he had given notice. He deeply regret ted that in a Bill of which he approved, and which he would, therefore support, that he should fi n d a p roposa l which was highly objectionable, and altogether at variance, as it appeared to him, with the general purport of the Bill, and which he should, therefore, think it his duty to resist by every means in his power. He alluded to the proposal on the part of the Go vernment to alter the existing law which allowed the free im portation from the United States of America into Canada of a great variety of articles, and t o i mpose a d uty upon some o f t h e moat important of those articles. It was necessary that he should state to the House what the present system was. Flour, wheat, cured meat, and such articles, we e at present allowed to cross the border from the United States to Canada without any duty whatever. 1 hat principle had been adopted by the House on full consideration, in the year 1.8.31, and the consequence was, that a Bill bad been brought into the House by his late la mented friend, Lord Sydenham, then Mr. Pouleti Thompson, who was the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. Previous to that time there was a duty upon w: eat flour brought from the United States into Canada of ss. per quarter. Alr. Thompson, in proposing to do away with those duties, had stated to the House that, as tar as he could perceive, there were no British interests which could be promoted by interfering with the free passage of those articles, namely, flour and silted provisions, from the United States into Canada. That measure of Lord Sydenham, had trot been opposed in the House, and he ( Mr. Labouchere) would remind the Committee of the grounds en which Lord Sydenham had proposed that measure. He held it as a general principle that in all cases, unless where the great interests of the empire were concerned, they ought to abstain from all interference of this kind with the colonies. hat was indeed the principle on which the Hon. Gentleman opposite had framed the rest of the Bill, and the present case was the only instance in which he had departed from that principle. Jr. every other instance the Bill had been constructed upon a principle of relaxation, in that part of the Bill alone had they adopted the principle of increased restric tion. Lord Sydenham had said that by taking off these duties we should make the St. Lawrence the great outlet of the Ame rican States, and destroy the whole range of custom- houses along the St. Lawrence. Now it was of the utmost importance to make the new American States dependent upon us for their great outlet, and by removing tnoseduties the St Lawrence would become the great outlet of the States of Oh o, Indiana, Michi gan, counties rapidly improving in prosperity, fertility, and po pulation. 'the St. Lawrence was the natural outlet of those States. The employment it gave to the shipping of this country coining down the St. Lawrence was better than any advantage that could be derived from a paltry duty on American wheat and flour crossing the border. It w as satisfactory to him (air. L.) to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, say a few nights since, that he did not pro pose this duty in connexion with the present Corn-law, or for the benefit of the English landowner, while he also said it was not for the benefit of the Canadian farmer or miller, who, be admitted with him (Mr. L. ), might appeal to the Canadian Legislature for redress, if they wished to retaliate upon the Americans for the duty they imposed upon Canadian wheat or flour crossing the frontier of the United States. All he meant to say was, that if any Canadian interest was in volved in the measure, that was no question for the House. But if it was not airy British interest or Canadian interest, he would ask what interest was involved in the subject ? He had not, _he 'confessed, received a satisfactory answer upon that point. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that it was an inter-colonial interest that was involved in the case ; but he was certainly at a loss to conceive how that answer applied. lie was opposed to the proposed duty upon meat; he was op posed to the duty upon wheat ; and he could not approve of many parts of' the measure of the Government. The dispute between him and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, how ever, was practmally confined to the questions of meat and wheat. American flour was now imported into this country through Canada, but he believed the practice was carried on to a very limited extent ; and he thought that it would be very unreasonable to entertain any exaggerated fears upon that sub ject. He believed that the importation of flour from the United States to Canada was attended with great advantage to both countries. The greater the facilities we could give for the importation of American corn, as compared with the corn grown nil the shores of the Baltic, the more would we remedy one of the great evils of our present system of Corn-laws. He must say, that unless they should hear in the course of these debates some arguments more strung and conclusive than they had yet heard, and than he expected to near, he hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of withdrawing this proposition ; or if he would not consent to that, he holed that the Committee would do its duty and refuse to sanction it. This was a proposition which would destroy British trade, and to which no advantage had been assigned which would bear a moment's discussion or investigation.— (Heat.) He begged to move that after the words " wheat flour," be inserted except in Canada." Mr. GLADSTONE said that he concurred in all the gene ral principles which he had heard from the Right Hon. Gentle man. (The Right lion. Gentleman spoke in so low a tcne of voice, as to render it almost impossible for us to catch a sr n tenee. ) He thought the time had not yet arrived for the estab lishment of the Right hon. Gentleman's propositions with regard to Canada. If certain improvements could be effected, and they were to wish to establish a system of free trade, his (Mr. Gladstone) should say that that was a proposition which they were perfectly free to grant; but h e d i d not t hi n k th at Canada 6i any colony ought to clai m t h e b ene fi ts o f our co l on i a l system, and at. the same time be relieved from prohibition and restriction. He (Mr. Gladstone) said that there was no such object as protection of Canadian interests and protection of Ilritish interests in this proposition. Of what possible avail could it be to lay a duty of 2s. on American flour to prevent it from being shipped into thi s country, w h en a ll t h ey wou ld have to do would be to carry it across the lake, by which means it would be rendered perfectly nugatory and perfectly useless? But the Right Hon. Gentleman put the question, For whose ad vantage was the charge made? and followed the question, by saying that it was not for the benefit of the consumers in Ca nada. It was not ; but to benefit the consumers in those colo nies which were not exporters of grain, but importers.— ,Hear, hear.) Canada, with respect to corn, was an export ing, and not an importing colony ; and .the only way this tax could operate to their disadvantage, was only by preventing them from making great gains at the expeese of those colo nies which, under the pi cent system, received from Canada American grain as Canadian. This was the case with New foundland. Suppsse thet Newfoundland wants 50,000 barrels of flour, and there is a duty of 2s on foreign flour, and that colonial flour be admitted free; now, if the Canadians be al lowed to import American flour free, they would import 1:10,000 barrels from America for their own use, and would send the same quantity to Newfoundland, and the Canadian merchant would put in his pocket the 2s. which, according to the plan before the House, would be paid as duty on the American flour in Newfoundland, in relief of the taxa ion of that colony. Air. ROEBUCK said that the object of his question was to ascertain what particular class of persons in Canada it was in tended to benefit. The Right Hon. Gentleman had been used as an instrument, not knowing what he was about. lie (Mr. Roebuck) believed what the Hon. Gentleman had stated, that no advantage was attempted to be taken for any persons. The Right Hon. Gentleman had so stated, and he (Mr. Roebuck) was therefore bound to believe him. In this country they sought to promote the benefit of the landlord by the monopoly in the growth of corn. He (Mr. Roebuck) could understand that. Self-interest wag always intelligible. Th e n t o smoo th en the difficulties which lay in the path of the Right Hon. Baro net—difficulties which he (Mr. I{.) understood, which he could appreciate, and which he (Mr. IL) was glad to say the Bight lion. Baronet had not shrunk from facing—nevertheless, now to smooth those difficulties, and to hold out some ground of hope to the agricultural classes of the country, they said they were going to render impossible the importation of American flour. He ( Mr. Roebuck) did not mean to put a questi, n on this subject without touching t, on a point which the House ought to understand—namely, whether they were now in a condition to impose any duty such as that he alluded to for the benefit of the landlord ? But he would come to that point presently. He would now endeavour to explicate theratiocination of the Right Hon. Gentleman. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that he did not intend to benefit any interest in the Canadas, nor any interest of the producers anywhere else, and that his abject was to benefit the consumer. Was it, he (Mr. Roebuck) wanted to know, to benefit the consumers of Canada? He certainly would be benefited in his (Mr. Roebuck's) opinion by cheap corn. But they did not cheapen the price of corn by iisposing an. additional duty of 2s. per quarter; therefore it was not the consumer in Canada that would be benefited. The Right Hon. Gentleman said certainly not; that it was the consumer in Newfoundland that would be benefited. But was he to hav e hi s corn cheaper b y th e i m p os iti on o f an ad ditional duty of2s per quarter ? He (Mr. Roebuck) always found that th e h a l f-physician, t h e h a lf- t h eo l og i an use d t erms that were not i nte l l i gible, and the man w h o th oroug hl y under stood the subject of which he treated used plain words, and such as were easily understood. He certainly presumed that the Right Hon. Gentleman understood the present subject. but he could not but regret that he had used such words as " dif ferential duties." He (Mr. Roebuck) wanted to know hew the imposition of 2s. additiopal duty upon the barrel of corn would lessen the price of it to any person, or how it would enable them to import corn into Newfoundland cheaper than the American merchant? The American corn, he knew by experience, to be better than the Canadian corn, an d t h at t h ere f or e it would find its way int o Newfoundland whether they imposed a duty or not. The fact was, the Right Hon. Gentleman was in a maze on the matter. It was clear as possible that he wanted to make out a case. He s' as like a man wh o a d vocate d a b a d cause. He had t a lk e d round this subj ec t, an d a b out i t an d a b o ut, but. be n ever ex.- plained it ; an d now t h e rea l question was simply—as the Go eminent itself decl a r e d th a t it had no object in view as re spected Canada—was the House prepared in explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman to put a duty upon foreign corn for the benefit of the consumer of Newfoundland—were they to interfere with the great principles of our colonial power for the purposes laid down by the Right lion. Gentleman ? He (Mr. R.) had always believed that the rule laid down since the disaswious war with America, was net to interfere with the legislation of our colonies, except as regarded .he matter of trade.—( Hear, fr om t h e Mi n i s terial benches.) lie took th e Right Hon. Ge n tl eman at hi s wor d. It was to matters of trade he referred. He (Mr. Roebuck) had told them that he had a Constitutional objection to the imposition of a tax of this description for the benefit of anybody in this country not connected with our trade. Did they impose it for the benefit of the landlord? Then,-if they did, they brOke through the Act of George 111. referring to the matter. , The Right Hon. Gentleman said it was not intended for the benefit of the land lord, nor for the mer c h an t o f Canada ; neither was it f or t h e that ben it w elit ofa-sthient-tided for Canadian p t r il o u dri b ee r ; eti o r r .conf the consumer in-New nsumer, but it seem e d fvundland. .. 'that was e 11..,• It ,was reduced to that single item. Mr. GLADSTONE—The West Indies. Mr. ROLBUCK--The West ladies I How could the West THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, APRIL 16, iKv2 Indies be tenefited by their putting 2s. a barrel on Ame r i ca n gour?...(Hear, he ar,) New, it was upon this point that they were about to legislate ft* Canada. They had broken up its Administration. They had crammed the Eng- I lishman and the Frenchman into the Same hull, and now they were about to violate the Act which. Great Britain had patied, after she had been taught wisdom, by which she declared that we would not interfere with such matters. It was a serious step which they were asked to take. What was it which commenced the riot in Do§ttm ? An impost upon tea. And why should ill-blood again be excited, when the Catiaslians saw this impost inflicted upon them for the benefit of the latidlords? They would compare Upper Canada to' New York and to Aliclegan, to that vast wilderness, whose city, after city, metropolis after metropolis, railroad after railroad, was continually springing up. He would ask the House if they were prepared to add this to the existing causes of disa ff ection ? Importation from Amei lea to Canada was easy, almost beyond conception ; it did not depend upon any impediment from the River St. Lawrence—corn floated down from Kingston in twelve hours--a thousand years hence the importation would nut be more easy. Why should they interfere? There was a mischievous spirit besetting them all ; they did not know how to govern the country, but they must show their authority by this petty interference. Let the people govern themselves. There was not a merchant in London who did not know what was the effect of imposing 2s. a barrel on American flour. He would not leave this question without making a slight mention of the law of the case. The proposition which he laid down was, first, that good policy would teach them riot to interfere with the internal regulations of their colonies without some special ground made of benefit to the whole community; and, se condly, that the mode in which that benefit was to be derived was specially pointed out by the Declaratory Act of 1778. That Act bound them not to interfere with the trade of the colony for the purpose of the revenue of the colony. The only case in which they were at liberty to interfere was, where it was necessary, for the benefit of the great leading intei ests of this mighty empire. Now, he asked what those interests were which needed it ? First, the agricultural interest did not need it; the mercantile interest did not need it; the people who were about to be taxed did not need it ; but, said the Right Hon. Gentleman. there are certain people somewhere, he (Mr. Roebuck) did not exactly know where, who might derive a benefit by the imposition of this duty. The Right Hon. Gentleman distinctly stated, and was particular in making the statement, that it would not benefit the growers of corn. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) would ask, would it benefit the consumers? Hear, hear.) The growers of cern might be benefited ay keeping up high prices, but the consumers of corn can only be benefited by low prices; and the onus rested on the Right Honourable Gentleman of showing how the consumer could be benefited, and how American flour could be made cheaper in the market by the imposition of a duty of two shillings. The ,imposition of this duty, moreover, was con trary to the provisions of an Act of Parliament. In the 'year 1771, just before England was compelled to acknow ledge the independence of the Mitericau States, an attempt was made to conciliate the colonies by passing a Declaratory Act. That Act declared that the King and Parliament of Great Britain should nut impose any duty on tea for the pur pose of raising any revenue in any colony ; that they should not impose arsy duty except for the regulation of commerce ; and that the produce of such duty should be applied exclusively to colonial uses. Now, with the Act before them, the onus lay upon them of showing that the imposition of this duty was ne cessary fur the benefit of the general commerce of the United Kingdom. It was not sttfficient to show that. some tine parti cular individual might by chance derive a lenefit of 20. from this duty ; but they were bound to show that the imposition of this duty was necessary for the benefit of the whole commer cial interests of the kingdom. He asked the Right Hon Gen tleman to show him that, and he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman would have great difficulty in showing how any in terest could be benefit d by raising the price of corn and flour by the imposition of this duty. Lord STANLEY thought that the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman's fears that the agricultural interest would be benefited by the adoption of the proposed measures might have been considerably allayed if he (Mr. Roebuck) had taken the trouble to observe the thin attendance of agricultural Members at the discussion.—(Hear.) Although the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had attacked his Right Hon.. Friend as being igno rant both of geography and of political economy, he (Lord Stanley) did not think his Right Hon. Friend stood in need of any defence. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had through out misrepresented his Right Hon. Friend. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had aecusi d his Right Hon. Friend of saying that the St. Lawrence was not the great outlet for the produce of the Canadas and of a portion of the United States. His Right Hon. Friend said nothing of the sort, andhe (Lord S. ) could not believe that there was a Member of the House, nay scarcely a person in England, who was so grossly ignorant. The real state of the case was this. The Hon. Member for Taunton had said, that all the corn and flour exported from America, by way of the St. Lawrence, was paid for directly in . British manufacture; and, therefore, it was of the utmost im portance to encourage this trade for the benefit of those en gaged in British manufactures. In reply to that, his Right Hon. Friend, had said that he (Mr. Gladstone) was afraid that li the Hon. Member for Taunton was taking too sanguine a view of the subject, because, although the navigation down the St. Lawence was easy, yet the navigation up the St. Lawrence was attended with so many difficulties, that he doubted whether the increased state of British manufacture would take place to the extent contemplated by the Hon. Member tor Taunton. That. was the argument of which his Right Hon. Friend had made use, and which the Hon. Gentleman misrepresented. He (Mr. Roebuck) could tint understand how the -imposition of • 2s. a barrel upon flour couli make corn either cheaper or dearer. Hie Honourable Friend never contended that corn in Newfoundland would' be received cheaper, by his pro position, than it as at present, but he contended that whereas Canada possessed an. opportunity in the first instance of importing into the provinces of the British empire cheaper than it could be obtained elsewhere, the result would be, not to relieve the consumer of Newfoundland from the payment of additional price, but that the additional price would go into the pocket of the merchant in Canada. Let them take the case of 2,000 barrels of flour to be exported from the United States and from Canada, supposing a duty of two shillings to be paid on all flour from the United States, and that the Canadian flour paid no duty. The Canadian flour coming into competition with the United States flour, the corn frcm the United States would re gulate the price of the Canadian flour ; and the iesult would be that 2,000 barrels coming into Newfoundland from the United States paying 2o duty, and another 2,000 from Canada, and paying no duty, the price would not be diminished to the con . sumer in Newfoundland, and the revenue would lose the amount which would result from the tax which they would have received from the United States' flour. He had risen merely for the purpose of endeavouring to show in what re spects the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had misunderstood his Hon. Friend's argument. He was not aware, whether he had made the ease clear to him ; but the propotitien which his Hon. Friend had put forward was purely one of equity. There were no interests in Canada, no interests in this country, neither had agricultural interests, anything to do with tins question ; it was a mere question of inter-colonial policy, a question, in his mind, of very small importance, and which. he was sure, would not raise in Canada those hostile feelings which some Gentlemen had supposed. Strangers were then oidered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were — For the clause For the amendment Majority for Ministers On re• entei ing the gallery we found Lord J. RUSSELL on his legs, who was discussing the next clause in the Bill. He said that without any practical evil arising from the present law, which had lssted for eleven years, the Right Hon. Gen tleman came with his abstract principle and said, that because the revenue of Newfoundland might be injured, he would come and interrupt that which was good and useful to commerce, and put a stop to their advantage." He (Lord John Russell) never knew anyihing so wanton, so unnecessary in his life.—( Hear.) If it were for the benefit of some gnat English interest, if it were for the benefit of the landed interest, or of any material interest, he might say that the principle was injurious and vicious, but he should say that sonic interest was concerned, and that tome great matter might be obtained by ihe legisla tion ; but when no benefit could arise to any interest or the revenue, he must say he thought it most uneccessary.— ( Cheers. ) No benefit could accrue to the consumer, fur he understood the Noble Lord to say that the Canadian rehant end importer, being able to send those goods to Newfoundland and other colonies, would have an advantage over the United States merchant, and that he, not paying any duty would go into the market at Newfoundland, aria sell his proportion at the same price as the United states merchant sold his, and would thereby derive an advantage. By that, however, he made out that the consumer received no benefit. They only said that the Canat'ian merchant might receive some advantage from this legislation. Was this a reason to interfere with that which had been established for eleven years, which was working for , good, and might produce very great advantages? Because he would say that there could be no greater advantage than to have a free communication be tween Canada and the United States, because it would bring ho•h to the colonies and to this country great importations . from the Western States of North America. In the case of the East India rum he could understand not a principle; but in this case it was a pure evil—they were interfering with the pros perity of Canada, arid they had no reason for it, but that such a principle had been in force before. He hoped those who had decided in favour of this principle in the case of wheat flour, would negative the proposition now before the House, and that the House would mark its set.se of disapprobation at this petty. meddling legislation. Mr. GLADSTONE said, after the tempered speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, he certainly was sorry ' to hear so sharp and so unjustifiably worded a speech from the Noble Lord as that which had just fallen from him. The Noble Lord had alluded to this measure as if it were intended to obstruct the.commerce between the United States and this country and Canada, and had stated that reducing the duties on the articles contained in the resolutions would have that effect. Now he (Mr. G.) must say, that instances could mu hare been selected calculated more to support the resolutions. He (Mr. P. , ) ventured to say, that it was almost impossible for Americitto send her salted meat into Canada to be transmitted into this country for this plain and simple reason, that America would send from her own ports her salted meat to this country, where it would be taken fur our shipping without pay ment of any duty whatever. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—That was not my argument. My argument was that the increase in the duty would not tend to promote commerce. Mr, LABOUCHERE must admit that when he addressed the House last night, he thought it was impossible for the Right Hon. Gentleman to bring forward the slightest argu ment that would bear upon this subject, but he (..11r. L.) must admit that he had discovered something more plausible than he anticipated.—Olear, hear, and a laugh.) But at the same time he must say, that never was a question pro posed to that House by any Government supported by such slender arguments as those used on that occasion. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had said that they (the Opposition) had reduced the duty on salt meat so much, that there would be no difficulty in the importation of American meat, but they must remember that the St. Law rence was the outlet of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, and all the North-western portion of America. Now cured meat from that part of the country would naturally conic down from the St. Lawrence if they did not interrupt it by imposing a duty. He confessed he had heard with considerable regret the argu ment of the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, on that occasion, because he was a member of that Government which decided upon the measure brought forward by Mr. Pow lett Thompson in the Howe of Commons, which established the system he was now seeking to alter. He really did not think the Noble Lord had staled to the House any substantial reason for departing from that policy which he had recommended, anti which had existed for eleven years without injury to anybody. He could not agree, however, with the Hon. Member for Bath, who stated that the course proposed by her Majesty's Govern.• merit was a violation of the Declaratory Act. lie felt bound to say he could not agree with the Hon. Member in that objec tion to the measure. Mr. ROI:BUCK had taken the trouble to ascertain the consequences of this measure to Canada and Newfoundland. Whest imported from Canada into Newfoundland would be got at 205., and if they put a duty upon flour imported from America into Canada of 25., that would make it 2:N.. therefore Newfoundland wold have to ply a tax of 25., which would be reaped in Canada. Lord HO WICK certainly concurred with the Hon. Gen tlem-n that the measure would be an advantage,. but e n , i t t le. a politic one. 'the arguments us-d by the Right Hon. Gentle. man opposite was precisely the same as that used by th . ein that side of the House withrespect to East India tooacct!. The revenue of both countries v, ould increase witbeuthenefi,- ing the consumer. He entirely concurred with the Hon. COLONIAL CUSTOMS. Mr. M. G18,` 4 ,0N asked if the tight Honourable gentleman opposite meant to bring on his resolutions on the Colonial Customs Bill that evening. Mr. GLADSTONE said he should be governed by the convenience of the House. If there was time he should probably brine- it on after the Mutiny Bill was disposed of. Mr. LABOICUERE thought the Mutiny Bill might occupy much time in the discussion, audit' the Ordnance Estimates were to be brought on afterwards, it would be hardly possible to cuter on the Colonial Customs' Bill. Sir R. PEEL said it would entirely depend on the du ration of the debate on the Mutiny Bill. THE MUTINY BILL—FLOGGING IN THE ARMY. The Order of the Lay having been moved for the third reading of the Mutiny bill, Capt. BENNAL said, that, in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, relative to flogging in the army, he could not help expressing his re gret that a subject which had, on former occasions, been submitted to the House by gentlemen of considerable ex perience, should on the present occasion be introduced by a member possessing only his slight claims on the at tention of note House. He trusted, however, that he should still have the support of Hon. Gentlemen who had formerly voted in favour of similar motions, and especially 4 , f the Hon. Member for Chippenham, who had identified himself a 0 much with the subject. He had certainly un derstood from what had fallen from the Hon. Member on a former evening, that he would himself have undertaken the introduction of the motion. But he trusted that the Honourable Gentleman, when he reflected on the additional weight which his opinions would have from his position in the Government, 'would give expression to his sentiments in the course of the present discussion, and that he would not he satis fied with giving merely a silent vote for the furtherance of a cause of which he had always been so energetic and eloquent a supporter. He hoped be might be allowed to state, for the information of lion. Members who were not practically acquainted with the subject, the state of their legislation on the matter. Prier to the year 1812, there had been limitation to the number of lashes which might be awarded by Courts-martial. In the year 1812, by circular from the Horse Guards, Regimental Courts martial were limited to the infliction of 300 lashes. In the year 1830, District Courts-martial ware limited to the infliction of 300 lashes ; in 1832 they were limited to 300 lashes, and Regimental Courts-martial to 200 lashes. In the year 183:3, after the House had decided by a majority of only II in favour of retaining corporal pu nishment, flogging was limited to cases of mutiny, insu bordination, ai violence, to cases ofdrunkenness while on duty, and to cases of masking away with arms and ammu nition, or to stealing, or other disgraceful conduct. In the year 1836, General Courts-martial were limited to two hundred lashes, District Courts-martial to one hundred and fifty, and Regimental Courts-martial to onehundred. Now, whilst no one would attempt to undervalue the great improvements which had taken place both in limiting the number of crimes and the lashes for which they were inflicted, he confessed that his objections were directed not only against the quantum, but the nature of the punishment, because in his opinion it was not only inefficient to reform the man, but likewise to deter others from committing the same crimes, He quite ageeed with the words which Lord Hill was: reported to have used before the Com mission, which sat in 1834, to inquire into military punishments, with reference to the punishment which was formerly applicd to a military offender, of fastening a weight tultisieg. The words of that Noble Lord were that, he objected to that punishment because he loukad upiitt •it as a punishment which was more fit for a beast 'than a man." But he left it to the _Houle to determine whether this objection was not more directly applicable to the punishment of the lash titan to that of fastening a weight to the leg of a soldier.— (Hear, heat%) He knew it would be urged, is ith regard to the Commission which "sat in 1835, that the Report of that Commission was conclusive against the abo lition o f flogging in the army. He had 'studied the Report with tke greatest attention, and he fully concurred- in the views of the Honourable and Gallant Mather fir Chippenham, who, in seconding a motion which was brought forward in the year 1836, declared that the evidence, contained in the Report of the Commissioners, clearly proved the possibility of abolish ing that mode of punishment in the army, without injury or disadvantage to the service.—(Cheers.) At the same t i me , he was aware that it would be said that none but military then were competent to give a judgment on this point. Against that doctrine, however, he must humbly but decidedly enter his protest. Every pae-e of that Report showed that the witness had rather endea voured to justify the existence of the practice than to assist a dispassionate itionirY into hatw the practice ought to be, Having had the honour to hold a commis sion in her Majesty's army, he was sensible that military Men wer e in neral as humane anti censiderate as the Members o f any other pro feast . But tho.o House would call to mind at that .alter:tala. in receiv e d forms of discipline were rarely popular with the folloWors of any profession.— (pear, h em% ) It air s is matter of history- that the J u d ges h ; d shoa;l t !yea ats averse t o t h e relaxation of the criminal code.as the nilicers of the ar my - to the aholi „,„Toral punishment. It was a curious tact thrtt in 1814, when the quedion was put to the oth e ,,_ Are you enabled to smuggest any rn,ans of restraining or eradicating the propensity to drunken ness so prevalent among the soldiery, and confessedly the parent of the majority of military crimes?" —out of 214 field-officers, to whom that question was put, only two or three suggested moral, intellectual, and religious instruction, as a preventative to ermine! it Ge0r; . ...0 Arthur and Colonel Oglander propo se d schoolmasters' drills, and considering all that had been written and said on the subject, it was an extraordinary circumstance that while much had been done to drill the so ldier, and while his clothes and knapsack were im p oved, and a more efficient weapon put into his hand, they had not dpne much for his luorals,—whih2.nmucit had been done .fur the machinery, little was done for the a au.—(Hcar, .hcaa 2 .) It Was a libel ou hiinan nature to say that instruction tended to render the soldier in- Gentleman near him, that gilt measure was not a violation of the Declaratory Act. He admitted the right and the power of Parliament to make such regulations as those prop o s ed, but he ' thought they ought not to have recourse to change without there was a probability of benefiting a whole colony. He thought that our Government should not set up a priroiple one day and throw it down the next. He could wish them to act on some system of principle. Sir ROBERT PEEL said the Noble Lord had spoken with great fairness. He stated very fairly that the objec tion that the Hosiourable and Learned Member for Bath— thar this measure was an interference with the Declaratory Act—did not apply. The Noble Lord said, let them act on a system. Now, if they were to act upon a system, they would find, on investigation, there was a duty of ‘Js. on flour into Nova Scotia and into Prince Edward Island. That duty was imposed not merely by a Colonial A et, but by an Imperial Act. Now, acting on the recommendation of the Noble Lord, there would be no difficulty in placing Canada on the same foot ing as the other North American colonies. He would remind them, as they were to act upon principle, that last year the Noble Lord had recommended the re duction on the duties of butter and cheese imported into Canada from the United States. [low could they retain the duty on butter and cheese, and not impose it on flour. He (Sir Robert reel) must say, he was a little surprised at the senti ments of the Right Hon. Gentleman, when he said, " Don't touch this subject, as it has been in existence for eleven years." When Le (Sir Robert Peel) contended that they should look with great care at a precedent of 150 years standing, he was met with loud cheers, combined with a sort of derision, welch implied that nothing could be more foolish than the arguments used ; therefore, as far as the eleven }ears were concerned, he thought even that argument failed; whether right or wrong, was another question. He thought the whole argument on the other side preponderated in favour of a change. He hoped they had shown that what had been said by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer was unfounded, and that they did not meet in a violent passion to discuss the subject. Several Hort. GENTLEMEN here exclaimed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir R. PEEL meant the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russel:) bad forgotten the adviee of the Right lion. Gentleman; but he (Sir R. Peel) hoped that throughout the remainder of the session, nothing but good temper would prevail in the discussion of matters which would come before them.—( Hear.) Mr. LABOUCHERE was not aware that there had been any ill temper evinced on that side the House, for, certainly, it was riot a very exciting topic, and, if there had been any ill temper displayed that evening, he should certainly despair of hearing any discussion conducted calmly in that House. After a few words from Mr. C. B u LLE a and Mr. S. O'Barera, on the proposal for fixing the duty on unrefined sugar at 55., Mr. GLADSTONE wished to correct a mistake that had gone abroad upon this point. There was no intention to allow tinkintroduction of unrefined sugar into all West India Colonies at a rate of ss. The old prohibitions will remain just as they were. On the proposal for making the duty on tea imported from China into the United Kingdom, or British possessions, Nr. LABOUCHERE said that he preferred the plan he had proposed last year, on the suggestion of Lord Sydenham. After a few words from Mr. GLADSTONE in explanation, Mr. COl/DEN mentioned, as an instance of the present state of our law on the sulject of sugar, that 14,097 cwt. of slave-grown sugar had been sent out of this country to the West Indies in the space of six months after it had been refined in bond here. Air. AI. MILNER GIBSON complained of a 10 per cent. duty upon slave-grown sugar, refined in this country, and ex ported to the Colonies. He thought that such sugar should be considered as it it were an at tide of British produce. Mr. GLADSTONE stated that the provision he intro duced would leave the question much in the same state in which it stood at present. Slave grown sugar mill not be looked on as an article of British produce, inasmuch as no such sugar was grown in our possessions. 'fhe resolutions were then agreed. to, and the House re sumed. The Report was ordered to be brought. up on Monday. Air. GLADSIONE, in reference to sugar cording into the Colonies,• said he copied the words of the existing Possessions Act., so that the prohibition would remain precisely as it was at present against importing foreign sugar into the Colonies. He would allow the Colonies to import tea from the United States or any other place on payment of a duty of 7 per cent. ad v .1 lorent. _ On ihe suguar item being proposed. Air. COBDEN objected to the clause that would allow the importation of slave-grown sugar refined into Canada, while the poor people of this country could not u:e it. This was in consistent Mr. GLADSTONE said our possessions had not sugar to send these colonies, and he merely proposed to leave them the privilege they had had for years. 'the Turnpike Roads', Bill, and the Railways' Bill (second reading) were postponed to Monday. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past en. ELECTION COMMITTEES. LONGFORD. The Committee were occupied during the forenoon in hear ing the continuation of the arguments on the question whether the additional rent that. could be got for a farm should be the test of the value to constitute the tranchite, or the produce of the farm, accord►ng to the usual practice of agriculture. The examination of the w itneses to the qualification having concluded, the vote of J. Dogherty was decided to be a bad one, and struck off the poll, and the Committee also came to the itecition of applying to all the cases the solvent tenant test. Mr. A USTEN then, on the part of the sitting Member (Mr. White), stated that the seat would not farther bedefended, and that Mr. White withdrew from the contest. The inquiry is thus virtually terminated; it only remaining for the Committee to strike off a sufficient number of votes to give the petitioner the majority. This the Committee proceeded to du, and had struck off seven votes at four o'clock, when it adjourned. IPSWICH. James Adams, the drummer, was r2-examined by Mr. rhillips for the sitting Member—Witness was also a fifer, and he performed on a tin whistle during the late eleation.— (Laughter. ) He never shouted in derision of Mr. Wason, though Me. Wason did speak disrespectfully of him, by having etieu out to follow him, for Adams was not. the man to give a bribe before a third person—(Laughter)—though he never bribed any one.—( Laughter. ) A good deal-of other exami nation fullowed. but the only point elicited was that one wit , ness who voted for the sitting Members on principle, soon after 'was appointed to a place in the Customs. James Shanders examined, stated he heard Mr. Rigby Wason address the electors from the hustings, when he said,' that 2,0001., 8,000 r., or even a sacrifice of 10,0001., should not stand in the way of his being returned for Ipswich. Mr. Rennie followed in a similar strain; but the witness would not undertake to swear that he said more than money shall be no obstacle in the way of our election." He and a person, named Walter Edgley, addrtsed a letter to Mr. Wason, stating that he (witness) would divulge some words which would be likely to tend to good towards him. Cross-examined by Mr. (. PHILLIPS, on behalf of the sit ting Members—The purport of what he preps( d to divulge was concerning a sermon preached by the Rev. Mr. Alderson, who took for his text—" Fallow your own laud, but sow not your seed among thorns." This sermon was preached en the Sunday previous to the election, and was ttended by a number of the Liberal party. Was not surprised at so large a sum as 10,000/. being spoken of as likely to be spent at an election after what he witnessed at Norwich, where 30,0001. was ex pended. He supposed the text alluded to the Corn-laws. Alfred Edgley was the next. witness ; he said he was master, in a school attached to th Reverend Mr. 'Alderson's chapel, with whom he had a misunderstanoing. in consetitience of refusing to vote for the candidate whom he sug gested. He was in the Liberal interest always, but not having received any instructions - or advice from the- , he offered his set vices to the opposite party. tie wrote a letter to Mr. R. Wason, stating, that if he sent him 301., he would not come forward on the present occasion. (Menden . , being ,nurn, said, a short time yrevions lo the election his wile reeelven two cheques fur .'5l. Cacti, trom a person named bunth, who keeps the Suttoik Hotel. 'Ile) were subsequently handed over to a peescri named John Man, but returned to witness's wife, soon after which they were cashed by a person named Waller. Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—The notes received in cashing the cheques-were red. 'I hose ot Alexander's bank at Ipswich arc ot the same colour. Vt , dness's wile was at present, and had been for some time back, unwell, and, therefure, unable to attend the Committee as a witness. This witness, dining his exemmation, was reprimanded by the Chairniat:, who said (t 4 it. the concurrenc e of the Commit tee), if he did not give his evidence i❑ a dearer and morn satis• factory manner, they thouid report him to the House of Com mons. '1 he Committee adjourned at Four o'Clock to Eleven o'Clock to-day. PROMISSORY NOTES. (From Last Night's Gazette.) An Account of the Average Aggregate Amount of Promissory Notes payable to Bearer on Demand which have been in Circulaton in the United Kingdom, distinguishing those circulated by the Bank of England, by Private Banks, and by Joint Stock Banks, in England and Wales, by the Banks in Scotland, by the Bank of Ireland, and by all other Bank , :, in Ireland, and of the Average Amount of Bullion in the Bank of England, during the Four Weeks ending the VA day of April, 1842, pursuant to the Act of 4 and 5 Victoria, cap. 50. ENGLAND. Bank of England £16,674,000 Pri%ate Banks Joint stock Banks.... SCOTLAND. Chartered, Private, and Joint Stock Banks IRELAND. Bank of Ireland Private and Joint Stock Banks 2,259,556 Total. £33,014,677 Bullion In the Bank of England .... £7,006,000 HENRY L. WICKHAM. Stamps and Taxes, Aprills, 1842. ARMY FOR INDIA. The 78th Regiment is to embark at Gravesend for 13mnbay, as follows, viz.:— On the 18th inst., per Morley 9 9 Mary 250 „ 9 Columbus 11 t , Lord Lyndoch 240 „ 9 9 Boadicea 192 9 On 20th inst., rer Bussorah Merchant 200 „ The Mellish is taken up to convey troops to Madras ; the Ann, Princess Royal, Ingh3, Volusia, Ocean Queen, Dauntless, Mermaid, Berkshire, and several other ships, aro also engaged for the same purpose. Tonnage has been advertised for, to t a k e t h e 95 t h Regiment from the Cape of Good Hope to M a d ras. We regret to announce that accounts have been re ceived of the death of Captain Vernon, of the 15th Hussars, at Aden, on his route to India. CITY OF LONDON THEATRE. Kotzebue's much admired drama of The Stranger, :;ur tai ed (we qu , to from the bill) for the p ur p ose i n .. two acts," was produced at this house last e v en i ng , t o: t h e pu , pose o f in troducing Mr. Wellington, who sustaiced the character of the Stiaoger, to a London audience. As fir as we could judge horn the very absurd curtailmen' of this 'want iful five-act play into two, Mr„ , llington w as em i nent l y successfu l i n th e cha racer of the Stf anger, and an univer,al call for him at the ter minat to:t or the piece testified that, the audience participated in our opinion; every allowance should be made for the difficulty of haeicg to say as much in the space of an hour anti a quarter as generally required three hours. The part of Mrs. lialh:r was sustained by Yrs. Atkinson ; to a charming person, this lady unites a just conception and an excellent. delivery ; tt s eldom ialls to our lot t o w i tness a b etter i mpersona ti o n of this cha racter'. The little part of Francis was exceedingly well ex ecuted by Mr. Me.bourne ; the aher parts were sustained b.) the comT;any in a very creditable maimer. Donn, ai , P eter d was very amwing, and our old iri.iud, E.. Terry, The that she ought t o b e i n the lively littki• rlarl. of Charlotte. 4titise was very well attended. SPORTING tNTELLAGENCE• NEWMARKET—TIIURsna Y NICHT. BETTING IN THE EVENING. Two Tuotisman GUINEA •STAKES.-9 to 4 agst Meteor; 7 to 2 ag , t Potentia c. DERIsV-3 to 1 agst Scott's lot (t); Bto 1 agst Attila; 10 to 1 agst The Frederica c (t); 14 to 1 agst Canadian ) ; t 14 to 1 agst Auckland; 20 to 1 agst Joanna c ; 2b to I a gi The Lord of Holderness ;30to 1 agst Ballinkedel to agst Eleus (t freely) ; 50 to 1 a"st Policy ; 50 to' 1 a r. t , Tiptoe ; 1000 to 15 agst Master 'I homas; 1,000 tia 1 5 t , Sfi . ' Dirce c; 2000 to 15 agst The Golden Rple (t). the At present there is only one race for to-morrow. va• t h e match between Albion and the Petulance c. Dilbar over for the Stake, the Duke of Bedford and Lord Albealar!a divide the Port, and Archy and Edgeworth Bess receive In their matches. INTELLIGENCE EXTRA. NEWMARKET FIRST SPRING MEETING, 1842. MONDAY. d r ed, 501., for four yrs, 7st 101 b; five, Bst 91b.; six an a 9st. Last three miles of B.C. Sweepstakes of 20 snvs. each ; for three yrs, 7st; four. Bst 91b ; five, 9st 21b ; six and aged, 9st 41b. D. M. Handicap Sweepstakes of =ova. each, It ft, if declared' for three yrs and upwards. T.Y. C. . • Sweepstakes of 10 soya. each ; for three yrs, colts Bst and fillies, Bit 41b. T. Y. C. The winner to be said f or 2001., &c. fillies, Sweepstakes of 50 soya. each ; for three yrs-old b, Bst 71b each. T.Y. C. Lord Lichfield's Mips Van Milberg , Mr. Thornhill's Eusebia, Fulwar Craven's Don' t -say- .% Captain Williamson's f by Camel, out of Albania, Mr. 'W e i,. Ladye of Silverkeld Well, Lord G. Bentinck's f Nina (des ) Sweepstakes of 50 soya. each; for foals of 1839, out of nia!!! that never bred a winner ; colts Bst 71b, and fillies est I; those by stallions which never got a winner allowed 31bs. —Duke of Grafton's fby Ishmael. out of Balance ; Mr. I: 3l g,f r ", Eleuc, Captain Williamson's f by Camel, out of Albania; ", Combe's Rosalind, Lord Exeter's Saros (wrong n u tninationP i Match-200, h ft, R. M., Lord Chesterfield na. by M t ale by Moloch, out of Carew's dam, agst the Duke of Portland's ' Doctor Syntax, out of Ruth. fist Match, 200, h ft; T. Y. C.—Mr. Byng's Garry Owen , 61b. agst Duke of Bedford's Oakley, 7st 101 b. • ' of b, Match-200, hft; A. F.—Lord Albemarle's Ralph. Bst 1 0 1 agst Lord G. Bentinck's 1-roof Print. i TURSDAY. fist The Queen's Plate of EV Guineas, for =sea ; 4 yrs 91b ; 5 yrs, 9st 81b ; 6 yrs, and aged, lost. B. C. The 2,000 Guinea Stakes for 3yr &d colts, ttlat 71b; a dd • fillies, Bst 41b. R.M. fet a Lord Albemarle's Robin and Dorothy ; Mr. Wre Wiseacre ; Sir. Goodman's Rover ; Lord G. Bentinck'S 7j -. ;" deal, TedwOrth, Peloponnesus, and Firebrand • Lord ; field's c by Bay Middleton, out of Miniature ; Lorh ~ - ersev's ther to Phoenix ; Col. Peel's Archy and Seahorse ; Lord ~7 l y ter's Saros, Albion. Reversion, anti Revulsion , Lord Orfo - c by.Emilius, out of Wild Duck, and c by Jerry, out ole,elu, lance ; Mr. Ford's Sideboard ; Mr. Greene's eh cby !: I ` s .. acae, out of Zany's dam ; Mr. Bowes's Meteor ; Mr. ,„„' dale's Lucullus, and Timoleon ; Mr. Nevill's ch cby Vel— pede, out of Amadou. Sweepstakes of 300 sovs. each, 100 ft., for 4 yr-old colts 71b, and fillies I3st dos Lord Exeter's c, by I3eiram, out am , of Mari ells, Aby,,io; Mr. Tornhill's Eringo ; Mr. Bowes' Witch of Whorley „," 0 . Duke of Bedford's John o'Gaunt and Oakley : Lord 0..' tinck's Dreadnought and Grey Milton (wrong nom:nation/h. Match-50 soya. h ft, 'l'. V. C. Thornhill's Ends and 0 Bst 71b, agst Mr. Delme Radcliffe's Uffington. WEDNEsDA Y. vesfi Fifty says. fir 4 yrs old, 7st Blb ; 5 years, Bst 1 11b-; and aged. 9st 31b. 13. C. A F. Handicap of 20 stirs: cash for 3 yrs eld and upwards. .e• ry Sweepstiles of 10 soya. each, for 3 yrs old, ist, and 4 ). Sst 101 b. D. M. • The winner to be sold for 100/. &c. of Sweepstakes of 100 sovs, each, h ft, for colts and tillie,4e b engweed in the 2,000 guineas, Newmarket, or Grand ," Michael Stakes; colts, Bst 71b, fillies, Bst '2lb. D. M- sin Mr. Goodman's Brigand; Duke of Grafton's Utopia ; . ag ia FOrd's Beads or Tails ; Mr. Treene's Barrier ; Duke a r e ; ford's Envoy and March, of Intellect; Mr. O s haltleslo n The Devil- among-the-Tailtirs; Lord Albemarle's Nu n ' . Mr. Et well's Palladium; Col Anson's Attila. Match, 200, taf., 1). M.—Lord Albemarla's Nuncio, Ss" against Lord Orford's c by Jerry, out of Petattlance, Bst alb• THURSDAY. alb; The Queen's Plate of 100 guineas, for 4 yrs old, Os' . 5 yrs, lOst 71b ; 6 yrs, and aged, lOst lzlb. R.C. 11b• Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, for 3 yrsrold colts, "be and fillies Bst 41b. First half of Ab. M. The vrinaer • ' sold for 501., &e. • alb, Sweepstakes of 10 SOTS. each, for 2 yrs-old colts, anti fillies Bst 31b. T. Y.C. e ach' The 1,000 Guineas Stakes for 3 yrs old fillies, Bst 741 ',„ 1)° - Osbaldeston's Oh, Don't—Lord AlbeinarLsret rothy—Mr. Byng's Ca Ira—Duke of Rutland's fbY out of Flambeau's dam—Mr, G. Walker's Lithuan ia f Lithuania Thornhill's Equator—Duke of Grafton's Utopia, a d a , Jerry, out of \Vhizgig—Lord G. Bentinck's Fircbrsn ond Balcon)—Lord Exeter's f by Touchstone, out of Arna ni aister f Valance—Lord Lichfield's fby Bay Middleton, out of Adel, to Portrait, and f Miss Van Amburgh—Lord 0:1 0 r u ,:; - ;Mf'. gun a_,-111r. Sadler's Passion—Mr. Coleman's Gag"' •SP . i, B owes ' s ;:elye of Silverkeld Well, and La ss of Loolu v F. Wood's Eti.7a—Lord G. Bentinck's Nina (dead). f illies Sweepstakes of 5 0 sass. each, h ft for three yes nll i on'` f "y.C. notengaged in the 1,06 ,1 Guineas Stakes ; Bst 71b e ach ; Lori Oiford's Bridal, Hilie of Grafton's Era, Sir. ba 0 f 11 15 by Jerry out of Revelry,. Mr ,Newton's f by Jerry. 00 t Fanchon, Duke of Bedford's f by Lancastrian, out of play Mr. Greville's Edgworth Bess. oft Id. Tat Sweepstakes of 10 sous. each, for three yrs 010, Bst 61b ; fire, six, and aged, 9st; D.M. Winn er to be fur 1/.sto,/ three ; v The Newmarket Stakes of 50 soya: each, h ft ' hi: for v, old colts, Bst 71b and fillies, Bst 21b; , "' Christopher, Mr Batson's cby Plenipotentisxp' out • or, r , Lord Lichfield's c by Bay Middleton, out of bliniature , ', Ft ; Exeter's Reversion. Saros, and Albion, Mr. Thornhill $O4, James, Colonel Peel's brother to Vulture , Mr. Prince's i l p ,rti with, Duke of Bedford's c by The Tulip, out cf Mona, _Aott, Stradbroke's Jeremy Diddler, Duke of Grafton's Canr . ; t Mr. Coleman's Gazelle, Lord Orford's c by Emiliu s,° , l o Wild Duck, Lord Chesterfield's Johnny Faa, Colonel A, P ;;( 1- The Puncher,. Ld. G. Bentinck's Peloponnestts, Len IS' burne's c (dead) by Velocipede, out of Miss NOT'. Wigram's Benington (paid.) g l c r The Newmarket Palace Stakes of 200 soya. each, h r? three )rs old ; colts Bst 71b ; fillies, Bst 31b. (oi te! Duke of Portland's c, by Bay Middlet in, out of 11' e , g oo , Lord Lichfield's c. by Bay Middl e ton, ton, out of Aliniatu rt '' , rs' Alias Van Amburgh ; Colonel Peel's Chatham, Lord lam's Robert De Gorham, Mr. Bowes's Lass ofLoutos, Air. Greville's Gunter. jolt Match-200, h —T. AI. M. —D like of Bed fo rd : / pc"' o'Gaunt, Bst 121 b, agst Lord Kelburne's c, by Mulef dam by Acteon, Bst. , 431 M.tch, 100, h ft. D.M.—Duke of Bedford's OS ki l' an ce , Bst 71b, agst Lord Orford's c. by Jerry, out of Pet'''. . . . - yrs, 7st. V. . s 0' NEWMARKET CRAVEN MEETIN a -• o f THURSDAY NlGHT.—flaying given staple detailssititbe',: racing in Cu" express from the Heath, we have only t i ( sen ,lsPr betting in the town in the evening. Meteor andth e sods , • colt were backed freely for the 2,000 Guineas Stake% t he: . other mentioned. The only novelty in the Derby „Iv 1 , 5,i vance of Canadian to 14 to I, and the restoration ''' ro of ilc4l . of Holderness to 25 to 1 (offers), a tolerably strong .I),,ispsr.l those who betted long odds against on the strength el " , u. ,,,,,-- fi . down had received the " wrong office."eO l lji . 1 his = Nat's accident turns out to be as we described it•-•: sic to,f ~.; bone is broken, and there is no chance of his being "" ,s. .... . , again previous to the Derby. .. . ,sO, FRIDAY. O f f The report alluded to in our Express on Thurs"l a Y st Se , out to be trite to its fullest extent, every one of the. c o o down fir tearing been " u deferred"—a ciretimsta ° t , et s i counted tor partly by the badness of the horses 0 1,10/41!•st partly to the unph asant feeling created amongst a‘,'• W i e' , -. .4. - s .or , trig men by the never-ending " Gurney affair. s' i a clso I . joi n the v rdicts in the aforesaid causes : ,00 Sweepstakes of 60 sovs. each, .03 1 ft ; los fillies, t:5 ti , l er. •41° - :- &c. R.M. (5 Subs.) „ s all` c . c iP - Lord Chesterfield's DA-bar (allowed 31bs) ...... .... 5 00 The Port. Stakes of 1(10 • ors. each; for four YL . -.o9.l, sr ssibl„!‘ Bst 71b ; and fillies, Sst 41b. T.M. M. (6 `'the . I v' ' , al; Lord Allseinas le's Ralph walked over, and divided 1 • 0 Ora . _ 4; with the Duke of Bedford's John-o'-Gaunt. , 1, 1%:•1 3 1.! Rutlsrld's Sir Hans paid 25 sovs. ft 0n1),4 s • 4 1ti;_,tf t . 4 10:;! forfeit iei. f i t:ti e :L s • f ird by K S e l l a b t n e rn o e a 's t Au of t i i\ - I D ar ic y ke A ns n , n ti: sstli; ' 'l- 1 „' ! - 'ffs .: of Ab. M. 99 h ft. Cu!. Peel's Archy, Bst 71b, received forfeit fe ' °l ' ' ' . -I 'so, l . 1 1i:;4 4.''a burne's fby Retriever, dam by Ardrossan, fist.B . , il'oillS b n f;: .9 Mr. Grevill's Edgeworth Bess received. forfeit Lichfield's Miss Van Amburgh. Bst 71b each, D. , -;,:i v etc . 7 ll ' e Lord Orford's c, by Jassy, out of Petulance , s r e ';, - 00( 4 .'s '''.o.; from Lord Exeter's Albion, Bst 71b each, D• 3 1 •, ''• • •s' , '''.. ,i LATEST [SETTING. ; . ' . s• 2,000 G':INEA STAKES. sto 2 agst Mr. Bowes's Meteor. - , s 7to 2 agst Lord Orford' s Petulance colt. . . DERBY. ' ,!• 8 to I agst Colonel Anson's Attila. - ~s' 8 to 1 agst Mr. Trelawny's Frederica colt. 13 to I agst Duke of Grafton's Canadian. .. • 14 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Auckland ow . 28 to I agst Mr. G. Clark's Lord of 110Ider 28 to I agst Mr. Biggs' Eleus. .. _ • 30 to 1 agst Mr. Dixon's 13allinkeele. ta ken 13 to 1 agst Lord of Holderness and Eleus — CHESTER CUP. • 20 to 1 agst Col Ansmodanthe. eri .. • -- - -- --- --- - -- slijES . .ll• • i t e,-. l ' CORONER'S INQ ki 0 , waS . _ o rtie" Yesterday evening, at seven o'clock, an inl e park ~ P r. ' - the Beard-rnoro of St. George's Hospital , ki t ssessjsl i eOlfl before Sir. Higgs, on the body of Mr. RObe r 2.; 4 2 cOg i , 4 o ‘ i fi! : ton, aged eighteen, a young gentleman of :1 4, ao. ..... 0. so , who was killed on Thursday afternoon , by being his horse in Hyde Park. 're '6usr ell ' Captain Higgins, of the Ist Regiment of lA Til r °,l ll ' l 4V' posed, that, between three and four o'clock noon, he was in Ilyde Hark, when h e obse °° ' galloping along Rotten-row. lie was c°flain o g s pet:i -'t SSi Lion of Kensington towards Hyde Park ieseteg q_..., ~ legs were out cf the stirru and be was ii i g e,illf.acKee ' having hold of the mane. Whenl near the br d. , 'l o ps was thrown off on the near side into 0-m':aback, garsfs?l'' proceeded on. Witness, who was 00 hors p r inces • siS etrors the spot, followed by his Royal Highness we re 10_, y— who , sntso 1- Cambridge and Sir George Wombwell,. _ o ven si ' s•-• row and saw the accident. The deceased s ap o p _ ita l. _ ~, , c oo, , less. H 6 was immediately conveyed to thl b l : e test all srbe dto Da' wing. By the Jury—The deceased appease tooled to r mand of the horse, as if he was not accts. , 3 f's'; Priktey animal was not going at a furious rate. t 9 _ _ ons e veatath.,atil, s/s. is but l' - ' GeCor7ele'ofe W°lnbwe 'other 041..- wire no . had both left town that morning. the Cambridge beadl e, - said and he r h aodelnerlf h c 11 1 : 1° to the-ea, ne,ses who saw the accident. • t the Jury as ~t istitol e , There was sonic discussion amongs t , : tne ev.denee u:_..,-.,1 . 1 1- . psi( ty of au adjournment, to obtain Wombwell. P. ~ , ~,.., George of Cambridsse and Sir Georg e,, %,.__ ss ,„ rn ed , ~. matcly rc''' ' , - CONVI CI ''4 SUICIDE OF TIIE CAPTAIN Or A f set{-destruClllf:.,,r ' • determined act o m ander of lbs' - • "At Thursday morning a the cons w e s s irs, committed by Captain kVeakney, _ si , s _ Rste g, On si - ea s k tliss Admiral convict ship. now lying off L '''l7 - ; , of fi ce rs in 1 %,ii4,4 ' t. • ..ney supped wit. es , nothing o p ~,,ss, night Captain k esk eat 0 0 •1 and when he retired to rest theta I ail ligood health gni! •PF:S`ti4 his manner, and ne was appsrent.y j" t' e ,, le °° b l 5 O l a verdict °I. .. Accidental Death as c,cir.. Thundav morning, abut., six o'clock. the n.. p . a s, tef ~,,0 4 ; 'nit • ea abetoarilis- ' Jos • re hailed b vi y ,:, tl e ie j e tt l m sl: l % , : i 1,....in,,5tert,810 acts, ,01 ail was safe below, and that none of t h b e . coes, lo __ ever, 1t 5 . ., 41.1 osl:l;E‘i?eiLitshAoeafn'tfbi'retaulasil"e:tp went upon deck, and __n icts h a d 5u,4 ,4 at tempt to escape. The crew of the liy , 1 .,_ 7 s ._..,„,yrif:o?_. A rty rise larn- e, , !"P-Sgsis Sf the cabin, and they had seen the 1 . _ .„_,_ ,, ,,,, 4,. .. , that some one had jumped overbsard from, t4° once' _sn s. tr sink. Tlie'cabin,door, which was fastened wl Er t i vi i l s 7_. r, J 1 .:.; (iiately broken open, and the Captain. v‘as ,nd u..t. he Inu it t. berth. • All his clothes were in the cabin,. oat h gone overboard with nothing on but h . ss ,: s yn: st - i s sid,i Immediate search was reade for - Cali:tairt 1Y ,Li i t l , 7 ! Cipt i r; was not -recovere t. ._ t, y river was dragged, but the bo dy . .HolSid 'bite"! s At iii Weaktley was litty-six years of ; age. ~ , ~.A . 1 0:#: fears its the Royal Navy,. was rituch,respectetd , 11. , ! 1 ; 77, eye in an engagement with the-ebenty: - - 4., 111 1 , 01 _ 1 4 tee r u g; ihre 2 2 , at a ,14 1, of its vo ' ll, lr c d 64: 9 I'Puer):te e o rel V L ADEL ‘l; ll ii itorn A t a., it N a l is iml I'qth the upo t lr t et issu h tsider L rarm sma 4 1 4 did sot Jo,ooo ,Nor Z l ied I ,(4„rtig no Was ,Ylid not Sigt tremini 1 1 1,, N an 1 $• !: . 1 1 e t ra : i 44 i - o t i i a Him Xtei t .Tr t;4', t 9 1 4 46 f r et iNtpl 0114_ Tile of rot.tiol ki k ): eei -.ldar el E I, a shim " 1. .%tr a 0 i fears 'l/46!_gimit] tfi gire, • 'NI ratlnSiMd 4. tc t . N ktton - . It h ltil ;;; o l ti nd A td• sti \it,.. State 1 / 2 Z 4 to °S. eon. . 4 8: 1.4n , A _ni rt n dt le. t .1, , p1 i 0 4Zuq ,, , giey, c ( ., , 1... t a : h' Ild 7 'i., 1 4), b lill eti ,Assa f l. 11° ' r !)1314 s , i t tik s° is lil.re! rti l th, Vj At !ru 'ITA., "o c Pie; N CH 19