The National Register.
London, England, 1811-06-23 00:00:00

6 si

tractor, and having stated to him the substance of them, enjoined
him to have the bread of the proper quality. On the arrival of
the corps on the succeeding night, (many of them probably in a
state of intoxication,) the reports were renewed .and circulated
among them. The Colonel then had the bread served up to the
mvs-table, in order that the Officers should decide with respect
to its sufficiency. They did decide that it was good, and on go-
ing down and making proper representations to the men, it was
taken by those.aniong them who had been loudest in complaint.
Shortly after this the bread was kicked about the streets by a
fresh set of malcontents; upon which the Colonel not satisfied
with the steps he had already taken, sent a sample of the bread
to the Inspecting-General of the district, who acquiesced in the
judgment already passed by the Officers. The affair now began
to assume a serious aspect; the officers were hissed through the
streets, and placards were posted up, stating, that the corps had
been served with sour bread. The Colonel then thought it ne-
cessary to confine some of the ringleaders. Taylor was selected
for punishment, not as the Hon. Baronet had stated, because he
was the author of the song in question, but, because he had ta-
ken a prominent part in the mutinous proceedings : and consi-
dering-the pathetic statement which had been made of' his case,
it would appear somewhat extraordinary that the man himself
was the first to express the necessity there existed for his punish-
ment, and to acknowledge the lenient spirit in which his sen-
tence had been executed.—The Hon. Baronent had made a very
exaggerated statement with respect to the number of desertions
in the army, which he might have been led into by his ignorance
of military affairs. When he stated that there were 875 deser-
tions, it must not be supposed that there was that number of in-
dividuals, but frequently seven or eight desertions were the
crimes of one individual. Mr. Sutton then paid some high On-
plhuents to our soldiery, deprecated the interference of the
House of Commons in military affairs, and concluded by ex-
pressing his intention to oppose the motion.
Mr. Baoucua as supported the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON re protested in the strongest manner
against the mode in which'the Hon. Baronet had introduced
his motion. Although the Honourable Baronet had stated many
anonymous cases, he had not informed the House of the names
of the individuals concerned, nor had he given such informa-
tion as might lead to the thorough investigation of the bets to
which he alluded. With regard to the regulati.eis of the Regi-
mental Hospitals, his Lordship believed no army in the world
was' better provided for, or their comforts more humanely
consulted; thattthat of Great Britain. Were the wishes of the
Hon. Baronet complied with, the punishment of death must
occur more frequently, and that which was already considered
oppressive would become doubly cruel. The attention of his
Royal tsighness the Commander in Chief, had already been
directed to the subject, and every possible expedient was
adopted to render the punishment of flogging less frequent, in
conformity with the wish expressed by the House iu their con-
sideration of the Mutiny Bill.
Mr. WHITBREAD was ready to admit, that the punish-
ment of flogging was much less prevalent of late years than it
# had been.
Mr. Yo AZ E considered the proposed Address as ill timed.
Mr. W. Stoma spoke in favour of the Address.
The CHANCELLOR of the Excliequea, in a short but
eloquent speech, warmly animadverted on the conduct of the
I-lon. Baronet in introducing his 'potion at a period of the
Session so far advanced. The Right Hon. Gentleman then
appealed to the glorious struggles against the enemies of their
country, and to the immortal honours which they had reaped
by :heir bravery, as a complete refutation of the opinions thrown
1 out by the Hon. Baronet. Opinions which could be only enter-
tained by the Hon. Baronet himself, and of such a nature that
if he only founded his hopes of success upon them, he was likely
to divide even without a teller. It had been stated that it was
possible to do without flogging, but it bad been also admitted
that it was equally possible the discontinuance of it might be
attended with ill consequences. It this was the case, lie trusted
the discretion , f the House would not suffer them to adopt
a measure the effects of which might be so injurious to the mili-
tary service.
Air. C. ADAMS opposed the Address, as did Sir H. MONTGO-
MERY.
Mr. HUTCHINSON spoke in favour of the Address.
:sir F. Ile K DETT, in reply, denied that the arguments of the Rt.
Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at all either shaken
his conviction of the necessity of his motion, or his resolution to
attempt to execute it. Rational discipline stood on one hand,
and correction by the cat.oi•nine tails on the other, and nothing
should hinder him from supporting a nieasure of mercy. He dis-
dained to retort on the insinuations which he believed that
1 the Chancellor had used ag iii ,t hip motives fur his motion.
lie. sustain, d, by must ft eling elOilUellCe, his 01,;41jOilli on the
, c' uelty of punishment, and quotest, as an act .of Want"'
f : :1•,, ..1 Four soldier who Lad been &aped, becaus4; lie sot