The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-08 00:00:00

whatever of this country being invadoil—(lleer)—ann
even if there was, that the invaders would pay the
penalty with their lives; but will he advocated the mea-
sure; he looked upon it as a guarantee of peace, and he
considered it to be strictly the duty of the Government
to look to ita defences. • . .
Mr. CARTER thfught the objection of the Nob'©
Lord to the Bill would be best expressed by voting on
each division against it than by absenting himself and
taking no part after the second reading. He entreated
the Committee to make the Bill plain, and to leave
nothing to implication.
Admiral STEWART said the country had a righnto
security. The defence of the country bad been rested
upon the navy, and the navy would do its duty now as
it always did; bet in 1803, though there were 100 ships
of the line ready—and the navy had the supremo, td
the eca—a vast number of eolunteers were roesed in Ad-
ditien to defend t'ec country. It was said that steam
bridged over the Chancel; but then it was a draw-bridge
which could he raised at will by the invader. Ile (Ad"
mire' Stewart) could not end would not uedertake to Bey
that n Frenchman should land under any circumstanie s
of wind and weather; but ho had no fear of a general
invasion. He was, however, opposed to the Bill, ',acme-et,
it ens an expensive measure, He thought the plans o'
Sir 11. Douglas and General Reid might be adopted
with less cost and more efficiency. lie was not afraid
of a general invasion, but what ho did dread was
"dishing" actions, which might even compromise a
metropolis—(A laugh)—and, therefore, ho thought that
camps commanding the river end railroads would
be the best form of d fence, as was recommendtd
by those officers. He (Admiral Stewart) & precated
the interference of the Hon. Member for the West
Riding of Yorkshire in respect of the distribution of the
fleets of this country, and cansidered the Hon. Member
even more. daring than a celebrated wit had described
the Noble Member for London, when ho said be would
command the Channel fleet, or build St. Paul's; at a
moment's notice. Ho (Admiral Stewart) ventured to
say that no English vessel would be safe on the South
American coast if there were not British ships of war
on that station. Ho did not like the Bill, nor did he
admire the Bill of the Noble Lord; but he would not
give a factious vote in any instance.
Mr. M. GIBSON said it had been his duty to ask
compensation from tho Foreign-office for injury done
by the interference of British ships on foreign stations;
and he instanced the case of the insurrection in Ps"'
when the Greyhound steamer had caused a loss to tlic:
extent of 30,0001., by the interference in the quern
which had led to the bombardment of the town. Ag"'
on the Mosquito shore, a British man-of-war, the ero-
metheus, had fired into a passenger steamer, on the Oh'
ject of some tolls which England had an authority, t°
collect. He (Mr. Gibson) should vote against pledging
the House to do anything in 1853, leaving that year $(1
itself.
Sir F. BARING said the Prometheus did not fire into
any ship; though ho admitted that the conduct of the
officer was not satisfactory.
Viscount PALMERSTON said with respect to the
case of Para, his Right Hon. Friend had forgotten one
link in the chain of circumstances. It was quite tree
the English merchants were neutral in the first instance('
but it was equally certain that in the second they tail.
applied to the commander of the Greyhound to ask he
interference for their protection. Our merchants fre"
quently applied to British cruisers to interfere in sup'
port of the Government authorities; for it sonietitnef
occurred that insurgents made an unsettled State ed
:affairs the pretext for attecks upon British subjects one
their property. All he had to say with reference t° th
case in question was, that all the details were repeated„!
submitted to the consideration of the Advocate-Gene,„
the adviser of the Foreign-office, and both Lord 4u,F,„„-
deen and himself had felt it to be their duty to deete- I,
the enforcement of the demand for compensation on Pio ,
authorities of Brazil, on the grounds stated by ,
Queen's Advocate, which were held to be the reas°,r
which ought to guide the conduct of °I;
Government. lie: would say, in confirmation of the
statement of one of the late Lords of the
..„4;,„0
miralty, there was not a station out of DuTit,
where our merchants were engaged in transacting t"efo-r
affairs in which constant application was not Wade the
naval protection. Those demands were greater than
Admiralty could sometimes comply with, and these ed..
mends were seldom made without good reason, elf
cially in the Spanish American and Brazilian stakt.'„;
There was hardly a port in those localities in
exactions and sp'liations by insurgents against
regular Government had not been made on the proper je
of our merchants; and this state of things required I
presence of our men-of-war either for protection or re
dress.
Captain Sir J. PECHELL said there could be eet
doubt that her Majesty's ships had been called tig°..
when on foreign stations to interfere on behalf of gat
tish subjects; and he must say, notwithstanding all tij,:g
had fallen from the Gallant Admiral he thought tR-b
Gallant Admiral bad shown that wo had force enongst
to protect our trade on foreign stations, and also
home. We had a sufficient naval force in this country'
at present for any purpose that might be required.
wished to know what was required, and what the nee is
cities for additional force? If we were to Weir;
militia, he hoped theHonourable Member for Mancheeines
would explain to the people what they were to esPe?
under the Bill. Were the militiamen to be flogged
The public could not gather what they were to elqt'eo
from the Bill, because other Bills were to be brougnwore
bear on this Bill. He considered Government
_ring
going the way to create dissatisfaction in a neiglibpre -'
.
country, and it was impossible to predict the to
flora
wished to do all in his power to prevent the peoPtuf this
being saddled with the expense and the nuisance
militia measure. were
Lord D. STUART said the debate had relation is'
ntolatuhsee general principles
npnrianidceipraletsinonf. tAhegßonildl
manythan to the 61°1' es
had been deliVered, but very few' practice ,Be
warma gsgPee‘et i
made as to the best mode of filling up the blann' us to
should like to know why the country was tO beech re"
the expense and annoyance from which it so Indose
vetted, after so many years had been suffered to
thing
without reviving the militia embodiment. He did not the
a Militia Bill was wanted. Tho late Government se Bill.
present Government had each brought in a cry
Tho country, adopting the words of Mercutio, won
out, "A plague on both your Bills," to which he her forresponded—amen. Ile thought that 15,000 un-' tna
1853 was enough, and be was prepared to folle;ede
Hon. Member for Manchester into the lobby, if he_ 1854
a motion to that effect. He was of opinion, befor?
arrived, that the invasion delusion would be dissietn,
and that the non-necessity of the force would be 03"
nieed. deci-
Mr. HUME said the House ought to come to ado in
slots with respect to the number of men and the Biel:labs
which that number was to bo raised. If 50,000 re
of
of
wore to be raised this year, it would lessen the p° this
the army to recruit itself. They had been told that bra
was neither a regular nor a local militia, but an "ere
of reserve, to be kept up, he supposed, for ever. Ile
contended that we had too many men abroad; we ought e,
to call them home, if we wanted more Prot
The question he wished to ask was this—what was
t_
danger of invasion compared to the danger cf creani.s.
public dissatisfaction and disturbing the regular purs_nol
of the people? The answer must be, that the dergtrer,
invasion was far less t 0 be dreadedthan the other dung active forte_ e
uld b
He was sati'fied the cost of the militia Nr° early
700,0001. or 800,000/, more than the 15,000,000/. alr' e..
A thot
voted for the service of the country. Ile shoule wee
fore take the sense of the House when the motion the
put, that this clause stand part of the Bill, afterviso.
lion. Member for Manchester had submitted his pro
After the blank was filled up, eff(e/
Mr. BRIGHT rose to move a proviso, to t.° y
that notwithstanding the said first-recited Ach °r is"
other Act, no punishment of any officer, non-e°l/-I,litia,
shined officer, drummer, or private man of the 131,'„,,et•
shall extend to flogging or other corporal Ptinisuinnie
He thought it was better to move the proviso iber
clause rather than to introduce another clause in all° the
stage of the Bill. He would proceed to state hew the
Mutiny Act would affect persons enrolled under
or
Militia Bill. By the 25th clause in the Mutiny AtPees
sift:neri irtesih;
npse:emurnbviaiollnirtigidieai sinntaohtfteihot
zifchn'
,a 1 nttlnti
.iig:cyji ItencAwt
Act, and
qe mu
ePnt te d A from
al
e:%tit:ac lend :ea
nishments short of depriving of life or maiming' as to
42d George 111., the 80th clause was so wordedoo
adundtyr,enadenr.rii:eniabiliset-ioupsbn;
apply to persons training for the militia the 25th
_clanub'
of the Mutiny Act; and the 111th clause furtnecie the
jacted militia men, celled out, to tho operationst. it or
Mutiny Act. Now, such would be the state of 0 0%,,y
under the present Bill. So, therefore, as sooner,
one should be put into training under this brie to
he would be subject to the Mutiny Act—he silk, in.
courts-martial, and to the lash, for' ininors; daii•
subordination, and neglect and broach .0,!, under The militiaman would also be liable to deerais pro'
certain specified circumstances. The object ei oigy
viso was to take militiamen from under the Peoo to du,
the lash. He felt humiliated at being called oPo °orbs
that which the legislation of the House years tile
to have rendered unnecessary. Ile thought !al oast II
lino of the lash ought not to be resorted to• weeesolL
especially needless in a country where all the,..od, 13." •
punishing offences by the civil power were at nerpe'
would not go into the history of the crueltieeer:more
trated under the late and existing law--theY refer t°
the acts of fiends than men. Ile would Only reneiread
those atrocities to say that in past times they s'yy, SO
tho approval of officers both of the army and °et lei°
flogging which ended in death was-over and-evener die"
defended in times past as necessary to the' Pr re-0
*eel dice
cipline of the army. Punishments of 2,00 lae
code °
inflicted, and 999 lashes were fouud of the re rivet°
• d P but
courts-martial within a very recent pal° ears, ,
was cruelly flogged to death in illainSiOV Barr, Ito sem.
ho did not mean to say that militiamen W0ua,..., rbe law
ject to the same barbarity. Since that tiorteted
bad been altered, and the paniehrnent restrict
one-third of what that cruelly-treated and nin death
man underwent. It might be argued thetas the
could not now take place under the Jaah• lashes'
punishment was now limited to fifty wont'
To show tho effects of flogging• "e wb°s°
quote the opinion of Dr. Erasmus Pirilso!_.,id be
opinion, neither in nor out of that House, would
likely to be disputed. Dr. Wilson said deathni_.°::accese
on the punishment of flegging was by nom eeirering the
men. It had been stated by the colonel that au.
ocidiers
punishment of that man four or five Orther_ean died
fainted. The jury returned a verdict that the_weood an
from the punishment he received, and eaErreeieniOg•
opinion against the punishment of flogging
nebiee rsalin;
Public attention was directed to the case, and ae
dignation was expressed at tho punishrireenLe. Thd
result was a compromise--a most u that
e
opinion stated that it was altogether
nuwennerctue4sse.roo;
an order was issued by the Commander-in:LT tea.
filitar
kunteuwn e
hnoo tm
mightore tnhea nwseot
with
be
men that the punishment of even 50 lashe_
lashes
t the osutladt e
dispensed with; but he pretested agiu""ile ti"