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

whatever of this country being invaded—(Hear)—and
even if there was, that the invaders would pay the
penalty with their lives; but still 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 its defences.
Mr. CARTER thought the objection of the Noble
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 right to
security. The defence of the country had been rested
upon the navy, and the navy would do its duty now as
it always did; but i❑ 1803, though there were 100 Alps
of the line ready—and the navy had the supremacy of
the sea—a vast number of volunteers were raised in ad-

dition to defend the country. It was said that steam
bridged over the Channel; but then it was a draw-bridge
which could be raised at will by the invader. He (Ad-
miral Stewart) could not and would not undertake to say
that no Frenchman should land under any circumstances
of wind and weather; but ho had no fear of a general
invasion. He was, however, opposed to the Bill, because
it was an expensive measure. He thought the plans of
Sir H. Duuglas and General Reid might be adopted
with less cost and more efficiency. He was not afraid
of a general invasion, but what he did dread was
"dashing" actions, which might even compromise a
metropolis—(A laugh)—and, therefore, ho thought that
camps commanding the river and railroads would
be the best form of cl,fence, as was recommended
by these officers. He (Admiral Stewart) deprecated
the interference of the Hon. Member for the West
Riding of Yorkshire in respect of the distribution of the
fleets of this country, and considered the Hon. Member
even more daring than a celebrated wit had described
the Noble Member for London, when he said he would
command the Channel fleet, or build St. Paul's, at 0,
moment's notice. He (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. He 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 the Foreign-office for injury done
by the interference of British ships on foreign stations;
and he instanced the case of the insurrection in Para,
when the Greyhound steamer had caused a loss to the
extent of 30,0001., by the interference in the quarrel
which had led to the bombardment of the town. Again'
on the Mosquito shore, a British man-of-war, the pro,
metheus, had fired into a passenger steamer, on the eau"
ject of some tulle which England had an autherity to
collect. He (Mr. Gibson) should vote against pledging
the House to do anything in 1853, leaving that year $()
itself.
Sir F. BARING said the Prometheus did not fire into
any ship; though he 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 000
link in the chain of circumstances. It was quite true
the English merchants were neutral in the first instancei
but it was equally certain that in the second they Wt.':
applied to the commander of the Greyhound to asit„lss'
interference for their protection. Our merchants ire'
quently applied to British cruisers to interfere in
port of the Government authorities; for it soinettra,,`f
occurred that insurgents made an unsettled state `',l
affairs the pretext for attacks upon British subjects an:
their property. All he had to say with reference to thi
case in question was, that all the details were repeated .1:
submitted to the consideration of the Advocate-Gen
e2l
the adviser of the Foreign-office, and both Lord Aber:
deen and himself had felt it to be their duty to declih_
the enforcement of the demand for compensation on lig
authorities of Brazil, on the grounds stated by the
Queen's Advocate, which were held to be the reas"4
which ought to guide the conduct of
Government. He; would say, in confirmation of td,
statement of one of the late Lords of the k.,0
miralty, there was not a station out of Earqr
where our merchants were engaged in transacting theflor
affairs in which constant application was not made aae
naval protection. Those demands were greater than de
Admiralty could sometimes comply with, and these i,
mends were seldom made without good reason, esu a
cially in the Spanish American and Brazilian states-
There was hardly a port in those localities in whiche
exactions and spoliations by insurgents against t
regular Government had not been made on the proper t'
.t 9
of our merchants; and this state of things required °ill
presence of our men-of-war either for protection or re
dress.
Captain Sir J. PECHELL said there could be 0..°
doubt that her Majesty's ships had been called tilAr,
when on foreign stations to interfere on hehalf of Br's
tish subjects; and he must say, notwithstanding all that
had fallen from the Gallant Admiral he thought tilt
Gallant Admiral had shown that we had force enotig
to protect our trade on foreign stations, and also to
home. We had a sufficient naval force in this count®
at present for any purpose that might be required. 11°,
wished to know what was required, and what the tiecF%
sities for additional force? If we were to have t 11,..
1
militia, he hoped the Honourable Member for Manchese
?;
would explain to the people what they were to e"e d
ender the Bill. Were the militiamen to be d°gg
The public could not gather what they were to eV; t Oco
from the Bill, because other Bills were to be bretugwere
bear on this Bill. He considered Goversanehebooring
going the way to create dissatisfaction in a neig" lt
country, and it was impossible to predict the resu. frau
wished to do all in his power to prevent the peoPlef this
being saddled with the expense and the nuisance
militia measure.
Lord D. STUART said the debate had relation motel
to the general principles of the Bill than to the sPe hasoc
clause under consideration. A good many warmsP ,iove
had been delivered, but very few practical sugges' ge
made as to the best mode of filling up the blank- to
should like to know why the country was to be Pt re.
the expense and annoyance from which it so rance,,sese
volted, atter so many years had been suffered to inti
without reviving the militia embodiment. He did not
tbthe
a Militia Bill was wanted. The late Government a:
present Government had each brought in a Militia, ay
The country, adopting the words of Mercutio,
out, " A plague on both your Bills," to which he hear for
responded—amen. He thought that 15,000 men_ the
1853 was enough, and he was prepared to follow
Hon. Member for Manchester into the lobby, if he 104
a motion to that effect. He was of opinion, before
aced,
arrived, that the invasion delusion would be dissip
eecoa
and that the non-necessity of the force would be e
nised. deoi-
Mr. HUME said the House ought to come to a d
e in
sion with respect to the number of men and the lue
which that number was to be raised. If 50,000 militiaf
were to be raised this year, it would lessen the power of
the army to recruit itself. They had been told that this
was neither a regular nor a local militia, but an army
of reserve, to be kept up, he supposed,
contended that we had too many men abroad; we ought
to call them home, if we wanted more protective f° the
for ever. .
The question he wished to ask was this—what wasting
danger of invasion compared to the danger of area ito
public dissatisfaction and diAurbin the regular put'`i;
invasion was far Theless
of the people?t be,th er.
would °
Heanswerto be dreaded m u
s
was satisfied the cost of the militia wou-
-700,000/. or 800,0001. more than the 15,000,000/. altree
voted for the service of the country. He ;should shwas
fore take the sense of the House when the motion ,0
put, that this clause stand part of the Bill,
t than thatth e the
otherdadnagneg b
after
lion. Member for Manchester had submitted his Pr°
After the blank was filled up,
effect
Mr. BRIGHT rose to move a proviso, to the ov
that notwithstanding the said first-recited Act, or any
other Act, no punishment of any officer, non-com? ith
sioned officer, drummer, or private man of the isiilltt,
shall extend to flogging or other corporal punisbreehis
He thought it was better to move the proviso t° !er
clause rather than to introduce another clause in arinae
He stage of the Bill.
een would proceed to state ho" the
Mutiny Act would affect persons enrolled under
er,
Militia Bill. By the 25th clause is the Mutiny AtPoe-
sons serving in the militia were exempted from t" ded
vere penalties of that Aot. Subsequent Acts extenders
to the militia the Mutiny Act, and rendered militia 10_
for insubordination, neglect of duty, Sze., liable to bo
nishments short of depriving of life or maiming. Pio to
42d George 111., the 80th clause was so worded
apply to persons training for the militia the 25th clostib,
of the Mutiny Act; and the 111tb clause furtber, "to
jected militia men, called out, to the operations
.0 o 1 Jog
Mutiny Act. Now, such would be the state of eel
under the present Bill. So, therefore, as soon_t
ill
one should be put into training under this trot to
he would be subject to the Mutiny Act—be in-
courts-martial, and to the lash, for inemorardetys
subordination, and neglect and breach under
The militiaman would also be liable to dett!°,4 pro•
certain specified circumstances. The object er of
viso was to take militiamen from under the Pe to a°
the lash. He felt humiliated at being called 1.113° ought
that which the legislation of the House years ag° disci?'
to have rendered unnecessary. He thought Woo be
line of the lash ought not to be resorted to. It cos of
especially needless in a country where all the InA. fie
punishing offences by the civil power were at WO" epee
would not go into the history of the cruelties
oPtore
trated under the late and existing law—they werrfer t°
the acts of fiends than men. He would onlY 'osieed
those atrocities to say that in past times the/ re .0
the approval of officers both of the army and nallei'gaiu
flogging which ended in death was over and overdin
defended in times past as necessary to the proPe' woe
cipline of the army. Punishments of 2,000 158bea_ds of
inflicted, and 999 lashes were found on the rceorivato
courts-martial within a very recent period. Is, but
was cruelly flogged to death in Hounslow Barrac
sub"
did not mean to say that militiamen would be
lag
ject to the same barbarity. Since that time t" A to
had been altered, and the punishment restrictred"
ered
one-third of what that cruelly-treated and tau death
man underwent. It might be argued that 00
could not now take place under the lash, °l3 obes.
punishment was now limited to fifty would
To show the effects of flogging, he whose
quote the opinion of Dr. Erasmus Wilsornuid be
opinion, neither in nor out of that House, W° llowing
likely to be disputed. Dr. Wilson said death founeoro,
on the punishment of flogging was by no means the
MOM It had been stated by the colonel that &mass
r 0 diets
punishment of that man four or five of the ditd
fainted. The jury returned a verdict that the d ,01
from the punishment he received, and exprala9're:eoltivg.
opinion against the punishment of flogging
universal in-
Public attention was directed to the case,
dignation was expressed at the punishment, anThe
stated that it was altogether unnecessary. .
and
opinion
bat
was a compromise—a most unworthy. 0
f tbo Its
an order was issued by the Commander-insChte. e.
future. not more than 50 lashes should be inflicteen,tary
of mi"
knew he might be met with the statement
uos --
men that the punishment of even 50 lashes could
dispensed with; but be Mteated gsgsiust the iePPQ""