The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-15 00:00:00

a
a large majority of them would never be returned to the House
,F,antl. The public fein, subjects;o the contrary, was very active 7_ll_° 'ery strong on the
'"°):_tling exclaim, in reference to the decision of last night,
;rood God I and is this a Reformed House of Commons..?
is worse than the worst in the time of the rotten boroughs."
thi:!.l...l?l!...l‘.lember concluded by stating it as his determina-
" divide the House, if any attempt was made to with-
draw the motion.
matte of
any description, which were always found to have an
lOrieus operation. He supported the motion of the Hon.
Member opposite, as a step to the repeal of the Corn Laws.
the hopes of the agriculturists than the declaration that had
made by the President of the Board of Trade.
After arm
fwords from Mr. C. FE RG US SON,
Member Hon, for Worcester. He felt that the proposition of the
Member would be beneficial to the shipping interest.
late
Mr. EWA RT was of opinion that the inquiry was calcu_
,drto do good, an would should therefore support it.
J. R. REID also support it.
their
.eaI:UME was puzzled to know whether the objection to
he m ure was ministerial or agricultural. If agricultural,
ondered why the Noble Marquis opposite (the Marquis of
.uhandos) had not spoken against it. The alarm which ex-
isted against the measure was unfounded, whilst it possessed
considerable advantages as respected the carrying trade of this
country, and
w also as regarded the ufact of flour, who
would derive considerable profits fromman it. He urer,
would, how-
2Ver, recommend the Hon. Member for Worcester to wave
Tx !notion, and allow the Right Hon. the President of the
board of Trade to bring in a Bill. Though hostile to the
corn laws he (Mr. Hume) would not attack them by a side
Wind. He would wish to know from the Right Hon. Gentle-
nlan (Mr. P. Thompson) what he meant ?
allow the holders of foreign wheat in bond to grind it for ex-
portation ; but when he made the proposition, he was told it
!vould be of no use. If any parties said it would be useful,
:Iv! had no objection to bring forward the measure ; but other-
is‘e he did not feel himself called upon to do so.
air. YOUNG wished to knowhether biscuits woul be
allowed to be baked from wheat tin bond, if theu proposedd Bill
Were adopted?
Mr- P. THOIVISON—Yes, upon the principle that the
Whole were exported.
reMr. A. CHAPMAN was of opinion that the Committee
°ved for would be the most competent tribunal to decide upon
question.
v The Marquis of CH ANDOS could not support the mo-
,loll. The Agricultural Committee which had been already
4130inted, were perfectly competent to inquire into the whole
%atter.
Lord SANDON agreed to the principle of the motion, and
thou got the present the best time for carrying it into effect.
A,Mr. GISBORNE thought the proposition of the Hon.
'ember. for Worcester a very fair one. That Hon. Member
toil he would not call for a Committee, if he was not prepared
hcw that no injury could accrue to the agricultural interest.
An.neproposal of sending the q uestion to be considered by the
„ricultural Committee, was like addinginsult to injury. It
was sending it before what he was sorry to hear called in that
nouse an opposing interest.
Mr. WARBURTON was in favour of the committee
sought by the Hon. Member for Worcester, and saw no reason
whY it should not be granted.
b,,M,_r• S. LE FE VRE would, as an agriculturist, if it could
shown to him that no injury would be done to the agricul-
t
oral interest, accede to the measure.
LABOUCHERE opposed the motion.
".".. PELHAM and Mr. THORNLE Y made some obser-
vations which were inaudible.
t3r• LUSHINGTON thought that permission to convert
epos‘ined wheat into biscuits for our own as well as for foreign
umption would be of great benefit to the country, as it
Worag
f,.eign
well known that our vessels frequently got their biscuit at
markets. He would, therefore, support the motion.
,air. ROBINSON replied.
4he House then divided, when there appeared,
For the motion 4O
Against it
Majority
MUTINY BILL.
On bringing up the report of the Mutiny Bill,
ii.
LENNA RD rose to propose a clause to the effect that
waging in the British army be abolished, except in time of
• From what had been expressed last night he was induced
to believe that a much larger number of Members would have
voted in favour of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Barn-
:we had he brought forward a more moderate motion. He
sas one of those who thought the time had arrived when
H--ree modification in the mode of punishing the British soldier
urt be adopted, and the object of his motion was to enable
I°°- Members who thought with him to record their opinions
I its favour. No permanent improvement could be made in
e arm) till this system was abolished. Allusions had
been
—ade to the armies of other countries ; but they need not
g° so far, for our own police force was in an admirable
State of discipline, and no such punishment was there
',teamed of.
Lord HOWICK complained that this motion thould have
'e'er a brought forward, as it had been, in a very thin House,
/I,,l;ter the full discussion which the subject had received last
hit
The lion. Member said that a more modified motion
ln that made last night would have obtained more votes, but
e well remembered that the Hon. Member for Worcester,
Who differed with the Hon. Member for Barnstable as to the
extremity to which he pushed his motion, yet voted for it, be-
ra° be considered it as an expression of the opinion of the
°fouse against the retention of corporal punishment in the time
Peace. lf the Hon. Member chose to press it to a division,
• had no fear but that the majority would be much greater
mivid
proportion than last night.—(Question, question, Divide,
of 1;;Ir• O'CONNELL protested against retaining the power
it 'loging in the army in the time of peace. In actual war
thalight be necessary, for the preservation of discipline, to give
e commander such a power—nay, even the power of life and
hadin extreme cases ; but that was no reason for retaining
donetime of peace. The Hon. Member for Barnstable
tic' n well to bring the present motion forward. The prac-
e'„ee of flogging was so odious to the public, so abhorrent to
tl;eerY principle of humanity and good feeling, that it could not
111%11 longer be maintained. What justification could be set
bP.lor the abominable system of tearing the flesh off a human
ttelleg's bones in parcels? One man might at one time be able
than another
more than at another, so one man might be stronger
te:fttother ; and yet the man of weak constitution was made
peril _ as much as the able-bodied man, even to the imminent
of his life. What might be only punishment to one, might
wo'neath to another. It was well known that flogging often pro-
ulParalysis and death. No surgeon could tell how small a
it would produce lock-jaw. Besides, the degradation of
in Oa a sufficient objection. The Duke of Wellington
was's evidence, gave them a conundrum on the subject, which
lie °yen a borrowed one, for it was taken from the French.
eritesaid the degradation was not in the punishment but in the
ue. How wise this was. Many Hon. Gentlemen in that
Ike s, he believed, got drunk without any degradation—( A
)04)---but if they were flogged for it like the soldier they
1543;d surely think this a degradation. The punishment was
1 fit for dogs. They generally flogged spaniels, not human
of tg_s• The Gallant General opposite gave them a picture
tile 1' gallantry of the British soldiers, who, though subject to
414121, still died with wounds all in front, and he especially
they'll to the 57th Regiment. But he forgot to mention that
that tabs° had the prints of flogging on their backs. He said
tlndise,anny was at the commencement of the war in such an
4ecordiPtined state that flogging was found necessary. But,
beet, Og to his description of the offenders, they should have
trooPa t'ing• He (Mr. O'Connell) believed the British
teased 4° he the bravest in the world—that they, at least, pos
quere --cthat they
aolaiers`ne character of enduring bravery more than any other
to
were more determined not to be con-
trite.' Bon
any other soldiers—(Cheers)—and was it not
vered flug them like dogs—that their beads should be co-
gashes with laurels, while their backs were covered with
GenefrOra the lash?--( Hear.) He would ask the Gallant
any naflis oPposite (Sir Henry Hardinge), without meaning
flogge'd,)ence, What would be his sensations if he were
wierei Would he not look on it as a contamination—not
that
ru,?
character a laceration of all his feelings, but a taint on his
If an undiscip‘lined army were an unfloggedar.my,
tie,. „got be some reason for flogging them into subordina-
disei',,,?at it was no reason for flogging them after they were
.puriert,
and
merned that covered with victory. He (Mr. O'Connell).
°I MI- at this spaniel castigation, this ceaseless application
lathy,4tr 14sh, Was necessary for the discipline or valour of an
na .s.. The battles of Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, and Fried-
other j'° woo by unflogged soldiers. It was urged on the
tieeesside that flogging sould not be continued if it was not
Main, aad that necessity was its only justification. He
for • alued that there was no such necssity—the armies of
elgn States
did,ensed Proved that there was not. But flogging was
Woo, whe with home. There were 7,000 police in Ireland,
Were well r.eligunts or political animosities did not fire them,
andthesedisciplined• There were also the London police,
Were discipline
bodies were never flogged.—( Hear.) If the soldiers
h; re of that
r4is,,, ow class described, then their condition should
bett " Muss their
the erpay should be increased, so as to procure
°ldiers
b to that,
ov ear-) For his part he would rather overpay
ee
tlew enteell bar
cur ern
troopsthe should be diminished ; there should be
r4l4s and better paid. He heard it stated that it was
rroYftethie':cP up our present force in consequence of the
equired required for the colonies. Why were they so
veto th2se_Because the colonies would not be allowed to go-
-I,tsi thervento
nlves and defend themselves, in connection with the
PePpositie, tIY, as they had a right to do--(" Hear," from the
4)114,, frourn)tirlees,,and to this things will come soon.—(" Hear,
Opposition.) No one should be made an
°facer until he
er. /t
Was had soiled some time as a non-commissioned
fit for
non-commissioned officers when promoted
forght not be
air the ,field, and St. James's, but they would be the fitter
for all the other active duties of the profes-
t.4.ltrlesn th'ear,laisa.ment had already, at a cost of twenty millions,
the k0,,,1
0,1.1 911 t of the hand of the West India planter ; and
att.ttieeetZtthis free country, from the popular spirit of re-
brisler; wouldas growing through it to the ill-treatment of the
etx not long allow it to remain in the hands of the
Mr. 11. neer•--( Hear. )
thatn Hon". VizA supported the motion.
, the rhetorical .OEa (whose name we could not learn) said
wouporical denunciations of the lion. Member for
_t!islarnents" aPPIy with equal, if not stronger, effect to the
elicit were
()rntioned by those of his party as substitutes,
ate tendon duration and of a more spirit-killing and
u,er naust b uencY.—( Loud cheers.) The path of the sol-
as to atiavoidabl traced by blood. His very profession
"let Pain WY
tiffulg pain,
sh • hat was war but a regular system of
°nIY ust'fiedding blood, and committing violence? and
btlatioe
of th
4411eStionealYste
ed by necessity. This necessity Was the jus-
m Of flogging, and a necessity unhappily,
existing,—( Hear.)