The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-14 00:00:00

were objections to his Bill, because it did not render the commu-
tation compulsory ; but he thought before they did so, legisla-
tion sliculd be preceded by local enquiry, which must take
Place in order to ieCtire stlecesi 91. the Act, If a voluntary
efill2ligt4thp, s'Aec.cpslpti, *en, there could be no doubt, every
one would be ile t9erkg ptlyst'd this con7e,
before they, legiglated on' a , bekifd tntl
le gi?latQd tbc of the, Poor Laws; they supplied
theinsel:;es pf,lPcal information', and if eVer
there was A -ulliebt i2211,it.h fetitied coViidn and, iritiry; that
question was the subject of ft was Said
that this Bill would not come into full operatiPti fdr
two years, and that, perhaps, reconciled Hon. Gentlemen to
consent to it, whereas they would take a different view of it
were It to ttkc effett at the end of this session. They said if
the plan did not succeed there certainly would be, plenty
of time to reconsider the question, and also to alter the law.
What was the language held out to those who entered into
voluntary commutations ? That at the end of twp years
a certain principle of compulsory commutation should
apply.—( Hear, bear, hear.) Suppose they varied this
principle they would be bound in justice to set aside all the vo-
luntary commutations that should have taken place,, in the
expectation that it would be adhered t 0...-( Hear,; hear.)
Therefore the postponement of the time *mild only aggravate
the difficulties. Whether they should Matt Ilid dfrangentent
this year or the next was of much less consaliFAide 4 ilian
that when they did make arrangements they should gtl3
here to them.—( Hear.) Some time must elapse before
the information that he believed to be essential could be
acquired ; and in the mean time, by the assistance of a su-
perintending board, they might acquire all the information
that was necessary on which to found a safe principle of com-
pulsory commutation. In the mean time they would give facili-
ties for voluntary commutation, and this, with the local inquiries
that would be made, would enable the Legislature to be sup-
plied with that information which should enable them to see
what principle was the safest and justest to go upon.
Lord J. RUSSELL—It. was necessary that he should no-
tice what had just fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. He
did not expect, in stating what was the general substance
of the alterations he meant to propose, that the Right Hon.
Baronet would have. undertaken to predict the failure of the
Bill, and to recommend the measures which should be adopted
in consequence of that predicted failure. He did consider it
of very great importance that the House and the Parliament
should come to a decision upon this subject in the present session.
If it required anything to strengthen this conviction, he would
find it in the notice given by the Hon. Member for Kent, and
supported by the Hon. Member for Sussex, who'declared that
he himself would otherwise making the same proposition,
namely, to deprive those persons having a right to
the tenth of the produce from claiming during the pre-
sent year, that their tithes should be set out in kind.
This notice showed how important it was that Parlia-
ment should come to a decision on this subject. Last year,
after a great deal of information had been collected at
various times by Lord Althorp, be (Lord John Russell)
stated that as there was much difference in different parts of
the country, he thought it advisable that a Select Committee
of the Houso should sit, in which Members from different parts
of the country should have an opportunity of meeting, and dis-
cussing, and hearing evidence, from which they would be able to
draw a comparison. To this the Right Hon. Baronet ob-
jected, and stated with a force which he ( Lord John Russell)
'felt unable to resist, that the question ought not to be refetred
to a Commitee, but that it was the bounden duty of his
Majesty's Government to propose a measure on the subject.
The Government had considered what was the best measure
to propose on the subject. They had brought forward the pro-
position which they thought most likely to answer every
purpose, and now the Right Hon. Baronet said the best
course would be to proceed upon the old system for another
year. He (Lord J. R.) must say that he was not prepared
to adopt that course, and however unsatisfactory it might be
(he hoped it would be satisfactory), he should propose to the
House those propositions which he had had the honor of bring-
ing forward : he should consider the Bill as the measure which
which the Government had pledged themselves to bring
forward. If the House rejected the Bill, he could
not say whether they were in the right or in the wrong
in their decision ; but certainly the result would be that the
Government had endeavoured to settle the question of Tithes,
but the House would not approve of the measures which they
adopted.
After some observations from Mr. R. COLBOURNE the
Bill was committed pro forma ; and on the Report being
brought up,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he had proposed the altera-
tions he had done, upon the understanding that the House did
not sanction the Bill of the Noble Lord altogether. He did
not wish to throw any obstacles in the way of the Bill of the
Noble Lord, if it met with the sanction of the House.
FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.

Lord HONVICKmoved the Order of the Day in going into
Committee on the Mutiny Bill.
On the question being put that the Speaker do leave the
Chair,
Major FANCOURT rose to move," That it is the opinion
of this House, the punishment of flogging should be entirely
abolished in the British army." He had intended to have
made this motion at an earlier period, and had been subjected
to much misrepresentation for not doing so ; but in conse-
quence of a Commission being appointed, he thought it better
to wait until after the Commissioners had made their report.
If the Noble Lord and his Colleagues saw reason to withhold
their consent from his proposition, he deeply regretted it.
He had, however, a duty to perform, and must persevere
in his motion.--( Hear.) The precise question was, whether a
man who was; irreclaimable by solitary confinement, could be
reclaimed by any other means.—( Hear, hear.) In such cases
he felt convinced that expulsion was the only effectual mode.
With respect to the necessity of maintaining a system of
military punishment, that he contended could form no ground
for continuing corporal punishment. —( Hear.) If its abolition
was attended with any disadvantages, it would be in the power
of Parliament to provide a remedy. In no case was flog-
ging more objectionable than while the men were employed on
active service. The system had been abolished in the Indian
army, and could it be said that there was any thing in the cha-
racter of their countrymen to render them unworthy such a boon ?
The punishment was a moral injury to the soldier, and was
perfectly inadequate to the end proposed by it. It was a ques-
tion upon which the public mind was made up, and he trusted
that that night's debate would put an end to a system
which, under any circumstances, could not long continue. He
moved " That the punishment of flogging be entirely abo-
lished in the army."
Captain BOLDER° rose to second the motion. He said
that every consideration of humanity, as well as of justice,
combined to call for the abolition of corporal punishments.
The state of society and the feeling of the enlightened portion
of society was in favour of the abolition of military punishment.
Before the battle of Waterloo the soldier was entitled to receive
900 lashes, and our military code was so severe that many men
were anxious for their discharge rather than continue under it.
At present Courts-martial preferred sentencing offenders
to solitary confinement, which was found more useful than
corporal punishments in repressing insubordination. The
Hon. and Gallant Gentleman then proceeded to quote pas-
' sages from the Report of the Commissioners for inquiring into
the system of military punishments in the army. The entire
number of stripes awarded in the national army was 293,615.
What was the number of stripes for each regiment in Bombay ?
7,657 for the last five years.—( Hear, hear.) He appeled to
every man who heard him, not upon the ground whether cor-
poral punishment ought to continue, for the feelings of all
were favourable to its abolition, because he believed every one
who heard him was sincerely and honestly desirous of a total
abolition of the punishment ; but if there was any man who
was afraid of the consequences, he pointed to the evidence of
officers to show that it was not necessary : and he appealed to
Hon. Members in whose minds any doubt existed as to the
propriety of abolition, to give the benefit of that doubt to the
side of mercy and humanity.—( Cheers. )
Mr. C UTL A R FE RG US SON said the question for them
to consider was this—whether they were prepared now and
for ever to abolish from the military code the punishment of
flogging.—(Hear, hear.) That was the question, and not
what their feelings might prompt them to do.—( Hear, hear.)
Though the Hon. and Gallant Member had told them that he
had abstained last session from taking the opinion of the House
upon this question, yet he had not said one word of the
effect of the report of the Commissioners. This, too, hap-
pened, notwithstanding the Honourable and Gallant Member
who seconded the motion read so much of the evidence, and
by the great body of that evidence all doubts must be re-
moved with respect to the main question whether they were
to part with the power (not the exercise of the power) of
inflicting corporal punishments in extreme cases.—( Hear. )
No person opposed the abolition of corporal punishment, as
far as it was practicable—no one contended that it ought to be
inflicted in every case—that was the law as it now stood ;
but the law was marching with due strides towards, not the
total, but the almost total abolition of flogging.—( Hear, bear.)
Were they now then to preclude that species of punishment ?
Were they to take away the power of inflicting it, when the
exercise of that power had been almost totally discontinued ?
( Hear.) He did not think that the House could possibly do
more than had been done towards the restriction of the punish-
ment, and this could be shown from a return laid upon the
table of the House. By this return, it appeared that eight
years ago corporal punishments exceeded the number of punish-
ments of every other description, while in the year past the
corporal punishments, as compared with others, were only as
one to nine.—(Hear, and cheers.) Could then anything be
more injurious, at a time when they were looking to a favour-
able issue of what was done by the Government, than that an
attempt should be made to abolish the punishment altogether?
to strike at the very root of discipline in the army, and to leave
them no protection, no means of repelling foreign aggression,
or avenging the honour of this country.—( Hear.) He must
state to the House what had been done upon this subject, be-
cause he agreed with Hon. Members that if it were possible
to abolish corporal punishment it would be a great object,
and one that must be gratifying to the feelings of all parties.
The punishment of flogging, he was happy to say, he had
never seen; but it must naturally excite feelings of the most
unpleasaht nature to those compelled to witness it : and all
punishments were melancholy.—( Hear, hear.) If the punish-
ment of flogging were cruel and severe, how much more cruel
and severe was that by which the criminal was deprived of
life ? The punishment was inflicted as an example, and if the
cruelty of a punishment was to be a ground for its discon-
tinuance, he saw no reason why they should not abolish all
capital punishments.—( Hear, hear.) If they were to act
thus, then capital punishments, the ignominious death of the
felon on the gallows, should be at an end—no matter how
horrible, detestable, and abhorrent to their nature his crime
might be. Now there were crimes perpetrated, such as mur-
der, and others, 'find his mind revolted from the idea that the
life of him who was guilty of them should not be forfeited.—
( Hear, hear.) Were they then to say, that every punishment
that was cruel and ignominious ought to be abolished ? The
object in inflicting this punishment was by the example made