The Sun.
London, England, 1824-03-12 00:00:00

but he did think that when an opportunity of this sort was given
to them to get these people to give up their anus and take the
oath of allegiance, they were culpable in not having availed
themselves of it. .
Mr. H. G. BENNI:TAIbe enght that It wailhownistinctly
that there was some coo ltlitter. tication which didnot form part of
that read by the Nobleileid, for it was quite clear there was
not in that a singleeword-to warrant the:statenatents made by the
Right Hon. Gen treenail. oppotAe. Did Nino. -G en tlenlieeoppli-
site mean to say, that these were not true copies of the corres-
pondence that was stated to have passed ? If they did, let them
say so at once; if they 'did- not;-would enortheir prottedingte
warrant an inference that the Hight lion. Gentleman had some
documents behind which he wished to conceal ? He had no
doubt that upon this, as well as upon all other occasions of a si.
milar nature, his Noble Friend (Lord Althorp) would discover
that Ministers would deny him the documents which he had so
dear a right to expect.--(Cries of " Question, question.")
Strangers were leaving the gallery upon the order to with-
draw, when
Mr. C. H. THITCHINSON rose, and after avowing his dis-
appointrrient at the government of the Marquis Wellesley in
Ireland—a government from which he had hoped so much--
and expressing his conviction that the interest which his Noble
Friend had manifested in so difficult and delicate a ques-
tion as the present was a most fortunate omen for Ireland,
and likely to be followed with the most beneficial conse-
quences, he said that he was placed in the distressing situa-
tion of being obliged to give his vote against a motion which
he was sure had been brought forward by his Noble Friend
upon the moot enlightened and meritorious motives. At the
same time, he should not be performing his duty in that
conscientious spirit which he had hitherto endeavoured to evince
in Parliament, if he did not say, that upon the present oc-
casion he thought his Noble Friend had not made out a case
for. the production of these papers.--(Hear, hear !)—While he
could stand there, neither as the advocate for the Irish Govern-
ment, nor the advocate of the Noble Marquis, he must confess,
that from the matter already submitted to the House, and from
what he knew of his own country, lie luinestly believed that no
Government ought to capitulate in that part of the empire to
any such body of men as that in question. If his Noble Friend
should press his motion to a division, he should be compelled
to vote against it, however sincerely he must regret the neces-
sity he felt himself under of taking such a course.
Mr. PEEL really thought that the Hon. Member for Shrews.
bury had drawn one of the most singular inferences that could
possibly be deduced' from the last sentence of the speech of the
Noble Lord. Because the Noble Lord, as it appeared; 'had
not seen a document which had been adverted to, the Honour.
able Gentlemen was pleased to suppose that no such thing ever
existed.--(Hear, hear, hear !)—The Noble Lord at the head
of the Government of Ireland had formed his judgment on this
case upon the most impartial and deliberate view of the whole
matter. To him (31r. Peel) that Noble personage appeared not
only. to have been completely warranted in not interposing the
prerogative of mercy in the case of Hughes, but he thought
also, that the Noble Marquis would have been guilty of a
gross violation of his duty if he had consented to enter into
any amnesty to these deluded men, or to maintain any thing
like a negociation with them. But after all that had been said
about the papers which had been read, it might be exceedingly
proper that the House should hear a little about one which had
not been read ; and it was the more essential that that paper
should be noticed, in order that no erroneous impression upon
this subject might find its way 'abroad. He would only pre-
mise, that if in this case they were to call for statements made
by the Counsel for offenders, not a man would be convicted in
Ireland for the future without praying that the same course might
be taken in his case—(lleat, hear!)--not a single conviction
would be recorded without the preliminary step of that House's
being called upon to examine the difFuse, garbled, and ex-party
statements Caw such it must necessarily be) of the prisoner who
lied been csndemned, and the unsuccessful Counsel who had
defended him. Among the papers which had been brought
under the consideration of the Marquis Welleeley was one
from a Roman Catholic barrister, a gentleman named Luke
Plunkett.
Lord A LTHORP—" I have never seen it."
Mr. PEEL.—The Noble Lord said he had never seen that
letter; and ti-oubtless that was ample vindication for the Noble
Lortrs not stating any thing about it to the House ; but it
would be allowed that it was an equal vindication of his (Mr.
Peel's) now bringing it to their notice. Mr. Luke Plunkett,
under date of the 24th of February, stated, " that he had made
it his business to see Hughes in gaol, after he had been con-
victed ; that he saw him in presence of the gaoler ; and that he
undertook to hold out sonic hopes of mercy to hini on the part
of Government, if lie would become the instrument of his asso-
ciates-giving up their arms; or, if not of giving ,
up their arms,
of inducing the leaders to come forward."—(Bear, hear .)—i n
either of these cases Mr. Luke Plunkett, acting upon his own
authority, had thought proper to hold out some :lopes of mercy.
Why, what alternative did this proceeding hold out to the Noble
Marquis, but to defend to the uttermost the ientence of the
law and the province of Government, which an individual
had thus undertaken the conditional exercise of? But the gen-
tleman, in another part of his letter, added—" as to Hughes,
whatever might be his ultiMate fate, do at least endeavour to
exert yourinfluence with the Marquis iVellesley, that he may be
'detained at Kilmainham, till the transports which are to convey
the convicts can come round to Cork ; which I arri informed will
not be the case till, &c." Niiw, when such an applicatiim was
made, what did the Noble Marquis do ? What did lie know ?
Why he knew that the imMediate execution of the sentence upon
this man would do more good, and produce more effect than any
other measure whatever, and he immediately directed hisremoval
from Kilmaingliani.—(Hear !)—Every body at all acquaint.
ed with the state of Ireland must know, that the least appear.
ance of vacillation on the part of the Government was productive
always of infinite mischief. And in what case was it called for
in this instance ?—on behalf of some miserable and deluded vic-
tim to the arts and practices of others ? No ; but of the man who
had organized the proceedings of his associatee—who had been
the originator of all these offences, and who had at last come un-
der the hands ofjustice.—(lfear !)—And then the proposition to
be matins, that an individual without any sort of authority what.
ever, had undertaken to bold out hopes of mercy to him. Could
it be doubted, under such circumstances, that. the Noble Mar-
quii was quite right in resisting every kind of attempt at what
had been properly termed capitulation ? And what would have
followed, supposing that Mr. Luke Plunkett's proposition had
been adopted—what would have followed upon such a promise
of surrendering arms, made by such a party ? Did not every
body know what the arms would be ? From his own ex-
.perience he (Mr. Peel) could suggest, that they might turn
out to be about eleven stocks of guns without barrels; or,
it might be, eleven barrels without stocks.—(A laugh.)—Ile
telt perfectly sure, that the arms to be delivered up would
have been perfect 4 useless—as they always were in similar
cases ; for they were generally such as had been kept for a long
time ‘in some bog or some out-house.—(A laugh.)—But an-
other passageehatbe should proceed to read would completely
sustain the statements of his Right lion. Friend. Mr. Luke
Plunkett proceeded thus—" if Hughes should be saved, or if
his punishment should be cominuted to imprisohment, I have
no objection to accompany him to any part of the country where
1116 influence and presence can be useful to put down that dis-
cord which had so lately raised its hideous crest, (Rec."—
(Laughter, and cries of " Hear!")—lfs put it to the House,
whether it would have been endured that Mr. Hughes should i
thus be elevated into the character of a negotiator between ;
the Government of Ireland and these Ribantimen, and be
permitted to travel half over the country, with 3lr. Luke
Plunkett, preaching to the people the propriety of their
giving up their arms ?—e(lleer, hear !)-'lee Noble Lord
had read a paragraph from the cotnniunication of a Mr. Lubie,
who was pleased to state, that these men " entertained no hos-
tile views against our most gracious Sovereign." No hostile
views ! Why they were found in arms—they were arrayed
against the peace of the country • and yet this Mr. Lubie,
in the amiable simplicity of his heart--(a laugh)—could not
imagine—not he—how it could be supposed that they enter-
tained designs of so dangerous a nature ; or why, after the marl
had been put upon his trial and convicted, the Government

would not be called upon to account for not having interposed,
on such a case, the prerogative of mercy.—(Hear!)—upon the
whole view of the case, he should certainly give the motion his
most decided opposition.
The gallery was then cleared for a division ; but was re-
opened after the lapse of a few minutes; and we were infornled
that the motion had been negatived without a division.
- IRISH LAW COURTS- •
SIARTIN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent
!ssary Exp./flees in Actions at Law prOiecuted in Ire-
-Leave given.
BEER AND MALT LAWS.
Mr. MA BERTA', at the instance of the Chancellorof the.
Exchequer, postponed until Monday, the motion of which he.
had given 'notice on the Laws relating to Beer and Malt ; it
being understood that therriotion should have precedence on
that dry. _ ,

Mr.
unnecf

.. ,
: ..• ' ' GAME LAWS.
Mr. S. 'Milt TLEY moved the xecond reading.of the Game.
.Laws Amendment Bill. •

Sir JOHN SHELLEY opposed the motion. There had,•
he said, been no petition against the present Game Laws ; but
if there had been, and the present Bill were to pass, lie still
thought it would not; remove the evils which it sought to re-
medy. He doubted the practicability of allowing game to. be
considered as property ; and he thought it unfair that a man:
with a small quantity of laud should be allowed to destroy on
that land more game than it could possibly produce. The lega-
lizing "the sale of game would dotio good, because the stealing
poitcher would always undersell the fair tradesman. Had not
England been raised to the highest pitch of glory with these
laws ?—(Loud laughter.)—The repeal of them would remove
the resident Gentry, and encourage only the poacher, the thief,

and the attorney. He moved as an amendment, that the Bill
be read a second time that day six months. •
Mr. YATES -PEEL seconded the amendment. He thought
the Bill would do good to none but thieves and poachers. It
would not diminish the coniniitments in re/trivet of game, except
that those commitments would, in point of form, be for theft.
His principal objection however was, that the Bill would tend
to the destruction of that manly exercise, fox-hunting.
Mr. LA WLE Y supported the Bill. The present gave
disgust to the middling and lower classes ; and, as in the case
of smuggling, the breach of them was scarcely considered a
'crime: The enforcing of the present law too was almost
il'he Courts of Justice shewed a daily scene of contest
between the Magistrate and the multitude. Juries were reluc-
tant to convict: on these laws, and Counsel generally sought; to
obtain the acquittal of their accused clients by appeals to
passions and feelings of the Juries. Such laws he considered
as unwise, because they appeared unsuited to the temper and
opinions of the people. He did not believe die present Bill
would be the means of diminishing the quantity of game. In
France there was an immense, supply; and yet there were
there no laws like ours. In Scotland, too, where the sale of
game was almost legal, the same remark might be made. He
saw therefore no danger whatever in the repeal of the laws. •
Mr. LOCKHA RT opposed the Bill. Under the lion. Gen.
dernan's Bill few Ladies could appoint a gamekeeper ; for it
provided that no one should have that power whose land was
not of a certain extent, which went to exclude the majority of
landholders, the whole of whose land, however extensive, did
not lay contiguous. His gallantry, he thought, if not his love
of equal justice, ought to have had a different effect upon him.
He thought, too, that the power of apprehending persons with
guns in their hands, as though they were felons, was too great.
He would not believe the object of the Bill was the preserva.
tion of game ; fiir under the present laws game he knew,
within hie own recollection, hadincreased tenfold. He believed
its object wits to put down poachers ; but why carry the ex-
clusion of sporting to such an extent ? In a popular sense this
Bill could not be Well viewed, for it put invidious restrictions
upon the inhabitants of towns, and was certainly calculated
to set all the towns against all the surrounding population.—
The details of the Bill inevitably involved them in many dif.
ficultics and absurdities, out of which, he confessed, he saw no
clear way. Ilow, for instance, were they to manage in the
case of a large extent of laud, say two thousand acres in one
field, but the separate property of several individuals ? What
sort of sporting would there be here where it would be a tres-
pass for a man to step over the furrow belonging to.another ?
This principle, therefore, of creating a property in game, was
making a right which was useless. If they told him that the
present laws led to crimes which had an extensive influence in
demoralizing the people, then lie should understand the object
of the repeal, and be ready to meet such an argument. But
upon the principle'here puttforward he saw nothing that could
induce him to give his support.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that so far as the Bill went to pro-
vide a remedy for the prohibition of the sale of game, so fertile
a source of evil, he was prepared to give it his support.—(Hear,
hear !)-I'le reserved to himself, however, the power of oppos.
ing any other part of the Bill, or of amending any clauses,
or introducing new ones. He did not see how it was possible to
support the present system of qualifications to kill game._
They were told this was an attempt to interfere with vested
rights ; but
,ite could not admit that a proposal to introduce
fresh persons to the enjoyment of rights was to destroy them.
An Hon. Friend of his called upom them to vest those rights in
the band, ()frank, science, and property. So he (Mr. Secretary
Peel) said, but the law said otherwise; for it gave to rank and
property the right to procreate a title to kill game, but that
was all. The eldest son might, although the father might not,
pursue that right.—(Hear, hear !)—Thus then talent and rank
were excluded from the exercise of the right, although ,their
progeny, who might not inherit that union of talent and rank,
might yet possess, he could not say inherit the faculty of
killing genie. Again, the second son, it was 'notorious, killed
game all over the kingdom, although prohibited by the law.
He asked, then, whether it was a proper state of law to con-
tinue, wherein he, who was in the constant habit of violating
the laW himself, was equally diligent in committing and pun.
ishing others for the self-same offence ?—(Heaa, hear, hear !)
—Upon these two cases, then, was it possible to realm. the
proposition for amending the law relating to the qualifica.
Lion for killing game? In Ireland, property of a thousand
pounds'a-year gave this right, and in 'Scotland any oite might
give perm/fission to shoot over his own grounds. The law
of England then was different upon this point, from what
prevailed in other It wet. of the empire. And with respect to
the sale of game, he confessed that the more he turned his mind
to that prohibition, whether with regard to the interests of the
game breeder, or what was a still higher consideration, with
reference to tie interests of Society, the more he perceived the
necessity for altering that part of the law—Ulcer, hear !)
What was the state• of society-
which it created ? In former
• times they had made an Union with Scotland, and since that an
Union with Ireland had taken place. Thus they invited
over here Irish Peers and others, and compelled them to re-
side here, without the power of posaessing or pursuing game.
It was the case with foreign Ambassaffera, and he believed
also Princes, if they did not happen to possess property ; and
what a state of law must that be which led them into such
absurdities ? Was it not also a positive evil to have upon
their Statute Book laws which were daily,.. notoriously, and
openly violated in every taw a
et in the kingdom ? So extensive a
breach of the laws. w" a had example. And by whom was it
set ? By chose who r,,forastl the very laws which they violated ;
and a violation of winch they every day at six o'clock generally
set a very good ors,nlPle• In fact it was of itself good ground
for a repeal of all! '3"/ that that practice and opinion had long
voted them .uselsssa, That such was the east: no one could
doubt who had I)'_, any attention to the proceedings of the
Committee which had eamilined into the matter. Ila was told
ho gave that evidence were interested,
I;:;enel22:talt,la'ivs,
oath, would have made very dif_
ascertain how far this was true, he
forest
ennrddeenetd thatstliiaittntvantdi:eent pitisee.r; onnae„seoltw
(t tufnis. u Secretarynder
the called for returns
,of the convic-
tions
in the kingdom. in four-or five of the principal
• He had selected those known for their
hospitality, nor had he confined the return to any-one particu-
lar period. In the first Place was Bristol; and he was sure he
should be borne out by Man-
y wiio had passed through that
town, in the statement that there was scarcely any town wliere
game was inure openly disposed of; indeed•it was made.a pub-
lic exhibition of. Here there was a good opportunity for seeing
how the laws were enforced against the sale of game.' His
answer was, that no person had been convicted for the last five.
years of selling or purchasing game.—(Ileac, hear !)—From
Liverpool the same an"et was made by the Magistrate._
From Manchester, lie wa3 informed, that four convictions and
occurred within the last four years--three in 11121, and one in
1822, and that they were all for selling game. From Glasgow
he was told, t‘ that the Magistrates have not been called on to
enforce these laws upon any °lle occasion," with an addition that
these offences were generally dealt with in the country.—(A
laugh.) This was natural enoughl for the offence in the country
was poaching, and the offence hi the town was selling game.—
But if for the last five years in these principal places there had
been only four convictions, was it not folly to say that legal
prohibition prevailed ? It appeared to him, under those cir-
cumstance., that to tell the heads of Corporations, as had been
proposed, that they should not purchase game, was an absurdity
which no penal laws could uphold in the present state of society.
The question then was, whether they should' legalize the sale of
game? It was true that at present it was pursued by poachers
only for profit, and by all other classy*: for pleasure alone. But
if they allowed those who preserved thousands and tens of thou-
sands to bring it to market, there could be no doubt that the
poacher would be driven away. Ile had himself seen 1,000
pheasants in a room, of which the owner had no means of dis-
posing. Let them take the case of salmon or rabbits. Suppose
the prohibition existed with regard to these articles, would it
benefit the owners ? Was it not clear that the consequence
would be to throw the whole. tratE 7. into the hands of the illegal
taker of these animals ? An Honourable Baronet told them
that if a man had wealth and wanted game, he might purchase
land, and asked what' right any other person had to game.
—Suppose any one holding such an argument were to be
asked what right he had to salmon, not having the river in
'which it swam ; or what right lie could have to turtle, not pos.
/tossing one of' the West India 'elands ?—(Hear hear, hear-I)._
They had an example in the case of deer-stealing in favour of
the proposed mode of legislation. That wai an offence very
frequent half a century ago, hut a law being made to permit
the sale of it, the market was instantly supplied by the real
owner, to the discomfiture of the fraudulent purveyor. They
were told that the neighbour of a game preserve would set
wheat and decoy the property, which could not in justice
be his. But this might already he done by any Freeholder.
•And when they were asked whether it was just to allow of
this, seduction of another main's property, he would answer that
question by asking another, viz.—whether it was just for one
man to retain, all the game, to the exclusion of another.--
(Hear, hear!)—'!'here was no doubt that this would in time end
by the establishment of a mutual comnromise between the
rich and poor in the shape of money. If he had thought the
present laws good, he should be die last to consent to. any
change in them ; but when he saw them infringed every day,
he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to put down
the sale of game. They had but two ways to meet the guess
'tion—either to increase the penalties, or do that which v.ai-
now proposed. The former had been already tried to its fullest
extent, and the latter was therefore their only alternative. He
was sorry that his Hon. Friend had gone so far in this Bill,
for lie was no friend to sudden and violent changes in long
established laws. He thought the Bill of last year better;
but as this was the only one at present before the House, lie
should give it his support.-.(Hear, hear !)
M. R. COLBORit. E said he could never assent to the prin-
ciple upon which the author of this Bill proceeded in assuming

that the legal owner of game could undersell the poacher. Ile
did not think this could be done, and the House would think
with him when they knew at what low rates game was sold by
oachers in. the country where it was taken. It was supposed
' - a law of this nature would make the taking of game ap-
' ear in the same light as 'the stealindof poultry. This, he
tiMught. was erroneous ; fur he did not believe that there
:vould be a turkey or a fowl in the market, any more than there
wild be a-Pine-apple or a melon' ever reach Covent-garden if
it were not for the stone walls which protected them.
Mr. J. I3ENETT said, that he yielded to no man in his love
'for the-field sporti, yet he had no aversion to an alteration in
the present Game Laws. They were the produce of a time
when every landholder was a petty tyrant, and when there
were no purchasers of game, because none with the means of
purchasing. The only way to put down poaching, or any other
crime, was to do .away with the motive. In the case of poach-
ing, this would be dune by enabling the game-owner to under-
sell the poacher. He thought this Bill the most perfect Bill
that ever came into the House, and he had no doubt, when it
came out of the Committee, there would be no objection to it.
Lord MILTON gave his entire concurrence to the enact-
ments of this Bill which related to the legalizing the sale of
game.. But the contrivances by which it was proposed to ae-
complish this object he objected. He saw no reason why this
object might not be attained without changing the present state
of the law affecting the property of gaMe. If the present owners
of game were found oppressive, why multiply thenumber of
such characters, which would be one of the effects of this Bill ?
He could not believe it possible for any legislative enactment to
invest wild animals with that feeling in the mind of mankind,
which would lead them to attach the same turpitude to the steal.
ing of game, as was at present attached to the theft of a sheep
or a turnip. lie wished to get rid of' all systems upon this
topic ; but he objected to the details of this Bill, and although
he was friendly to some of its enactments, he should not, upon
the whole give it him support.
Sir M. NV. RIDLEY supported the Bill. The inducement
would be taken away from poaching if they enabled the mar-
kets to be tilled more plentifully and cheaply from other quar-
ters. In the same way they found the inducement to smuggling
removed by lowering the duty on the article of stich'fraudulent,
commerce. The Game Laws were unpopular with all classes'
—the producer, the consumer, and the poacher. The present
system being the worst.that could possibly be, this Bill could
not but be viewed as an amendment ; as such it would have his
best support, and he hoped it would receive.a large majority in
its favour.
Mr. S. WORTLEY replied. He admitted with an Hon.
Friend of his who had spoken in the debate, that there was
now in the country a greater quantity of game than ever there
was before. But his quarrel with the Game Laws was, that
this abundance of game wits a curse upon the country.---( Hear!)
—lie was a game breeder, but he assured the House that the
preservation of it was a curse upon him. A fatal accident had
occurred upon his own grounds, wherein an honourable and
gallant fellow his game-keeper lost his life in the discharge of
this painful duty, and he assured them that his feelings, should
lie happen to awake from his sleep upon a tine moonlight
night, by its association with this melancholy circumstance,
were , not enviable. He wished to make the preservation
of game easy and respectable in the eyes of all the world, and
he WAS convinced it was practicable. As to the difficulty of
making wild animals which .ould not be identified, property,
he referred to the state of the law with respect to pigeons and
Wild ducks, to show that it could be done. Ile should keep
his mind open to any suggestions for the improvement of th
measure.
The House then divided—

Ayes
Noes

31ajority 01
JUDGES IN WALES 811 I
Mr. JONES moved the second reading of the Judges in
'Waifs Hill.
:Mr. ALLEN opposed the second reading. He observed, that
jdtifiet:lintervals which occurred
the greater were the number of Judges, the greater was the
were employed as Cou n-
probability that they would be lesszonversant in their duties.
sTelhleorbsi,ll
between their circuits ; but it was his opinion, that if they were
abstracted from all professional pursuits, they would become
unfit fur the discharge of their duties, and thus a much greater
aud noticed
n ust
other
ear defect,
ways that
during
evil would arise. lie thought that plan might be suggested.
which would meet the difficulties alluded -to m the report of the
Committee of 1320 and 1821 ; and, at the same time, not call
on the greater ,part of the community for any further sacrifices.;
He would propose that the Courts of Westminster Hall should,
be thrown open to the principality of Wales, as they were to'
the other parts of the nation, and that all judgments passed in' I=apelity. • • should be subject to a similar
'7.3vision ; and;
lie would propose to get rid of the vagrant Courts of Chancery,.
which were of no use whatever .except fur' injunctions and
discoveries.
Mr. JONES observed, that if the Hon. ',Member would read:
the Bill with attention, he 'would find that all the evils of which'
lie complained, were proposed to be remedied by it.
Mr. AL LE explained,
Sir C. COLE thought, as representing an extensive Welsh
County, that lie should not be doing his duty if he suffered the
diScussioa on this Hill to pass without expressing.his full con-
viction that the Welsh Judges had no right to seats in that
liouse. Ile wished to see the system of judicature conducted
in Wales on the same principle as it was in England ; and lie
considered that the same feelings of jealousy and independeuce
that excluded English Judges from seats in that House, should
operate to the exclusion of Welsh Judges.
Mr. IVYNN stated that he was as desirous as any man of
assimilating the judicature of the two countries ; but he felt,
that there were obstacles in the way of this which were almost., insurmountable. He had himself known, in three counties on:
the Welsh Circuit, where there was not a single cause; but
still he was anxious that the Bill should proceed to a Coin-
tnittee.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared—
, For the Second Reading
Yor,the Amendment
Majority - —23
The Bill was .then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday next.

MUTINY BILL. •
Mr. SYKES rose on the Order of the Day for receiving the
:Report of the Mutiny Bill, and objected to the practice of flog-
. ging in the army. Nothing kept men from going into the army
so much as the dread of flogging. The Hon. Member stated
that three or four years ago a Court Martial sac upon a soldier,
charged with stealing some plate in the capacity of a reo-
- servant. Ile was sentenced to 400 lashes. The regi-
ment marched after the man had been punished, and heti'.
Towed in a•waggon, but in consequence of the excess of pu.
nishment the luau died. A Coroner's Jury sat on the body,
and found a verdict of" Murder against persons unknown."--
From that time no steps had been taken to bring the murderers
to justice. The lion. Member mentioned tins to prove that
loss of lifehail been occasioned by the practice of flogging:.
Colonel DAWKINS had understood the lion. Member for
Aberdeen to say, corporal punishment had been executed in
the Foot Guards. As an officer of that regiment, he considered
himself called upon to deny the statement. The fact was, the
practice of corporal punishment had been discontinued in the
Guards. Every soldier expressed gratitude to the Commander
in Chief for havinglimited corporal punishment ; but that
punishment, limited as it had been, was necessary for the wel-
fare of the service. He had read the statement made by the
lion. Member, and sensible of its inaccuracy must declare that
corporal punishment in the Guards had not been resorted to.
Mr. HUME said the observations made by the Gallant
Officer did not apply to him, as he did not, when the Bill was
discussed on a previous night, allude to the Foot Guards. The
lion. Member mentioned a Norning Paper lie was in the habit
of reading, and remarked that the Foot Guards were not men-
tioned in the report of his speech.—(Cry of Order.)
Sir HENRY HARDIN GE adverted to the statement made
by the Honourable. Member respecting the beating of drums
at the Barracks during a supposed punishment. He had
declared that no drums were beaten at the Barracks. The
Honourable Meinber had received false information from some
military informer. It had been said that the pay of soldiers
punished by confineiner;t went to the military stock purse. He
was able to say there was no truth in • that statement. Unless
some better mode of keeping soldiers in order could be found,
he for one would not consent to give up corporal punishment.
Mr. J. SMITH repeated the argument he used on a former
night against flogging, and contended it ought to be abolished.
In France thirty millions of people were governed without the
lash. The only bodily torture known in France was a brand
on the shoulder, which, he believed, was made witk a liquid,
and disregarded. A Noble Lord had said, soldiers taken from
the manufacturing, classes required the discipline of flogging
more than soldiers taken from agricultural population. It was
known that great improvement had taken place among the
manufacturing classes, and he considered they were the last
persons to require corporal punishment.
Hr. G. BENNET had no doubt of the accuracy of: the
statement made by the Hon. Member fur IVestminster respect-
ing the beating of drums.
Colonel TOWNSEND said it was most extraordinary that
persons could not hear a drum beat in barracks without con-
cluding it was for punishment.
Colonel HARD,INGE said no drum was beaten.
Mr. R..MARTIN explained the grounds on which he gave
a vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen
for doing away cOrporal punishment. It was better to leave
the subject to the Commander in Chief, upon whose humanity
the House and the country could rely. •
Lord PALMERSTON having given his opinion on the
question at a former discussion, was unwilling to detain the