The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

with corporal punishment, but such constant interference would
retard their exertions, as it would teach the men that their
officers did not constitute a final jurisdiction.
Mr. WILLIAMS expressed his thanks to the Government
for conceding the motion.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that on two several occa-
sions the principle of corporal punishment had been introduced
with the most beneficial results into their civil government,
and it could not,be denied, then, that it was necessary to pre-
serve it in some degree in the military and naval.
Mr. FOX MA ULE said that the Hon. Member had over-
looked the circumstances under which the returns respecting
corporal punishment had been conceded by the Government
at the close of last session. When they reflected that the sub-
ject was brought under the consideration of the House at a
time when the deepest sympathy of the people, from one end
of the kingdom to the other, was awakened, he thought
that they would admit that the returns should be
cheerfully granted.—( Hear, hear.) From his knowledge
of the army, such returns could do no harm, and might effect
a great good ; and he would be quite prepared to lay before
the House a detailed statement of even the military imprison-
ments.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he considered that it was
quite right that the House should be put into po-session of all
information which would tend to show the progress made
towards the abolition of corporal punishment. Rut he
considered that it would be by no means advisable
to state the names of the officers or the parties by
whom, and on whom, punishment had been inflicted.
And, in the event of a contrary course being pursued, the
discipline of the naval service would be materially injured.—
(Hear, hear.) The House of Commons ought not to have the
power which the Board of Admiralty had at present.—( Hear,
hear.) He very much agreed with his Hon. Friend that the
Members of the Government ought not to object to any re-
turn of the kind, and they would be wrong in being a party to
any mode in which the discussion could be interfered with.
He must say, nothwithstanding, that the modification pro-
posed by the Hon. gentleman was a very dangerous one.—
( Hear, hear.) He would rather give the return retrospee-
tively than prospectively, as it implied a want of confidence in
the officers. The Hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Ad-
miralty said that he should not give the return for the two
past years, but that he was willing to give it for future years,
because the officers of the navy would then have notice of the
measure, by which their names would be presented to the
House of Commons. If they sanctioned such a measure they
would imply a reflection, first, upon the naval service, and nest
upon the Board of Admiralty, which had the direction of that
naval service.. He expressed his perfect conviction that,
speaking generally, it was the desire of the officers of the navy
to abolish this punishment. He dared say that there were
some strong-headed men who wculd still inflict that punish-
ment, but it would not be fair to judge of the general body
of the naval officers by that. The Noble Lord, he be-
lieved, said that it was the desire of the naval officers to abolish
this punishment, and he was sure also that it must be the wish
of the Board of Admiralty. He ( Sir R. Peel) said that the
Board of Admiralty had the means effectually to check any
act of impropriety on the part of the naval officers, and let
them do so, finding that their powers were abused. An
officer could not maintain discipline without resorting to these
severe punishments—that was to say, not carried to excess—
for it was necessary to maintain discipline ; and that ought not
to become a marked case against the officer ; but let the
Board of Admiralty mark their disapprobation of any exces-
sive severity—let them mark the disapprobation of the Crown.
They would tell the naval officers, if they wished to injure the
service, to look to the House of Commons for favour or disap-
probation, instead of the Crown, with regard to what was
right or wrong. Therefore he was for the retrospective return.
He did not believe that power had been abused, and therefore
the returns ought to be given. He did nct believe that the
retrospective return would discredit the naval service or the
Board of Admiralty. The distinction was dangerous—moat
dangerous, to say to the naval officer that the returns should be
given for the future, and not for the past ; in that they must
be aware that for the future their name should be printed in
the House of Commons return, and that the
House of Commons had the power to exert an
authority over them. The distinction between the
retrospective and prospective returns would, as he thought, in-
directly imply that the House of Commons was to have some
direct control. He would infinitely rather that they should
know all with respect to the last two years, and for the two
future years, than establish this precedent. The Members of
the Government would suffer no inconvenience from producing
the return ; but, as he said before, he was willing to presume
that they were the best judges as to whether they would grant
the return as called for by the Right Hon. Gentleman for the
two past years. It should be done in justice to the service and
the Board of Admiralty, and remove suspicion as to the returns
showing something that should not be known. Mr. Cooper
said that the returns in the army were essentially different fr.m
those it was proposed to produce with the navy, as they did not
contain the names of the officers, nor the names of the separate
offences. He thought it would us advisable that these returns
should not point out individuals.
Mr. GOUL BURN said, that it appeared to him, that amongst
the members of the Board of Admiralty, mai difference of
opinion existed as to the returns proposed to be given by them,
and that proposed by the Hon. Member for Nlontrose, that it
was difficult to say what return ought to be given. He did not
think that the return ought to be given with such particularity
as the Hon. Member proposed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had understood from his
Noble Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty that
there was no objection to give a return of the punishment in
each ship, in the same manner as returns had been given
of each regiment in the army. He conceived that
he bad that intimation from his Noble Friend who
was responsible for the carrying out of that department,
and who had no doubt seriously considered the question, that
there was no objection to the granting of the return mentioned
by the notice, but he did not imply of course that he was
ready to grant the returns exactly in the shape moved for by
the Hon. Member' for Montrose, but that he was ready to con-
cede as far as he was concerned to the production of the
returns of the offences and punishments of each ship. His
Right Hon. Friend who was the Secretary at War was not
only responsible for that department, he was not only aware of
the official hus iness which he conducted in that department,
but be had served many years in a regiment of the line, and he
knew the feeling of the officers and soldiers on this snla3ect. He
had great confidence in his Hon. Friend ; and in the course
of last year, after several discussions, in which the Hon.
Member for Bolton, and many others, urged the total and
immediate abolition of corporal punishments, which was re.
sisted by the Government, his Right Hon. Friend agreed to
a return, giving the punishment of each regiment, on the
motion of the Hon. Member for Winchester. He thought, for
his part, that there was more mischief, and more feelings of
jealousy and odium revealed by the discussion on these returns
and the refusal of them, than by their production.—( Hear. )
He had seen, on many occasion, that the mystery of con-
cealment with respect to certain facts had induced the public in
general to think that there was something wrong in the de-
partment with regard to the punishment of misconduct in the
naval service, and when all the circumstances were known, the
department and the officers of the army and navy were entirely
exculpated, and nothing disagreeable was discovered. There-
ore, in general, he was not a friend to conceal-
ment, and he did not think that concealment was
in itself any advantage to the service, while
it would have a serious effect on the Admiralty. The public
would say that it was very true they had the returns with regard
to the punishment in each regiment ; it was very true that they
had introduced the returns of punishment in each
ship, and of the different members constituting the
court—why was any attempt made at concealment ?
The public would say that there was something to in-
duce the Government to conceal the return, and, therefore,
his Right Hon. Friend had consented that these returns should
be given. He himself saw no objection to their production.
He (Lord John Russell) had also great satisfaction in adding
his testimony to that of the Hon. Member opposite, as t o the true
character of the officers of the navy. They had been charged
with undue severity. Such was the general impression when an
officer of the navy was recently brought before a court-martial.
It was then the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, as well as
the public, that undue severity had been exercised. When
the inquiry was made, however, this impression was over-
thrown and destroyed.—( Hear, hear.) This was one instance
why the returns of 1846 should not be given in the way required
by the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). He trusted
the Hon. Member would withdraw his motion, asking the
names of the various commanders, with the amount of corporal
punishment inflicted by each, and he (Lord John
Russell) would have no objection, as he was sure
the House would not, to returns for the navy,
similar to those for the army given last year
He suggested this as he did not think it would be
just to give the names of the commanders, as the returns
would not fairly represent the exact proceedings of each.
Some of the commanders who had not employe,l corporal
punishment were no doubt, in several instances, indebted to
previous commanders for the improved discipline which pre-
vailed, while others who were not so fortunate were obliged
to employ corporal punishment. These were the reasons why
he suggested another course to the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose, as he was desirous, if corporal punishment was at all
necessary, that it should he employed in a manner that would
not prove derogatory to the character of the officers in the ser-
vice.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel WOOD said it seemed that the returns about the
army were granted last year when a great excitement prevailed
in the country, but he did not think much good had come
from them. He admitted that officers should he amenable to
public opinion ; still their first duty was to maintain discipline
in the army. This must be done at all hacards ; but if these
returns were made and published, it would create an invidious
distinction between the officers of different regiments and ships,
and do much to impair the efficiency of the military and naval
service.

Mr. HUME, after what had fallen from the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, consented to withdraw his
motion, and would ask for the returns in the mode suggested
by him.
Captain HARRIS defended the character of the officers of
the army from the charges brought against them.
Mr. FERRAND considered the question should have been
settled at once.
RAILWAY LEGISLATION,
Mr. STRUTT postponed till Thursday his explanation as to
the intentions of Government with respect to railway business
in the present session.
POLICE FORCE IN IRELAND.
Lord CLEMENTS postponed his motion for certain returns
relative to the police force in Ireland.
DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
On the report of the Committee on this Bill being brought
up,
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL gave notice that the Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for the University of Dublin would, on
the third reading, bring up a clause giving to the public the
same power to recover the rates as were possessed by the
titheowners.
The Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday.
The Brewing from Sugar Bill and the Distilling from Sugar
Bill were severally reported, and ordered to be read a third
time on Thursday.
Leave was given to Mr. PUSEY to bring in a Bill for the
improvement of agricultural tenant right.
The House then Adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] —TEAS AT WHOLESALE PRICES,
No. 2, BUCHLERSBURY, CHEAPSIDE.—FamiIies whose
consumption is large, and study economy, will derive
considerable advantage at this establishment. One uni-
form price is affixed, by which the purchaser of a single
pound can obtain it on the same terms as the trade.
Black Tea 2s. Bd., 35., 3s. 4d, as. Bd., 4g., 4s. 4d., ss.
Green 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 43., 4s. 4d., 55., 65., 7s.
Coffee 9d., 10d., Is., Is. 2d., ls. 4d., ls. 6d., Is. Sd.
One pound sent free to any part of town. Orders from
the country forwarded the same day; and when the
quantity is for 61b. weight (tea only), the carriage is
paid to any part of England.--,vtANsELL and Co.
wholesale tea dealers, 2, Bucklersbury, Cheapside .
Mr. Dundas Thompson has ascertained, by experi-
ments on a large scale, that in a sack of flour there is a
difference in favour of bread made without yeast to the
amount of 30 pounds 13 ounces; or, in round numbers, a sack
of flour would produce 107 loaves of unfermented bread, and
only 100 loaves of fermented bread of the same weight.
Hence, it appears, that in the sack of flour by the common
process of baking, 7 loaves, or 6% per cent. of the flour, are
driven into the air end lost.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.—The public suppers at this
institution, which take place annually on eight Sunday even-
ings, terminating with Easter-day, will commence next
Sunday.