The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-23 00:00:00

WICK BILLS.

PRIVILEGED STATEMENTS.
The Marquis of WE STME AT H said he rose to move for
the papers to which he had alluded yesterday, but before
doing so he wished to put a question to the Noble and Learned
Lord on the woolsack. He wished to know whether that
Noble and Learned Lord intended to bring in, or would
give his support to, a Bill to prohibit the liberty of
speech in Parliament-4 Great laughter)—so far as to prevent
anything like personal slander, which was now so much in
practice, from being there put forth. Something was absolutely
necessary, for the length the matter was now carried rendered
persons absolutely unsafe. In Ireland, if a person had any
ill. will to another person, either in or out of the House, they
had nothing more to do than to get a sheet of dirty brown
paper—( A laugh)—make out a petition, and there were
plenty of members to be got.
Lord WH A RNCL IFFE rose to order. He read one of
the standing orders which applied to slander.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH thanked God he had no
reason to complain of that House—it was of unfounded state-
ments made in the House of Commons that he now spoke.
He for one would never think of dragging up the publisher
of a newspaper—(Loud cheers)—to the bar for giving a
report of what took place in either House of Par..
liament where the public had a right to be, but he
could not believe it was possible that such slander should
pass unpunished by the law, even though spoken by a Member of
Parliament. He then moved for certain extracts of letters to
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, from himself and a Rev. Gen_
leman in his county of the 2nd May, 1834.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would be most
happy to give the Noble Marquis an answer, but first wished
to say that it was the first time he had ever heard or seen papers
moved for in a Court or House of Parliament in a garbled
and imperfect state—that was for the Noble Marquis's own
consideration, but he thought the House would pause before
it set such a bad precedent.
The Marquis of WE STME ATH—I can explain that.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I beg your pardon,
there is a standing order that only one should speak
at a time, your time will come. He then went on to say__
The Noble Marquis asked whether he would bring in a Bill to
prevent Members of Parliament from slandering others, or
from using what language they thought proper? And
again, whether, if such a Bill was introduced, he would
support it.—( Hear, hear.) He had a most simple
answer to both queries. He would neither do the one or the
other, but would oppose such a Bill—indeed he doubted the
power of Parliament to pass such a Bill. He would oppose
it because it would repeal the Bill of Rights, in which
there was an article which expressly gave to Members of Par-
liament the utmost liberty of speech, without liability.
If an exception was introduced there would be a total end to
the freedom of discussion, and it would depend upon the caprice
of the day, or upon a jury, or the discretion of a court of law,
what any Member of their Lordships' House might say. There
was one security which the subject had upon this matter, and
which, he begged to observe, was not merely nominal,
but which had been made quite available, not only against
private persons, but against the Members of the House them-
selves, and which was this :—That if any one took upon him-
self, or chose to print or publish the slander, he Was
answerable for it, and which in his (the Lord Chancellor's)
opinion, he had no right to complain of, for the public would
be none the worse for not hearing the slanderous things that
might be said in either House, and there was no necessity
for publishing them. It would no doubt be recollected by
many, that a Noble Lord, a Member of that House, chose to
make a speech, and afterwards to publish it ; he was tried in the
King'sßench, convicted, and was confined in prison for 2 months.
An Honourable Member, for whom he was counsel,
had published a speech in order to contradict a very
false and exaggerated account that had been published,
reflecting on a tax-gatherer in the town of Liverpool,
and in order to correct that, and to let his constituents whom
he had canvassed, although he had failed in his election, know
what he had said, he printed an accurate account ; he was
tried, convicted, and brought up for judgment. It was in vain
he pleaded the privileges of Parliament. It was in vain that
his late friend Michael Angelo Taylor, for whom he entertained
the highest respect, cited the Bill of Rights on a motion
that he had made in the other House and it was held
that he was not protected even in publishing himself an au-
thentic account, not from any malicious motives, but simply to
correct a mistake. That was really a great protection ; and
although he was of opinion the law of libel required great
alteration, yet this was not a part of it which the subject had
a right to complain of. No doubt, perhaps not in the heat of
debate, but in cold blood, things were frequently said
which ought (not to be "said, and which deserved
great blame. It was to be hoped that the good sense
of Members, and if not their own good sense, yet that
the good taste and propriety of the audience they addressed
hear)—would be a sufficient restraint in deterring
them from indulging in improper lanuae. At all events,
he was sure that any Legislative interference
and would not be productive of any benefit what,:ven
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, that aitlhough any
()pinion which might fall from the Noble and Learnes4 Lobe
would always receive the greatest respect, yet he felt it be
his duty not to shrink from his intention.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. Why don't you wait till it„_
you bring in your Bill—what is the use of making a speech now ? Ler Marquis of WE STMEATif,---MS, Lords, Ido net think the and Lee a
Noble and Learned Lord need C was impossible,
=Plain of me since he takes so from him.arn eFIa 114,
4,
5

The Earl of RADNOR then put a similar question with
regard to the Liverpool Bill, but nothing was settled upon the
subject. The Noble Earl afterwards observed, that the parties
prosecuting this Bill had put themselves to considerable ex-
pense, in order to be prepared when the House should call on
them to go on, and he thought that they ought to be reim-
bursed these expenses.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that as the House
of Commons had sent up the Bill for the concurrence of their
Lordships, it was clear that there must be some -ground for
proceeding, and he agreed that the parties prosecuting it ought
to be reimbursed the expenses they had necessarily incurred.
He suggested that the defendants ought to have their expenses
defrayed.
After some conversation on this subject, the Earl of
RADNOR moved for a Committee to consider of the ex-
penses incurred in the Warwick and. Liverpool Bills, and to
report whether any and what parts of such expenses should be
reimbursed to the parties.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.
Lord SUFFIEL D presented a petition from several
farmers in the county of Somerset, against the law which sub-
jects incendiaries to capital punishment. His Lordship pre-
sented a similar petition from the Isle of Ely.
On the motion of the same Noble Lord, the Capital Pu-
nishment Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented petitions from
Abingdon, Surrey, and from the parish of St. Nicholas,
Guilford, in favour of the Established Church.

Lord WYNFORD presented two petitions from individuals
of the name of Johnstone, putting in a claim to the earldom of
Annandale. They were referred to the Committee of
Privileges.
The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition from persons
interested in the London and Westminster Banks, praying
their Lordships to pass the Bill, to enable the company to sue
or be sued by their secretary.
The Marquis of CL A NRICARDE presented a petition
from the Common Council of the City of London, against
one of the clauses in the Poor Law Amendment Bill.
TRIAL OF OFFENDERS (LONDON) BILL.
On the motion of Lord WYNFORD, the first amendment
made in the bill by the House of Commonstwas negatived ;
some of the other amendments were agreed to as amended by
their Lordships.
Lord WYNFORD said he had to complain of the omission
from this bill of the clause giving compensation. He believed
he was right in 'saying that when the bill was introduced the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack pronounced that
the bill should not pass without compensation being given to
those who would suffer by the change proposed.—( Hear
from Lord Brougham.) Such compensation ought conse-
quently to be given. It had been afforded in the bill intro-
duced by the Noble and Learned Lord to effect reform in the
Court of Chancery, and he (Lord Wynford) feared that if it
were now denied, it might be inferred that their Lord-
ships were more disposed•to attend to the claims of certain
highly connected persons, who perhaps had friends in that
House to protect their interests, than to those more humble
subjects of his Majesty, who would be sufferers if this bill
passed without giving them compensation. He should sug-
gest that the House of Commons be requested to hold a con-
ference with their Lordships, to see whether that justice could
not be rendered in this case which had been rendered in others.
He was quite sure he could calculate on the assistance of his
Noble and Learned Friend.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he fully agreed in the
principle, that if any improvement were to be made in the law,
compensation ought to be given. It was unquestionably wrong
that the expense of that improvement should fall on clerks of
the peace, or clerks of assize. To allow compensation was
the true way of furthering legal improvement, for if it were
denied, they were sure to encounter opposition to the changes
it might be most desirable to make, from a host of interested
parties. He therefore exceedingly regretted that this Bill had
come up from the other House without the clause giving com-
pensation. By the way, as regarded the clerk of assize, he
believed there would be no difficulty, an arrangement having
been made with the Corporation of London, by which that in-
dividual would be saved the Home Circuit. A clause giving
compensation had been introduced into the Bill when it was
submitted to the House of Commons, and after discussion was
put to the vote, but was lost by a considerable majority; undcr
these circumstances, he entertained little hope of being able
to effect a favourable arrangement. The difficulty of their
Lordships was this : they could ask a confbrence with the
House of Commons as to any of the amendments that
had been made, but it was now proposed to add a clause
which had involved a money question. The Commons who
were exceedingly jealous of their exclusive privilege to vote
money, would refuse to attend the conference, en the ground
that it contemplated an indirect interference with that privilege.
As regarded the pledge he had given, he wished to explain
that of course he could not have intended to give a pledge as
to what course the House of Commons should in any case
pursue ; but what he did mean in engaging that the Bill should
not pass without compensation was, that if this principle were
not agreed to he would not press the measure further. He
should be sorry, however, that the Bill were now abandoned.
What he should propose as the best course under all the cir-
cumstances was, that a Bill for the modification of the present
measure, by giving compensation, should be submitted to the
House of Commons next session. He was sure that he could
calculate on the assistance in this respect of the Noble
Lord ( Lord Althorp) who had charge of the Exchequer.—
( Hear, hear. )
Lord WYNFORD said he was satisfied with what had
fallen from the Noble and Learned Lord.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BILL.

Lord SUFFIELD moved the first reading of the bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought it would be better
if it were left to his Majesty's Government to effect these
changes. One Noble Lord brought in one measure, and ano-
ther Noble Lord brought in another, each according to his
particular views;and the consequence would be that this par-
tial legislation would lead to anything rather than the desired
uniformity.--( Hear, hear.) He thought it preferable that an
instruction should be given to the Law Commissioners to take
this subject amongst others into their consideration, and report
thereupon. He gave a pledge to the House that if this course
were adopted lie would himself bring a measure on the subject
into their Lordship's House next-session, without waiting for
the other House. He would bring it in early, so that their
Lordships, having the Session before them, need not be hurried
in its consideration.--( Hear, hear.) It was perfectly in ac-
cordance with the judicial constitution of their Lordship's
house to originate measures for the amendment of our cri-
minal laws, and such a measure as the one now before them,
the object of which was the mitigation of the severity of the
criminal code, would come with peculiar grace from their
Lordships, who, in the performance of their solemn duty, had
been obliged to pass other measures to provide for the just
•shment of offenders against the laws of the country.
WYNFO RD expressed his obligation to his Noble
'riend for the observations that had just fallen
' no doubt that in a few years mcondary pu-

(PRICE 71).)

nishments would be found so effectual that the punishment of
death would be very.little resorted to.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord SUFFIELD withdrew his bill.
Several Bills were then forwarded a stage.
Their Lordships adjourned at seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 21.
The following occurred in the morning sitting of Monday
MILITARY FLOGGING.

Mr. TENNYSON said he rose to present a petition on a
subject that had justly caused the most extraordinary sensation
in the metropolis, and wherever the case had been heard of; he
meant the recent brutal exhibition of military flogging that
had taken place at the St. George's Barracks, Charing-cross
—( Hear, hear)—flogging that had been inflicted to such an
extent, in the very heart of the metropolis, that the shrieks
and calls for mercy of the man ( Henderson) were heard in the
neighbourhood, and that caused some of the men and officers
who witnessed it to faint.—( Hear, hear.) The petition
entered into details of so horrible a character, that he had
deemed it right to intimate to. the Secretary at War (Mr.
Ellice) his intention to present the petition; and he was glad
to see 'that Hon. Member in his place. If the case could be
explained, there might now be explanations, and the public
mind thus, in some degree, set at rest. If it could not be ex-
plained, then he hoped' that the House would learn what
remedy the Government had to prevent the recurrence of such
horrifying proceedings. Though the session was far advanced,
it was not yet too late, he hoped, to provide some remedy, if
the facts of the case really were what they had been repre-
sented to be. The practice was most.disirraceful and revolting
to the public mind; and it was calculated to destroy
every feeling of honour and every decent sentiment in-
the mind of the soldier. The petition which he had to pre-
sent came to him from highly-respectable gentlemen, inhabi-
tants of the borough of Lambeth, being among his constituents ;
one of the petitioners was a clergyman of the Church of England.
He then read the heads of the petition. It described the
case of Henderson, his flogging, the charges, the sentence-
-300 lashes, all of which were inflicted. He admitted that the
pledge which had formerly been given was, that the number
should not exceed 300 lashes ; that flogging should only be
applied to stealing, mutiny, or drunkenness ; but there was
also a pledge that the extreme number should only be applied
in extreme cases. In this case the extreme punishment was
applied to what he must consider as a comparatively trifling
offence ; for as to the charge of striking the sergeant, he be-
lieved that it was somewhat exaggerated. The petition fur-
ther further stated, that the man's groans, shrieks, and cries
for mercy, while being flogged, were heard in the neighbour-
hood; that some of the soldiers fainted at the sight ; and that
two officers, from feelings honourable to their nature, also
fainted in consequence of this dreadful exhibition. The peti-
tioners expressed the unqualified disgust with which they con-
templated such proceedings—such brutal exhibitions ; and
their conviction that the public feeling could no longer endure
them ; and prayed the House to inquire into the transaction,
and to provide a remedy to prevent the recurrence of a trans-
action that outraged public feeling, and was disgraceful to a
civilized Government.
Mr. HAWE S bore testimony to the respectability of the
petitioners.
Mr. ELLICE said that, in the observations he had to ad-
dress to the House, he begged it to be understood that he had
not one word to say against the motives of the petitioners.
These cases were ever of the most painful character, and they
becatqe more so now, from the circumstance of their being so
regularly brought before the House. As was well known, he
was an advocate for i estraining the practice of flogging within
the narrowest possible limits, consistently with the due main-
tenance of the discipline of the Army. What had been ob-
served respecting the pledge given to the House and the coun-
try on this subject, was perfectly correct. The charge in the
present case was, in the first instance, for drunkenness when
on duty—a situation where the strictest conduct was requisite.
If drunkenness were to be an apology for improper conduct,
or crime, then would it become difficult indeed to restrain the
conduct of many individuals. Not only was this man drunk
on duty, and when the picquet approached, but he used the
most mutinous language, and threatened to strike the ser-
geant. He would not repeat the language that was used; it
was not requisite ; indeed, it was not fit to be repeated. He
agreed that the sentence was severe, but it was by no means
the man's first offence. Within two short periods he had been
guilty of offences : one was that of having made away with his
clothes; and the other (we think the Hon. Member said)
was that of having threatened to strike his serjeant, and
that, too, at a time when he was not drunk. The man
was a bad character, and that, without doubt, had weighed
with the Officers in apportioning the punishment. With
respect to the circumstances of the case detailed in the
petition—none of which had ever yet come to his knowledge—
he was only acquainted with the fact of the sentence,

ther with the nature of the charge, and the character of the
man. He was ready to admit that if officers retired in conse-
quence of what was taking place, that ought to have led the
commandinc, officer to remit some portion of the sentence, or
to hesitate about further proceeding. How the circumstances
were he knew not ; he did not admit them, for he was not in
a situation to admit or deny them ; but he was ready to admit
that, if they were correctly represented, they warranted the
warmth of language evinced by the petitioners. Those, how-
ever, to whom the maintenance of the discipline of the army
was entrusted had a difficult duty to perform, and he was
afraid it was stating too much to say, on statements having
no better foundation than, he apprehended, belonged to many
of those submitted to the public on this subject, that the power
entrusted had not been properly exercised, or that every effort
had not been made to restrain punishment. There was, un-
doubtedly, rapidly approaching that state of opinion on this
subject—that feeling in the public mind, which would require
the most anxious exercise of wisdom and judgment. Iu con-
sequence of the feeling of the public being against this
species of punishment, the practice of flogging in the army
had much diminished, but the consequences had been—at
least since the diminution of the practice of flogging
as a punishment in the army,—there had been a
frightful increase of crime. Within the last year, one-fifth of
the army in England had been subjected to charges of different
sorts. In the country outrages were frequent, and insubordi-
nation arose to a very great height. He, therefore, without
meaning to say that the practice ought not to be restrained as
much as possible, thought that he was justified in requiring
the House to pause before it in any way sanctioned the opi-
nion that flogging in the army ought to be altogether abo-
lished ; if its discipline were to be maintained, some strong
power was required in a country like this, where they had a
body of men with arms in their hands, to maintain strict dis-
cipline. Before they censured those who vindicated the autho-
rity entrusted,to them, the House would do well to pause pre-
viously to forming any decided opinion. As further proof of
the state of the army, and of the necessity of having strong
power, he would add that only a fortnight ago a private shot
a sergeant at Chatham ; the case was now in progress of in-
vestigation and judicial adjudication. And another instance
at the same place had occurred—a man on the parade was
taken in the act of loading his gun to fire at his sergeant.
He did not state these circumstances in vindication of the
practice of flogging; he only mentioned them to show what
conduct there might be to restrain. He had only to beg that
inquilly might be instituted as to the effect of what had already
been done to mitigate the practice, and whether its abolition
,could be supported by a knowledge of facts. Let it be re-
membered that, in looking back for thirty years, there had
been no military execution; no man had been shot pursuant
to sentence of courtmartial. He, therefore, repeated, see-
ing what had already been effected, that they ought to be
cautious before they further interfered to restrain punish-
ment. If there were mutinous conduct, it must be pu-
nished; but what would be the feelings of the country if men

were now brought out to be shot—if tiiey were made to return
to military executions ? And if they were to retain the army,
they must maintain discipline. Seeing that the question had
arrived at the point to which he had alluded, and to be pre-
pared for the consequences of public feeling and opinion, he
had advised his Majesty to issue a commission to investigate

the whole question ; to inquire into the present military -code
of this country—into the state of the military codes of other
countries—and, in fact, to revise the whole military system of
this country. He hoped that this recommendation might meet
his Majesty's sanction ; that between this and the next session,
it might issue ; and that by next session a report might be
made. He was quite sure that this was requisite. Enough
had been done to show how narrowly military proceedings
were watched ; it was equally clear what a frightful responsi-
bility rested on those officers who had to maintain the discip-
line of the army. He had endeavoured to do his duty, and he
trusted that the recommendation to his Majesty was proof of
his anxiety on this subject. If measures of amelioration could
be adopted, he should gladly promote them; at the same time
he should not shrink from sanctioning or recommending mea-
sures of severity, if they were proved to be still absolutely re-
quisite. After what he had said, he trusted he might be ex-
cused if he suggested to Hon. Members the propriety of ab-
staining from discussion at the present moment, when the
particulars were so imperfectly known ; it could only tend un-
necessarily to inflame the public mind.
Mr. E WART said that he was perfectly satisfied that other
punishments might be safely substituted for the present de-
grading practice ; that he had no apprehension of it being
requisite to recur to capital punishments ; that he was quite
sure military offences were to be rewessed by means short of
them. He regretted to see that there were still predilections
towards old and obsolete principles as to maintaining the dis-
cipline of the army ; that there was still too strong a convic-
tion of the power of the lash ; but he hoped these notions were
wearing out.
Colonel EVANS observed that the admission of the pre-
vious punishment of this man showed that the repetitions of
those punishments were unavailing to correct the offender,
and to secure proper discipline. He admitted the difficulties
of the case and of the Right Hon. Gentleman, who must ne-
cessarily attend to the opinions of high military authorities,
who, on the other hand, were reluctant to alter existing prac-
tice. Though so many Commissions had been issued, he did
not regret to helix that one on this subject was about to be
issued, so that the subject might be generally investigated.
He hoped, however, that the Commission would not be com-
posed exclusively of military men. The necessity for flogt, tic

JULY 22.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at twenty-five minutes
past five. _ _ _ _ . . . . _

A message from the Lords announced that their Lordships
had agreed to the Landed Estates (Ireland) Bill without any
amendments.

DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. G. W. WOOD complained of an inaccuracy in the
votes of the House of Monday last, arising from the new mode
of taking the lists on Divisions. In the votes he found in
one of the divisions--Ayes 45, Noes 64 ; and under
the Ayes he found his (Mr. W.'s) name included.
Now the fact was that he (Mr. Wood) was not in that
division at all, as he was at the time attending a committee
in another part of the House. In consequence of the inac-
curacy he had been represented in the Morning Journals as
having voted in a case where he had not voted at all.
The SPEAKER said a few words, which we were unable
to catch.

Mr. HODGES presented a petition from Sunbury, inKent,
very numerously signed, in behalf of the Established Church.
Mr. SANDFORD presented petitions to the same effect
from Halstead and Wellington ; also, a petition from the Bo-
rough of Axminster, praying for some enactment for the pro-
tection of property.
Mr. JAMES OSWALD brought up the report of the
Committee on Public Petitions, which was ordered to be printed.

PUBLIC WORKS.
Lord KERRY moved for returns of the various sums ex-
pended in the making and repair of works on the Shannon
and the Caledonian Canal, stating the amount expended in
each year.

MR. D. W. HARVEY'S CASE.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that to-morrow he should
move for the appointment of a Committee of Privileges for
the purpose of laying before it a special report from the Com-
mittee of the Inns of Court.
IMPRISONMENT, FOR DEBT.

The Honourable and Learned Member then begged to
ask the Right Honourable the Secretary for Ireland
whether the Bill for the Abolition of the Imprisonment for
Debt could be extended to Ireland, as the machinery for
carrying the Bill into operation could be readily found in the
Assistant Barristers' Courts ?
Mr. LITTLETON said it was his intention to move for a
Select Committee next session for that purpose. He thought
the suggestion of the Hon. Member a valuable one, and he
believed the Assistant Barristers Courts would be found well
adapted to carry the provisions of the Bill into operation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished they had a ma-
chinery so well fitted for the purpose as the Assistant Bar-
risters' Courts in England.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual named
Robert Gourley, now residing in America, complaining of in-
justice practised against him by the Law Commissioners of
Upper Canada, and praying that a Commission be appointed
to inquire into the law respecting landed property in America,
and that he (the petitioner) be appointed one of said Com-
mission.--( Hear and a laugh.)