The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-07 00:00:00

MUTINY BILL.

On the Order of the Day being read for going into Com-
mittee on the Mutiny Bill, some conversation ensued on the
subject of the abolition of military flogging.
Mr. HUME trusted that the House would find means of
abolishing this degrading punishment, but believed that no
alterations in the army would be effectual until a more liberal
system of promotion was adopted.
General SHARPE considered that the treadmill was a more
degrading punishment than flogging.

Sir E. C 0 DRINGTON was well aware, however unpo-
pular it might seem, that good soldiers were in favour of the
continuance of the punishment. Something, however, must be
done, for much injury had been done to the army by the late
unhappy agitation of the question. Some punishment must be
settled. He did not care if the men were hanged, so that the
question were settled. In consequence of the suspension of
the flogging, men were in the habit of going away for three
days at a time, and when they came back they were " built
up," as it was called, which was that for a certain time they
were confined. They would then go away again, finding that
imprisonment was the only punishment. In this way was the
condition of the army deteriorated. This system of imprison-
ment, too, lost to the army—and the Hon. Member for Middle-
sex would appreciate his regard to economy—the use of a
man. The service of a man was worth 201., and it made the
good man work harder. lie wished some other punishment
could be substituted.
After some further remarks to the same effect from Mr.
HUMS and Major BEAUCLERK,
Mr. KENNEDY called the attention of the Committee to
some cases of drunkenness where soldiers had most improperly
used their sidearms. He himself had only within the last
week been a witness to one such instance of misconduct.

Sir H. HARDINGE said that there was no garrison in
Europe where the troops conducted themselves with such
regularity as they did in the metropolis and its neighbourhood.
Mr. LAW concurred in the observations of the Hon.
Member for Tiverton (Mr. Kennedy). He himself had been
made acquainted, in his legal capacity, with a recent case
where drunkenness had induced the soldier to use his side-
arms, and the loss of one life had nearly been the consequence.
It was a ease that came before the Grand Jury, and he had
thought proper to send the finding of the Grand Jury to the
regiment to which the soldier belonged.
Sir H. HARDINGE said it had been the practice for sol-
diers to wear their sidearms for the last century when walking
in the streets, and he should be sorry, indeed, to see the
time when they were deprived of them.
Mr. HUME saw no reason, however much he might respect
the wisdom of our ancestors, for allowing the soldiers to wear
their sidearms when drunk, and after sunset.

Mr. LAW did not wish to deprive them of their arms, but
to place them under a wholesome restriction.
Sir H. HARD INGE said that the punishment for any acts
of violence could not be too severe, and he should be agreeable
to any preventive regulation of the utmost severity, but he
would never consent to deprive the soldier of his sidearms.
The Bill was then read a first and second time.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and on
the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the House adjourned at half-
past twelve o'clock.

PRIVY COUNCIL.

The Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council met yesterday in the Council Chamber. The
Lords present were—The Lord President, the Vice-
Chancellor, Sir Herbert Jenner, and the Right Hon.
Thomas Erskine.

The appeal of Heathcote v. Heathcote, from the Arches'
Court, was disposed of. In the appeal of Tufnell and
Mason v. Constable and Bailey, the respective executors
of the two wills of the late Mr. James Robinson, the Soli-
citor-General addressed their Lordships till four o'clock,
when the Court adjourned.